Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0959652620337896
Manuscript_ee2b50c2376c0842fdcf44f392fb6c8b

Where is the Beef?

Costco’s Beef Supply Chain and Environmental Justice in California

Sanaz Chamanara *a, Benjamin Goldstein b, Joshua P Newell c

*a
Corresponding Author: PhD Student, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109

b
Postdoctoral Fellow, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 48109

c
Associate Professor, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 48109

Present Address: 440 Church St, School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS), Ann Arbor, MI 48109

© 2020 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
 Where is the Beef?

Costco’s Beef Supply Chain and Environmental Justice in California

Abstract

Although the environmental and social burdens associated with the production of beef are better
understood, due to supply chain complexities, we rarely know precisely where these impacts occur or who
is affected. This limitation serves as a barrier to more sustainable production and consumption of animal
products. In this study, we combine lifecycle thinking with an environmental justice approach to map
Costco‘s beef supply chain in California and to explore the environmental burden of air pollution (PM2.5)
due to beef production in the San Joaquin Valley, a region that has some of the worst air quality in the
United States. To map the supply chain of one of Costco‘s primary suppliers, Harris Ranch, and the
feedlots they operate, the study uses a methodological framework known as Tracking Corporations
Across Space and Time (TRACAST). Our modeling revealed that feedlots produce ~95% of total PM2.5
emissions across the beef supply chain, and they alone account for approximately1/3 of total
anthropogenic PM2.5 emissions in the Valley. PM2.5 concentrations are markedly higher around these
facilities. The spatial analysis revealed that communities living near feedlots are often poor,
predominantly Latinx and have increased PM2.5 related disease burdens, including asthma, heart disease
and low weight birth. Based on company documents and news reports, neither Costco nor Harris Ranch
are addressing this environmental injustice. Documenting the geographically specific impacts of livestock
production opens up opportunities for corporations to address environmental injustices in their supply
chains through more sustainable sourcing and production practices, and for consumers to rethink their
consumption of livestock products.

Keywords: Livestock, Environmental Justice, Air Pollution, California, Costco, Corporate Social
Sustainability

Highlights:
 Novel methodology tracks corporate supply chains and identifies pollution hotspots.
 Costco sources beef from the heavily polluted San Joaquin Valley in California.
 There is an inverse relationship between PM2.5 emission and distance to the feedlots.
 Beef production is linked to uneven disease burdens along the supply chain.
 Minority (esp. Latinx) and lower-income communities are especially affected by beef production
in California.
Introduction

Have you ever found yourself at a restaurant, grocery store, or your local butcher wondering about the

origins of the meat you can buy? Who produced it? And where? And how? In what situations? These are

puzzling questions for consumers, scholars and, even, those selling the beef. Livestock supply chains

often span thousands of miles and involve multiple transactions (Weber and Matthews, 2008; Smith et al.,

2017). This opacity hinders our ability to ascertain the environmental and social costs of producing the

meat that retailers sell and people consume, a hurdle towards more sustainable production and

consumption of animal products.

Recent research shows shifts are urgently needed. Global livestock production produces roughly

one fifth of global greenhouse gases (GHGs) (IPCC, 2014), commandeers one third of global arable land

(Foley et al., 2011) and disrupts global flows of critical nutrients (Steffen et al., 2015). Land expansion

for pastures and feed crops continues to fell primary forests and negatively impact local communities

(Vale et al., 2019; Rausch et al., 2019). Addressing these impacts will be challenging given a predicted

73% increase in global meat consumption by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), with no easy

technological fixes in sight (Goldstein et al., 2017). Although the unsustainability of global trends is clear,

it remains difficult to concretely link consumers and producers to negative social and environmental

change along the meat supply chains that feed them.

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) have shown that animal protein sources generally produce more

pollution and use more resources than vegetal alternatives, with beef being particularly burdensome

(Eshel et al., 2014; De Vries et al., 2015). However, LCAs have focused on conceptual production

systems (e.g. beef in the Upper Midwestern United States) rather than specific supply chains. When

communicating impacts, studies have often pinpointed ‗hotspots‘ in production systems that drive the

majority of impacts, but here the focus has been on identifying the processes (e.g. feed production,

calving, ranching, etc.) rather than the specific locations where impacts are greatest (Smith et al., 2015).

1
By largely sidestepping the spatiality of livestock production, LCA practitioners often fail to convey how

that production concentrates at specific locations and impacts proximate communities (Goldstein and

Newell, 2019).

Empirical work by Environmental Justice (EJ) scholars has revealed elevated levels of particulate

matter and ozone in communities near large animal production facilities (Morello-Frosch et al., 2002;

Nicole, 2013). Sensitive populations, such as young children and the elderly, show heightened

susceptibility to health burdens from this pollution (Morello-Frosch et al., 2002; Shumake et al., 2013;

Bell et al., 2013; Bind et al., 2016), including increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease and

asthma (Stingone and Wing, 2011). These facilities are often situated in socioeconomically depressed

areas or minority communities (Fiala, 2008; Cambra-Lopez et al., 2010; Hadlocon, 2015; Purdy, 2018).

Although meat supply chains consist of multiple, geographically dispersed processes (e.g. breeding,

pasture, feedlot), EJ scholarship has prioritized the feedlot, dissociating impacted communities from end

consumers (Table 1).

Thus, LCA provides a method to understand how meat is produced and its environmental and

resource intensity, but it does not address where impacts occur and who is affected. Conversely, EJ

studies show where meat is produced and who is impacted, but without connecting impacts to consumers

and producers. Often absent from both research streams is which companies are producing the meat.

Academic research on the specific companies that drive supply chains, including livestock supply chains,

is scarce, with most work prioritizing generic production conditions or anonymizing producer

identities (Goldstein and Newell, 2019). This is a missed opportunity. The companies that grow livestock

feed, raise and slaughter animals and that sell meat are often multi-billion dollar corporations (Stull,

2017). In many countries, this industry is concentrated in the hands of a few large players with varying

degrees of vertical integration along their supply chains. For instance, in the United States, four

corporations of Tyson Food, Cargill, JBS SA and National Beef control over 80% of all beef slaughtered

2
(Emel and Neo, 2015). This market power and concentration makes these companies potent levers of

change towards more sustainable livestock production.

This paper addresses these challenges through a case study of beef supply chains in California.

This case study has two goals. First, we map the beef supply chain of one of America‘s largest beef

retailers (Galber, 2016), Costco Wholesale Corporation (herein ―Costco‖), using a method called

TRAcking Corporations Across Space and Time (TRACAST) (Goldstein and Newell, 2020). TRACAST

allows us to identify Costco‘s linkages with beef suppliers and sub-suppliers and to locate where the

supply chain operates. Second, we investigate the environmental justice issues related to beef production

in the California San Joaquin Valley, where many companies, including Costco, source their beef.

We focus on Costco for a number of reasons. Costco, with locations on four continents and nearly

100 million members, is the world‘s second largest brick-and-mortar retailer and one of the United States‘

largest beef retailers (Gabler, 2016). Moreover, alongside other large retailers and beef producers, Costco

formed the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB), a multi-stakeholder initiative to advance

sustainability of U.S. beef producers. Although Costco uses a rotating roster of suppliers, they maintain a

stable relationship with Harris Ranch Beef Company (herein ―Harris Ranch‖), which became a subsidiary

of Central Valley Meat Company in 2019 to form the country‘s 7th largest beef producer. Harris Ranch

operates the largest ranch in the Western United States, and it sells 70,000 tons of beef annually, making

it California‘s largest producer (Castellon, 2019), and a powerful industry force in the state.

