Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Fowl Play In the Slaughterhouse

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted January 4, 2006.


How America is failing the workers who put beef, chicken and pork on our dinner tables.
010406_story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Stan Cox

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In my hometown of Gainesville, Ga., there's a statue of a broiler hen, a monument to one of the longtime mainstays of the region's economy. Today I live in Kansas, where beef is king and bovine statuary is common. And over in the Corn Belt, the winner of the annual football game between the universities of Iowa and Minnesota takes home a big bronze hog representing both states' favorite farm animal.

Public art honors these doomed objects of our affection for their contribution to the American diet and economy. Recent years have also brought growing awareness of the often-cruel conditions under which they are raised and slaughtered.

But as far as I know, there are no monuments to the workers who kill and process cattle, hogs, chickens or other livestock. And in one of the nation's most grueling and dangerous industries, laws meant to protect those workers are often inadequate and getting worse.

Foreseeable and preventable

In its January 2005 report, Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers' Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants, the organization Human Rights Watch amassed a mountain of data and personal testimony demonstrating that everyday conditions in plants from North Carolina to Nebraska to Arkansas violate a host of international human-rights standards.

The report concludes that the risk of injury in the beef, swine and poultry industries is "constant, foreseeable and preventable."

One of the most common problems is repetitive-motion injury. A 2002 Fortune magazine article reported that while the overall injury rate in poultry plants was more than double the average for private industries, "poultry workers are 14 times more likely to suffer debilitating injuries stemming from repetitive trauma."

Look through the Human Rights Watch report or Eric Schlosser's 2001 bestseller, "Fast Food Nation," and read the ghastly stories of workers' lives in any of the meat-processing industries. Then pick one of the jobs they describe, a single task, and try to imagine repeating it all day long, as quickly as you can.

Better yet, take two 5-pound weights, hang them on hooks above your head, pull them down, and then repeat the cycle maybe 15,000 times in an 8- to 12-hour day. Be sure to do this in the dampest possible conditions, with the temperature either above 90 or below 50 degrees. Imagine that the weights are panicky live animals with beaks and claws. If you need a break, you might try cutting half-frozen chickens apart with dull scissors for a while.

If your hands, wrists or back don't ache the next morning, repeat the process five or six days per week until they do. Don't worry -- they will.

Repetitive-motion injuries are commonplace throughout the slaughtering and processing industries, but they are epidemic in poultry work. Very large numbers of the relatively small animals pass through a plant each hour, requiring workers to repeat their actions more often than in beef or pork plants.

On a recent visit to Gainesville, home of the chicken monument, I asked Dr. Nabil Muhanna, a local neurosurgeon, about one of the poultry industry's most common repetitive-motion problems, carpal-tunnel syndrome. He pointed to his own wrist to show me where the median nerve passes between the bones of the wrist on one side and the transverse carpal ligament on the other. That is, he said, how the nerve is naturally "packaged."

carpaltunnelinsert
The pain of carpal-tunnel syndrome is caused by an inflamed median nerve.

But some of the hand and arm motions required of poultry and meat workers, if they're repeated enough times, cause inflammation of the nerve. The resulting severe pain can be relieved by cutting through the ligament to loosen the "packaging," but the wrist remains weak. For decades, Dr. Muhanna has been slitting the transverse carpal ligaments of poultry workers, as well as performing surgery to relieve the misery associated with other of their work-related conditions, such as lumbar stenosis and disk disease.

I asked Dr. Muhanna to help me interpret a figure I had seen -- a claim that there is a recorded 15 percent incidence rate for repetitive motion injuries in the poultry industry. When he reacted with sharp disbelief, I thought he was going to say the figure is exaggerated.

Instead, he said, "Look, if you work at hanging and cutting chickens long enough, you will inevitably get carpal-tunnel." And other repetitive motions, like squatting, will always create health problems if done constantly, he says.

If Dr. Muhanna is right, many workers either have unreported -- and probably untreated -- injuries or they haven't stayed on the job long enough to succumb. (The industry has a notoriously high turnover rate.)


Digg!

