Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 - PDF document

Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 This paper traces the development of the slaughterhouseas a specialized institution through three major periods. Thefirst began with increasing concerns about animal slaughter-ing in the eighteenth century and resulted in Òpublic slaugh-terhouseÓreforms,which marked the beginning of the con-centration of animal slaughter and its movement away fromthe gaze of the public. Second,slaughterhouses became in-dustrialized,as exemplified by the development of notoriousUnion Stockyard in Chicago during the late nineteenth cen-tury. Finally,during the latter part of the twentieth century,slaughterhouses in the United States were relocated to smallrural communities,which began to exhibit negative conse-quences. This paper represents a modest step in developingan historical understanding of the slaughterhouse as aunique institution and moving towards an understanding of eords: slaughterhouse; meatpacking; abattoir;slaughterhouse communities Introduction Today,the slaughterhouse is cursed and quaran-boat carrying cholera. In fact,the vic-or animals,butthe good people themselves,who,through this,areable to bear their own ugliness... The curseifies only those who utter it) leads themto vegetate as far as possible from the slaughter-houses. They exile themselves,by way of antidote,,where there is no longeranything terrible. Georges Bataille (1997,22). We seldom think about the slaughtering of non-humanerred to simply as animals) for meat,much less the space in which it takes place. This is no acci-dent or simple oversight:it is intentional. As anthropologistNoelle Vialles points out,animal Òslaughtering tends to be asomewhat ÔunpopularÕsubject:no one to know aboutitÓ(1994,125,emphasis mine). So why write a paper chron-icling the development of the slaughterhouse as an institutionand the consequences for contemporary slaughterhouse com-munities? There are two answers to this question:the first isConceptually,an examination of the slaughterhouse asan institution has a lot to offer:it is a location from which onecan view economic and geographic changes in the productionof food,cultural attitudes toward killing,social changes insmall communities,and the changing sensibilities and rela-tions between humans and non-human animals. If Levi-Strauss was correct that Òanimals are good to think withÓ,then it would likely follow that the institution which kills thegreatest number of them and is summarily obscured from thepublicÕs gaze is particularly worthy of detailed examination.Along these lines,Y2004; 20062004; 2006-velopment of a Òsociology of the slaughterhouse.팀A socio-logical understanding of the modern slaughterhouse and itsimplications will,however,require an historical understand-ing of the institution and its development. This paper is in-tended to contribute to this foundation. The second reason for this paper is to tie together seg-ments of the literature on slaughterhouses,which are current-iod and geographic location,in an ac-cessible,article-length manuscript. Noteworthy monographshave detailed how the development of the Chicago Unionds in the nineteenth century forever transformed theproduction of meat and the physical landscape (e.g.,Cronon1991; Horowitz 2006; Jablonsky 1993; Patterson 2002; Sin-son 2002; Sin-ggs 1986). Aless well known and per-haps even more provocative narrative can be found in thecontemporary slaughterhouse industry where dramaticonce again taking place. As the industry hasbeen relocating to rural communities in the U.S. significantsocial problems have begun to emerge (Artz,Orazem,anday 2007; Broadway 1990; Broadway1994; Broadway 2000; Broadway 2001; Broadway and Stull2005; Fitzgerald,Kalof,and Dietz 2009; Gouveia and Stulley 1998; Horowitz and Miller 1999; esearch in Human Ecology From Inception to Contemporary Implications Amy J. Fitzgerald Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of Windsorindsor, Ontario, Canada Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 Stull and Broadway 2004). Tying these developments to-gether provides insight into the trajectory of the slaughter-house as an institution and raises new questions about thecultural implications of animal slaughter.The paper begins with an examination of the changingsensibilities in the Western world regarding animal slaugh-ter,which provides an important backdrop against which totrace the emergence and development of the modern slaugh-paper that the development of current sensibilities towardsanimal slaughter on the one hand and the contemporaryslaughtering industry on the other have created a significant Shifting Sensibilities he way in which we view animals has changed dramat-ically over time (for most species at least). To make sense ofthese changes,20052005iods in our relationships with animals:do-mesticity and postdomesticity. During the domestic era,thesocial and economic structures normalize daily contact withwith the current postdomestic era (which Bulliet argues tookically removed from the animals that produce the productsthey use,yet most somewhat paradoxically enjoy very closeof pet animals in the US). A tension emerges in this erabetween a growing fondness of some animals and the con-in abundance,but psychologically,its members experienceeelings of guilt,shame,and disgust when they think (as sel-mestic animals are rendered into products and about howlic to think about how their meat is pro- hereby a choice is made not to investigate whether a prac-ate whether a prac-ate whether a prac-row-ing unwillingness to confront our treatment of animals with he Civilizing Process tive of a growing concern with civility since the Middle Ages.venteenth century,carv-it was not only customary to carve meat at the table but alsoto present various animals,such as pigs,calves,and hares,with their heads attached (see also Thomas 1983). Todaygreat pains are taken so that people are not reminded of theorigins of their meat while they are eating it. This shift in sensibilities regarding meat was cotermi-nous with the movement of responsibility for animal slaugh-ter from individuals in the household to specialists whowould take care of meat production Òbehind the scenesÓin Yet the creation of the slaughterhouse,where concentrated animal slaughtering discreetly takesplace,has not been a panacea for the mounting cultural