By now, you've probably heard about or seen the video released by the Humane Society depicting the unspeakably grotesque, not to mention, illegal, inhumane treatment of animals at a slaughterhouse in California. Workers rammed the animals with a fork lift and stun guns to try and get downer cows to stand up and qualify for a meat inspection so they could be slaughtered. This meat was destined for school lunch programs.
This video was shot by an employee working undercover with the humane organization and was so shocking it elicited a comment from the USDA Secretary. Even in the wake of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, continual scandals about e. coli in meat, repeated embargoes on US meat exports because of inadequate inspections, this type of thing occurs. The USDA is asleep at the wheel - or worse, has put on blinders to avoid the obvious.
Lest we get direly pessimistic, there was faintly encouraging news on the fish front, where more retailers are moving towards certified sustainable fisheries. The Marine Stewardship Council is the recognized certifier in this field. The Economist reports that:
Rupert Howes, the MSC’s chief executive, says that while it took seven years for the first 500 MSC-labelled products to appear, the next 500 took only another nine months.
Today there are 1,123 products with an MSC label around the world. Although consumer recognition remains low today, many wholesale buyers recognise the label, and demand for sustainably sourced fish is growing fast.
Wal-Mart has taken a major step, with one-quarter of its seafood counter now MSC certified (and prompting a mea culpa from one friend of mine). If you include fish Wal-Mart sells that are on the way to certification, that moves up to 50-60 percent. Globally, MSC certified stocks represent only 7 percent of the fish supply, but they are fast increasing -- and more importantly, putting increasing pressure on retailers to move in this direction.
With the USDA losing credibility, might a private regime similar to MSC's have more credibility in the meat market and with consumers? Will private certification schemes fill the humane vacuum? Or will we rely on assurances from the USDA that it will get things right?
- Samuel Fromartz
Q. Are matters of animal suffering _currently_ something the USDA attends to, even technically?
If so I'm unaware of it (and I think I'm more attentive to this than your average consumer, heck, I read this blog, right?).
And if the USDA does NOT take animal welfare into consideration now I don't expect them to start anytime soon.
In general it seems that for matters like this, and a whole host of other issues, government is way behind the private sector in offering positive responses. If it was purely a matter of public health then they might act sooner (and even there their record is abysmal), but given the gov'ts persistent indifference to anything that didn't seriously endanger the public or profits of large corporations (look at their punitive regulatory treatment of those NOT using Monsanto's rGBGH) I don't see why they would champion, let alone reqire, new more humane practices.
So, yes, something like MSC could very well become the defacto standard for those (consumers or industry participants) who give a damn about these matters. This would be parallel to the organic movement. There, too, private initiatives led the way. And even there the gov't took decades to simply codify those private efforts, while still overwhelming promoting the non-organic approach.
Posted by: Rodney North | February 03, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Rodney, yes, the private sector tends to lead ... except when it does not. Organic came out of industry/farm/retailer/consumer efforts to build certification. The problem when it goes wide, in government, is that the bar is set low, sometimes too low. It doesn't satisfy all the parties at the table, which is why organic is splintering now, with greater emphasis on local or other attributes.
On its face, MSC looks like a good thrust in seafood -- but I need to look into it more. It is certainly better than nothing.
The question of course is whether private non-government schemes can get bought off or corrupted and devolve into meaningless. In short, these schemes often lead the market, in codifying practices, but they are by no means perfect.
Conflict of interest, or its appearance, is often a major hurdle - since companies too often get a stamp of approval from those they pay (or pay off).
Posted by: Samuel Fromartz | February 05, 2008 at 09:42 AM