Your browser does not support modern web standards implemented on our site
Therefore the page you accessed might not appear as it should.
See www.webstandards.org/upgrade for more information.

Whatcom Watch Bird Logo


Past Issues


Whatcom Watch Online
Slaughtering Sacred Cows


September 2012

Cover Story

Slaughtering Sacred Cows

by Wendy Harris

Wendy Harris is a retired citizen who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

Whatcom County is a farm county. Our primary crop is dairy, which accounts for almost 60 percent of agricultural activity. Cattle and poultry account for another 10 percent of agricultural production. Whatcom residents from all ends of the political spectrum are united in their desire to protect and preserve agricultural land. Outright criticism of the agricultural community is rare. In a very real sense, cows are king.

It is not surprising, therefore, that a proposal being forwarded to the Whatcom County Council from the Planning Commission received little comment or objection. On future trips to the rural county, do not be surprised if you see, interspersed between the scenic farms and fields, slaughterhouses.

The Planning Commission is recommending that slaughterhouses, unlimited in size or operations, be permitted in the agricultural zone. There are few restrictions on this proposal. A conditional use permit is required (and easily obtained) for operations with more than 20 employees. There is a 50-foot road set-back that be can waived under administrative discretion and a separation from residences of 150 to 300 feet.

The proposal has the general support of the agricultural community. The county lacks conveniently located slaughterhouses, which is a problem for small farmers throughout Western Washington. Local slaughterhouses make it easier and more cost effective for farmers to get their products to the market and allow some farmers to get involved more directly in slaughter operations. But slaughterhouses are associated with externalized environmental and social costs paid by the larger community. In this case, what is good for the farmer is not good for the county.

Slaughterhouses Perpetuate Inhumane Treatment of Animals

Ten billion animals are slaughtered annually in the United States. A high percentage of the animals killed at slaughterhouses suffer physical and emotional abuse before they are killed. Inhumane treatment of animals is a documented and increasingly common part of industrial slaughter. This makes a proposal to permit slaughterhouses in Whatcom County’s agricultural zones a subject of legitimate ethical concern.

In 2004, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HSA), which requires that farm animals be insensible to pain before they’re shackled and killed. The GAO found violations resulting in inhumane treatment at nearly a third of all U.S. slaughter plants.1 (Other organizations believe this is actually as high as two-thirds.) A follow-up 2010 GAO review, supported by congressional testimony, indicated that these problems were continuing unabated and requested better enforcement. 2

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is responsible for enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act, is clearly doing an inadequate job. The FSIS is severely understaffed. As documented by the GAO, when inspections are made, violations of the HSA that warrant plant closure are allowed to continue without any repercussion. The violations include dragging sick and/or disabled animals, “excessive” beating, prodding and anal electrocution, improper stunning and the shackling and processing of conscious animals.

The fate of birds — which the USDA exempts from the HSA — is even worse, although they compose 95 percent of all slaughtered animals. Each year, 9 billion birds are shackled upside down, paralyzed by electrified water and dragged over mechanical throat-cutting blades ... all while conscious. Millions of birds each year miss the blades and drown in tanks of scalding water.3

Gail Eisnitz, the author of “Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry,”(Prometheus Books, 2007) interviewed workers who stated that because of the speed with which they are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while alive, blinking, kicking and shrieking. As the animals struggle, they’re often abused by frustrated workers, who are under constant pressure to keep the lines moving at rapid speeds. One worker is quoted by Eisnitz as follows (Page 82):

Hogs get stressed out pretty easy. If you prod them too much, they have heart attacks. If you get a hog in the chute that’s had the shit prodded out of him and has a heart attack or refuses to move, you take a meat hook and hook it into his bunghole. You try to do this by clipping the hipbone. Then you drag him backwards. You’re dragging these hogs alive, and a lot of times the meat hook rips out of the bunghole. I’ve seen hams — thighs — completely ripped open. I’ve also seen intestines come out. If the hog collapses near the front of the chute, you shove the meat hook into his cheek and drag him forward.