angst.According to Otter,it might have even had the opposite ef-fect:ÒThe abattoir,invisible but not secret,may have beenbuilt in response to concerns about civility,or feelings ofrepulsion,but it in turn created the conditions underwhich true disgust can be feltÓ(2008,105). RŽmy (2003)quirements in the slaughterhouse have resulted in contradic-tion or tension whereby it is acknowledged that the sentientes being killed are worthy of protection.Adding to the growing tension,as we move further intothe postdomestic era,the number of animals slaughtered forSomewhat ironically,the largest meat producing countriesCanada,Australia,and Newalso have the Òstrongest postdomestic mentalityÓBulliet 2005Bulliet 2005and there are indications that the massivedisturbing. For instance,V19941994es in herethnography of modern slaughterhouses that Òwhereas theve occasion,slaugh-ter on a large scale is different. It is disturbing; thereforemeans must be found of putting it out of mindÓp. 72p. 72Yetttempted cultural amnesia brings its own set of conse-stitutionalized forgetting might create the conditions of pos-on a greater,more deeplyps taken towards the goal of institutionalized forget- yard to an agrarian to industrial system,accompanied by increasedgical developments,and concern aboutwere slaughtered for consumption in diverse places,such as Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 backyards. Beginning in the eighteenth century,reformersargued that Òpublic slaughterhousesÓwould be preferable toÒprivate slaughterhousesÓ(the term referred to any structurein which animals were slaughtered for human consumption,e.g.,a butcherÕs shed) because they would remove the sightof animal slaughter from public places and indiscreet privateslaughterhouses,they could more easily be monitored,theywere generally considered more spacious and clean (Otter2008),and reformers argued that the state should be regulat-ing Òmorally dangerousÓworMacLachlan 2008MacLachlan 2008The solepurpose of the new buildings would be to slaughter animalsÑregulated by the state and outside of the city core. The firstpublic slaughterhouse appeared in France at the beginning ofthe nineteenth century and the French word was in-oduced to refer to a specific place where animals areVialles 1994).Public authorities in other Western European countriestried to concentrate the slaughter of animals outside town294) in larger,public slaughterhouses,although it was not a uniform process (Young Lee 2008a).One common theme that linked these developments was anIronically,the new slaughterhouses,which were labeled as ÒpublicÓ,in-om the view of theheated battle over slaughterhouse reform emerged inet,established in the 900s. The effects on morals thatslaughter might have on the workers and the observers wasowner in London who stated in response to a committee in-vestigation of the market in 1849 that Òthe chief trades Ôen-aged by the existence of SmithfieldÕ[the meat market]헓Another man inter-viewed by the committee said that the violence against theainst theactice of violence andcruelty,so thattheyseem to haveno restraint on the use of itÓ(Philo 1998,65). A cholera outbreak in the 1840s eventuallyield Market wKalof 2007Kalof 2007ge,publicSlaughterhouse reforms also took place in the US. Massorld when the first1607-08. At that time the cattle,pigs,and sheep they broughtwinter. This quickly gave rise to the sale of surplus saltedand cured meat (Patterson 2002). The earliest reference tocommercial slaughterhouses in the US dates back to 1662 inSpringfield,Massachusetts where a pig slaughterhouse wasestablished by William Pynchon (Azzam 1998; Patterson2002). Concerns about slaughterhouses emerged shortlythereafter. Beginning in 1676,officials in New York City re-located slaughterhouses from densely populated parts of thecity (Day 2008; Horowitz 2006). In 1747 an ordinance waspassed which forbade people from slaughtering cattle at theirhome. By the end of the eighteenth century,meat was beingsold in city-owned marketplaces and municipally licensedDay 2008Day 2008And according to Johnson20082008the notion that slaughterhouses should be centralizedand monitored was supported widely by municipalities in thevil War period.The public animal slaughtering facilities constructedin both the US and Western Europewere designed and sited to reduce contemplation and ques-tioning of them by workers and consumers. They were andany other facto-ry. In VillaesÕ19941994ords,the slaughterhouse is a Òplacethat is no-place.팀The geography and architecture of slaugh-as they do now,to avoid a Òcollectivecultural guiltÓ(Young Lee 2008b,47; see also Serpell 1986, ation of the public from the slaughter of animals theyconsume developed into a hyperseparated state with the in-ent in the US,and it is there that researchers have startedxamination of industrialized ani-mal slaughter in the US context. he Industrialization of Slaughterhouses ated in a few cities,including Chicago,Cincinnati,St.wever,be-ade routes during the Civil War,the development of the rail-igeraAzzam 1998Azzam 1998The Stock Yard was a massive slaughterhouse complex unlikeit. Many of the workers livedwas characterized by extreme poverty,crowded conditions,vironmental pollution,and was vividly he Jungle The Stock Yard community,which experienced growth up Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 until World War II,became home to nearly 60,000 people,(Jablonsky 1993).The Union Stock Yard was also at the forefront of mech-anizing the industry. In response to the growing populationÕsincreased demand for meat and the escalating volume of live-stock entering the Stock Yards,the conveyor belt was intro-duced to increase production speed and efficiency. Impor-tantly,this new conveyor system took control of the speed ofproduction away from the workers and put it in the hands ofmanagers (Patterson 2002; Stull and Broadway 2004). Bythe 1880s,animal slaughtering in the US had become an in-dustrialized,mass-production industry (Pacyga 2008). cording to some (e.g.,Patterson 2002),animal slaughteringirst mass-production industry in the UnitedStates,from which Henry Ford partially adapted his concep-ly-line production. The industry continued toexpand during this period as a result of increasing demandand increased distribution possibilities.xpansion and harmful working and liv-ing conditions inside and around slaughterhouses gave rise tolabor