By examining linkages between different actors in the supply chain, we identify those actors that

act as key nodes that shape environmental and socio-economic conditions along the supply chain.

Focusing on specific companies also provides richer insights into the relationship between supply chain

governance and environmental outcomes than the study generic industries and sectors. More broadly,

revealing the origins of Costco‘s beef – where it came from, how it was produced and who produced it –

informs consumers of the unequal distribution of environmental burdens along Costco‘s supply chain,

3
opening up multiple avenues to reorganize production and consumption around principles of equity and

justice.

2. Materials and Methods

To reconstruct Costco‘s beef supply chain in California, we used the TRACAST methodology, which

blends concepts from theories of global production networks and global value chains with tools and data

from industrial ecology (Goldstein and Newell, 2020). The method consists of four sequential steps that

combine diverse data to build linkages between companies in supply chains, determine where they

operate and ascribe environmental and social hotspots. TRACAST helps identify key nodes of governance

able to address those hotspots.

2.1. Define Study Scope

Here we state the study goals, products to track, supply chain coverage and spatiotemporal scope. Our

goals are to partially map Costco‘s beef supply chain and to identify environmental impacts in the regions

from which they source their beef. We focus on emissions of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in

diameter (PM2.5) since there are no safe levels for its presence, and because of its confirmed links to

asthma, heart disease, low weight birth and lung cancer (Raaschou-Nielsen et al., 2013). We focus on

beef, which is generally considered the most intensive meat in terms of greenhouse gases, resource

demand and local pollution (Eshel et al., 2014). We identify more than 40 beef suppliers to Costco;

however, we selected one specific supplier – Harris Ranch — since it sells large volumes of beef to

Costco. We use environmental organization reports (USFS, 2011; SWRCB, 2015; USDA, 2019a) and

academic articles (Mathews and Johnson, 2013; Godar et al., 2016) to construct the predominant beef

supply chain in California.

Our study focuses on the supply chain makeup from 2010–2020, while the PM2.5 impacts are for

the year 2017. To pinpoint hotspots across the entire supply chain, we examine all six stages of the beef

4
supply chain: breeding, backgrounding on pasture, finishing on feedlots, slaughtering, distributing and

retailing. We focus on California, which after Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas, is the fourth largest beef

producing state in the country (USDA, 2019a; USDA, 2019b).

2.2. Collect Data

Here we collect and clean data needed to build linkages and identify hotspots. These data are either in-situ

(interviews, surveys, site-visits) or ex-situ (trade data, company reports, and remote-sensing data). We use

the Harris Ranch website (www.harrisreanchbeef.com) to identify prominent retailers (node 6). We use

certification programs, such as the ‗Harris Ranch Partnership for Quality,‘ which certifies beef quality, to

link Harris Ranch (nodes 3, 4 and 5) to find some of the cow–calf producers/breeding and

backgrounders/stockers (nodes 1 and 2). Industry publications, like Angus Beef Bulletin, reveal links

between Harris Ranch (node 3) and other cow–calf production and backgrounders (nodes 1 and 2). Field

visits to retailers, such as Costco, verify linkages of Harris Ranch (nodes 3 and 4) to a few retailers (node

6).

External linkages between companies and influential actors outside the supply chain are useful in

identifying levers to address environmental and social issues (Dauvergne, 2018; Ponte, 2019). Important

linkages of this type include those with regulatory authorities (municipal, state and federal), which we

find using unstructured web searches. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also active in

monitoring and reforming the California livestock industry. We identify important NGOs through

California Rangeland Trust and Sierra Club California (https://www.rangelandtrust.org/ and

https://www.sierraclub.org/california). Lastly, we use reports by and websites of key industry groups,

such as the California Beef Council, to capture their linkages to companies, NGOs and regulators. For a

full list of data sources used to build internal and external linkages, see Appendix A.

For data on air quality, we use two sets of data from the National Emission Inventory (NEI) for

statewide PM2.5 emission (EPA, 2016) and PM2.5 emission disaggregated by source (EPA, 2017), and the

5
California Air Resources Board (CARB, 2017). For population and demographics data, we use National

Census data in 2017 (American Community Survey, 2017). For health outcomes – asthma, low-birth

weight and cardiovascular disease – we use California Office of Environmental Health Hazards

Assessments dataset for the year 2017 (OEHHA, 2018).

2.3. Identify and Validate Linkages

This step builds internal linkages between companies within the supply chain and, occasionally, external

linkages to other influential actors (e.g. NGOs and regulators). When using structured data, it is often

possible to build linkages across supply chains using pivot tables, computer algorithms or other

automated processes (Godar et al., 2016; Goldstein and Newell, 2020). Here, we use document review to

identify and build linkages from unstructured text documents (reports and websites). Using this method,

we construct all of the tiers of the Harris Ranch supply chain, stakeholders and retailers in Appendix B, C

and D.

We did not need to validate linkages through interviews and site visits because we are using self-

reported data from the companies. It is often necessary to validate linkages when multiple sourcing

streams mix at ―pinch points‖ in the supply chain, for instance when backgrounders buy calves from

numerous breeders and sell to numerous finishing operations. However, in California, breeding and

backgrounding are often vertically integrated at a single ranch (Saitone, 2003), allowing us to assume a

direct link from breeder to feedlot.

2.4. Evaluate Environmental and Socioeconomic Hotspots

We use the NEI to determine PM2.5 arising from different supply chain activities in each county, based on

Source Classification Codes (SCCs). These SCCs describe specific human activities (e.g. manure

spreading and truck transport) and related PM2.5 emissions. We allocate PM2.5 from cattle and calves on

range/pasture (code 2805001300) to the nodes 1 (breeding) and 2 (backgrounding). Node 3, feedlots, is

6
taken as dust emitted from bovine feedlots (code 2805001000). For node 4, slaughtering/processing, we

used total emissions from all meat slaughtering facilities (code 2302010000), as the NEI does not

disaggregate between cow, pig and poultry slaughterhouses. Results show that this had a negligible

impact on the analysis, due to the relatively small contribution of emissions at the slaughterhouse to the

total emissions across the supply chain. These data do include secondary PM2.5 generated through

emissions of PM2.5 precursors at livestock facilities (Shih et al., 2012), and hence, can be viewed as a

conservative estimate of air pollution burden from cattle. Emissions from nodes 5 and 6 are assumed

negligible.

This approach lets us determine the pollution burden from the beef industry in all of California‘s

counties. We also use tools from geography and remote sensing to document the co-location of livestock

facilities and elevated pollution. We do this for all facilities, including those sourcing Costco, to give both

a sense of the problematic nature of beef production generally and to highlight Costco‘s contribution. We

use the EPA Fused Air Quality Surface Downscaling (FAQSD) dataset to estimate annual average PM2.5

concentrations across California for the year 2016, by linearly interpolating between estimates dispersed

along a 12 km by 12 km grid (EPA, 2016). This produced a continuous surface of PM2.5 concentrations

across the state, which we then use to identify relationships between feedlots and air pollution. We also

correlate distance to feedlot against race, poverty and health outcomes (asthma, cardiovascular diseases

and low birth weight) at the block-group level, to identify disparities in pollution burden from the beef

industry in the San Joaquin Valley.