Even a quick review of the Internet reveals dozens of credible groups and media sources documenting hundreds of separate incidents of animal abuse, many of which are supported by photos and video, or followed up by lawsuits against the government or slaughter facility operators.

Repeatedly, the same problems are raised with regard to transport, handling, herding and slaughter of animals, the failure of slaughterhouses to follow regulations and the failure of the government to enforce regulations. Animals in slaughterhouses can smell, hear and often see the slaughter of those before them, so their emotional pain is as great as their physical mistreatment. Is it any wonder that some animals have to be dragged to their slaughter?

The county would have no power to ensure humane slaughter practices at local slaughterhouses. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law that attempted to address animal cruelty by prohibiting the slaughter of downed (nonambulatory) pigs. The court ruled that slaughter may only be regulated by federal law, even though less stringent. The state law was passed in reaction to a video from Southern California that showed cows unable to stand being kicked, dragged with chains and hosed-down in an attempt to get them on their feet. It also showed animals being picked up with a forklift and placed into slaughter pens. According to the National Meat Association, who sued to overturn the state law, downed pigs are “overheated, stressed, fatigued or stubborn” rather than sick or diseased, and simply need time to rest before walking to slaughter and subsequent human consumption.4

Slaughterhouse Practices Threaten Public Health

Health and safety issues connected to industrial meat production are well documented.5 For meat to remain safe to eat, processors must keep feces from spreading from the animals’ intestines or hides onto the tables and tools for butchering or onto the meat. But because the production lines are forced to move so quickly, it is exceedingly difficult to butcher the carcasses with the care necessary to prevent this kind of contamination. Adding to the problem is the fact that many workers lack proper, or any, training or experience. The result is meat contaminated with bacteria that cause foodborne illness, sometimes resulting in widespread and/or fatal human illness.

Seventy percent of total U.S. antibiotic usage is attributable to livestock production. When we eat the livestock, we get constant, low-grade doses of antibiotics, which are contributing to the dangerous rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A 2003 World Health Organization study put it pretty starkly: “There is clear evidence of the human health consequences [from agricultural use of antibiotics, including] infections that would not have otherwise occurred, increased frequency of treatment failures (in some cases death) and increased severity of infections.”6 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration only recently issued voluntary guidelines for the “judicious” use of antibiotics in farm animals, reflecting the power of the meat lobby even over matters affecting human health.7

Slaughterhouses are Unsustainable and Environmentally Harmful

Industrial slaughter plants use harsh carcinogenic chemicals and disinfectants, and produce billions of tons of unusable animal parts and manure each year. Only about 40 percent of slaughtered animal parts are usable. The remaining 60 percent—offal, bones, tendons, blood and plasma—is waste that must be recycled or disposed of safely at separate rendering factories. Large volumes of manure require a separate management process. What happens to the billions of tons of annual waste from slaughterhouses is becoming a growing problem without easy solutions.8

Rendering plants recycle dead animals into usable products such as pet food, livestock feed, glue, soap, candy and lipstick. Unfortunately, diseased and infectious animals’ organs are included in the rendering process. While most bacteria and toxins are destroyed during the rendering process, some toxins can survive the rendering process, creating separate health concerns for the public. 9 Like in any other manufacturing industry, rendering plants add to demands on natural resources. Increasingly, like slaughterhouses, rendering plants are being consolidated and are unable to meet local demands.

Slaughter operations are resource intensive, particularly with regard to water usage. The county continues to ignore the reality that we have an insufficient quantity of water to meet future growth demands. This proposal perpetuates “denial-based planning.” Most county surface and groundwater supplies are closed to new withdrawals, so most new slaughterhouses will be forced to operate with only 5,000 gallons a day, under groundwater exemption rules. This is the same limited groundwater supply relied upon by many farmers. In other words, allowing industrial use in the agricultural zone reduces the supply of groundwater available to grow food.

