In Meat Wagon, we round up the latest outrages from the meat and livestock industries.
Remember those "downer" cows that got forced through the kill line and into the food supply in California's Westland/Hallmark beef-packing plant -- the ones caught on tape by the Humane Society of the United States?
Rest assured, friends -- that was an isolated incident. Thus USDA assures us in a recent interview. Only ... not so much. For those who want to believe that downers don't make it into the meat supply, this was a rough week.
First, Westland/Hallmark CEO Steve Mendell had to reverse earlier assurances that downers "were not slaughtered, ground or sold." Forced to watch the Humane Society video amid the glare of a congressional hearing, Mendell admitted that "obviously my system broke down."
Asked if he himself would knowingly eat meat from the sort of sick, tortured cow he had just seen enter the food supply, the executive abjectly muttered, "no." Millions of children weren't given that choice, of course; Westland/Hallmark had been a major supplier to the National School Lunch Program.
Then we get this report from the Southern California-based Press Enterprise detailing the national program for keeping the meat supply free of mad cow disease. Let's just say the safeguards are about as lame as some of those cows caught on the Humane Society tape.
The Press Enterprise points to two major flaws in food-safety regulations related to mad cow.
First, in 1997, the FDA banned the use of cow parts in cow feed, after mad cow had been decisively linked to bovine cannibalism. But like the Westland/Hallmark CEO's original denials, the ban contains some important holes.
To wit:
Blood from cattle still can be mixed into cattle feed. That's a concern because blood can carry the infectious BSE agent. Chicken coop floor waste, such as feces and feathers, can still be fed to cattle. That's a concern because chicken feed can legally contain bovine meat and bone meal. Waste food from restaurants still can be fed to cattle. That's a concern because of the potential for, say, leftover steak to be incorporated into cattle feed.
Then we get this:
In January 2004, Tommy Thompson, then U.S. health and human services secretary, announced that the Food and Drug Administration intended to close those loopholes. It never happened.
Yikes. So cows are still eating cows. But at least we're testing to make sure that cows led to slaughter aren't infected with mad cow, right? Well, not really:
Today, about 40,000 -- or 0.1 percent -- of the 37 million cows slaughtered each year are tested, a number that consumer groups say is too low, especially when compared to testing programs in other countries.
It gets worse. The fraction of cows that do get tested aren't chosen at random; beef packers volunteer animals for testing. The FDA vigorously defends its program; devastatingly, even the USDA thinks it's a pile of, well, B.S. Here's the Press Enterprise again:
A 2006 USDA Inspector General report noted that because the testing program was voluntary and not random, it could not be determined whether the government had tested a representative sample of the highest-risk cattle, such as non-ambulatory cattle and those showing signs of a central nervous disorder.
"Non-ambulatory cattle" ... right, downer cows. The kind that Westland/Hallmark was forcing into the food supply.
Don't have a (downer) cow, man; redux: Trouble in the School Lunch Progam
It came out a while back, but it richly deserves a place on the Meat Wagon: The Wall Street Journal ran a nice exposé of limp federal safety oversight of the National School Lunch Program, the main recipient of Westland/Hallmark's dodgy beef. The money quote:
In reports dating back to 2003, the USDA Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office cited the USDA's lunch-program administrators and inspectors for weak food-safety standards, poor safeguards against bacterial contamination, and choosing lunch-program vendors with known food-safety violations. Auditors singled out problems with controls over E. coli and salmonella contamination.
Props to my vegan peeps
I'm no vegan. I think animals have a vital place in any truly sustainable agriculture system, and I cannot fathom culinary culture without cheese, eggs, and -- yes -- meat.
But I agree that animal slaughter is morally troubling -- I would sooner submit myself to slaughter or the rigors of a CAFO than send my dog or two cats. I firmly believe that the suffering of animals involved in agriculture should be minimized. And their products -- from meat to cheese -- should be consumed only with great respect and moderation: reverence, even.
So, I've got nothing but love for vegans, who force us to think hard about our consumption of animals. And I'm proud to make common cause with them in the struggle against factory farming.
All of which is prelude to a salute to the "undercover vegan wired with a camera no bigger than a sugar cube [who] spent six weeks last fall working at a Southern California slaughterhouse" (The New York Times) -- the person who documented the Westland/Hallmark abuses.
The courageous herbivore even "brought sandwiches made with soy riblets and ate them in a dusty parking lot with the other workers" to fit in. Now that's heroic.
