Journal Article Summary: Health and Welfare Preempted

In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States released an undercover video showing horrific abuse of disabled cows in a California meat packing and meat processing company. As a result, California passed a law prohibiting animals who could not stand and walk under their own power from entering the food supply and requiring that they be euthanized humanely. 

The meat industry immediately challenged the law as conflicting with federal law. The Ninth Circuit upheld the law based on long-standing states' rights to make decisions regarding treatment of nonhuman animals, including decisions regarding which animals can be eaten. However, in 2012, in National Meat Association v. Harris, the Supreme Court struck down the law as preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. 

As I argue in this article, the decision undermines California's ability to protect its human and nonhuman inhabitants. Moreover, the decision places misplaced reliance on the Federal Safety and Inspection Service within USDA to protect animal welfare and food safety. The agency has shown time and again that it is not up to the task. At the same time, Congress’ unwillingness to act to reverse the Supreme Court leaves states and the public in an untenable position: unprotected and impotent to act. This decision harms human and nonhuman health and undermines states' rights in an area where states have always had the right to act.

• Health and Welfare Preempted: How National Meat Association v. Harris Undermines Federalism, Food Safety and Animal Protection, Journal of Food Law & Policy

Boycotting Black Friday vs. Creating an Alternative Economy

As we move into the holiday season, there seems to be a tension, at least among progressives, between people's desire to buy a bunch of cheap crap and the recognition that all of that cheap crap comes at a cost to workers. For the last few years, this issue has been highlighted around stores that now start "Black Friday" on Thursday and require their employees to work on Thanksgiving. A number of my friends have posted articles and petitions, such as this one, urging people to boycott these stores.

For me, this boycott is easy. Since 2004 (read more about that here), I have slowly extricated myself from the mainstream economy. It long ago ceased to be a boycott and became an opportunity to seek out businesses that have social justice and environmentally friendly missions and otherwise share my values, as well as to think about how much stuff I actually need. As a result, I haven't shopped at most of these stores in a decade or more.

It is good to think about how our rampant consumerism impacts workers. But the oppression and exploitation that these major corporations engage in does not start and end with the holidays. Does anyone believe that a store that tells employees they will be fired if they don't show up on Thanksgiving treats their employees well the rest of the year? And it does not start and end with the American employees that work in these stores. The products that these stores sell are produced, primarily in the Global South, at considerable environmental, human, and nonhuman cost. The exploitation continues day in and day out so that we can have our smartphones, big screen tvs, designer clothing, chocolate bars, etc. There is no holiday from the exploitation that is occurring worldwide.

There are alternatives. There are businesses that do not exist solely to make money and that care about how their products are produced. A couple of years ago, I got this email from one of my favorite companies, Fair Indigo, a sweatshop free clothing company explaining their refusal to recognize Black Friday and posing other suggestions:

While my first choice is always to buy preowned items, these are types of companies I will support, not just at this time of the year, but all throughout the year.

"Humane" Oppression

I recently came across this article regarding a history text book in Massachusetts. Parents were upset that the book seemed to minimize the oppression inherent in the institution of U.S. slavery. Specifically they objected to a statement that said: “Slaves were treated well or cruelly depending on their owners. Some planters took pride in being fair and kind to their slaves.”

Parents objected to the statement as downplaying the realities of slavery and the implication that a good slant can be put on "one person owning another person."

I would agree with these objections, and very few people today would try to justify slavery based on how well the slaves are treated.

Nevertheless, we continue to tell ourselves these same lies. We continue to attempt to justify oppression based on our treatment of the oppressed.

In recent years, as more and more details about the realities of animal agriculture have come to light, people who are concerned about these realities -- but don't want to give up their cheese and bacon -- attempt to justify their exploitation of nonhuman animals based on treating them humanely. There are nearly 10 million results in Google for "humane meat." The news is filled with stories like this recent one about farmers who try to justify their slaughter of other individuals based on how well they are treated while they are alive. The reality is that even so-called "humane meat" is rarely humane. It is simply a marketing ploy to allow us to feel a little bit better about our oppression of others.

And the truth is that there is nothing humane about raising animals for the sole purpose of killing and eating them. Slavery is still slavery.

Saving Benjy, the Gay Bull

Recently,  a bull in Ireland made headlines when he refused to do "his job" impregnating cows and showed much more interest in other bulls.

The gay rights and animal rights communities came together to start a campaign to purchase Benjy and send him to a sanctuary where he could live out the rest of his life with other animals. Ultimately, The Simpsons creator and known animal activist, Sam Simon, donated the money to save Benjy and he is now at the Hillside Animal Sanctuary in England.

That's great for Benjy, but what about all the other animals whose sexual orientation hasn't raised them from obscurity? A representative of the animal rights organization that advocated to save Benjy is quoted as saying: "As a gay man myself, I know only too well what it is like to be treated indifferently." However, in this instance, it was Benjy's interest in other bulls that saved him from indifference.

No one should be oppressed based on their sexual orientation. But neither should they be oppressed based on their species or ability to reproduce. The rest of the animals not saved from Benjy's farm will continue to be exploited, forced to reproduce, have their children torn from them, and will ultimately join the more than 53 billion land animals that are slaughtered for food across the world annually.

When something happens to make us see a farmed animal as an individual, people rise up to try to save that individual. But little thought is given to the other individuals who end up on our plates every day. As Joseph Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

Gay activists connected with Benjy for obvious reasons, but those concerned about oppression of marginalized groups and individuals should not limit their concern to supposed gay animals. Every animal is an individual with needs and desires. And every animal should be allowed to live out his or her life somewhere they are loved and happy. 

Animals Slaughtered for Food Since You've Been on this Page:*

0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows and calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons and other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels and other camelids
*Counter from ADAPTT