organizing. During the first two-thirds of the twentietheasingly powerful inslaughterhouses,even as unions in other industries suffered.Workers ofA) and the Amalgamated Meat CuttersAMCAMCorked hard to unionize slaughterhouse employees.by the early 1960s these two unions representedthan 95% of the slaughterhouse employees outside ofthe southern states (for historical examinations of labor orga-As a result,meatpacking became one of the best-paid indus-trial occupations (Brueggemann and Brown 2003). However,wer of the unions began to wane in 1969 (Bruegge-60% of slaughterhouse workers were unionized (Bacono20032003actors Ñ eco-working class fractionalization,and em-w,as astanding of contemporary slaughterhouse develop-slaughterhouses points to the economic restructuring in the automation of production,a reduction in the dependence ofxperienced manufacturing workers,reducedicult workforce to organize,andthe lessened ability of unions to win concessions through col-lective action. As Brueggemann and Bro20032003however,the major threat of economic restructuring to orga-nized labor in slaughterhouses has been the redistribution of the United States instead of internationally,whichmakes the industry unique because whereas the general trendhas been for manufacturing companies to move from theglobal north to the global south,slaughterhouses have insteadshifted geographically from urban areas in the northern USwith strong traditions of unionism,such as Chicago,to morerural areas without strong histories of unionization,particu-second perspective on the decline of unions points to working class fractionalization in slaughterhouses,fosteredby the increasing representation of minority women and menoffs are implemented during economic downturns (Bruegge-own 2003). During the Stock Yard era the in-dustry relied heavily on a workforce or immigrants,racial/ethnic minorities,and women. There was a subsequent shiftorce composition and by the mid-20th centurythe majority of slaughterhouse workers were white men.Since that time there has been another shift as the industryecruited women and racial/ethnic minoritiesBenson 1994Benson 1994w the nu-4.1% of meat,poultry,and fish processing workerswere Asian,12.7% were Black,and 41.5% were Hispanic have posed numerous challenges to labor organizing. ascendancy of the employer compa-nies (Brueggemann and Brown 2003),which refers to the in-easing power of capitalists relative to that of the workingan after World War II and continuestoday. The Ôold Big FourÕcompanies (Swift,Armour,Wil-he original Big Four companies eventually gave way to athe years):IowIBPIBPConAgra,Excel andggemann and Brown 2003). By the yearof beef slaughter in the United States (Stull and Broadwaytual monopoly (see Dickes and Dickescompanies virtually inevitable. One company in particular, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 IBP,has been powerful enough to forever alter the ways inwhich slaughterhouses do business. The New Era in Slaughterhouses:1960 Onward Since the industrialization of slaughterhouses,the de-mand for meat has continued to grow. Despite the fact thatper-capita consumption of beef in the US has dropped sincethe 1970s,the gross amount of meat consumed by the entirepopulation has risen. According to USDA Agricultural Sta-tistics summarized by Stull and Broadw20042004per capitabeef consumption in the U.S. peaked in the late 1970s at ap-proximately 126 pounds per year and was down to 99.3ear in 2000. However,pork consumption has re-mained fairly constant,and there has been an ÒexplosiverowthÓin the consumption of chicken,which has placed in-creased pressure on the beef and pork industries (Dickes andDickes 2003). In 2002,meat and poultry consumption in theeached its highest level Ñ 219 lbs per person (Marcus2005). The increase in overall meat consumption,despite thepublicized associated health and environmental conse-,has been fostered by the low cost ofmeat (which has been facilitated by the mechanization of,and thetion of organized labor in the industry).When adjusted for inflation the price of meat has actuallyhing the lowest price in 50 years in the 1990s.tpacking is not an exceptionally profitable in-dustry Ñ for each $100 in sales of beef,$93 goes to produc-petitive,continually seeking to reduce their costs and in-crease their production (Stull and Broadway 1990). IBP hasthe forefront of these changes.eraÓin slaughterhouse history,which refers to the concentration of animal slaughter in a few20th centuries,wased in central locations and to transport carcasses tove animals. The new era,pio-ked by the shipping of Òboxed beefÓinstead of car-2004),dramaticof production and the labor force.IBP,which was founded in 1961 and purchased by Tysonest red meat provider globally and has been particularly powerful in reshaping theueggemannThe companyhas taken three steps that have substantially altered the meat-packing industry:it developed new technologies,changedthe geography of production,and obtained cheaper labor.The development of Ôboxed beef픬which has reducedboth labor and shipping costs,is illustrative of IBPÕs innovat-ing. Instead of hanging and transporting sides of meat,the fatand bone are removed and the meat is vacuum-packed andboxed up. Working with boxed beef makes distribution moreefficient,cheaper,and reduces the skills required by labor(Azzam 1998; Brueggemann and Brown 2003; Stull andBroadway 1990; Stull and Broadway 2004). Profits have alsobeen increased by increasing the speed of the ÔchainÕ(Eisnitz1997; Stull and Broadway 1990),or the rate at which the an-imals are stunned,killed,and ÒprocessedÓ(or dismembered).The Health and Safety Director of the United Food and Com-cial Workers union has reported that chain speeds in-creased between 50% and 80% between approximately 1982oadway 1995,68). To put this in per-spective,in the early 1970s,the fastest line killed 179 cattlean hour; today the fastest kills 400 per hour. In Europe,how-,only approximately 60 cattle are killed an hour (Marcus2005). Finally,profits have been increased by maximizingeconomies of scale,resulting in plants that can slaughterter numbers of animals (Broadway and Ward 1990). Thistrend is evidenced by the increase in the number of largethan 1000 workers doubled,while the number of plants employing fewer than 1000 work-oadway and Stull 2005). ther altered the industry by changing the geogra-phy of production (Brueggemann