Meat is unmentionable
I have no idea what this means: a bunch of women competing on America's Next Top Model appeared on national TV, wearing undergarments made of raw meat -- and not much else. They did so at a butcher shop in Manhattan's meatpacking district -- which has become the sort of place where you're more likely to meet a model than a butcher.
Is it possible that such unexpected images of raw meat will make people think about how they're eating actual flesh? I fear that most people encounter meat these days as a little brown hockey puck in a bun. They forget that it's flesh and bone -- like us. Images of raw meat as couture might force them to think otherwise.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
javaearth Posted 10:42 am
14 Mar 2008
Week after week, you inform us about such sad cases, for that I thank you.
The sad part is there are probably more downers case every where today, and it seems like we are just waiting for another media exposure to animal cruelty.
At some point, our government needs to take accountability of its actions. And we as the people need to stand up and fight against big business's that feed us sick foods. We as a society need to use our money to chose better options.
But sadly we do not use the freedom we have, to fight for good human health and good animal kindness. Instead we continue to either live in denial or even defend the same notions that are killing us and thousands around the world.
Respectfully
Javaearth - aka The Happy Vegan!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:57 am
14 Mar 2008
And branch out my friend- animal products are a crutch for the chefs who don't know any better- the world of plant food is so much deeper and more satisfying than the salt and fat of animal products that basically anyone can make taste good. This is not meant as a disrespect, but as a mildly provocative suggestion for all those who somehow think that animal-free cuisine is missing something.
Thanks again....
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Green Baby Posted 1:40 pm
14 Mar 2008
At Green Baby Guide focuses on down-to-earth ways to save time, money and the planet with a baby in tow.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:54 pm
14 Mar 2008
Perhaps especially when it is a matter of how we treat captive populations of sentient beings, no matter the species or the circumstance, we need always to be caring and respectful.
1.
People may conduct themselves wickedly, and make wicked choices. But no one is inherently wicked. (So say I, a Platonizing Gnosticizing anti-hierarchical anti-biblical Catholic.) Everyone is natively good. No one is natively evil. Evil actions are the result of ignorance of the good, not of native evil.
In the stories of complex societies, it is occasionally necessary to hold a person in captivity. Hence, there is, sadly, a need for a dedicated "penal" ethics.
"Punishment" is a word that has no place in our ethics. There is no justification, ever, for inflicting suffering, out of vengeance, or out of cruelty, or out of neglect, or as an end in itself.
If we deem imprisonment to be an acceptable option, its aim must be education and rehabilitation, with the prospect of allowing the prisoner eventually some measure of participation in a peace-loving society. Usually, that will mean liberation, and full re-introduction into our own free society.
Confinement, as part of the education process, is already a great humiliation. Never should we add to a prisoner's hardship, by feeding the prisoner bad-tasting food, still less unhealthful food. In general, the circumstances of the prisoner's confinement should not be purposefully unpleasant.
2.
With animals whom we keep in confinement we have an entirely different set of relationships, and the ends of the captivity are quite different too. But there as well, we must treat the captives with respect and friendship, and do nothing to injure their health.
3.
At this stage of our moral evolution -- and arguably this can never be different -- , there is no class of sentient beings whom we love and care for more, and for whom we feel a greater responsibility to do so, than our children. And so, is it not bizarre, and contradictory, and horrifying, that in controlled environments, especially schools, we give our children all kinds of unhealthful things to eat and drink?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:02 pm
14 Mar 2008
Not inject them all with mad cow disease for research purposes? No, that would be cruel.
But let the experiments feeding diseased meat to school children continue, by all means!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
human power Posted 7:29 am
15 Mar 2008
Some fifteen years ago I was looking up a research article in a Pathology library when I stumbled upon a paper by an American pathologist who performed autopsies on scores of people who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. To his surprise, a great many of them did not have Alzheimer's, they had Creutzfesdt-Jacob disease, the human version of mad cow disease.
While the presence of C-J in many of our younger victims of dementia does not necessarily mean that they contracted it from our meat supply, I am at a loss to come up with any reasonable alternative explanation.
I'll eat any food that 1.) Is obtained in a reasonably humane fashion. 2.) Does not greatly harm our environment in its growth and harvest. 3.) Does not scare me. Meat fails on all three counts, which makes me a reluctant vegetarian.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:17 am
16 Mar 2008
The Manhattan Declaration
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:12 pm
16 Mar 2008
How many years do lions keep their food (prey) in confinement without any quality of life?
How long does a lion keep its pray in the same conditions of factory farming?