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kan.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Living creatures are not commodities!
Posted by: levinson.eric on Jan 3, 2006 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations treat animals, and their human employees, as commodities! They are nothing but dollar signs.

It is up to us as consumers to stop supporting these irresponsible corporations and focus our buying power towards local farms and companies that employ responsible policies towards workers, the environment, and their customers!

As we saw with Big Tobacco, these corporations are only concerned with increasing their profits, even if that means lying to and poisoning consumers, mistreating employees, and destroying the environment.

http://goveg.com/environment
http://notmilk.com
http://walmartwatch.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the answer is simple....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 3, 2006 7:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All we need to do is---- stop eating meat.

Stop supporting industries that exploit animals or the environment OR workers. Why is it so hard for people to see that one leads to the other?

We all need to just start doing the right thing. That means, where we shop, and what we buy. Do what you can.

Many of us live in places with limited choices. But we can all stop eating meat. PETA has a great getting started packet you can order free on their site. Also check out madcowboy.com
This is an ex-cattleman insider who tells the truth about the meat industry.

This issue is not only about domestic animals and workers. Wild Horses and other wild animals are being eliminated from our public lands- to fill the land with cattle.
This affects our public owned lands, our water, our entire environment. Eating meat is not good for our lands, our health OR our economy.

We need to destroy the entire domestic meat industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the answer is simple.... Posted by: TomCampitelli
» RE: the answer is simple.... Posted by: WitchyNy
The Answer Is NOT Simple !
Posted by: kww355 on Jan 3, 2006 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Going veg would help the workers in this industry but what about all the other jobs at risk for repetative motion injuries? Although these stories are horrific, they are repeated to a greater or lesser extent in countless occupations all over this country.

I worked for the telephone company for 30 years. Many of my co-workers and I got RMI from working on switchboards all day, and later from being on computers all day. We had a union and the company still stonewalled us. I know a woman who was forced by the company to go to a doctor of their choosing for carpal tunnel surgery. It failed-on both wrists. She had to resign. Both her wrists are limp and she can't even feed herself.

The only viable answer in this case is to pass laws with some teeth in them( for OSHA and for ALL businesses), to rigorously enforce them and protect any whistleblowers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Answer Is NOT Simple ! Posted by: WitchyNy
Meat industry workers
Posted by: Tricia on Jan 3, 2006 10:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it surprising that companies that treat animals abominably also treat people the same way? Empathy works along a continuum, not as a dichotomy.
People (and institutions) that treat animals well, also treat people well. The opposite is also true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Violence begets violence
Posted by: veganoflight on Jan 4, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“[T]he costs of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep and fish to feed our growing population…include hugely inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock feces, rising rates of heart disease and other degenerative illnesses, and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet’s life depends.”
— TIME. Visions of the 21st Century, “Will We Still Eat Meat?”
http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/health/meat.html


The meat/poultry/dairy industry treats their workers, the animals, the earth, and the people who consume meat with varying degrees of violence. Meat is an extremely violent product for our spiritual and biological hearts.

I encourage any one who feels guilty, disgusted, or alarmed seeing slaughterhouse footage and/or photographs to listen to themselves and stop supporting the whole enchilada. The nastiness directed at the "veg" message is really the Higher Self battling out with the crystallized ego and fighting for survival to keep on eating something that is killing and harming not just animals, but the entire earth.

There's tons of research on the devastating effects of animal products on our health, destruction to our water and topsoil, the decimation of the Rainforest, the horrendous treatment of workers, and last, but not least, the cruel torture of factory farmed animals. Please Google it. Check out www.TryVeg.com.

Please read: The China Study & The World Peace Diet

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -- Tolstoy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» meat != slaughterhouses Posted by: Allison
» RE: meat != slaughterhouses Posted by: WitchyNy
Politics vs. Meat
Posted by: antiapathy on Jan 4, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How dare Alternet post an article based on the premise that people in enjoy eating meat! For shame! Who is this site for anyway? If you can't appease the anarcho-vegan crowd, then you have failed.