and Brown 2003). In theard era,slaughterhouses were located in densely populated urbanareas,close to their markets and livestock were transportedrail. However,the importation of live animals to thebecause of ÒshrinkageÓ(cows lose 5% of their weight in onlyements in refriger-tion and the popularity of boxed beef,the slaughterhouses efore moved from urban areas,such as Chica-the StockyarAzzam 1998Azzam 1998constructed plants had populations of less than 25,0001998). The same number of slaughterhouses,ppear elsewhere:the trend has been to-ward fewer and larger slaughterhouse facilities in these smallay and Stull 2005; Dickes and Dickes 2003). had given rise to the unions and industry-wide wage and ben- Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 efit scales (Brueggemann and Brown 2003; Stull and Broad-way 2004) to Ôright-to-workÕstates,12 where unionism ismuch weaker,also provided secure sources of cheaper,non-unionized labor (Azzam 1998; Broadway 1998; Broadwayand Stull 2005; Hake and King 2002). This geographic shiftnot only had negative consequences for organized labor,italso became Òa mixed blessing for small towns where pack-ing plants have locatedÓ(Broadway 2000,37) Ñ a pointwhich will be elaborated upon shortly.Finally,and related to the previous two steps that IBPtook in reshaping the animal slaughtering industry,the com-pany sought new sources of cheap labor. In addition to relo-cating to right-to-work states,they were able to drive wagesdown through technological innovations. These innovationsle to employ a less skilled workforce,and bylocating in small communities where there was not a reser-oir of labor available to meet their needs they were able totake advantage of the recruitment of immigrant workers forless pay (Brueggemann and Brown 2003),actually facilitat-2004). For instance,IBP opened a new meatpacking plant inKansas in 1980,and by 1985 the population hadgrown by 33%. The majority of the new residents wereof whom werexico (Stull and Broadway 1990).The steps taken by IBP to increase their profits have notwn plants,but have also placed pressure on their com-petitors to reduce their production and labor costs. As a re-ges,which had oncebeen the highest of manufacturing industries,dropped to 20%below general manufacturing work by 1990 (Stull and Broad-ay 2004). These changes in the industry also provided ad-(Azzam 1998; Dickes andDickes 2003),resulting in an industry more concentratedkes and Dickes 2003). In sum,the con-ver the past fifty or so years,and IBP has been at the fore- he EfContemporSlaughterhouse Industr tic changes in the industry havebegun to docu-ment their effects. The literature on the transition of indus-eas in the US began in the earlyand geographer Michael Broadway. They have examinedseveral communities where extremely large slaughterhouseshave opened. Their research has documented ten likely im-pacts of slaughterhouses moving into an area,including in-creases in the number of minority workers,low-paying jobs,offensive odors,demand for low-cost housing,strains onlocal infrastructure,crime,persons utilizing social services,the homeless population,health care strains,and linguisticand cultural differences (Broadway 1994). These impactscan be grouped into three major categories:the impact on the physical environment and human health ,the impact on theworkers,and the social impacts on communities (these effectsare not,of course,mutually exclusive). Each of these cate-gories is examined below in order to provide an understand-anging consequences of the contemporary Effects on the physical environment and human health Parallel to the development of modern,high-volume,of livestock,ashift occurred from raising livestock on small to medium sizefamily farms to producing livestock in much larger numbersreferred to as factory farms and re-ferred to in the literature as Concentrated or Confined Animalto 213,000. The reason for the decline is that smaller opera-ations swallowedoadway 2004). Thus,while there hasease in the number of facili-ties where these activities take place. Because of the in-creasing physical proximity between the raising and theing of the animals,concerns about the physical en-ve tended toimpacts upon the air and water quality haveve-industry (Caldwell 1998; Walker,Rhubart-Berg,,and Lawrence 2005; Wing,Horton,20042004xplain that much of the problem is caused by theoperations produce. The nitro-dangerous to the environment and human health when theyquantities. Environmentalconsequently emerged (DeLind 1998; Edwards and Ladd2002; Tacquino,Parisi,and Gillve challengedthe rights of large corporations to come into their communi- Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 ties (which are predominantly rural and economically disad-vantaged),establish large CAFOs,and put pressure on localfarmers to establish CAFOs in order to compete with the larg-er corporations (Stull and Broadway 2004),and some com-munities have successfully removed CAFOS from their juris-see DeLind 1998 for instancesee DeLind 1998 for instanceThe Farmers Unionhas appeared before the U.S. Senate,arguing that livestockconcentration (spearheaded largely by the large slaughter-house companies) is negatively affecting their livelihoods andas one member stated,it is Òsucking the lifeblood out of ruralcommunitiesÓ(National Farmers Union News,2002).In addition to the dangers posed to human health in theform of pollution caused by the industry,there is also thedanger posed by food poisoning (Walker et al. 2005). An in-eased demand for meat,coupled with the decline in pricesand profitability,has resulted in faster production,or in-eased chain speeds as discussed earlier. It is claimed thatthe increasing speed of production in the United States makesthe contamination of the meat during processing more likelyay 2004). Pathogens such asCampylobacter,Salmonella,and Escherichia coli O157:H7have been documented entering the food supply (Stull anday 2004; Walker et al. 2005). There has been a sharpincrease in food poisoning deaths that corresponds roughly todeaths from food poisoning morehave on the environment and human health,some(e.g.,Walker et al. 2005) have recommended creating a regu-ork that would make the industry responsiblefor the costs of the externalities in producing meat. Calls forincreased regulation of the industry also emerge in discussionsfects of the industry on those who work within it. Slaughter