At Least 5 Paragraphs

How It Works: Industrial Farming

Getting into the college papers!

Sophia Franzik
Animal Abuse
English 102
Greg Cass

How It's Works: Industrial Farming

The difference between a house pet and farm animals in the food industry breaks down to this: If eating and beating a dog makes you upset at other countries, then why aren't you standing up for the millions of other animals being eaten and abused in the United States each year? Well, in countries outside of the United States, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a cow or dog because they'll both be abused, stripped of their skin while alive and kept in horrible living conditions before being put on a dinner table for you and your family. Though, in many other countries, there aren't industrial companies buying out animal adoption centers to take the animals inside to use as new product. This does sound harsh but everyday companies like Tyson treat animals and their workers inside their factory farms disrespectfully. This abuse shouldn't carry on as being okay to people that eat these farm animals, but inhumane when it comes to house pets. If it's not okay for other countries to treat dogs and cats this way, then it shouldn't be for farm animals across the country to go through much worse conditions and hardships.
Over the last few decades, farming has dwindled at an unhealthy rate to the point that only 26% of the world's able land is made of traditional animal farms while every year, factory farming increases by almost 50% each year. Before factory farms came to be in the 1960s, scientists were struggling with trying to find ways on how to feed the quickly growing population, while also putting into account the animals' welfare. When they combined mass production with farming, it was a downhill business for clean farmers from then on. Now, many different factors such as GMOs, abuse, illegal workers and immoral living conditions have been mixed into the factory farming process making it easier to get more product out but harder to get good products out. While many people say that factory farming is helping save land and manpower, others agree that taking an animal's rights away before slaughtering them is too inhumane to continue.
It's no secret that families today have shifted their feelings of farm animals fro part of the family to natural resources. The academic article, "On Eating Animals" by Namit Arora, she explains why over the past few decades, society has changed the treatment of farm animals to being slaughtered without a second thought for overproduction of our food. Arora (2013) describes in the article how the loss of these farm animals impacted us, "Each time we killed and ate one of them, we also silently paid the price, however small, of having known the animal in life and in its dying moments. Children were often saddened by the slaughter of an animal they knew, and missed the animal for a while."(para. 7) As the world began to urbanize, the way we act, treat each other, and overall life has shifted drastically, "ownership of farm animals became concentrated in fewer hands, and flocks and herds grew larger. As a result, the individuality of animals was lost to their owners and they began receding from most people's everyday lives. Over time, farm animals became yet another natural resource managed by specialists, who harvested their material value and transferred it to others via the market." (para. 8) Farms were no longer managed by people, but instead industries that make them feel like a 'natural resource' instead of singular living beings just like humans and our pets. This made the animal's lives no longer matter in terms of morally right living conditions and life spans, compared to how we treat house pets today. A dog and a cat is mourned by a whole family when it passes, but because these farm animals are put into larger herds, they no longer have given names and are as a result not as cherished as a house pet is making its life not as memorable.
As people began to dig deeper into wheat was happening behind closed doors as small free-range farms started shutting down and bigger factory farms opened where they were, the government took action. In the article "Behind a Veil of Secrecy: Animal Abuse, Factory Farms, and Ag-Gag Legislation" by Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. it's alleviated that even though the work of activists around the world, the power of many of these companies, including Tyson, is too grand to take down with just a handful of people on board. The harsh living conditions of chickens, cows, turkeys, etc. have been broadcasted through commercials and on billboards but still, no one cares enough to stop this. Now, there is a paper that criminalizes government officials for letting this abuse go on for so long, giving these environmentalists the upper hand in some cases. The government protects these companies under the Ag-Gag legislation, "in recent years the agriculture industry has pressured legislatures to enact laws that criminalize photography at factory farms. Dubbed 'Ag-Gag' laws by critics, the emergence of legislation targeting animal rights advocates raises important questions relevant to animal welfare, animal rights activism, and freedom of speech." (pg. 2) These laws make it nearly impossible for news about animal abuse on these farms to get out into the media. This is why most people don't hear or care about the issue going on across the world unless a common house pet (cat, dog, hamster, etc) is involved. This just shows that because these laws had to be put into place, the government cares more about a company's image that the welfare of these animals.