3. Results

Costco sources its beef from dozens of suppliers. Here, we outline the supply chain of one of their main

beef suppliers, Harris Ranch. We detail this supply chain from retailer to feedlot back to pasture, finding

that Costco is sourcing beef directly from pollution hotspots in California‘s San Joaquin Valley (Figures 1

7
and 2). We then show how these hotspots coincide with higher poverty and negative health outcomes near

feedlots in this part of California.

3.1. Harris Ranch — Costco Beef Supply Chain

3.1.1. Node 1 — Cow–Calf Production

During cow–calf production, female cows, called heifers, produce calves for the beef industry and raise

them to the age of 8 to 10 months. For Harris Ranch, node 1 occurs primarily in the San Joaquin Valley,

the Central Coast, areas east of Los Angeles and Lahontan (Figure 2). In the San Joaquin Valley, Harris

Ranch operates ten cow–calf facilities on a combined 248,000 acres from Yolo County to the top of the

Tehachapi Range (SWRCB, 2015). On the Central Coast, they operate a total of 130,000 acres on two

ranches east of the Salinas Valley, near Santa Maria (SWRCB, 2015). East of Los Angeles, they lease

230,000 acres of the Tejon Ranch, south of Bakersfield for about 7,000 head of cattle (Hereford World

Magazine, 2010). In Lahontan, they operate the Chance Ranch, covering 9,000 acres, and the Dressler,

Sweetwater and Point ranches, covering another 10,000 acres (SWRCB, 2015). Additional ranches are

scattered around California, including 3000 acres in Inyo County, as well as activities in Santa Margarita

and Montague (Angus Beef Bulletin, 2014; Hereford World Magazine, 2010).

3.1.2. Node 2 — Backgrounding/Stocker

Here, weaned calves are pasture-fed until they reach a weight of ~350 kg and are then sent to feedlots

(node 3). As mentioned, many of the cow–calf operators are also stockers, and hence, nodes 1 and 2 are

combined. However, Harris does source from dedicated stockers, such as Topo and Peach Tree ranches

on the central coast (Figure 1).

3.1.3. Node 3 — Feedlots

Once big enough, beef cattle are sent to one of Harris Ranch‘s two feedlots where they gain ~150 kg in

200 days on a high-grain diet. The Harris Ranch feedlots are particularly large, with one containing as

8
many as 250,000 cattle at a given time. Both are located in the San Joaquin Valley counties of Fresno and

Tulare (Figure 2). Both counties have some of the worst air pollution in California.

It is worth noting that Harris Ranch was acquired in May 2019 by the Central Valley Meat

Company (Figure 1), making the two Harris Ranch operations an integral part of what is now the

country‘s 7th largest beef producer. Central Valley Meat have supplied the National School Lunch

Program since 2015, but they have also had their operations suspended in 2012 for animal abuse, in 2014

for distributing plastic-contaminated beef and in 2019 for hygienic reasons (USDA, 1998; USDA, 2012;

Meier, 2014; USDA, 2019c).

3.1.4. Node 4 — Slaughter/Processing — and Node 5 — Distribution

After reaching slaughter weight (~500 kg), cattle are sent to one of the Central Valley Meat Company‘s

slaughterhouses; either the former Harris Ranch slaughterhouse or the Coelho Meat Company, another

subsidiary of Central Valley Meat Company. These large plants slaughter and process up to 1,500 cattle

daily to produce both finished cuts of meat and prepared meals (e.g. beef-stuffed bell peppers). After this,

products are distributed to a variety of customers though the Central Valley Meat Company subsidiary

Triple C Trucking Company.

3.1.5. Node 6 — Retail

Distribution to final customers occurs through three channels: direct retail via Harris Ranch branded

retailers, wholesale and third-party retailers and restaurants. The Harris Ranch branded outlets include the

Harris Ranch Inn & Restaurant in Fresno, California, which also has a store where customers can

purchase beef. This location projects the image of Harris Ranch as a small-scale, bespoke purveyor of

beef products, belying the reality that they are a subsidiary of one of the country‘s largest livestock

producers. Customers can buy Harris Ranch products wholesale through CLW Foods Inc., also a part of

the Central Valley Meat family.

9
 The majority of Harris Ranch‘s products are sold by large and mid-size retailers throughout the

western United States. It is at this point that beef from Harris Ranch enters the Costco beef supply chain.

Other retailers selling this beef include Save Mart, Raley‘s, Grocery Outlet and Broadway Market. Harris

Ranch products are branded as ―Western Premium Beef,‖ ―Blue Diamond Beef,‖ and under the ―Harris

Ranch‖ label. The company also supplies restaurants, such as the prominent West Coast hamburger chain

In-N-Out Burger. Harris Ranch also sells meat to international markets, including customers in China and

Singapore through ―One World Beef LLC‖ and to Japan (USMEF, 2017).

3.2. Hotspots of Particulate Matter in California Beef Production

Here, we analyze air pollution at the different nodes along the California beef supply chain to identify the

processes that emit the majority of PM2.5. We then use this knowledge to locate hotspots of air pollution in

the California beef production landscape. Figure 3A displays daily average PM2.5 concentrations across

California in µg/m3. The San Joaquin Valley in the heart of California is awash in air pollution, as are

urban areas. Figure 3B breaks down total anthropogenic PM2.5 emissions for the year 2017 across the San

Joaquin Valley in µg/m3. Over a third of these emissions stem from beef production. Five highly impacted

counties in the San Joaquin – Tulare, Kings, Kern, Merced and Fresno – are intensely used for beef

production. For instance, tax assessment records reveal that Kern County alone has more than 100

feedlots (CoreLogic, 2019).

We now look at the emissions from beef production by supply chain node. We focus on the cattle

rearing and slaughtering/processing nodes of the supply chain, since distribution and retailing produce

negligible amounts of particulate matter in the beef life cycle (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2019). Figure 4A

breaks down total emissions in the California regions based on the first four beef supply chain nodes:

cow–calf, backgrounding, feedlots and slaughter. In all of the CARB regions, there is a prominent spike at

the feedlot node of the supply chain. On average, the feedlot node accounts for 95% of total emissions

from beef production. This makes sense, as feedlots house vast numbers of cattle on dusty ranches that

10
are void of vegetation. These large, industrial feeding facilities are called Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (CAFOs) in industry. Cattle hooves readily kick up dust, making CAFOs important sources of

PM2.5 (Bonifacio et al., 2015). Unsurprisingly, given that the San Joaquin Valley contains more than 500

large CAFOs (>1000 animals), 67.5% of total emissions from beef production are concentrated in the

area, identifying it as an environmental hotspot.

These emissions are contributing to chronic air pollution issues in the San Joaquin Valley where

the annual average concentration of PM2.5 for the year 2016 was 16 µg/m3,, exceeding both state and

national averages, as well as the 12 µg/m3 threshold set by both California and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (Figure 4B). Figure 5 plots the estimated annual average concentration of PM2.5 in

census block-groups in the San Joaquin Valley against their distance from the nearest CAFO. There is a

clear inverse relationship between PM2.5 concentration and distance (R-squared = 0.42), highlighting the

important contributions that cattle production, and CAFOs specifically, to PM2.5 in proximate

communities.

3.3. Environmental Injustices around CAFOs

Our analysis shows that feedlots are a major source of PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley. This is of

concern, given that the American Lung Association estimates that the region experiences 40 days of

unhealthy air annually and that it has up to 1,300 premature human deaths occurring each year from

noxious air – alongside countless emergency room visits and lost days of school and work (Meng et al.,

2012; Padula et al., 2013; American Lung Association, 2019).