Seriously, we need to start reaching out beyond our normal constituency and show solidarity with blue collar workers who are being exploited in all industries, even those we do not believe in. Our economy offers few choices for under-educated people to make a halfway decent wage. As much as some of us do not like it, the meat industry isn't going to go away any time soon. If we can't protect the animals who die there, the least we can to is try to protect the people who work there. Then when we gain their trust, it might be easier to explain the connection between worker rights and animal rights. I think we should focus on small, incremental steps toward a better society. Unless the revolution is coming next week and I didn't get the memo...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics vs. Meat Posted by: WitchyNy
Meat is not the problem
Posted by: Robba29 on Jan 4, 2006 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand you veggies out there are getting your panties in a bunch about this, but there is nothing inherent in meat eating that lends itself to human rights violations (or animal rights). There are many organic, free range beef and poultry producers that follow humane practices of raising and slaughtering the animals. Pork production, though, is a different story--it is not very humane or environmentally sustainable in any form. Seriously, check out Prather Ranch in California or Rocky Farms. The exploitation of workers is due to a a capitalist system that values slave labor and has nothing to do with food choice. These workers are being exploited in so many other areas of the economy, yet for some reason this one brings out the "don't eat meat or you're supporting the exploitation" argument. Should we go naked since most of our clothes are produced in sweat shops? Should we not eat vegetables since most farm workers are similarly exploited? No, we shouldn't--especially, since most of us here are conscientious consumers, when there are alternatives to the big industry products that support inhuman and inhumane practices. We buy organic vegetables, we buy No Sweat apparel (advertised here!), and likewise should use our purchasing power to buy free range, locally owned, organic meats. Do your research before spouting off your dogma. That type of "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality is the same as the religious right and their fowl (hehehe) form of religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: badkitty53
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: levinson.eric
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: ravengrrrl
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: impolitedinnerguest
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: Robba29
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: Meat is not the problem Posted by: Robba29
Worker's Rights Have Always Been at the Bottom of the List
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 4, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When workers in the beginning of the last century got together to form unions and struck for better working conditions,the system answered by allowing industry to hire 'Strike Breakers'. Hired thugs to get the people back to work. When the workers fought back,the Govt in it's role of protecting American Intrests,armed the Police. Their primary marching orders were to kill organizers and mame striking workers. I know because my GrandPa was a union organizer.
When I entered the work force they had just created OSHA.
Another farce on the workers. I turned in several places for violations in safety and health,serious ones at that. While OSHA told me my complaint would be confidential,after their meeting with the plant heads,the OSHA folks did interviews with the workers. Strangely it was only the workers that made the complaint that were interviewed. Soon to be dismissed. Shameful treatment for folks that are the backbone of the American Economic Machine!!!
How fast they would come around if the work force did'nt show up. Some are foolish enough to think that the 'Fat Cats'
would'nt feel the pinch. Far from it!!! Their income is ten times the workers and they would be howling like a banshee
if no work was being done. The workers would get together like we always have and take care of eachother. That's how the 'pot luck' dinner got started. The rich have no conception of 'sharing' or of humane treatment of their work force.
That's why the work force has to empower itself by having a sit down strike. a sick out,a stick it to the boss day. One day
of absolutely nothing being done sends a strong message.
One that says'Your wealth is meaningless, Your power is only in your imagination,and you're nothing without US.
Protecting the workers IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVT. Since they're not doing it,it's OUR RESPONSIBILITY to STOP WORK and KICK THE GOVT OUT. P.O.T.= FREE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My anarcho-vegan panties
Posted by: Lizard on Jan 4, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you can't appease the anarcho-vegan crowd....

I understand you veggies out there are getting your panties in a bunch about this....

For the second week in a row I'm amazed at the contempt (and now sexism, too! a twofer!) with which the vegetarian posters on Alternet have been addressed by more than a few respondents. I'd venture to guess that the demographic of "conscientious people who are sincerely and passionately dedicated to ethical principles that may not be popular in the wider society" is fairly common among Alternet readers, but the veggies seem to be the ones taking the most abuse for it---even those who are nothing but respectful and reasoned in their contributions to the conversation.