Do lions have the same vary of choices, like we "HUMANS" do?
When was the last time you saw a lion saying to himself "Oh, shall I have a nice elands, or a nice grilled veggie pizza"
See what I am saying buddy! I look forward to your responses.
Thanks
JavaEarth
Permalink
willa Posted 1:11 pm
16 Mar 2008
Come ON, people, the meat industry hasn't ever been humane. It wasn't humane in the days of the great cattle drives (would you want to be driven hundreds of miles with nothing to eat but what you could graze on if you stopped somewhere grassy for the night [if you were a grazing animal]?). It wasn't humane in the days of rail transport to the Chicago Stockyards. It wasn't humane back when your neighborhood butcher cut up your meat to order (small businesses have their virtues, but humane treatment of animals isn't really one of them), and it isn't humane now when those cuts are pre-wrapped in styrofoam and plastic wrap, even if there's an organic label stuck on.
All that said, small farmers are not necessarily kind to their animals either. Ask anyone who's gotten a horse from the Amish. Ask anyone who's rescued livestock from a hoarder who was supposedly a farmer or breeder. Ask anyone who's seen animals given as little shelter and healthcare and as low-quality feed as possible to achieve the desired weight or milk/egg production, The only solution is to know your producer personally, and even then...
I buy my eggs from Jane, the farmer down the road. Jane is a neat lady, and I like her a lot, but it turns out that when she and her husband went away over Christmas, it was too hard to find someone to care for the flock, so they sold them all at the livestock auction! Now, during those birds' useful lives with Jane, they had space aplenty, good food, etc, and were happy birds, but I bet they're either dead or living a much less cushy life now. I'll still buy eggs from Jane before I buy them from any commercial producer, even a Certified Humane one, but it isn't as if Jane, because she's such a nice lady and my neighbor and all, is offering those birds a happy, healthy, long life in return for their egg-laying services.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:21 am
17 Mar 2008
you argue perfectly (though we should have but little hope that that will impress John Bailo). We cannot involve ourselves in the usual violent relationships between predatory animals and their prey. Sometimes, naturalists grow attached -- not unnaturally! -- to the group of individual animals whom they have been observing, and will be drawn in to defend them against a threat from predators. But such intervention can hardly take place often, nor is it at all required by animal-rights ethics.
The crucial difference, between elands dying a painful and frightening death in the teeth and claws of lions, and farm animals raised by us in our meat industry and brought to cruel slaughter, is exactly what you say: we are not obliged to eat meat, and we can choose what kinds of things we eat.
Willa,
I like to support the merchants, farmers mostly, I expect, who set up tables and sell stuff at our local Farmers' Market. So, last Thursday, I bought a block of cheddar cheese, from a dairy farmer (or rather, I suspect, the farmer's NYC sales representative) in Lancaster County, PA.
But, Lancaster County is not only the locale of picturesque drives past Amish farms. It is also one of the country's leading centers of the horrendous puppy-mill industry.
Your mention of horses from there does not really surprise me, therefore.
I only hope that my purchase of this cheese did not support the abuse of dairy cows.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:40 am
17 Mar 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
willa Posted 1:37 pm
18 Mar 2008
For what it's worth, I think everything we consume causes suffering. Raising soybeans causes loss of biodiversity, pollution in the gulf of Mexico, etc, all things that hurt various animals.
I acknowledge that buying eggs and dairy causes even more suffering than that. Even if the dairy animals themselves aren't suffering, we know that their existence demands more crops, which cause more poisoning of more wild critters.
I also acknowledge that almost all farm animals suffer in some way at some time in their lives.
However, most of all I acknowledge one must make choices, and perfection isn't one of them. I can't make my consumption of resources come at no cost to any other living creature. So I do what I can. I use egg substitutes in baking, when there's no real advantage to using real eggs, but when it comes to eating breakfast, I find that I am a more effective environmentalist if I am not hungry and crabby from foregoing my eggs, or my cereal with real dairy milk.
There are many, many ways in which I could do a better job of living a sustainable life. I choose, as first lines of attack, those changes I can make without becoming a cranky, miserable person. For some people, that means eating a steak every now and then rather than miserably craving it all the time. For me it means not being vegan.
I think there's a big difference between that approach and "Well, lions tear their terrified, conscious prey apart, so it's fine for us to slaughter and eat downer cows." It isn't a case of feeling that any amount of suffering, no matter how great, is an acceptable externality; it's a case of knowing suffering is an externality no matter what, and trying to minimize it while staying sane.
Permalink