On Cameras in Slaughterhouses
I’m categorizing this post under Gray Matters, among other things, because I’m ambivalent. As many of you know by now, as a result of the investigation at the Hallmark slaughterhouse, Congress is calling for video cameras to be installed at slaughterhouses.
This is from Erik Marcus:
Such an action wouldn’t stop all slaughterhouse abuse but it’s a vital
step in the right direction. On Friday I recorded an eighteen minute
podcast about this:http://www.vegan.com/2008/04/18/bonus-podcast-glass-walls-and-video/
And, as a result, one of my listeners started a petition on the Care2
site, calling for Congress to pass legislation mandating the
installation of video cameras inside all United States
slaughterhouses.http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/video-cameras-in-slaughterhouses
Won’t you take two minutes to visit the above web page and to sign
this petition . . .
Elaine wrote a post for the Daily Kos about this issue here.
My question for you all is: Are you going to sign the petition, and if so, why? If not, why not? What does it mean for you to sign the petition?
My opinion is that this is no way related to animal rights and will not lead to animal rights. It just might lead to some people going vegetarian or vegan because it will provide slaughterhouses with those glass Linda and Paul McCartney spoke of. Maybe it won’t, as we don’t know if all (any?) of the footage will be for public consumption.
One thing I’m fairly sure it will lead to–and this is just logic talking–is that slaughterhouse workers will be on their best behavior for the cameras, while they mutilate, torture and slaughter sentient beings in perfectly legal ways. And what I see in our future is slaughterhouses using the footage to demonstrate that the animals are not suffering unduly (of course, that’s a ridiculous statement, but you know you’re going to hear about how they’re being treated humanely).
Perhaps the footage might lead to the alteration of some practices. Perhaps not. Remember, the cameras aren’t so you can see how horrible it is in the slaughterhouse–they’re for oversight. They’re supposed to catch the person who thinks it’s funny to sit on a turkey or throw chickens against a wall for fun or sexually molest a pig. They’re supposed to make sure that business goes as it should in a slaughterhouse.
And if no problems are found, a slaughterhouse might use that fact in their marketing. You won’t even have to pay more for happy meat, then, because you can get less-abused met from Tyson (or wherever).
What I would like to see if I’m going to spend my time and energy on a campaign, and I know I’ve written this many times, is evidence that it will help my cause. My cause is the liberation of animals, and not only don’t I think cameras in slaughterhouses will lead to it, but I think the entire idea might backfire, making even slaughterhouse meat into happy meat.
I’d be thrilled to be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps I’m just being cynical. But this act by Congress could turn out to be a boon for animal slaughter companies, depending on who is allowed access to the footage, and what exactly would constitute inappropriate or cruel action. I don’t want to hear that business is going the way it should in a slaughterhouse. I want to hear that we’re not going to be slaughtering animals.
Intention is a powerful notion, and the intention here is to catch things that shouldn’t be happening, not things that are customary for the industry. That doesn’t help my cause.
This is a welfarist measure which will only make people more comfortable exploiting animals. Maybe a few people will go vegetarian, but for all the wrong reasons. This is ultimately a distractor from the real issue: vegan, abolitionist education. We should focus on building a true, radical social movement rather than making token "gains" which may actually help our enemies and strengthen the resolve of the happy-meat/compassionate-carnivore people.
This is a terrible idea. Welfarism only strengthens the animal exploiters, and actually condones the consumption of animal products. This is ultimately just a distractor from the true issue at hand: building a broad-based social movement with abolitionist veganism as its moral baseline.
It only took 10 seconds, so I signed the petition. I know its associated with Marcus (I'm no fan of his), and I know it won't bring a vegan revolution, but I do know that some people have no idea on what goes on inside a slaughterhouse. Maybe, just maybe, this would make them think more about veganism.
So no, I wouldn't waste any time on similar campaigns, but 10 seconds is just what it took for me to sign, so I did.
Maybe I'll regret it later, maybe I won't. I don't believe in petitions that much anyway, but again, 10 seconds.
I see this as a measure to enforce already existing animal protection laws that is obviously not being done by the USDA, whether due to lack of staff for legitimate reasons (unlikely) or deliberate conspiracy with animal industries (which is highly likely). Inspectors claim that if they shut down a line due to a violation, they are abused by the company/workers, etc., so they have little incentive to care about the animals.