Sorry, but you don't get to slam the religious right for its belittling, stereotyping rhetoric when you're basically speaking the same language.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My anarcho-vegan panties Posted by: Robba29
Vegetarians are always right...
Posted by: NYRugby on Jan 4, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone had to go and turn this into an argument in favour of vegetarianism, didn't they?

I've got news...it's not just the meat packaging industry that has deplorable standards, it's the farming and farm-related industries in general. How many immigrants/migrant workers do you think are mistreated picking fruits and vegetables in this country?

The argument that "not eating meat" is going to solve all of these problems is ludicrous...it's more like "stop eating anything", and that obviously isn't going to happen.

Be responsible in all the decisions you make, then things may improve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vegetarians are always right... Posted by: levinson.eric
kjc
Posted by: kjc on Jan 4, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So. This industry is killing animals that go into the plants. And it's killing the people that work in the plants. Has anyone checked the enviroment surrounding the plants? It's just a thought.
I've lived for 25+ years in a slaughterhouse town. The plant is south of the town. When the wind blows from the south through the town just imagine the lovely bouquet. By the way, I live in Kansas. The name comes from Kanza -it means southwind. On the average, Kansas has at least 4 weeks of over 100 degree temperature every summer.
But it's not really just the smell, is it? In order for something to smell, microbes of who knows what need to be floating around in the air, right? While ground water has been a part of local discussion at times, microns of fecal particals usually never get air-quality time; everyone knows it smells -moot point. I do speak to physicians in the area. The surprising amount of lung problems, ear, nose, throat, and eye problems and bacterial infections in this town is only a bit freightening. That never comes up in discussions either.
To me, the freakiest thing is that everyone in this town keeps insisting that the town would die without the plant. Without this plant, all other industry would fold. Everyone is convinced that no one would have any money to support the large amount of fast food restaurants there are here. But of course, there's always the Super Wal-Mart on the other side of town. Like the meat processing plant, they don't have a union either. And just like the slaughterhouse, if someone tried to get a union started there, they'd be fired. The troublemakers. At best, they would be shunned.
Yep. It takes a village.
-kjc
ps. I'm a vegetarian with a BFA in painting. Shunned isn't so bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: kjc Posted by: ravengrrrl
real struggles vs imaginary ones
Posted by: pomes on Jan 4, 2006 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it depressing that so many on this site care so little about the welfare of human workers that they equate their struggle with the "struggle" of animals in slaughterhouses. The humane treatment of animals destined for slaughter is a problem, but certainly nowhere near as important of a problem as how the humans who handle them are treated.

To equate violence against humans to violence against animals is an insultingly anti-human point of view in my mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you know what "animal rights" means?!
Posted by: impolitedinnerguest on Jan 4, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"... but there is nothing inherent in meat eating that lends itself to human rights violations (or animal rights)."

Haha, yeah, sure, killing the animals for your own selfish eating preferences (rather than eating easily-available plant foods) doesn't violate animal rights at all! Even if you ate meat because you were starving, killing an animal takes away its (dare I say God-given?) right to live; in doing so, you assert your dominance and "superiority." Animal rights=animals are entitled to existence free from unnecessary suffering. (in a nutshell)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aiming for their heads
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 4, 2006 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How dare Alternet post an article based on the premise that people in enjoy eating meat!"

Was that the premise on which this article was based? Are we reading the same thing?

The same post that began like that, and with further nastiness, went on to advocate showing solidarity. Go figure.

You think the veggies are tedious - think how tedious it is to have to listen to meat eaters parade their sense of guilt all the time, doing things like completely misinterpreting the basis and premise of an entire article or twisting it for the sake of some need to attack veggies.

If you eat meat and you don't think that's the issue here, as I don't, then why can't you drop it?

Because I read an article about labor exploitation and human suffering, and I feel for that. I feel outrage, compassion, the whole works.

This has very little to do with meat eating or not (though if it were about some other unnecessary industry, like say, soft-drinks or certain jewels or nuclear weapons, we might see that as one thing that would help).