We now look for links between the distance from feedlot (locations from CoreLogic, 2019) and

disease burdens to see if beef production in the San Joaquin Valley affects health outcomes in proximate

communities. We compare the rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and low-birth weights in block-

groups within and outside a 1 kilometer (km) buffer from the nearest feedlot. We use student t-tests at the

11
95% confidence-level to assess differences in means between the sub-populations of block-groups. Figure

6A shows that for all three indicators, block-groups near a feedlot have markedly higher negative health

outcomes. Asthma rates are 23% higher (p-value <2.2e-16), cardiovascular disease rates are 29% higher

(p-value <2.2e-16), and rates of low-birth weights are 8% higher (p-value <2.2e-16) within 1 km of a

feedlot (see SI Table 2 for full t-test results).

We use census data from 2017 to explore which population groups are most burdened. Figure 6B

compares the percentages of different races within and outside a 1 km buffer from the nearest feedlot.

Latinx (refers to Hispanic and Latino in National Census data) bear a disproportionate amount of this

pollution. The proportion of latinx residents rises by 26% near feedlots (p-value <2.2e-16), while the

percentage of every other race is lower. A partial explanation for this finding may be the large contingent

of latinx farmhands, both seasonal migrants and year-round residents that work in U.S. agriculture

(Holmes, 2013). Looking at the economic characteristics, we find that poverty rates are 25% higher in the

vicinity of feedlots (p-value<2.2e-16).

Thus, we can see a clear environmental justice issue around the feedlots of the San Joaquin

Valley. PM2.5 concentrations are higher the closer one gets to beef producers, often exceeding federal

guidelines. This pollution has no safe level and is associated with multiple health ailments, all of which

are present at higher rates near feedlots. Census data suggest that historically marginalized populations,

namely latinx and low-income communities, are the most affected.

4. Discussion

Our analysis showed that the cattle industry accounts for one third of the PM2.5 emission in California.

These emissions stem largely from the feedlot node of the supply chain, which is concentrated in the San

Joaquin Valley along with 80% of total emissions from California beef production. CAFOs are situated

12
near marginalized communities, where emissions are concentrated and related disease burdens are higher.

This injustice is hidden from consumers upstream in the beef supply chains of companies such as Costco.

Our example of particulate matter is but a glimpse of the myriad of environmental impacts from

beef production in California. The sheer number of cattle confined at a feedlot makes these facilities

considerable sources of other forms of air pollution (e.g. GHG emission, Nitrous Oxide and Methane

emission, Ammonia deposition) and water pollution (e.g. Nitrogen and Phosphorus) (Wolch et al., 2017).

Nontrivial amounts of pollution from manure also arises during the first two nodes of the supply chain

(cow–calf production and backgrounding), alongside land degradation from grazing (Xiong et al., 2010;

Wolch et al., 2017).

Retailers are indirectly implicated in these challenges by virtue of the large quantities of beef they

source and sell within California. Below, we propose actions that beef producers and retailers can take to

become more sustainable using Harris Ranch and Costco as examples. We conclude with a discussion of

methodological considerations.

4.1. Harris Ranch: Reducing Particulate Matter at the CAFO

Harris Ranch is a hotspot for particulate matter in the Costco beef supply chain. Harris Ranch and its

owner, Central Valley Meat Company, have vertically integrated operations, directly controlling

production from the cow–calf stage (node 1) all the way to processing and final distribution (nodes 4 and

5). The supply chain management literature has demonstrated that vertically integrated supply chains,

with their top-down command structures and stakeholder unity, are ideal cases for the effective

implementation of policies (Rueda et al., 2017). This carries over to environmental sustainability, where

there are numerous examples of companies successfully transmitting rules across their supply chains to

reduce pollution and resource use (Costantini et al., 2017).

13
 There are a number of policies that Harris Ranch could implement to reduce their PM2.5

emissions. One dust control strategy at CAFOs is the use of sprinklers to keep manure and topsoil from

drying out and becoming airborne when disturbed by hooves (Spellman and Whiting, 2007), but this is

not used by Harris Ranch. Importantly, this technology would increase the cattle industry‘s copious water

use in a region that already faces significant water stress. Moreover, this technology is only marginally

effective in semi-arid regions like the San Joaquin Valley (Preece et al., 2012). Another less ambitious

option is to remove manure before it dries, but it does not address the dust arising from topsoil (Spellman

and Whiting, 2007).

Ultimately, these policies focus on increasing eco-efficiency by reducing the pollution burden per

cow. Some argue that this addresses symptoms and not causes. Due to the untold amounts of pollution

emanating from CAFOs, The American Public Health Association recently called for a moratorium on

new CAFOs, a sentiment echoed in public opinion polls (APHA, 2019). Switching to a free-range model

also imparts environmental costs. For instance, Harris Ranch‘s cow–calf/backgrounding operations

already encroach on watersheds that supply Los Angeles as well as into national forests, including the

Inyo, Los Padres, and Toiyabe (USFS, 2011; SWRCB, 2015). Moving their entire supply chain to a free-

range model would likely mitigate dust, but this would need more land, water and feed to raise the

animals to slaughter weight (Navarrete-Molina et al., 2019).

Regardless, Harris Ranch has shown little inclination to self-govern its environmental impacts.

Instead the company has used its substantial power to influence the public perceptions and regulation of

the California beef industry connections to non-supply chain actors (external linkages). For instance, the

company has been accused of trying to influence the curriculum of ―sustainable agriculture‖ at the

California Polytechnic State University (Brown, 2010). Another important external linkage is Harris

Ranch‘s membership with the National Meat Association and the North American Beef Association. Both

organizations have worked to stymie stricter regulations of air pollution from CAFOs, particularly

through campaign donations to a cadre of California lawmakers who voted for the ―Limit Regulations of

14
Farm Dust‖ bill in 2011, which curbed Federal EPA authority to regulate dust from CAFOs (H.R.1633 -

Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011).

4.2. Implications for Costco

Costco sources beef for its California stores from multiple producers. Although Harris Ranch one such

supplier, it typifies many of the others who also operate CAFOs in the San Joaquin Valley and also

maintain memberships in beef industry associations that lobby against regulating CAFOs (Johnson,

2002). How should Costco and other retailers address the unequal pollution burdens in their beef supply

chains?

Costco has committed to reducing the environmental impacts from beef, for instance by not

sourcing from Brazil due to links between the Brazilian beef industry and deforestation for feed and

pastures, although contrary to this commitment there is evidence that Costco still sources from Brazil

through JBS SA (Kindy, 2019). Moreover, Costco has not addressed domestic environmental issues from

beef production. The company, alongside Harris Ranch, is a member of the recently formed U.S.

Roundtable on Sustainable Beef. This multi-stakeholder initiative aims to facilitate knowledge sharing

between companies across the beef supply chain to improve the environmental and economic

sustainability of the U.S. beef industry (https://www.usrsb.org/). Although laudable, it is uncertain how

effective this initiative will be. Similar initiatives, for instance in palm oil, have allowed industry

stakeholders to control the definition of sustainability for their industry without having to meaningfully

reduce their environmental impacts (Dauvergne, 2018). Environmental sustainability, according to the

beef roundtable‘s inaugural annual report, means increasing eco-efficiency around a set of vague

indicators (e.g. water resources, land resources, employee safety and well-being, etc.) (Buckley et al.,

2019). Moreover, the lobbying activities of many members counteract Roundtable goals (Ramhormozi,

2019).The ability for the beef industry to address its significant environmental burdens in the San Joaquin

Valley might be a litmus test for the efficacy of the Roundtable.