With A-Gag laws rising quickly in many states and already being passed in 6, we can expect to be exposed to less and less about how the food industry is working. In the editorial, "Exposing Abuse on the Factory Farm" from The New York Times, exploits farmer's gruesome slaughterhouses under illegal surveillance that should not be hidden from the public. Protected under the Ag-Gag laws, it is illegal to videotape or photograph anywhere on a farm that can incriminate these farmers for inhumane treatment of farm animals. At least 7 states have this law, with more hopping on the bandwagon. In Idaho, the state passed the bill solely to make people disregard a video taken by activists, "...passed the bill last year in response to the release of undercover videos taken by Mercy for Animals, an animal-welfare group, at local factory farms. According to the judge's decision, one showed farm workers 'using a moving tractor to drag a cow on the floor by a chain attached to her neck and workers repeatedly beating, kicking and jumping on cows.' The law's sponsor complained that the videos exposed the industry to 'the court of public opinion,' as though that were a bad thing in a free-market society." (pg. 3) This act alone, proves that these companies are trying to hide the truth from their customers because they know that when people see how they're treating these animals, some may take action while others may not. But they don't want to take a gamble with how many will and won't take action, so they're having the government put up these laws to save themselves from embarrassment and shame because they know what they're doing is wrong.
Where people contradict themselves in animal rights in other countries is when, they will fight for a dog's life saying they shouldn't be treated disrespectfully, but forget that the United States treats more species of animals harsher and in larger scales in every passing day. In the case study "Dogs and British Colonialism: The Contested Ban on Eating Dogs in Colonial Hong Kong"by S. W Poon, it expresses that in 1950, the British put a ban on eating dogs because they saw them as companions. This angered the people of Hong Kong because they didn't believe they were doing anything wrong as long as they killed the dogs in a humane way. This showed the cultural differences throughout the world about what is right and wrong to eat when it comes to animals. Soon after people started to protest this ban, it was taken down and seen more like a taboo into future years. Yet, people all over the world still disagreed with the decision of taking it down, "...the original concept of animal welfare did not consider eating dogs a form of animal cruelty, as long as dogs were killed in a humane way for their meat. The dog-loving native elites, who saw dogs as pets which thus should not be eaten, manipulated the outbreak of rabies epidemic in 1949 to their advantage by petitioning the government that dog-eating was conducive to the spread of rabies." (pg. 4) Going into 2006 wherein China, there are cookbooks coming out with how to prepare meals that include dog meat, people seemed to have swept it under the rug until they came face-to-face with this practice again. Bringing us into today's world, eating dogs isn't considered illegal but a big taboo in different parts of the world to the point where political groups like PETA, used cooking dogs in their activism.
Not only are animals being abused in these factory farms, but workers as well. In the article, "Exploitation and Abuse at the Chicken Plant" by Michael Grabell, the Case Farms Chicken Plant in Canton Ohio, is described to be one of the most dangerous workplaces in America starting in the year 2015. Case Farms is in a lot of fast food including, Popeye's, Taco Bell and KFC, but is also seen in more that seven million dollars worth worth school lunches nationwide. These company consumers alone, makes it easier for Case Farms to get away with a poor working environment for its employees. These awful working conditions started to catch the people's eye back in 2015, "...federal workplace-safety inspectors fined the company nearly two million dollars, and in the past seven years it has been cited for two hundred and forty violations. That's more than any other company in the poultry industry except Tyson Foods, which has more than thirty times as many employees." (pg. 2) One of the many gruesome incidents that has happened while working was when one of the workers lost a leg when trying to turn on a machine. He explained that because there were not enough ladders to go around in the workplace, he had to climb on top of the machine to turn it on, but slipped as the machine was rotating, tearing his limb clean off. A week before his incident though, a health inspector warned the company about the dangers of climbing on the machinery like that, but the supervisors did not pay any mind. This kind of negligence has been going on for the past twenty-five years.
Continuing with the Case Farms, problem across America, they have a very big track record of hiring illegal immigrants. The reason why they seek out immigrants is because they will put up with harsh and sometimes illegal conditions, that American citizens would never work through. For these immigrants that come to America and take these types of jobs it's hard to fight for a better work environment, "When these workers have fought for higher pay and better conditions, the company has used their immigration status to get rid of vocal workers, avoid paying for injuries, and quash dissent. Thirty years ago, Congress passed an immigration law mandating fines and even jail time for employers who hire unauthorized workers, but trivial penalties and weak enforcement have allowed employers to evade responsibility." (pg. 4) These workers, put under harsh conditions cannot report or threaten these companies to do anything because they'll just be handed of to the government. Whether these workers want to or not, they have a lot hanging over their heads when working in an industrial farm, so their main focus is most likely on their actual work getting done, no matter how they do it.
If animals continue to be treated this way, there will be a major shift in our ecosystem and moral compasses. The fact that most of the world's population has already begun to disregard the way we treat different animals outside of our households is alarming. Following groups like PETA to persuade more people into vegetarianism/veganism to stop this harsh abuse in factory farming has began to show people what is really happening inside these factories to these animals. But because of the laws protecting bigger companies such as AG-GAG, there is only so much proof that can be openly shared to the public. This problem will get worse as more and more states add this law. Soon we won't be able to see how much worse these conditions have become.