Upton Sinclair said when The Jungle ended up reforming meatpacking laws, "I aimed for their heads, and hit their stomachs." He'd intended to talk about the conditions of labor, but, having chosen something that ended up on people's dinner tables, everyone overlooked the labor issues.

In this case as well, the issue, as kww pointed out, reaches well beyond the specific industry. It's an erosion of worker protections that really took off with the Reagan administration (which the current one is as well).

I definitely favor my species and I agree that going veg isn't the solution. This is an issue of worker's rights.

That said, I don't know that we should fail to consider the some possible link in this industry, something military trainers are well aware of (here's one recent example). Maybe if we treated livestock a lot better, we'd tend to treat people better as well. Then again, there's not much proof of that, is there?

Anyway, the veggie discussion was played out extensively among Alternet readers here. Not sure there's much to be gained by revisiting it quite yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just want to clarify Posted by: Robba29
Plants don't fight back and cultured meat...
Posted by: veganoflight on Jan 4, 2006 4:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate slave mentality is prevalent in a lot of industries. Workers are treated like shit, and poverty, as Gandhi stated, is the worst form of violence. It takes time to become more aware of these horrors and make modifications in our lifestyles so that we can reduce suffering as much as possible. Sweat shop free apparel, locally grown organic, and so on...

Veggies, no matter what the source, however, is a dramatically less violent product for the workers since the product they are processing doesn't fight back. There's less dangerous equipment and the stench is non-existent. Please read the Sierra Club report on factory farming. Read Gail. A Eisnitz's book "Slaughterhouse" for a thorough investigation of the treatment of workers and animals in the factory meat industry.

Going veg dramatically reduces a huge environmental footprint with many added benefits personally and spiritually. (And sticking it to the man.)

One thing to note: Don't presume to know as much about meat as a vegan does. Even organic meat is an unsustainable protein source for the mass population. It's not a solution at all. It's better though.

The best meat to support is not organic, family farmed meat, it's cultured meat. That's meat grown in a lab, free of antibiotics, death, topsoil destruction, water pollution, energy waste, worker abuse, and the list goes on:

http://www.new-harvest.org/default.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No-sh*t-aterianinism - do I have any converts?
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 4, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do think there's something slightly amiss about PETA video on factory farming making no mention of the workers except to show their cruelty. You'd think they could've shoehorned in at least one sentence about the workers going through a lot of suffering as well, getting very low pay and being exploited brutally themselves.


No one turns the discussion any way unless you let it. Every so often a couple posts pop up saying the real problem is overpopulation (whatever the issue happens to be). Because it's nonsense, it's mostly ignored.

Supposing some scientologists popped up saying it was all about Thetans, would anyone need to angrily correct them?

That's why I think guilt drives a lot of this need to parade the rationalizations. (For particularly amusing example, note under the meat-veggie discussion the post titled I DON'T CARE! - which you would think would take a sentence or two at most, but the guy goes on to make a healthy statement, and then goes berserk arguing the replies, giving unintended irony to his title.)

I also believe that if anyone sits down and really looks at the arguments for going veggie, from the ethical to the humanitarian to the environmental to the personal health issues, there's just no contest. But, well, that's already been discussed at length just recently.



There are certainly many native people who are vegan. Assuming we're talking about native to North America, in the past there often wasn't the choice, as with much of the world. I'd say that in most places people tended more to supplement their diet with meat than to subsist on it, but that's really a discussion for another time and place. (We can also observe that Masai culture has tended to value the cattle a lot more alive, using blood and milk of the living cattle, slaughtering rarely.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No-sh*t-aterianinism - do I have any converts?
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 4, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under the circumstances, respecting the spirit of the animal might have been the best people could do. Today, we're lucky enough to be able to do better. Were it a question of survival, I'll take your survival over the chicken's (but hope you'll be decent to the chicken... well, as decent as possible given that you're going to eat the poor thing).

But that - we are so lucky - is not a question we face. It's not a question of our survival. (It's a question, really, of nothing more than a flavor in our dinner recipes.) And, to me, respect of life is best expressed by not taking it.


