The cruelty that animals face during and before being processed through slaughterhouses is an issue that most people are aware of, yet are unfortunately apathetic towards. In return for the generally cheap price and wide availability of common meat selections, animals are subjected to inhumane conditions for maximum profitability. After thoroughly researching the conditions animals are put through and the circumstances around their treatment I’ve concluded that the current practices upheld by slaughterhouses are detrimental not only to the animals on ethical grounds but also detrimental to the health of consumers and the workers/communities surrounding these institutions as well. This leads me to believe that society can marginally benefit from implementing stricter laws and regulations pertaining to the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses.
To better understand the correlation between how animals are treated at slaughterhouses and the negative effects this treatment carries towards consumers and the communities surrounding slaughterhouses, it’s important to have a firm understanding of what these animals are subjected to in the first place. In a petition to the USDA by the Animal Welfare Institute, several documented cases of abuse and mishandling of poultry are pointed out in hopes of convincing the USDA to implement regulations towards slaughterhouse practices. One of these cases involved another organization, Mercy for Animals, conducting an undercover investigation at House of Raeford slaughter establishments which are based in Raeford, NC. The undercover investigator that worked in the liver packing area of the establishment reported “Turkeys and chickens being thrown across the facility and into the air…Workers ripping the heads off live turkeys…Birds being crushed to death under the wheels of trucks…etc.” (Mercy for Animals). A separate undercover investigator covered by The New York Times described “Hundreds of acts of cruelty, including workers tearing beaks off, ripping a bird’s head off to write graffiti in blood, spitting tobacco juice into bird’s mouth, plucking feathers…etc.” (Donald). Both of these undercover investigations reveal grizzly and horrific details behind the treatment of animals at slaughterhouse facilities and regrettably only show a small scope of the abuse prevalent in the meat industry. Both investigations were solely focused on the poultry industry yet there are countless other documented cases of the same level of abuse and misconduct occurring in other fields within the industry.
These inhumane practices have a direct correlation with the quality of meat provided to consumers as most cases of mishandling result in adulterated animal products. Adulterated animal products can be defined as being inferior either through the addition of foreign substances such as filth or through mishandling that can result in contamination. An example would be how some slaughterhouse facilities keep too many animals confined within a single space causing animals to either suffocate and die thus contaminating the animals around them or for them to wallow in their own excrement which also causes contamination. These adulterated products pose a significant risk to consumer’s health if eaten and the lack of proper regulation in the meat industry only increases the likelihood that such adulterated products enter the market.
It’s not just the consumers who are affected by current slaughterhouse practices but the employees at these facilities and the communities around them as well. These employees not only face high threats of physical harm but are also forced to experience large amounts of death and violence on a daily basis. In an academic journal written by Jennifer Dillard, she points out how a few select companies control most of the meat industry and how workers at slaughterhouse facilities rarely reap the success that these companies have accomplished. (Dillard) In another quote from the academic journal, Dillard writes how “The huge demand for meat has encouraged slaughterhouses to increase the pace of the slaughter.” And how this increase in pace has resulted in a twenty-five percent increase in workplace injuries at slaughterhouses. (Dillard) As the meat industry currently stands, animals are reduced from living, breathing entities to mere “products” in the eyes of slaughterhouses and the actual act of killing and dismembering them are segmented and divided throughout the workers to make the act more of a medial task to help workers distance themselves from the reality of their actions. This mentality which is propagated by the meat industry gives rise to situations where workers mishandle or mistreat animals due to them no longer considering the animals as living things but instead of just a monogamous part of their workday. A quote that Jacques includes from a worker who worked in the liver-packing room of a beef slaughterhouse gives a startling example of the kind of psychological separation workers faces. A portion of it reads “By the end of the day, by liver number 2,394 or foot number 9,578, it hardly matters what is being cut, shorn, sliced, shredded, hung, or washed: all that matters is that the day is once again, finally coming to a close.” (Jacques).
In an academic journal written by Jessica Racine Jacques, she argues that there’s a connection between humans killing nonhuman animals and humans enacting violence on other humans. Through her research, she noted that rural communities with slaughterhouses have a higher number of violent crime rates than communities without. She cites another researcher, Dillard, who argues that people have the natural tendency to avoid directly killing animals and that the meat industry’s forcing of its workers to go against that natural tendency causes adverse psychological effects that causes them to treat animals with cruelty. Dillard also argued that this lack of empathy is transferred to worker’s lives outside of the slaughterhouses (Dillard). The disconnect that workers experience towards the animals they slaughter can be transferred over to their own families causing workers to have a higher chance of committing domestic violence against their spouses and children. This research led Jacques to hypothesize that the victimization of animals correlates with the victimization of other less powerful entities such as women and children.
At the core of the issues plaguing slaughterhouses is a lack of proper government oversight. The USDA is supposed to be the federal agency that oversees the meat industry but have shown clear signs that they have been failing in that task for several years. The Hallmark Meat Packing case is a perfect example of the USDA’s shortcomings. The Hallmark Meat Packing company was exposed in 2008 with a series of shocking videos and images that depicted cows being brutally tortured and abused by the hands of slaughterhouse workers. The footage caused a nationwide meat recall and brought large-scale scrutiny onto the meat industry by politicians and the public alike. In a case study published by the Humane Society of the United States, it’s pointed out that the Hallmark Meat Packing company was the second largest supplier of beef for the USDA’s Commodity Procurement branch who in turn supplied meat to the National School Lunch program, the elderly, and needy families as well. The USDA also designated the company as “Supplier of the Year” in 2004-2005. (Perry) All this suggests that if the USDA failed to give proper oversight to a slaughterhouse that’s crucial to them, then it’s very unlikely that they are able to give adequate oversight towards the rest of the industry. Specifically, it’s the USDA’s lack of ability to punish and deter individuals and companies who abuse animals that result in the continuance of animal abuse. The USDA is currently restricted to only being able to give written violations and temporarily shut down slaughterhouses, both of which are not long-term solutions nor actually target those responsible themselves or remove them from the workplace.
While the current nature around slaughterhouse institutions are bleak, there are several immediate and tangible solutions that can be put in place to improve things for the animals, workers, and communities around them. At the top of these solutions is the federal government giving more power to the USDA to punish offenders and uphold it’s set standards. This might include them gaining the ability to fine companies, have employees fired, shut down establishments altogether, or seek legal punishments for those who are complicit in the harm of animals. Other solutions might include putting mandatory limits on the pace of work in slaughterhouses to reduce the stress and pressure that workers face. The reduced pace would likely lower the psychological distancing that workers put themselves through to get through the work day and would reduce the chances of them mistreating and abusing the animals they work with. The reduced psychological distancing would also improve worker’s relationships at home and in their communities likely reducing crime rates around towns with slaughterhouses as well.
These changes can be put into motion by increasing public scrutiny of the meat industry and litigating for public officials to take action. Already, there’s been a trend in the United States with people being more conscious of where their animal products have come from. The rise in products such as “cage-free” eggs and the banning of formerly used slaughterhouse instruments like gestation crates in many states is a sign of that. As a population, we need to be more vigilant in creating change in the industry to improve the lives of the animals and ourselves.