and the worker or the approximately 150,000 workers employed in slaugh- he NeworT hat happens to the animals Ñ they have al-te. It is what happens to the humans whoThe illness and injury rate of workers was higher in2008,28). The reported injury rate in the industry did beginwhich can be at least partially at-panies to reduce the costs of worker compensation and offines for safety violations (Broadway and Stull 2005). Yet atthe close of the century the reported injury and illness rate re-mained quite high:In 1999,the reported rate was 26.7 in-juries/illnesses per 100 full-time workers,three times the av-erage for industries manufacturing other commodities (Stulland Broadway 2004,75). As of 2008,the rate was down to10.3 injuries/illnesses per 100 full time workers (Bureau ofThe type of work undertaken in slaughterhouses lends it-self to high levels of injuries and illnesses. The use of sharpknives in the dismembering or processing of the animalsStull 1994Stull 1994act that too frequently animalsare improperly stunned and regain consciousness (Eisnitz1997) and workers receivStull 1994Stull 1994esult in the potential for many accidents in the workplace.This has been exacerbated by the increasing speed of the lineoadway and Stull 2008; Olsson 2002; Stull1994),which translates into more opportunities for accidentsand increased repetitive movements. These repetitive move-ain and cumulative trauma disor-der,such as carpal tunnel syndrome (Stull and Broadway,modern slaughterhouses have an exceptional-ly high employee turnover rate:rates as high as 200% in thenot uncommon (Broadway 2000, Nebraska,within the first 21 monthsafter a slaughterhouse opened the turnover rate was 250%,orxperienced a 30% monthly turnover rate and an IBPplant opened in Finney County,Kansas saw a monthlyte of 60% (Gouveia and Stull 1997,3). The highturnover rate is said to actually benefit the industry (Broad-way and Stull 2008; Grey 1999; Grey and Woodrick 2002;oadway 1990),in spite of the fact that it resultsand more accidents,because itkeeps the costs of wages and benefits down. The highte has been attributed to the dangerous workingoadway 1990).gatively impacts worker safety be-orking in slaughterhouses,which compromises not onlySafety and Health Administration (OSHA) have declined,dropping to a record low by the late 1990s (Olssonthe number of OSHA enforcement workers and inspectionsybrook,cited in Stull and Broadway 1995, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 In light of the concerns regarding worker safety in the in-dustry,the following suggestions have been made:to insti-tute longer and improved worker training; improve thestaffing of work crews; vary the jobs in order to reduce mus-cle strain; implement longer recovery periods for injuredworkers; slow down the speed of the chain (Stull and Broad-way 2004; Stull and Broadway 1995); and involve employeesin the development and administration of safety programs(Worrall 2004). Significant changes remain to be seen. Slaughter and the social impacts in the community since 1950,Marcus laments that ÒWhile stories of work-re-lated tragedies at slaughterhouses are commonplace,the im-the facilities have on communities is every bit asdisturbingÓ(2005,226). These impacts include housingtages,increased demand for social assistance,and an in-crease in crime (Broadway 2000; Stull and Broadway 2004).looking for worssThe increase incrime rates,however,is the least readily explainable of theseefore warrants focused attention. Slaughterhouse Blues oadw20042004Finney County,Kansas there was a 130% increase in violentears after two slaughterhouses opened,hich can only be partly accounted for by the 33% increasein population (Broadway 2000). Property crimes in the coun-buse increasedby three times and was 50% higher than the state average(Gouveia and Stull 1995). Increases in crime in slaughter-wns have also been observed in Nebraska (Broadway63% over a three year period (Gouveia and Stull 1995).ve also been documented in Iowa:e,where the number of burglaries in the first nine monthsvious year (Grey 1995)wa cities of similar size (Grey 1998). CrimesFinally,increases in drug-related criminality have also beenowitz and Miller 1999). creases in intimate partner violence appear to be behind muchay 2000; Gouveia and Stull 1995;Stull and Broadway 2004).Two quantitative studies were undertaken subsequent tothese community studies to examine if the observed increas-es in crime in slaughterhouse communities are statisticallysignificant,whether the crime increases can be explained byother factors,and if the increases only occur in the uniquecommunities studied by ethnographers where extremely largeslaughterhouses have recently opened. One study examined(Artz,Orazem,and Otto 2007). The authors examined the ef-fects of meatpacking,poultry processing,meat processing,rendering,and frozen specialty foodÕs share of the countyÕstotal employment and wages on economic growth,crime,andgovernment spending. They found that growth in the indus-tries as a share of total county employment raises county em-yment growth,while lowering wage growth compared tocounties without the industry. Further,employment outsidegrows more slowly,which they argue is in-dicative that growth in the meatpacking and processing in-dustry results in less growth in other areas of the economy.tries,they find that there is no significant change in propertyhey also conclude that there is little evidence ofgrowth in government spending. Importantly,however,whenately their find-ferent:expansion in meatpacking,or slaughter-houses,Òlowers wage and income growth without the accom-owth seen in the es-tes for all industries combined. Counties with growth inmeat packing also experienced faster growth in violent crimeelative to counties without packingplantsÓ(Artz,Orazem,and Otto 2007,568).The other study examined 581 nonmetropolitan countiesom 1994 through 2002 and focused on the rela-slaughterhouse industry in the county and various types ofor various theorized correlates of crime,vels,and immigration,among others (Fitzgerald,Kalof,tes,arrests forimes,rape,and other sex offenses. They also findThe findings of the community case studies and thetion provide evidence thatlevels of violent crime in particular than other communities.ity for psychological well-beingÓand that occupational Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 health and safety regulations be developed to improve psy-chological well-being in slaughterhouses. Further,MacNair20022002who has examined perpetration-induced stress amongsoldiers,executioners and law enforcement officers,suggestsstudying slaughterhouse workers for perpetration-inducedstress. She poses the following questions:ÒDoes the fact thatthese are merely animals prevent the psychological conse-quences that would accrue if people were to be treated in thisway? Does the fact that this kind of violence is done in mas-sive numbers make it more of a psychological problem thanviolence to one or a few animals would?