And, of course, bringing it back, I'd like to see respect for life by all of us getting the most out of it, not condemned to body and spirit breaking work, the sort I've done, the sort the article does a good job of exposing.

I hope the meat industry can be pressured into more humane practices, towards all creatures. If you read Fast Food Nation, you might remember that the workers prefer the days when the beef is going to Europe, the reason being that since the standards are higher - the EU doesn't allow fecal matter in the food - the line has to run slower.

Believe me, I'd like to see all slaughtering of animals stop, the entire livestock industry cease, no matter how "mindful" or whatever other mask someone wants to put on it.

But, until that day comes, maybe we could at least agree to stop allowing fecal matter in the food? Might be a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Veggie Strikes Back
Posted by: antiapathy on Jan 4, 2006 7:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't mean to offend any vegans out there with my sarcasm. Personally, I think vegans have a lot more strength of conviction than most people, myself included. I tried la vida veggie for several months, but in the end I caved and went back to the dark side. I just couldn't live without cheese. And cheese was the gateway drug to cheeseburgers.

But the point of my comment was this: An article was written. The article was clearly about abuse and exploitation of workers. The industry of the workers just happened to be meatpacking. It could have easily been about migrant tomato-pickers, or retail store clerks, or any of the hundreds of other benign industries where workers are exploited. But this particular author happens to be more intimate with the dangers of the slaughterhouse.

After reading this fine piece of journalism I continued on to read some of the reader comments. I was hoping for some insight into how we, as a community of progressive, enterprising, caring individuals, could come together to fight the injustices outlined in the article.

Instead, four of the first five comments consisted of people pushing their ideology into the argument. I agree with most of their points and I don't assume to know more than anybody (except perhaps our president), but focusing the argument on the moral superiority of veganism only distracts us from the point of the article; that labor regulations are being dismantled in the name of corporate profits.

If we want to build a movement to end social injustice, we need to recruit allies. If people are attacked for having the audacity to eat meat, or the conviction not to, then they will be driven away from participating in the movement. I'm not saying that the vegan debate isn't one that we should be having, on the contrary, it is an important issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But to hold that debate here only undermines the cause of solidarity for the labor movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AMEN!!! Posted by: Robba29
» Agreed, so... Posted by: Kneel
The answer is simple...STOP EATING MEAT...An answer to you all
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 4, 2006 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOW!
I wanted to answer each of your letters to me...but there were so many that I gave up....

Of all the things I have been accused of in my life....
...."A Vegetarian"- has always started the most fights.
Let me try to answer all your letters generally.

My father was a bus-driver. My grandfather was a coal-miner union organizer. I am the first in my family to get a college degree. I think it is insulting to suggest that working class people do not understand the issues involved in exploiting animals. In fact, I think they understand more than most middle class people. They just don't always have the freedom of choice that money buys.

It is not a question of who is more important...Humans or Animals. It is a question of...are we truly progressives or not?
What is the point in eating meat if we do not have to?
It is better for our lands, our ecomomy and our health not to eat meat.

Books
Food First..economics and food
Mad Cowboy...politics and food
Welfare Ranching....politics and cattle ranching


This is not about Religion..this is about our environment and politics. Worker rights and meat eating ARE connected.

Wild Horses, DID in fact originate in North America. They have a right to be here. They are NOT destructive to our lands, or to other native species. This is BLM lies, who support the rich cattle ranchers in stealing our public lands. I live in rural high desert Nevada.
(Some of the most vocal wild horse activists are biologists and wildlife experts) Do some research.

There is now less than one wild horse for every one hundred and fifty head of cattle on OUR public owned lands.
This is not about saving "fluffy animals"..this is about saving our lands and our ecosystem..from greedly rich ranchers and developers.
There are many books and wesites on this issue. Just google wild horses or wild horse issues. also www.madcowboy.com

While I am the first to support worker rights...if we don't do something about the distruction and exploitation of our ecosystem (which includes factory farming and ranching) and soon...there will not be anything left to fight over.