The workers at big companies such as Tyson and Case Farms cannot protest against this cruelty either, because a good percent of them are illegal immigrants that are being threatened to work for these companies for and already illegally low amount. If we let this kind of treatment continue, our government will push these problems aside because no one is taking a stand. People will continue to get hurt and animals will continue to suffer because our humanity has stopped at our front doors. These companies will continue to abuse the laws put up for animal's and people's well being to make sure they have more than enough money to last three lifetimes.
There have been movies, television shows, social media accounts and many other sources that have shown us what is happening behind closed doors. If those cows, pigs or chicken were one of your dogs or cats, would you feel different about the situation? When we see dogs being barbecued in China, we scorn and disgrace those people, but we don't do the same for these big company managers that are allowing the unlawful slaughter of farm animals crammed into large herds. There's no difference between the two, we just treat one group with less humanity just because they're food. That difference should not exist. What if, in a few decades we lost all of our sense and disregarded all other species and treated them all as just a natural resource? Could you even think of keeping hundreds of dogs crammed into a tiny space for weeks until they've matured enough for you to kill, preserve, then serve? If you can, great because you're halfway there to being like all of the other power-hungry industrial farmers out there right now that have no respect for any other specie in the world right now. If you can't, I'm glad you're somewhat understanding the overarching problem our free-range farmers are facing.
Over the next few years, companies will continue to not care about what is morally right in farming animals and how to treat their workers. If we don't act now and reconnect with these animals, it will be harder for later generations to understand why factory farming is a big problem. Many animals die every single day without having seen a shred of sunlight due to factory farming and are beaten, pushed, and thrown around by workers because they really don't care as long as they're getting their job done. If those animals were any of your house pets, I'm sure every single person who has or ever will read this would protest the second they even heard rumors of this abuse happening. If we rebuild the bond between farm animals and humans, we can salvage any remaining free-range farms and help them expand into more across the country, doubling the numbers in less than a decade.
With your new found spirit in stopping these companies, my first step would be is to pull a 1700s American or in better words, boycott these products. Do not buy from these companies because if they see that people are protesting against them but still buying and eating their products, they won't care. Taking the first big step will be hard, but when their sales go down, they will start listening to the consumer. The customers control what these companies sell. If we don't buy, they will stop their supplies. Going straight to the government and protesting for stricter laws will help to an extent, but if it's not enforced, then there is no point. If we show that we care about what is happening in these factory farms, then the government and these companies will listen.
If we don't stop buying these products, and just sit back saying we want something to change but don't go out and demand it, then nothing will happen and the problem will get worse. Laws against activists will become stricter because these companies are demanding the government to back them up. If we as a society demand change from this abuse of workers and animals, we will get it. Sitting back and watching it all happen is helping no one. We have to stop supporting these brands. They will continue these horrific cycles if we keep buying into them. After we stop buying these products, we need to get more and more people involved. Spreading the word across social media and even on billboards will get people to understand the problem even more. As our numbers start to grow, the next thing we need to do is to protest. Marches, campaigns, anything that will show these companies and the government that we don't want to see these animals and workers treated this way anymore, that we want a bigger change than just som small laws that aren't being enforced. Another things we should protest are the Ag-Gag laws. If they stay in place, and more states join in on them, we will lose more and more evidence throughout the coming years of these conditions in factories and closed farms. Don't let these companies keep the upper hand on us, we need to save our future and our animal's future.
References

Arora, N. (2013). On eating animals. Humanist, 73 (4), 26. Retrieved from
http://lasproxy.minlib.net/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=88777500&site=eds-live
Board, T. E. (2015). Exposing abuse on the factory farm. The New York Times, p. 8. Retrieved
From
http://lasproxy.minlib.net/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.424729867&site=eds-live
Fiber-Ostrow, P., & Lovell, J. S. (2016). Behind a veil of secrecy: animal abuse, factory farms,
and Ag-Gag legislation. Contemporary Justice Review, 19 (2), 230–249.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1168257
Grabell, M., & Grabell, M. (2018, August 31). Exploitation and abuse at the chicken plant.
Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/exploitation-and-abuse-at-the-chicken-plant
Poon, S.-W. (2014). Dogs and british colonialism: the contested ban on eating dogs in colonial
hong kong. Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History, 42 (2), 308–328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2013.851873