So at the very least, this will provide an option to enforce the meager protections some animals do have, by circumventing the human/on-site issues. Of course, I wonder who will be monitoring the cameras, and if they will be just as ineffective. If it's initiated by Congress, it seems there will at least be the appearance of accountability and oversight – and some video documentation for review.
As you know, I absolutely support video cameras. I think transparency is an essential component to fostering a vegan world. I think far too many people are utterly ignorant about where their meat comes from and they live in a bubble of disillusionment. Once they become aware of the cruelty involved, they must either go veg or create cognitive dissonance and lie to themselves.
I don't like legislation like that proposed to protect "downed cows" because it mandates killing. I can't promote anything that mandates killing. Video cameras do not mandate anything, they are just windows, windows that the meat and dairy industry do not want. They know it would hurt business. They know lots of people will go vegan or vegetarian when they see what really happens.
And they're already creating promotional videos. Read this about that: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/dining/12animal.html
Requiring cameras in all slaughterhouses wouldn't let them get away with making these fake promotional videos, it would expose the entire industry.
More than that, these cameras would force slaughterhouses to comply with existing regulation. That's something they can't do and still keep prices low. So, we'll see an increase in prices, which will likely reduce meat consumption also.
Lastly, these cameras aren't just for the animals – they're for the workers and consumers, too. Cameras may protect workers from labor rights violations and they may protect whistleblowers, too. The cameras can help protect consumers, too, from tainted meat. Even though I'd like everyone to go veg tomorrow, I know they won't. And I'd rather not have a public health epidemic created by meat consumption, you know?
I don't support animal welfare when it's at the expense of rights – for example, mandated killing. But I support animal welfare reforms that don't hurt the animal rights movement. I don't see how cameras could hurt AR. They can't. Only good can come from it. But if we stall and give them time to prepare for it, the good won't come.
There is a reason the meat industry doesn't want cameras. There is a reason the USDA is saying the cameras are expensive. That reason is because they know cameras would change the industry tremendously – making it safer and less cruel, but also making it less profitable.
I think Kim's assessment is right on:
Quote(s):
"Video cameras do not mandate anything, they are just windows, windows that the meat and dairy industry do not want. They know it would hurt business. They know lots of people will go vegan or vegetarian when they see what really happens."
"More than that, these cameras would force slaughterhouses to comply with existing regulation. That's something they can't do and still keep prices low. So, we'll see an increase in prices, which will likely reduce meat consumption also."
"There is a reason the meat industry doesn't want cameras. There is a reason the USDA is saying the cameras are expensive. That reason is because they know cameras would change the industry tremendously – making it safer and less cruel, but also making it less profitable."
I signed the petition enthusiastically.
What regulations? How are they going to raise prices? The "Humane Slaughter Act", even if rigorously enforced (which is extremely unlikely) wont make slaughterhouses any less horrendous, wont affect chickens or turkeys at all, and only protects the interests of cows, pigs, and sheep that help make slaughter economically efficient. It basically just says: make sure these particular nonhumans are stunned before you hack them to pieces. It improves the quality of the "meat", and reduces worker injuries. That's it. There is no huge price increase on the verge of being imposed by any existing legislation. If there was, which there isn't, the government would just subsidize it away.
If anyone is actually excited about enforcement of the "Humane Slaughter Act"… I think that is a huge mistake, and I would recommend that individual read Rain Without Thunder by Gary Francione, or simply watch this slideshow outlining that work: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/slides/theory3.html
Also, there seems to be an idea that the public will be mandated to watch this hypothetical footage. They wont. If anyone outside of the USDA is even allowed to see the footage, the best case scenario is that advocacy groups will have endless stock film for videos, or legal efforts. But we already have footage of slaughterhouses. It isn't some big secret that the HSA is not enforced. If it all of a sudden was, the large mammals we slaughter would benefit only marginally, and humans would feel better about consuming the products of slaughter.
When you watch reality television you would think that people wouldn’t do stupid things on camera, but they still do. There is a whole series of shows of people “caught on tape” and most of the times they were in place with obvious video cameras that they knew about before hand. There is scant evidence that videos surveillance deters crime or for that matter stupidity.
Does it help vegans? No.
There should be more than enough compassionate carnivores around who would be interested in supporting this cause. There is little reason why vegan activists should waste time and energy. Exactly what personal vegan criteria does it impact? Ethics of non-exploitation and non-violence? Environment? Personal health?
Does it help animals? No.