Óp. 88p. 88Thesequestions remain unanswered; however,it is possible thatwhat these communities are experiencing is symptomatic ofthe growing tension between the state of the modern slaugh- Postdomestic Cultures ein,the history of the slaughter-house as an institution can be traced through three major pe-riods thus far. First,Òpublic slaughterhouseÓreforms in theed the beginning of the concentrationof animal slaughter and its movement away from the view ofed,which is best illustrated by the Union Stockyard inChicago during the late 1800s and into the twentieth century.created an unprecedent-eak with nature:it distanced people from the animalsthey consume,the act of killing,and the natural environmentCronon 1991Cronon 1991,during the latter part of the twentieth century the negativehich they are being relocated became apparent. Some ofple into a community,such as housing shortages and strainsound slaughterhouses,such as increasing environ-ker injuries,and crime.hanges in the slaughterhouse,and havele for some of the changes therein.sight and out of mind,and slaughterhouse companies havee. The changes in slaughterhouses and,howev-er,have created a tension in postdomestic cultures:a grow-garding the slaughter of animalsanimals being slaughtered is increasing dramatically andtheir quality of life,if not death,have arguably been dimin-ishing. In his examination of attitudes towards nature and an-imals in England from 1500-1800,Keith Thomas describesthe emergence of this tension as follows: There was thus a growing conflict between the newsensibilities and the material foundations of humansociety. A mixture of compromise and concealmenthas so far prevented this conflict from having to befully resolved. But the issue cannot be completelyevaded and it can be relied upon to recur. It is oneof the contradictions upon which modern civiliza-tion may be said to rest. About its ultimate conse-quences we can only speculate (1983,303). The small communities in the US to which slaughter-ve recently relocated might provide a microcosm inwhich at least some of these consequences are becoming in-creasingly apparent.xt chapter will be in the slaughterhouse nar-rative is yet unclear. Perhaps the consequences of the tensionbetween the modern slaughterhouse and postdomestic cul-evident. If so,this could giverise to a new sort of environmental/social justice movement.veloped around the siting ofted Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (Ed-wards and Ladd 2000; Ladd and Edward 2002; Tacquino,ing et al. 2008). Another relatedvement could potentially develop around the siting ofdustrial animal slaughter and postdomestic values grows,theseparation between livestock animals and meat in our livesied. V19941994eferred to theanimal and meat. This ellipsis might become even moreilliamsÕ20082008the Òaffected igno-ven more rationalized and institutionalized. One thingven as slaughterhouses continue to seemingly drop from our Acknowledgements would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpfulsuggestions and insightful critiques. I also owe a deep debt of gratitude toLinda Kalof and Tom Dietz for providing much intellectual stimulationover the years around the topic of this paper. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 1.af itz@uwindsor .ca 2.This paper focuses primarily on the slaughtering of cattle and pigs inNorth America and Western Europe..W20082008xists in this context be-cause there is a refusal rather than an inability to investigate whetherone is engaged in something immoral.4.See 19911991xamination of contemporarysteps taken to conceptually distance the meat on the plate from theanimals used to produce it,or what V19941994s to as putting5.The terminology used to describe this Òbehind the scenesÓlocation isstill contested. The term ÒslaughterhouseÓoriginally did not refer tospecific structure used for slaughtering animals. It referred to anybuilding where animal slaughter took place (such as a butcherÕs shed)Otter 2008Otter 2008The term has since fallen out of favour with some be-killed for human consumption,such as the French or meatpacking plant. Due to its clarity,the term Òslaugh-terhouseÓis employed in this paper in line with its current use de-6.19861986gories of dis-tancing devices used to mitigate guilt associated with the harming ofanimals more generally. The other three categories he delineates in-clude detachment,misrepresentation,and shifting the blame.For a discussion of the consolidation within the industry at this time8.For a thorough examination of the effects of postindustrialism andBusch,Friedland,Gouveia,19941994ver,are still underrepresented in the industry(Horowitz 1997). As of 2003,only slightly more than a quarter26.6%26.6%poultry,and fish possessing workers were womenOther changes in the monopoly structure of the meatpacking industryare worth noting:In 2002,ConAgra sold the majority of the interestin its Red Meat division and it was renamed Swift & Company; andation of Farmland Indus-tries were sold to the worldÕs largest hog producer and processor,11.The location of hog processing has not undergone as dramatic a re-gional shift as cattle processing (Broadway 1995). Additionally,inEngland,slaughtering has not become as concentrated in livestockcating in areas where they can obtain government grants,livestockted in Britain in the first place,and due toenvironmental concerns large feedlots are not as common as they are12.In these states employees have the option to join unions,pay dues,and quit the unions at any time (National Right to Work Legal De-fence Foundation 2005),which has hampered union organizing13.Ascertaining the exact turnover rate for the industry is difficult:ÒIn-dustry spokespersons do all they can to avoid revealing turnoverrates,but everyone agrees that employee turnover