The Planning Commission failed to consider the practical implications of how the 5,000-gallon limitation constrains the size and operations of a slaughterhouse and placed no restrictions on slaughterhouse size. The commission failed to consider whether rural sewage systems can handle the demand of slaughterhouse waste or the potential effects of manure seeping into local surface and groundwater supplies. This is a relevant concern, because in Whatcom County, agricultural waste is responsible for water degradation in shellfish districts and other watersheds with significant farm activities. Nor did the commission consider whether a 150 – 300-foot separation is adequate to protect residents from slaughterhouse noise, smells, sounds and traffic.

Slaughterhouses in the agricultural zone may increase the county’s noncompliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). One of the GMA goals is to encourage conservation of productive agricultural land and discourage incompatible uses [RCW 36.70A.020(8)]. Slaughterhouses are industrial rather than agricultural, and they reduce the amount of agricultural land available for farming. The county is already short of its goal to preserve 100,000 acres of farmland, and this is a movement in the wrong direction. Additionally, slaughterhouses increase impervious surfaces associated with stormwater run-off and they fragment agricultural land, contrary to county policy and recent agricultural lot reconsolidation efforts.

Slaughterhouses Do Not Support Our Local Economy

Scales of economy have forced the slaughter industry to consolidate operations and increase the speed of production. As a result, the industry is dominated by a few large corporate monopolies. As of 2005, four companies controlled the processing of more than 80 percent of the country’s beef and 70 percent of its pork. Five companies control more than 50 percent of the country’s poultry supply. In 1996, 79 percent of cattle slaughters (approximately 22.6 million) occurred at only 22 plants. The current trend is for large plants to relocate from urban areas to rural areas. The Planning Commission’s proposal creates the opportunity for an industrial giant to build a large facility in our county.

Slaughterhouses are notorious for their poor pay and dangerous working conditions. While things have improved since Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle,” it is surprising how little. Slaughterhouses have one of the highest turnover rates of any industrial job, often averaging 75 – 100 percent per year, and one of the lowest rates of pay. Many jobs are performed by young, immigrant, Hispanic workers. A 2005 study by the GAO, reviewing problems with OSHA oversight in slaughterhouses, determined that “declining rates of unionization coincided with increases in the use of immigrant workers, higher worker turn-over and reductions in wages.”10

Slaughterhouses remain one of the most dangerous places to work, with unusually high rates of (sometimes gruesome) injury, disease and death. Because the slaughterhouse workforce is often migratory and sometimes undocumented, it is believed that many work-related injuries and diseases go unreported. Thus, the injury and death rate is most likely higher than reported.11

Slaughterhouse workers suffer from psychological, as well as physical, injury. Killing large numbers of animals, who often remain conscious, frightened, injured and screaming, takes a high emotional toll on workers. Bill Haw, CEO of Kansas City’s National Farms, was quoted by PBS Frontline as stating, “It is tough work. And it’s essentially dehumanizing work.” 12 According to a former slaughter manager, quoted by the Food Empowerment Project, “The worst thing, worse than the physical danger, is the emotional toll. … Pigs down on the kill floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them — beat them to death with a pipe. I can’t care.”13 Workers in the slaughter industry have described problems with physical abuse, alcohol and drugs in order to cope with the constant exposure to brutal slaughter, and the presence of large slaughterhouses is connected to increases in local crime and violence.

A Potential Solution Is Mobile Slaughter Units

Smaller scale, independent slaughterhouses tend to provide safer products than most giant meatpacking plants because they process smaller quantities of meat and operate at a slower pace, reducing the chance of meat contamination, animal cruelty or worker injury. The trade-off is that a reduced rate of slaughter decreases profit in an industry that operates on a small profit margin. The economic pressure to consolidate and speed up production rates is real and will need to be addressed as part of the solution to the problems posed by industrial slaughter.