15
 Costco has other options to source beef more sustainably. One option is for Costco to implement

a policy requiring beef producers to implement effective air pollution controls at CAFOs. This would

mean both documenting CAFO locations, technologies in place and monitoring outcomes. The ability for

Costco to do this depends on their power over their suppliers. Research on global value chains shows that

transnational corporations have been able to successfully make sustainability demands on their suppliers

when the buyer has significant bargaining power (Ponte et al., 2019). Costco has additional approaches to

consider if this is not the case. Instead of trying to influence current producer practices, it can switch to

producers that do not lobby against stricter air pollution regulations or to those who do not use CAFOs.

The latter would present a procurement challenge given Costco‘s immense beef demands, since free-

range beef makes up less than 5% of total U.S. production (USDA, 2019b). However, even a limited

commitment to source a percentage of CAFO-free beef by Costco or another prominent retailer could

catalyze positive change in the industry.

A more passive approach is transparency. Costco could work with suppliers to publish their beef

supply chains, much like some of the world‘s largest food conglomerates have done with their supply

chains of palm oil, cocoa, soy and coffee (Pacheco et al., 2017; Grabs and Ponte, 2019; Ponte, 2019). This

would put their beef suppliers under public scrutiny, making Costco and individual suppliers accountable

for producing beef that degrades land, pollutes water and air, or adversely affects the health and

livelihoods of nearby communities. Making the domestic impacts of beef more visible could also spur

consumer demand for more sustainable beef options, prompting Costco and other suppliers to oblige. For

instance, big retailers like Walmart and Costco sell an array of certified organic products, not necessarily

because they are concerned about the environment, but because consumers wanted these products and

because these retailers realized they could earn greater profits by selling them (Ponte, 2019).

4.3. Moving Beyond Industry Self-Regulation

16
In addition to the industry led initiatives, powerful actors outside of the supply chain can promote

sustainable beef production. The U.S. EPA has the remit under the Clean Air Act to monitor industrial

facilities for violations of national pollution guidelines (Elefritz, 2018). Industry lobbying has effectively

blocked application of this regulation to CAFOs (Wilson, 2007; Elefritz, 2018). The Clean Water Act,

however, has been more rigorously used against CAFOs, showing how regulations can reduce CAFO

impacts (Wilson, 2007; Elefritz, 2018). For instance, the EPA used the act to curtail unauthorized

discharges of stormwater from CAFOs in Iowa, by $160,000 civil penalty and requiring them to

implement pollution controls to reduce future stormwater discharges (US EPA, 2017). The Clean Air Act

could be used similarly to push for PM2.5 abatement technologies at CAFOs or lower cattle densities if

these are ineffective. Regional and local authorities can also contribute. California‘s Attorney General is

tasked with upholding the principles of environmental justice (CA Department of Justice, 2020). NGOs

and other civil society actors can organize on behalf of the marginalized communities that shoulder the

heavy pollution burdens of CAFOs to orchestrate legal action against beef producers under existing

California environmental laws. State regulators could also place a moratorium on CAFO expansion until

owners demonstrate that their facilities can operate in an environmentally sensitive and socially just

manner. In the absence of a statewide ban, individual municipalities could prevent CAFO expansion

through exclusionary land-use zoning.

4.4. Methodological Reflections

This paper combines life cycle thinking with environmental justice concerns in order to address research

gaps in each area. By looking across the entirety of the beef supply chain, we were able to characterize

PM2.5 pollution at multiple supply chain nodes and ensure that we focused on environmental justice issues

where they were most acute. Although we ended up focusing on the same node as other environmental

justice studies (Table 1), this might not be true for other supply chains where hotspots occur at

unexpected production processes. The life cycle perspective also lets us link consumption to distant

17
impacts. This contrasts with much of the environmental justice literature, which often does not link

producers to consumers through supply chains (Hoffman, 2013).

Conversely, taking an environmental justice perspective grounded the study in those specific

places most burdened by beef production. This not only incorporated spatiality into life cycle thinking,

with potential impacts for how life cycle assessments could be performed (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2017),

but it also embedded the production system in a particular socio-economic context. Particulate matter

from beef production in the San Joaquin Valley is not purely the result of inefficient production, but an

outcome of deliberate political maneuvers by powerful agricultural interests in a region that is dependent

on the livestock industry for jobs and tax revenues (Nunez, 2019). Such insights can help identify the mix

of technological and social aspects of beef production that need to be amended to address the

environmental injustices near CAFOs.

The TRACAST methodological framework and its focus on specific companies allowed us to

map the supply chain to particular locations and capture external linkages that influence production

conditions. Future work should focus on quantifying these linkages. For instance, quantifying trade

between Costco and Harris (monetary or mass) would allow us to ascribe a certain volume of the

environmental justice impacts to Costco and its consumers. Trade flows also hint at relative power in the

supply chain. For instance if Harris Ranch is a captive supplier that sells 90% of its beef to Costco, then

Costco‘s ability to dictate conditions at Harris Ranch‘s CAFOs is much stronger than if Harris Ranch

sells 10% of its beef to Costco (Gereffi et al.,et al., 2005). Interviews and qualitative analysis can provide

further context. Taking a systems approach across the supply chain can help clarify the links between

supply chain form, governance dynamics and environmental justice outcomes.

5. Conclusions

18
In recent years, more and more consumers want to know the ‗story‘ behind the product. Consumers

increasingly demand transparency in corporate supply chains. However, distance, multiple transacting

companies and supplier fluidity keep most supply chains opaque (Goldstein and Newell, 2020). This

makes it difficult to know if the products we consume have positive or negative impacts on the peoples

and places that produce them. LCA provides a window into the scale of environmental impacts and the

processes that drive those impacts. Environmental justice looks at the unequal concentration of impacts

on specific peoples and places, often at one spot in a supply chain. A lack of research on the specific

corporate supply chains hampers more sustainable production and consumption (Goldstein and Newell,

2019).

This paper addresses some of these challenges through a case study of PM2.5 emissions from beef

supply chains in California. Using the TRACAST methodological framework, we map the beef supply

chain of Costco, America‘s largest beef retailer (Galber, 2016), and construct linkages with beef suppliers

and sub-suppliers at high geographic specificity. We find that feedlots, concentrated in the San Joaquin

Valley, are the hotspot for PM2.5 in this supply chain. These large cattle operations, also called CAFOs,

are situated mostly near Latinx and low-income communities.

Costco and many other retailers source their beef from this environmental hotspot. Telling this

‗story‘ opens up opportunities for these companies to start redressing this environmental injustice through

amended production practices, such as by switching from CAFOs to free-range cattle or by changing

suppliers. A relatively new multi-stakeholder initiative, the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, aims to

address pollution from the industry, but its efficacy has yet to be determined. Pressure from civil society

and consumers to adhere to the goals of this initiative could compel Costco to directly address this

challenge. It might ultimately require command and control measures by regulators or demand for more

sustainable beef by consumers to meaningfully address the myriad of environmental and social issues

stemming from industrial beef production.

19
Acknowledgements:

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this work by the US National Science Foundation

(NSF) through the Environmental Sustainability program (Award Number: 1805085) and Human-

Environment and Geographical Sciences Program (Award Number: 1954703). We also would like to

thank Dimitris Gounaridis for assistance in Data and Spatial Analysis.