is higher than vir-ually any other industryÓ(Stull and Broadway 2004,80). Illustra-tive of this high turnover rate is the fact that only 48 out of 15,000hourly workers at IBP received retirement benefits between 1974 and1986 (Stull and Broadway 1995,70),and reportedly one-third ofslaughterhouse workers quit within the first 30 days (Stull and Broad-ay 2004,80).14.An increase in crime rates after the opening of a slaughterhouse hasalso been observed in at least one Canadian community to date:thetown of Brooks,Alberta,experienced a 15% increase in populationwithin approximately 5 years of plant expansion but also witnessed a70% increase in reported crime (Broadway 2001; Stull and Broadway2004,123-124). The town of High River,Alberta,which hosted anew slaughterhouse,has not experienced the negative impacts thatBrooks has,presumably because it is close enough to Calgary so thatmany of the workers live there in order to have access to more af-fordable housing (Broadway 2001). References 2002. ÒFarmers Union Members Testify on Negative Impacts of Livestockation.팀Pp. 3 in tional Farmers Union News 2005. ÒWhat Meat Means.팀in The New York Times New York.geanne M.,Peter F. Orazem,and Daniel M. Otto. 2007. ÒMea-suring the Impact of Meat Packing and Processing Facilities in Non-metropolitan Counties:A Difference-in-Differences Approach.팀 ican Journal of Agal Economics Azzam,Azzeddine. 1998. ÒCompetition in the US Meatpacking Industry: al Economics Bacon,David. 1999. ÒEthnic Cleansing Hits Immigrant Workers,Organiz-ers,in Midwest Meatpacking:INS Declares War on Labor.팀 The Na-tion taille,Georges. 1997. ÒSlaughterhouse.팀Pp. 22 in chitec-ture:A reader in cultural theory ,edited by N. Leach. New York:Benson,Janet. 1994. ÒThe Effects of Packinghouse Work on SoutheastAsian Refugee Families.팀in Newcomers in the Workplace:Immi-grants and the Restructuring of the US Economy ,edited by L. Lam-and G. Grenier. Philadelphia:Temple UniversityBonanno,Alessandro,Lawrence Busch,William H. Friedland,Lourdesand Enzo Mingione. 1994. ÒFrom Columbus to ConAgra:The Globalization of Agriculture and Food.팀Lawrence:UniversityBrantz,Dorothee. 2008. ÒAnimal Bodies,Human Health,and the Reformof Slaughterhouses in Nineteenth-Century Berlin.팀Pp. 71-88 in Meat,Modernity and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse ,edited by P.ersity of New Hampshire Press.Broadway,Michael. 1995. ÒFrom city to countryside:Recent changes inthe structure and location of the meat- and fish-processing indus-ies.팀Pp. 17-40 in Way You Cut It:Meat Processing and SmallTown America ,edited by D. D. Stull,M. Broadway,and D. Griffith.ence:University Press of Kansas. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 Fitzgerald Broadway,Michael. 2007. ÒMeatpacking and the Transformation of RuralCommunities:A Comparison of Brooks,Alberta and Garden City,Kansas.팀 Rural Sociology roadway,Michael J. 1990. ÒMeatpacking and its social and economicconsequences for Garden city,Kansas in the 1980s.팀 Urban Anthro-pology Broadway,Michael. 1994. ÒWhat happens when the meatpackers come totown?Ó Small Town roadway,Michael. 1998. ÒWhereÕs the beef? The integration of the Cana-dian and American Beefpacking industries.팀 Prairie Forum Broadway,Michael. 2000. ÒPlanning for change in small towns or trying toavoid the slaughterhouse blues.팀 Journal of Rural Studies Broadway,Michael. 2001. ÒBad to the bone:The social costs of beef-packingÕs move to rural Alberta.팀Pp. 39-51 in Writing off the ruralWest:Globalization,governments,and the transformation of rural ,edited by R. Epp and D. Whitson. Edmonton:Univer-sity of Alberta Press.Broadway,Michael. 2002. ÒThe British Slaughtering Industry:A DyingBusiness.팀 Geography oadway,Michael J. and T Ward. 1990. ÒRecent changes in the structuretes meatpacking industry.팀 raphy y,Michael and Donald Stull. 2008. Ò푉픀ll do whatever you want,but it hurtsÕ:Worker safety and community health in modern meat-packing.팀 Labor:Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas Broadway,Michael and Donald D. Stull. 2005. ÒMeat processing and Gar-den City,KS:Boom and bust.팀 Journal of Rural Studies Brueggemann,J and C Brown. 2003. ÒThe decline of industrial unionismin the meatpacking industry:Event-structure analyses of labor un-est,1946-1987.팀 ork and Occupations Bulliet,Richard. 2005. Herders and Hamburgers:The Past andFuture of Human-Animal Relationships New York:Columbia Uni-partment of Labor. 2009. ÒHighest Inci-tes of Total Nonfatal Occupational Injury and Illness Cases,2008.팀Caldwell,Wayne J. 1998. ÒLand-use planning,the environment,and sitingintensive livestock facilities in the 21st Century.팀 Journal of Soil andWater Conservation Cronon,illiam. 1991. Metropolis:Chicago and the Great West. New York; London:WW Norton and Company.ared. 2008. ÒButchers,Tanners,and Tallow Chandlers:The Geogra-phy of Slaughtering in Early Nineteenth-Century New York City.팀Pp. Meat,Modernity and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse ,edit-ed by P. Young Lee. Durham:University of New Hampshire Press.ma:A Story of Hog Hotels and Local Resis-tance.팀Pp. 23-38 in Pigs,Profits,and Rural Communities ,edited byK. M. Thu and E. P. Durrenberger. Albany:State University of NewDickes,Lori A. and Allen L. Dickes. 2003. ÒOligopolists Then and Now:king Industry.팀 Economic Education Research Dillard,Jennifer. 2008. ÒA Slaughterhouse Nightmare:PsychologicalHarm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility ofRedress through Legal Reform.팀 Georgetown Journal on Poverty,Law,and Policy XV.Edwards,Bob and Anthony Ladd. 2000. ÒEnvironmental Justice,Swineroduction and Farm Loss in North Carolina.팀 ociological Spectrum Eisnitz,G. 1997. Slaughterhouse:The shocking story of greed,neglect,and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry New York:lias,Norbert. 2000[1939]. he Civilizing Process:Sociogenetic and Psy-chogenetic Investigations :Wiley-Blackwell.Fitzgerald,Amy J.,Linda Kalof,and Thomas Dietz. 2009. ÒSpillover fromÔThe JungleÕinto the Larger Community:Slaughterhouses and In-creased Crime Rates.팀 Organization and Environment Gouveia,Lourdes and Donald D. Stull. 1995. ÒDances with Cows:Beef-packingÕs impact on Garden City,Kansas and Lexington,Nebraska.팀 Any Way You Cut It:Meat Processing and Small-Town ,edited by D. D. Stull,M. Broadway,and D. Griffith.Lawrence:University of Kansas Press.Gouveia,Lourdes and Donald D. Stull. 