Mobile slaughter units are providing a viable solution in an increasing number of rural communities across the country.14 A mobile slaughter unit operating on Lopez Island received national press in 2010. In Pierce County, the agricultural community formed a nonprofit cooperative and, with the assistance of the Conservation District, purchased a mobile slaughter unit. The Conservation District supported this effort as a means to preserve local farmland. The 45-foot stainless-steel trailer, complete with a USDA inspector and organic certification, travels from farm to farm eliminating the need to drive local animals out of state.

The advantages of a mobile slaughterhouse over a permanent structure include lower processing costs, reduced stress on animals, lower capital investment, fewer environmental effects, no fragmentation of farmland, and fewer conflicts with residential land use. And larger units exist, with some involving up to three trailers. The USDA supports the use of the mobile units as a viable method to create more market opportunities for small farmers. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission never considered the viability of mobile units as an alterative to slaughterhouses of unlimited size.

Marketing research reflects a ready customer base for meat that, while higher priced, is local, healthy and humane.15 Residents most likely to embrace the “buy local, support local” philosophy are also the most likely to have ethical concerns with slaughterhouses and prefer to buy meat from small, local farms where animals are slaughtered humanely. If Whatcom County farmers become associated with industrial slaughter, it could taint the good reputation our farmers currently enjoy.

It has been a great struggle for me to write this article. No previous issue resulted in as much emotional angst, and I had to tackle this matter in small doses over a period of time. What I have learned continues to haunt me. Looking at and accepting the reality of industrial slaughter is extremely difficult. That is why most of us prefer to look away and not to know. But slaughterhouses are coming to Whatcom County, so we must know. If you want the county to embrace alternative slaughter methods that are safer, more humane and in the long-term interest of our agricultural community, please contact County Council and the County Executive and let them know how you feel.

Endnotes

1. “Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, while Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened.” A report by the Government Accountability Office. 2005.

2. “Humane Methods Of Slaughter Act, Actions Are Needed to Strengthen Enforcement.” A report by the Government Accountability Office, 2010; congressional testimony at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg65127/html/CHRG-111hhrg65127.htm;

3. “Controlled Atmospheric Killing vs. Electric Immobilization, a comparative analysis of poultry slaughter systems from animal welfare, worker safety and economic perspectives.” PETA, 2007, http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/CAKreport.pdf.

4. National Meat Association v. Harris, 599 F. 3d 1093 (2012).

5. Modern Meat, Have dramatic changes in the U.S. meat industry compromised the safety of America’s beef? Frontline Report, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat

6. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/en/exec_sum.pdf.

7. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM216936.pdf

8. Natural Rendering; Composting livestock mortality and butcher waste, Cornell Waste Management Institute, 2002, http://compost.css.cornell.edu/naturalrenderingFS.pdf; http://news.change.org/stories/what-happens-to-slaughterhouse-waste.

9. Rendering, the invisible industry, Animal Issues, Volume 33, No. 3, Fall Issue, 2002, http://www.bornfreeusa.org/articles.php?p=378&more=1.

10. “Workplace Safety and Health: Safety in the Meat and Poultry Industry, while Improving, Could Be Further Strengthened.” A report by the Government Accountability Office. 2005. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0596.pdf .

11. “Meatpacking Safety: Is OSHA enforcement adequate?” Michael Worrall, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Volume 9, Page 300, 2004.

12. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/slaughter/slaughterhouse.html.

13. http://intellectualyst.com/the-slaughterhouse-an-intersection-of-atrocities

14. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23food-t-000.html?_r=1; http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/04/153511889/small-scale-slaughterhouses-aim-to-put-the-local-back-in-local-meat.

15. http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/06/humane-slaughterhouses; http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/mobile-slaughter-boosts-small-scale-meat; http://agmarketing.extension.psu.edu/Processing/PDFs/meat_plant_feasability.pdf (bottom, page 6).


Back to Top of Story