So Have Another Piece!

Information about animal rescue and adoption. Also, discussions and information concerning animal rights.

Moderators: bingolong, Jennifer, tamra

Forum rules
Spam is not allowed. All spammers will be blocked and reported to appropriate agencies.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jennifer
White Honkey Bitch In Charge
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:16 pm
Contact:

So Have Another Piece!

Post by Jennifer »

Subject: DawnWatch: New York Times editorial on slaughterhouses (cf Washington Post's 'They Die Piece by Piece') 2/06/05
Date: 2/6/2005, 7:29 PM
From: DawnWatch




The Sunday, February 6, New York Times has an editorial headed, "What Meat Means." It follows a January 25 article, headed "Human Rights Group Criticizes Meat Packing Industry." (You can read an abstract of the original article, or purchase it, on line at: http://tinyurl.com/4bxlh)

Today's (Feb 6) editorial opens:
"Most Americans do not want to know how the meat they eat is produced, if only so they can continue to eat it. Nearly every aspect of meat production in America is disturbing, from the way animals are raised, to inadequate inspection of the final product. When it comes to what happens in the slaughterhouse, most of us mentally avert our eyes. Yet in the past decade, the handling of livestock on their way to the killing floor has actually been one of the parts of the business that has improved most significantly. What is most alarming at the slaughterhouse is not what happens to the animals - they have already met their fate. It is what happens to the humans who work there."

"A large slaughterhouse is the truly industrial end of industrial farming. It is a factory for disassembly. Its high line speeds place enormous pressure on the workers hired to take apart the carcasses coming down the line. And because the basic job of the line is cutting flesh - hard, manual labor - the dangers are very high for meat workers, whose flesh is every bit as vulnerable as that of the pork or beef or chicken passing by.

The editorial discusses the dangers to workers, who tend to be immigrants, and who receive little or no compensation for injuries. It suggests that state and federal laws must be enforced to protect them, and comments:
"Unfortunately, those laws at present are too weak and too riddled with loopholes to provide the regulations needed to increase worker safety and improve workers' rights. A systematic regulatory look at the meat industry, with an eye to toughening standards, is desperately needed."

You can read the whole editorial on line at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun2.html OR http://tinyurl.com/6lk6w

It is terrific to see slaughterhouses come under scrutiny. But it is a shame to see the suffering of animals written off with the suggestion that things have improved significantly for them, and with the comment that the animals are already dead during the time that workers are most likely to be hurt. Though there have been improvements in the last few years, the editorial imparts a sense of comfort about animal treatment based on false information. In 2001, the Washington Post ran a front page story headed, "They die piece by piece." (By Joby Warrick, April 10) that discussed conditions in the late nineties, and the extent of the improvements. I will share a little of the article as a contrast to today's New York Times piece.

The Post article describes animals still mooing and looking around as they make their way down the slaughter line. It tells us:

"Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be 'stunned' -- rendered insensible to pain -- with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works."

It tells us that enforcement can be lax: "For example, the government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another case, agency supervisors failed to take action on multiple complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems to the Humane Society."

The technician is quoted:
"I complained to everyone -- I said, 'Look, they're skinning live cows in there.' Always it was the same answer: 'We know it's true. But there's nothing we can do about it.' "

The article describes cows being hung on hooks while conscious, and the horrifying treatment of pigs:
"Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the water."

And it describes undercover video taken at the IBP slaughterhouse in which, "Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant's overhead chain, twist and arch their backs as though trying to right themselves. Close-ups show blinking reflexes, an unmistakable sign of a conscious brain, according to guidelines approved by the American Meat Institute."

This is what that article tells us about the improvements:

In 1996-97, "One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as 'captive-bolt' guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of 'acceptable' or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time."
Then, "Based on the data collected by McDonald's auditors, the portion of beef plants scoring 'acceptable' or better climbed to 90 percent in 1999. Some workers and inspectors are skeptical of the McDonald's numbers, and Grandin said the industry's performance dropped slightly last year after auditors stopped giving notice of some inspections."

So according to the 2001 Washington Post article, the significant improvements (noted in the current New York Times editorial) do not pertain to at least ten percent of plants, and it is considered "acceptable," at the other 90%, for five percent of animals to be hung and sliced up without being stunned. Five percent is many thousands of animals every day -- one in twenty pieces of meat consumed in this country.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two pieces is that the Washington Post article makes the connection the New York Times editorial practically negates:
"When that happens, it's not only animals that suffer. Industry trade groups acknowledge that improperly stunned animals contribute to worker injuries in an industry that already has the nation's highest rate of job-related injuries and illnesses -- about 27 percent a year. At some plants, 'dead' animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and teeth that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks."

You can read the full 2001 Washington Post article on line at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true OR http://tinyurl.com/5xq

The New York Times editorial, while focusing on human suffering, provides an opportunity for those of us committed to making sure that the suffering of other species is not ignored. We can detail "the way animals are raised," mentioned briefly in the piece (see http://www.FactoryFarming.com for details on that issue) or we can draw the link between worker injuries and horrendous cruelty to animals. And we can praise plant-based diets. When writing, it is useful to keep in mind that studies have shown that newspapers, including the prestigious New York Times, are far more likely to publish letters that praise rather than criticize their content. Therefore it is more useful to praise today's editorial, making gentle corrections, than to slam it.

The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to www.DawnWatch.com/unsubscribe.php. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)



--
User avatar
Jennifer
White Honkey Bitch In Charge
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:16 pm
Contact:

Re: So Have Another Piece!

Post by Jennifer »

Another reason why meat truly stinks!!!
:X
User avatar
blakkat31
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: So Have Another Piece!

Post by blakkat31 »

Jennifer,
AMEN!
In the words of Paul McCartney:
"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian."
Post Reply