20
References

1. Angus Beef Bulletin. (January 2014). First Class Production. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
http://www.angusbeefbulletin.com/ArticlePDF/Harris%20Ranch-Cowley%2001_14%20ABB.pdf
2. American Lung Association. (2019). Statistics. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.lung.org/our-
initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states/california/san-joaquin.html
3. American Community Survey. (2017). 2017 ACS 1-year Estimates. Retrieved: March 12th,
2020. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2017/release.html
4. American Public Health Association. (2019). Precautionary Moratorium on New and Expanding Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-
advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2020/01/13/precautionary-moratorium-on-new-
and-expanding-concentrated-animal-feeding-operations
5. Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision.
http://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.288998
6. Asem-Hiablie, S., Battagliese, T., Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R., & Rotz, C. A. (2019). A life cycle assessment of
the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
24(3), 441-455. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1464-6
7. Bell, M. L., Zanobetti, A., & Dominici, F. (2013). Evidence on vulnerability and susceptibility to health risks
associated with short-term exposure to particulate matter: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 178(6), 865-876. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt090
8. Bind, M. A., Peters, A., Koutrakis, P., Coull, B., Vokonas, P., & Schwartz, J. (2016). Quantile regression
analysis of the distributional effects of air pollution on blood pressure, heart rate variability, blood lipids, and
biomarkers of inflammation in elderly American men: the Normative Aging Study. Environmental health
perspectives, 124(8), 1189-1198. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510044
9. Bonifacio, H. F., Maghirang, R. G., Trabue, S. L., McConnell, L. L., Prueger, J. H., & Bonifacio, E. R. (2015).
TSP, PM10, and PM2. 5 emissions from a beef cattle feedlot using the flux-gradient technique. Atmospheric
Environment, 101, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.017
10. Brown, Donal. (2010). California State Senator Asks State University To Curb Donor Influence On Curriculum.
In ―First Amendment Coalition‖. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/01/california-state-senator-asks-state-university-to-curb-donor-
influence-on-curriculum/
11. Buckley, K. J., Newton, P., Gibbs, H. K., McConnel, I., & Ehrmann, J. (2019). Pursuing sustainability through
multi-stakeholder collaboration: A description of the governance, actions, and perceived impacts of the
roundtables for sustainable beef. World Development, 121, 203-217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.019
12. Cambra-Lopez, M., Aarnink, A. J., Zhao, Y., Calvet, S., & Torres, A. G. (2010). Airborne particulate matter
from livestock production systems: A review of an air pollution problem. Environmental Pollution, 158(1), 1-
17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.07.011

21
13. California Air Resources Board (2017). PM2.5 county level Data from CEPAM: 2016 SIP - Standard Emission
Tool Emission Projections By Summary Category. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat/fcemssumcat2016.php
14. California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessments (2018). CalEnviroScreen data. Retrieved:
March 12th, 2020. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen.
15. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2015). Comment Letter – Grazing Regulatory
Action Project. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/grap_cmts/docs/william_thomas.pdf
16. California Department of Justice. (2020). Environmental Justice and Healthy Communities. Retrieved:
June18th, 2020. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/communities
17. Castellon, D. (2019). Harris Ranch Beef Co. Sold to Hanford Meat Packer. The Business Journal.
https://thebusinessjournal.com/harris-ranch-beef-sold-to-hanford-meat-packer/
18. Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S., Hamel, P., Bryant, B., Noe, R., Mueller, C., ... & Clavreul, J. (2017). Life cycle
assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nature communications,
8(1), 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15065
19. Costantini, Valeria, Francesco Crespi, Giovanni Marin, and Elena Paglialunga. Eco-innovation, sustainable
supply chains and environmental performance in European industries. Journal of cleaner production 155
(2017): 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.038
20. De Vries, M. D., Van Middelaar, C. E., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2015). Comparing environmental impacts of beef
production systems: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 178, 279-288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020
21. Dauvergne, P. (2018). The global politics of the business of ―sustainable‖ palm oil. Global Environmental
Politics, 18(2), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00455
22. Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., & Milo, R. (2014). Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive
nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 111(33), 11996-12001. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402183111
23. Elefritz, D. (2018). From Frisbees to Flatulence: Regulating Greenhouse Gases from Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations under the Clean Air Act. Envtl. L., 48, 891.
24. Emel, J., & Neo, H. (Eds.). (2015). Political ecologies of meat. Routledge.
25. Environmental Protection Agency (2016). Fused Air Quality Surface Using Downscaling (FAQSD) Files.
Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/hesc/rsig-related-downloadable-data-files.
26. Environmental Protection Agency (2017). 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. Retrieved: March
12th, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
27. Fiala, N. (2008). Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas emissions from meat
production. Ecological Economics, 67(3), 412-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.06.020
28. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., ... & Balzer, C.
(2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

22
29. Gabler N. ( 2016). Inside Costco: The magic in the warehouse. Fortune Magazine.
https://fortune.com/longform/costco-wholesale-shopping/
30. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of
international political economy, 12(1), 78-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
31. Grabs, J., & Ponte, S. (2019). The evolution of power in the global coffee value chain and production network.
Journal of Economic Geography, 19(4), 803-828. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbz008
32. Goldstein, B., Moses, R., Sammons, N., & Birkved, M. (2017). Potential to curb the environmental burdens of
American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute. PloS one, 12(12).
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189029
33. Goldstein, B., & Newell, J. P. (2019). Why academics should study the supply chains of individual
corporations. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(6), 1316-1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12932
34. Goldstein, B., & Newell, J. P. (2020). How to track corporations across space and time. Ecological Economics,
169, 106492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106492
35. Godar, J., Suavet, C., Gardner, T. A., Dawkins, E., & Meyfroidt, P. (2016). Balancing detail and scale in
assessing transparency to improve the governance of agricultural commodity supply chains. Environmental
Research Letters, 11(3), 035015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035015
36. Hereford World Magazine. (2010). Believing in Heterosis. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://hereford.org/static/files/0209_Lacey_Believe.pdf
37. Hadlocon, L. S., Zhao, L. Y., Bohrer, G., Kenny, W., Garrity, S. R., Wang, J., ... Upadhyay, J. (2015). Modeling
of particulate matter dispersion from a poultry facility using AERMOD. Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 65(2), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2014.986306
38. Hoffman, J. (2017). Environmental justice along product life cycles: importance, renewable energy examples
and policy complexities. Local Environment, 22(10), 1174-1196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1329285
39. Holmes, S. (2013). Fresh fruit, broken bodies: Migrant farmworkers in the United States (Vol. 27). Univ of
California Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/plar.12154
40. IPCC. (2014). IPCC 5th Assessment Report, Working Group III, Chapter 1: Introductory Chapter.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
41. Johnson, S. (2002). The politics of meat: a look at the meat industry‘s influence on Capitol Hill. Frontline.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/
42. Kindy, K. (2019). This foreign meat company got U.S. tax money. Now it wants to conquer America. In ―The
Washington Post‖. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/this-foreign-meat-
company-got-us-tax-money-now-it-wants-to-conquer-america/2019/11/04/854836ae-eae5-11e9-9306-
47cb0324fd44_story.html
43. Meng, Y. Y. (2012). asthma in the San Joaquin Valley, California. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64:
142e147. J Epidemiol Community Health, 66(2), 192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.083576