Our land, our air, our water, our animals, our rights as workers. It is all the same fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still, there could be some relevance.
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 5, 2006 3:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To see whether there's some validity to the animal cruelty/people cruelty argument, we could look at whether this industry is particularly bad.

And... survey shows... it is! (Dingdingding. Give us a kiss, dawlin.)

Many would say it's, basically, at the very bottom. (Being a retail clerk is dehumanizing as well, but I'm a lot less likely to lose an arm. If I do escape, I'll likely escape with my body still functioning reasonably well.)

That suggests a connection. But it doesn't actually prove anything, and personally I'm reluctant to make the assumption.

It's easy to wonder, though, if, in trying to ruthlessly eke out more profit per animal unit, the profiteers manage to suddenly change their thinking when the animals involved happen to be bipeds with opposable thumbs.

We're also (brace yourself) talking about what is, in fact, a luxury industry (boom, boom, go the fireworks). So in this particular case, forgoing the particular luxury would have some benefit.

It's hard for many of us to separate out the veggie arguments from the progressive ones, as they seem so inextricably intertwined. Kinder, gentler - check. Less environmental impact - check. Less consumption - check. Better quality of life - check. And so on and so on. Until we're looking at a better world.

It seems very clear to us. Some of us even think that it's part of the progressive argument, that it's part of looking at the world more as we could, and should. Exploiting animals may or may not lead to exploiting people, but not exploiting animals is more likely to lead to not exploting people. (E.g., the horror we feel at someone hearing about someone being treated worse than a dog, cow, whatever. If we raise the standards for the dog, cow, whatever, then it's harder to treat people worse than that.)

And we keep bringing it up because it's a little difficult - given that our brains are so malnourished from a lack of animal oils and vitamin B-12 - for us to see why it isn't so clear to others.

So, bear with us.



If people seem to go off topic, there's no need to follow them. I think the point about building solidarity is good. Just be aware that you may be talking to blue-collar people. Even vegan ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, that's meant to be part two of my reply to Veggie Strikes Back
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 5, 2006 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
Refering to my post just above. I thought I was putting it under Veggie Strikes Back. They don't let you change it afterwards. Oh, well.

Liked your comments, Witch. (Are you really a witch?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tragedy of the Barry Commoner... yes, still going
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 10, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have a look at Commoner's contemporary take on the same country that so freaked out Ehrlich:

In most [industrialized nations], the birthrate does not begin to fall appreciably until the death rate is reduced below about 20/1000. However, then the drop in birthrate is rapid. A similar transition also appears to be under way in countries like India. Thus in the mid-nineteenth century, India had equally high birth and death rates (about 50/1000) and the population was in approximate balance. Then, as living standards improved, the death rate dropped to its present level of about 15/1000 and the birthrate dropped, at first slowly and recently more rapidly, to its present level of 42/1000. India is at a critical point; now that death rate has reached the turning point of about 20/1000, we can expect the birthrate to fall rapidly - provided that the death rate is further reduced by improved living conditions.

That's work that others can build on, constructively (instead of just shouting to eliminate basic human rights and dignity and send in the thugs).

And they have: Since then others have gone on to show additional factors that can reduce fertility rates, such as empowerment of women, education, family planning, and so on. All which, happily, are positive. Make the world a better place and... you'll make the world a better place.

So, if you think population growth is a problem, you can deal with that by giving people, especially poor people, better lives. Instead of a police organization that'll bash down pregnant women's doors down and beat the babies out of their stomachs (not far from what Ehrlich et al. want to happen - even contraceptive chemicals in the food supply is dismissed only because, though desirable, it's impractical), you can take those resources and use them for... education, health care, workplace safety, etc.

Hardin says, "In general, economic analysis is poorly fitted to deal with the future."

He's right.

But that doesn't somehow mean his theories are any better fitted, and they, demonstrably, are not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another mistaken placement
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 10, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The above, two, is part of something else. Meant to be posted as a reply (or part of a chain of replies.)

Kindly disregard.

Alternet folks, clean it up if you wanna (please).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]