Well, they may not be tortured as often before being killed. Suffering is reduced x% per every y tortured animal, that’s x% overall suffering reduced. Divide by the cruelty quotient and it’s an impressive figure. It’s always enlightening to quantify cruelty and suffering and reduce it a few percentage points. Of couse if a vegan is into “ways of living that seek to exclude exploitation”, it fails. Where there is (the idea of) a camera set up it makes exploitation of animals that much more acceptable.
Does it help animal exploiters? Absolutely.
Consumers get to feel better about the exploitation process since, golly, there are cameras and everything. Slaughterhouse workers will still have horrible jobs. I suppose a watchful camera eye will make their jobs less horrible as they kill hundreds or thousands of animals in a week. Perhaps less horrible slaughterhouse conditions will make the positions more desirable, more people may be inclined to sign onto this fast paced career. Businesses get to limelight humane theater when it suits them, and will “lose” tapes that happen to capture bad footage. It’s not like USDA inspectors are going to be watching these videos very intently, if at all. To promote the initiative, the industries can make feel good stickers for their products, “Quality Assured Under Humane Video Surveillance!”
The security cameras would only be remotely useful if installed and monitored by the USDA, otherwise, what’s the point of a slaughterhouse having control of what is filmed? But of course we already know what a great job the USDA has done of policing the system already. There is a chance that taxpayers, including of course vegan taxpayers, will foot the costs.
It would be like the Transportation Security Administration. The criticism of the TSA of course is that it is security theater, something had to be done, so there’s something, it may or may not actually be any more or less effective than the old system, but it makes people feel safe, the government is doing something. If it isn’t funded though a government agency, don’t worry, the meat industry will still get funding through subsidies after they whine and lobby about the one half cent increase of meat cost per pound due to the imposing costs or regulation.
The biggest reason to avoid this idea is that Temple Grandin endorses it.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/80611.php
“Grandin believes it's time for slaughter plants to start installing video cameras in pen areas. That would not only ensure that workers are doing what they're supposed to, but also protect the company in case of a dispute with an on-site government inspector, she said.”
Looked at how this is being pitched:
* More productive workers for the company since they are under surveillance.
* Company protection in case of inspector dispute.
PeTA can give her another medal. Grandin says that she thinks like the animals afterall–what animal wouldn’t want to be on surveillance before it meets its death? We are all animals here so raise your hand if you agree.
The public will never see these videos. EVER. Oh, except for the acceptable ones that you can already see anywhere. Since the industry will be policing itself with cameras, punishment for trespassing and unauthorized video can be made much harsher. Incriminating video that may be captured can be countered with hours and hours of footage of abattoir happiness. “This is a one time incident, we have cameras and footage to ‘prove’ it.”
This is in the industry’s own best interests, even Temple Grandin says so.
Here's an example of one of their promotional videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkuohLV2u0k
Many people are upset about this and don't like the idea of treating animals, particularly cute baby animals, like commodities. This video was very disturbing for many people. And it doesn't even involve overt animal "cruelty". No one is torturing them; it's just business as usual. But the reaction is strong. People don't like it.
So, please don't make the mistake of thinking that transparency in the industry won't upset people. It will.
And that's part of why the meat industry doesn't want to open and honest about what they're doing.
I do see the anticipated costs to implement video equipment as being time and money intensive. Also, the monitoring will be another expense…. and then the reports that will need to be regulated, documented…. accounted for, etc. All this is just one more burden that the meat industry will have to cope with. Enough red tape will fall a giant.
People may remain omnivores via "happy meat", "un-caged" and "free range justifications"….. However, only the extremely contorted mind could warp "happy" around "slaughterhouse". Regardless of if/when cameras are installed – the whole subject has gotten people…. a lot of people, peeling the layers off their neatly packaged animal parts at the grocery store. Getting people to question is a great first step to veg*an.
Will it "help" animals – no. Will these videos magically exonerate them from their inevitable fate at the kill box? No. But I have to agree with Elaine Vigneault's post…. Cameras do not promote anything that mandates killing. Nor do they support animal welfare at the expense of rights. I just see it as another opportunity for government beauracracy and public scrutiny to make their business more difficult. I'm for attacking the meat industry at all fronts –
Yes, we want a cohesive movement towards "rights" but we can chant "Go vegan", "stop killing animals", "they are not property" till the yet-to-be-slaughtered-cows come home – but it's just not enough. It has to be all that plus what ever else we can throw at them….. It's not like as if we install cameras therefore we can kill animals – they are going to kill them anyway. All the (need for) a camera does is reinforce that we should be concerned about how they are treated….. we should question what goes on in regards to the (mis)handling of sentient beings…. This for many, might lead to "why" are we doing that to sentient beings at all?