23
44. Morello-Frosch, R., & Jesdale, B. M. (2006). Separate and unequal: Residential segregation and estimated
cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics in US metropolitan areas. Environmental Health Perspectives,
114(3), 386-393. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8500
45. Morello-Frosch, R., Pastor Jr, M., Porras, C., & Sadd, J. (2002). Environmental justice and regional inequality
in southern California: Implications for future research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(suppl 2), 149-
154. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110s2149
46. Mathews Jr, K. H., & Johnson, R. J. (2013). Alternative beef production systems: issues and implications. US
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, LDPM-218-01.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/181b/7a105e4d874bc7478afec7895dfd9cf3f0f7.pdf
47. Meier E. (2014). Meat Recalls + Slaughter Plant Shutdowns = Supplier for the National School Lunch
Program?. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/03/meat-recalls-slaughter-
plant-shutdowns-supplier-for-the-national-school-lunch-program/#more-86884
48. Nicole, W. (2013). CAFOs and environmental justice: The case of North Carolina.
https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.121-a182
49. Navarrete-Molina, C., Meza-Herrera, C. A., Herrera-Machuca, M. A., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Lopez-Santos, A.,
& Veliz-Deras, F. G. (2019). To beef or not to beef: Unveiling the economic environmental impact generated
by the intensive beef cattle industry in an arid region. Journal of cleaner production, 231, 1027-1035.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.267
50. Núñez, M. F. (2019). Environmental Racism and Latino Farmworker Health in the San Joaquin Valley,
California. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 31, 9-14.
51. Padula, A. M., Tager, I. B., Carmichael, S. L., Hammond, S. K., Lurmann, F., & Shaw, G. M. (2013). The
association of ambient air pollution and traffic exposures with selected congenital anomalies in the San
Joaquin Valley of California. American journal of epidemiology, 177(10), 1074-1085.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws367
52. Ponte, S., Sturgeon, T. J., & Dallas, M. P. (2019). Governance and power in global value chains. In Handbook
on Global Value Chains. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113779.00013
53. Ponte, S. (2019). Business, power and sustainability in a world of global value chains. Zed Books Ltd..
54. Preece, S. L., Maghirang, R., Amosson, S., & Auvermann, B. W. (2012). Dust Emissions from Cattle Feeding
Operations. https://cdn-ext.agnet.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/E-631-dust-emissions-from-cattle-
feeding-operations.pdf
55. Purdy, J. (2018). The long environmental justice movement. Ecology Law Quarterly, 44, 809.
56. Pacheco, P., Gnych, S., Dermawan, A., Komarudin, H., & Okarda, B. (2017). The palm oil global value chain:
Implications for economic growth and social and environmental sustainability (Vol. 220). CIFOR.
http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP220Pacheco.pdf
57. Rausch, L. L., Gibbs, H. K., Schelly, I., Brandão Jr, A., Morton, D. C., Filho, A. C., ... & Meyer, D. (2019). Soy
expansion in Brazil's Cerrado. Conservation Letters, 12(6), e12671. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12671

24
58. Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Andersen, Z. J., Beelen, R., Samoli, E., Stafoggia, M., Weinmayr, G., ... & Xun, W. W.
(2013). Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts: prospective analyses from the
European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE). The lancet oncology, 14(9), 813-822.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70279-1
59. Rueda, X., Garrett, R. D., & Lambin, E. F. (2017). Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability:
Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. Journal of cleaner production, 142, 2480-2492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.026
60. RamHormozi, H. (2019). The Anatomy of Consumerism: The Story of Excess, Greed, Self-Indulgence, Wealth
Accumulation, Insurmountable Waste, and Environmental Degradation. FriesenPress.
61. Saitone, T. (2003). Livestock and Rangeland in California, in: Siebert, J. (2003). California Agriculture:
Dimensions and Issues.
62. Spellman, F. R., & Whiting, N. E. (2007). Environmental management of concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs). CRC Press.
63. Stingone, J. A., & Wing, S. (2011). Poultry litter incineration as a source of energy: reviewing the potential for
impacts on environmental health and justice. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational
Health Policy, 21(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.2190/NS.21.1.g
64. Shumake, K. L., Sacks, J. D., Lee, J. S., & Johns, D. O. (2013). Susceptibility of older adults to health effects
induced by ambient air pollutants regulated by the European Union and the United States. Aging Clinical and
Experimental Research, 25(1), 3-8. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0001-5
65. Shih, J. S., Burtraw, D., Palmer, K., & Siikamäki, J. (2008). Air emissions of ammonia and methane from
livestock operations: Valuation and policy options. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 58(9),
1117-1129. https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.58.9.1117
66. Smith, T. M., Goodkind, A. L., Kim, T., Pelton, R. E., Suh, K., & Schmitt, J. (2017). Subnational mobility and
consumption-based environmental accounting of US corn in animal protein and ethanol supply chains.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), E7891-E7899.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703793114
67. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... & Folke, C. (2015).
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
68. Stull, D. D. (2017). Cows, pigs, corporations, and anthropologists. Journal of Business Anthropology, 6(1), 24-
40. https://doi.org/10.22439/jba.v6i1.5314
69. US Meat Export Federation (USMEF). (2017). Statistics. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/statistics/
70. US Department of Agriculture. (2012). USDA Beef recalls archives. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/recall-case-
archive-
1998/!ut/p/a1/jZDBCoMwDIafZQ9Qmk4Re5SCUzdbZMy5XkaRTgtOxYmHPf2UnRzKTE4J389HgiXOsKzV

25
 YArVm6ZW1TRL5w4JOIQyiITv-RByy09dfiAgnBG4zQBKJiBNxJExcLm1Mb9SHvzLRxsE-
y5mcYFlq_oSmfrR4KzTuaoqlKuXRqrLSzPoxSUilLr4iuVcA2TsUXO2g4hbIOxfYOEPX2D90PZ5yd6nAEzo
7T5AS7I5/?1dmy&current=true&urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Ffsis-archives-
content%2Finternet%2Fmain%2Ftopics%2Frecalls-and-public-health-alerts%2Frecall-case-
archive%2Farchives%2Fct_rnr025-98a
71. US Department of Agriculture. (2012). USDA suspends Central valley Meat for Humane Handling Violations..
Retrieved: March 12th, 2020. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/news-releases-statements-
transcripts/news-release-archives-by-year/news-release-archives-by-year-
2012/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOINAg3MDC2dDbz83RzdDDz9jN3CLPzcDQ1cTfULsh0
VAYsoRDc!/?1dmy&current=true&urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Ffsis-archives-
content%2Finternet%2Fmain%2Fnewsroom%2Fnews-releases-statements-and-transcripts%2Fnews-release-
archives-by-year%2Farchives%2Fct_index693
72. US Department of Agriculture. (2019a). National Agricultural Statistics: California Field Office. Retrieved:
March 12th, 2020. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/index.php.
73. US Department of Agriculture. (2019b). Statistics and Information. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information/
74. US Department of Agriculture. (2019c). Central Valley Meat Co., Inc. Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to
Possible Salmonella Dublin Contamination. Retrieved: March 12th, 2020.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-
archive/archive/2019/recall-113-2019-release
75. US Forest Service Lands. (2011). Statewide Waiver for USFS Lands. Retrieved: March 12th,
2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/wqmp_frsts/cmmnt082411/william_th
omas2.pdf
76. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Meadowvale Dairy Clean Water Act Settlement. June 18th ,
2020. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/meadowvale-dairy-clean-water-act-settlement#civil
77. Vale, P., Gibbs, H., Vale, R., Christie, M., Florence, E., Munger, J., & Sabaini, D. (2019). The Expansion of
Intensive Beef Farming to the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environmental Change, 57, 101922.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.006
78. Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the
United States. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702969f
79. Wolch, J. R., Lee, K. C. L., Newell, J. P., & Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2017). Cows, Climate and the Media.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt1s03j365/qt1s03j365.pdf
80. Wilson, S. C. (2007). Hogwash-Why Industrial Animal Agriculture is Not beyond the Scope of Clean Air Act
Regulation. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 24, 439.
81. Xiong, X., Yanxia, L., Wei, L., Chunye, L., Wei, H., & Ming, Y. (2010). Copper content in animal manures and
potential risk of soil copper pollution with animal manure use in agriculture. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 54(11), 985-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.02.005

26
82. CoreLogic, CoreLogic (2019). A database of standardized tax assessor records of ~150 million US land parcels.
October 3, 2019.