1997. ÒLatino Immigrants,Meat-king,and Rural Communities:A Case Study of Lexington,Ne-팀Julian Samora Research Institute,Michigan State Universi-ty,East Lansing.y,apples,and new immigrantsin the rural communities of the Shenandoah Valley:An ethnograph-ic case study.팀 International Migration Grey,Mark. 1995. ÒPork,poultry and newcomers in Storm Lake,Iowa.팀 Any Way You Cut It:Meat Processing and Small-Town America Lawrence:University Press of Kansas.Grey Mark. 1999. ÒImmigrants,migration and worker turnover at the HogPride Pork Packing Plant.팀 Human Organization ey,Mark A. 1998. ÒMeatpacking in Storm Lake,Iowa:A Community inansition.팀Pp. 57-72 in ofits,and Rural Communities ed by K. M. Thu and E. P. Durrenberger. Albany:State University ofA. and Anne C. Woodrick. 2002. ÒUnofficial Sister Cities:tpacking Labor Migration between Villachuato,Mexico,andMarshalltown,Iowa.팀 Human Organization Grier,Katherine C. 2007. Pets in America:A History New York; Toronto:Hake,ER and MB King. 2002. ÒThe Veblenian credit economy and the cor-tion of American meatpacking.팀 nal of Economic Issues Halpern,Rick. 1997. White Workers inChicagoÕs Packinghouses,1904-1954 Urbana; Chicago:UniversityHorowitz,Roger. 1997. ÒÓWhere Men Will Not WorkÓ:Gender,Power,AmericaÕs MeatpackingIndustry,1890-1990.팀 Technology and Culture Horowitz,Roger. 2006. Putting meat on the American table:Taste,tech-y,transformation ohn Hopkins University Press.Horowitz,Roger and Mark J. Miller. 1999. ÒImmigrants in the Delmarvaocessing Industry:The changing face of Georgetown,Delaware,and Environs.팀The Julian Samora Research Institute,Michigan State University,East Lansing.Jablonsky,Thomas T. 1993. Pride in the jungle:Community and everyday Human Ecology Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2010 life in Back of the Yards Chicago Baltimore; London:The JohnsHopkins University Press.Johnson,Lindgren. 2008. ÒTo ÔAdmit All Cattle without DistinctionÕ:Re-onstructing Slaughter in the Slaughterhouse Cases and the New Or-leans Crescent City Slaughterhouse.팀Pp. 198-215 in Meat,Moderni- ,edited by P. Young Lee.Durham:University of New Hampshire Press.Kalof,Linda. 2007. Looking at Animals in Human History London:Reak-Ladd,Anthony and Bob Edward. 2002. ÒCorporate Swine and CapitalistPigs:A Decade of Environmental Injustice and Protest in North Car-olina.팀 Social Justice MacLachlan,Ian. 2008. ÒHumanitarian Reform,Slaughter Technology,and Butcher Resistance in Nineteenth-Century Britain.팀Pp. 107-126 Meat,Modernity and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse ,edited by P.Young Lee. Durham:University of New Hampshire Press.MacNair,Rachel. 2002. Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress:The Psy-chological Consequences of Killing Westport; London:Praeger.Marcus,Erik. 2005. Meat Market:Animals,Ethics,and Money. Work Legal Defense Foundation. 2005. ÒRight to WorkStates.팀he Shame of Meatpacking.팀 he Nation Otter,Chris. 2008. ÒCivilizing Slaughter:The Development of the BritishPublic Abattoir,1850-1910.팀Pp. 89-106 in Meat,Modernity and the ,edited by P. Young Lee. Durham:Uni-versity of New Hampshire Press.Pacyga,Dominic. 2008. ÒChicago:Slaughterhouse to the World.팀Pp. 153- Meat,Modernity and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse ,edited byP. Young Lee. Durham:University of New Hampshire Press.atterson,Charles. 2002. nal Treblinka:Our Treatment of Animals and York:Lantern Books.Philo,Chris. 1998. ÒAnimals,geography,and the city:Notes on inclusions phies:Place,Politics, Emel. London; New York:Verso.RŽmy,Catherine. 2003. ÒUne mise ˆ mort industrielle ÒhumaineÓ? L핡bat-toir ou lÕimpossible objectivation des animaux.팀 Politix Rifkin,Jeremy. 1992. Beyond Beef:The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Cul-ture New York; London:Penguin Books. relationships Oxford; New York:Basil Blackwell. he Jungle k:The Viking Press.Skaggs,Jimmy M. 1986. Prime Cut:Livestock Raising and Meatpackingin the United States,1607-1983 College Station:Texas A & M Uni-versity Press.space of the abattoir:On theinee팀 Human Ecology Review Stull,D. D. and Michael J. Broadway. 1990. ÒThe effects of restructuringon beefpaking in Kansas.팀 Kansas Business Review Stull,Donald. 1994. ÒKnock ÔEm Dead:Work on the Killfloor of a Mod-rn Beefpacking Plant.팀in ewcomers in the Workplace:Immigrants ,edited by L. Lamphere,A.Stepick,and G. Grenier. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.Stull,Donald and Michael Broadway. 2004. Slaughterhouse blues:Themeat and poultry industry in North America Toronto:Wadsworth.tull,Donald D. and Michael Broadway. 1995. ÒKilling them softly:Workin meatpacking plants and what it does to workers.팀Pp. 61-83 in Way You Cut It:Meat Processing and Small-Town America ,edited byD. D. Stull,M. Broadway,and D. Griffith. Lawrence:UniversityTacquino,Michael,Domenico Parisi,and Duane Gill. 2002. ÒUnits ofAnalysis and the Environmental Justice Hypothesis:The Case of In-dustrial Hog Farms.팀 Social Science Quarterly Thomas,Keith. 1983. Man and the Natural World:A History of the Mod-ern Sensibility. New York:Pantheon Books.US Census Bureau. 2003. ÒLabor Force,Employment,and Earnings.팀ialles,Noelie. 1994. Animal to Edible idge; New York:CambridgeWalker,Polly,Pamela Rhubart-Berg,Shawn McKenzie,Kristin Kelling,Production and Consumption.팀 Public Health Nutrition Williams,Nancy M. . 2008. ÒAffected Ignorance and Animal Suffering:Why Our Failure to Debate Factory Farming Puts Us at Moral Risk.팀 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Wing,Steve,Rachel Avery Horton,Naeema Muhammad,Gary Grant,Mansoureh Tajik,and Kendall M. Thu. 2008. ÒIntegrating Epidemi-ology,Education,and Organizing for Environmental Justice:Com-unity Health Effects of Industrial Hog Operations.팀 ican Jour- Worrall,Michael S. 2004. ÒMeatpacking Safety:Is OSHA Enforcement nal of Agricultural Law d. 2004. ÒHumanity and Inhumanity:Toward a Sociology of ganization and Environment York,Richard. 2006. ÒSociology of the Slaughterhouse.팀in of Earth ,edited by C. J. Cleveland. Washington,D.C.:EnvironmentInformation Coalition,National Councilfor Science and the Environ-Paula. 2008a. ÒIntroduction:Housing Slaughter.팀Pp. 1-9 in Meat,Modernity,and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse ,edited by P.New Hampshire Press.Young Lee,Paula. 2008b. ÒSiting the Slaughterhouse:From Shed to Fac-tory.팀Pp. 46-70 in Meat,Modernity and the Rise of the Slaughter- ,edited by P. Young Lee. Durham:University of New Hamp-