The "humane" slaughter act did all it could to keep animal interests as far removed as possible….. I see video surveillance as up-close and personal to their plight as it gets. I'd like to see the word "slaughterhouse" with all it's implications thrust at as many non-vegans as possible….. On their computer, on the television, in conversations of "food" issues, moral issues, etc….. right down to the guy reading the paper eating his burger….. If there's enough reminders that slaughterhouses exist and why….who knows….. they just might put the burger down?
If numerous cameras per slaughterhouse were installed as a big, national program to educate the public on why going vegan and closing slaughterhouses is essential to treating animals with respect, then it would be a good idea. However, since it will be used primarily as cheap window-dressing to give the appearance of “inspection” and “compliance” and any cruelty will be dismissed as “isolated instances” or “the way slaughterhouses are” and serve primarily to de-sensitize the public instead of educate the public, it’s pro-industry and a very bad idea.
Shining the spotlight on industry is a good thing, since industry has much to hide, but giving the *appearance* of shining the light without actually doing so is counterproductive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkuohLV2u0k
What a lovely video. Clear proof of the wrongness of making that holocaust analogy. The Nazis never got close to this efficiency.
As for the cameras. I initially felt a little ambigious like Mary did. Then I listened to the Marcus podcast and he put me off the idea completely.
RY
Here are some quick reactions:
Nick-Yes, "we should focus on building a true, radical social movement rather than making token 'gains' which may actually help our enemies and strengthen the resolve of the happy-meat/compassionate-carnivore people."
Kenneth-I always wonder about the effectiveness of petitions. I spent a decade signing petitions against the seal massacre and it's still alive and well.
Kim-Yes, it is an alleged protection measure, and I too wonder who will be monitoring the cameras. But the "appearance" of oversight you mention is one of the things I'm worried about.
Elaine-The entire industry has been exposed for some time. I do think this welfare reform hurts AR. An animal rights reform shouldn't have use of animals as its premise. That's what makes it a welfare reform.
Nathan says-"Also, there seems to be an idea that the public will be mandated to watch this hypothetical footage. They wont. If anyone outside of the USDA is even allowed to see the footage, the best case scenario is that advocacy groups will have endless stock film for videos, or legal efforts. But we already have footage of slaughterhouses." Exactly. I see nothing to get excited about regarding my mission.
Porphyry says-"Consumers get to feel better about the exploitation process since, golly, there are cameras and everything. Slaughterhouse workers will still have horrible jobs. I suppose a watchful camera eye will make their jobs less horrible as they kill hundreds or thousands of animals in a week. Perhaps less horrible slaughterhouse conditions will make the positions more desirable, more people may be inclined to sign onto this fast paced career. Businesses get to limelight humane theater when it suits them, and will “lose” tapes that happen to capture bad footage. It’s not like USDA inspectors are going to be watching these videos very intently, if at all. To promote the initiative, the industries can make feel good stickers for their products, “Quality Assured Under Humane Video Surveillance!” AND HUMANE CERTIFIED!
Bea says-"I do see the anticipated costs to implement video equipment as being time and money intensive. Also, the monitoring will be another expense…. and then the reports that will need to be regulated, documented…. accounted for, etc. All this is just one more burden that the meat industry will have to cope with. Enough red tape will fall a giant." I disagree, Bea, as Congress is never going to require anything that would financially cripple animal agriculture. Their job is (as they see it in 2008, which is much different from what I'd say their job is) to keep the economy rolling, and to get themselves re-elected. They won't do anything to endanger their job (with a couple of exceptions).
Dan says-"Since it will be used primarily as cheap window-dressing to give the appearance of 'inspection' and 'compliance' and any cruelty will be dismissed as 'isolated instances' or 'the way slaughterhouses are' and serve primarily to desensitize the public instead of educate the public, it’s pro-industry and a very bad idea."
Remember, there won't be a new reality show called Slaughterhouse on network television. The cameras are to make sure that only the abuses that are perfectly legal are occurring. And then maybe there will be some kind of Temple Grandin award for the slaughterhouse with the fewest incidents of "cruelty." And their sales will surge.
Finally, this doesn't consider the usage of the animals as anything but, at worst, a necessary evil.
Wow. That wasn't as quick as I thought it would be.