27
 Table 1: Stages of livestock supply chain covered in Environmental Justice studies
AUTHORS, (YEAR ) LOCATION LIVESTOCK ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL HEALTH SUPPLY CHAIN
INDICATOR INDICATORS INDICATORS STAGE COVERED
WING, S., GRANT, G., GREEN, M., North Carolina Pig operations Race/ Income Feedlot
& STEWART, C. (1996).
WING, S., & WOLF, S. (2000). North Carolina Pig operations Quality of Life Health symptoms Feedlot
NICOLE, W. (2013). North Carolina Pig operations Poverty/ Non-white Feedlot
OGNEVA-HIMMELBERGER, Y., North Carolina Pig operations Air Pollution Children, Elderly/ Whites Feedlot
HUANG, L., & XIN, H. (2015). (Ammonia) and Minorities
CARREL, M., YOUNG, S. G., & Iowa Pig operations Water quality Income/ Race, Ethnicity Feedlot
TATE, E. (2016). (Antibiotics)
WILSON, S. M., HOWELL, F., Mississippi Pig operations Income/ Race, Ethnicity Feedlot
WING, S., & SOBSEY, M. (2002).
HARUN, S. M., & OGNEVA- United States Pig, cattle and poverty/ Race, Ethnicity Health and environmental Feedlot
HIMMELBERGER, Y. (2013). chicken operations characteristics
LOWMAN, A., MCDONALD, M. A., North Carolina/ South Land application Quality of life Health impact/ Physical well-being Feedlot
WING, S., & MUHAMMAD, N. Carolina/ Virginia of manure from
(2013). CAFOs
TAQUINO, M., PARISI, D., & Mississippi Pig operations Race/ Education/ Household Feedlot
GILL, D. A. (2002). income
EDWARDS, B., & LADD, A. E. North Carolina Swine operations Farm loss Homeownership/ Education Feedlot
(2000).
STINGONE, J. A., & WING, S. North Carolina Poultry litter Race/ Age/ Poverty Asthma, Cardiovascular Disease Feedlot
(2011). and Diabetes hospitalization
MACMULLAN, C. N. (2007). California Dairy CAFOs Air Pollution/ Income/ Race/ Age/ poverty Feedlot
Water Pollution
JACQUES, M. L., GIBBS, C., Michigan Pig, cattle and Gender/ Race, Ethnicity Feedlot
RIVERS, L., & DOBSON, T. (2012). chicken operations
LENHARDT, J., & OGNEVA- Ohio Pig, cattle and Income/ Race, Ethnicity / Feedlot
HIMMELBERGER, Y. (2013). chicken operations Age

Table 2: T-test Results

T-test df p-value 95% confidence interval
Percent Latinx 26.638 2944.4 <2.2e-16 0.1486948 0.1705533

Percent White -12.683 3062 <2.2e-16 -0.0778902 -0.0570325

Percent African-American -9.6125 3754.9 <2.2e-16 -0.01763471 -0.01165970

Percent Other -31 3875.9 <2.2e-16 -0.08241800 -0.07261301

Percent Poverty 25.473 2541.9 <2.2e-16 19.79269 10.66257

Percent Asthma 23.678 1019.6 <2.2e-16 19.72913 23.29476

Percent Cardiovascular Disease 29.008 1080.04 <2.2e-16 22.56286 25.83667

Percent Low-Birth weight 8.1165 951.9 <2.2e-16 6.572507 10.764329

28
Figure 1: Harris Ranch Supply Chain Figure2: Physical flow of beef in Harris Ranch Supply Chain

29
 Figure 3: (A) PM2.5 Daily Average (µg/m3) in
California (Resource: EPA, 2017). (B) PM2.5
Average (µg/m3) in US, CA and San Joaquin Valley
(Resource: NEI 2017)

Figure 4: (A) PM2.5 Annual Value (Tons) in CA Regions

(Resource: NEI 2017). (B) PM2.5 Annual Value across
different industries (Resource: CARB, 2017).

30
 Figure 5: PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3) and proximity to the
feedlots

Figure 6: Environmental Justice Indicators (Ethnicity, Poverty,

and Health Outcome) in 1 km proximity to the feedlots
(Resource: American Community Survey, 2017; OEHHA, 2018)

31
 Appendix A: Harris Ranch Supply Chain References

Breeding Backgrounding Finishing Packing Retailer

Actor Reference Actor Reference Actor Reference Actor Reference Actor Reference
Tejon Ranch Hereford David Wood Ranches Congressional Record , Harris Harris Beef Harris Ranch Harris Beef Direct Harris Inn & Restaurant Harris Beef Company (CW)
World (East of Salines, NE of V152, Page 1925 (LD) Feeding Company Beef Company International Japan AgAlert (NA)
Magazine Feb Santa Maria Ranch) California State Water Company (CW) Company (CW) China US Meat Export Federation
2019 (NA) Board/ Grazing (LD) / USDA Foreign
Santa Margarita Ranch Regulatory Action Plan Singapore Agricultural Service, 2018
(LD)
Regional Costco Costco Online (CW)
Centennial California David Wood Ranches In-N-Out Burger The Guardian (NA)
Livestock Cattleman (10 Ranches in Central
Save-Mart Harris Beef Company (CW)
Magazine Jan Valley)
2017 (NA) Raley's Raley's Online (CW)
Dressler Hereford Sweetwater Ranch Broadway Market Broadway Market Website
Ranch World (CW)
Magazine Feb Grocery Outlet News Article (NA)
2019 (NA) Point Ranch
Central Central Coelho Meat Central Direct CLW Foods Central Valley Meat Co.
Valley Valley Co. Valley (CW)
Owens California Dressler Ranch Meat Co. Meat Co. Meat Co. Regional In-N-Out Burger CBS News, 2015 (NA)
Valley Cattleman (CW) (CW)
Ranches Magazine Jan Chance Ranch USDA supplier for ‗National
2017 (NA) School Lunch Program‘
Centennial Livestock

Cowley Angus Beef Mammoth Ranch US Forest Service (ED)

Family Bulletin Jan
Ranch 2014 (NA) Bridgeport Ranch
Topo Ranch Drovers Cattle Owens Valley Ranches California Cattleman
Network (NA) Magazine Jan 2017 (NA)
Tejon Ranch Hereford World Magazine
Feb 2019 (NA)
Cowley Family Ranch Angus Beef Bulletin Jan
Peach Tree Drovers Cattle 2014 (NA)
Ranch Network (NA) Topo Ranch Drovers Cattle Network
(NA)
Peach Tree Ranch Drovers Cattle Network
(NA)

CW – company website

NA – news article

ED – external document

LD – legal document

32
Appendix B: Detailed Structure of Harris Ranch
Supply Chain

33
Appendix C: Detailed Structure of the Active Stakeholders in the California Beef Supply Chain

34
Appendix D: Detailed Structure of Harris Ranch Supply Chain Retailers in California

35
36