Chris Walker Vs. A.B. 2098
Photo: Getty Images
When it came to the ethical treatment and humane slaughter of the animals we eat, 2008 didn’t start off as a great year for California. In February, the Chino, CA based Westland/Hallmark Meat Company had to issue the largest beef recall in history — 143 million pounds worth, to be exact — after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released footage of sick and barely mobile cows being kicked and prodded to slaughter. Aside from exposing deplorable behavior, the potentially dangerous meat was being fed to children in school lunch programs. I may not be a particularly huge fan of children but I still think poisoning them is wrong.
What a difference a few months make. If the Westland/Hallmark situation was a battle cry, California answered it with guns ablaze. Last month Californians passed Proposition 2, an initiative that will significantly improve the living conditions of farm animals, by 63.5 percent. (Note: San Bernardino County, where Chino is located, voted “yes” on Prop 2 by 61.6 percent.) But what you may not know is before Prop 2 was passed California quietly made a different benchmark victory for slaughter-bound animals. I’m talking about A.B. 2098.
A.B. 2098, which was signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on July 22, 2008, is a bill which, “prohibits a slaughterhouse, stockyard, or auction from selling meat or products of non-ambulatory (downed) animals for consumption,” according to the HSUS. Initiated by Democratic Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, A.B. 2098 not only covers cattle, it also includes pigs, sheep, and goats. A.B. 2098 also prohibits the transportation of sick or immobile animals to auction markets or stockyards.
The bill was a monumental step in the right direction, both for public safety and for the animals we consume. Does A.B. 2098 mean a downer cow will never make it onto an assembly line again? Not necessarily. But it does make the penalties harsher and, considering the fate of Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., which preceded and perhaps gave A.B. 2098 more leverage, will hopefully make slaughterhouses think twice before allowing their workers to kick a possibly E. Coli-riddled cow up the conveyor belt. (Note: Meat companies like Niman Ranch have never slaughtered non-ambulatory animals.)
If you’re interested in learning more about A.B. 2098, or about Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Recalls, follow the links below.
LINKS:
The Humane Farming Association: A.B. 2098
Food Safety and Inspection Service: Current Recalls & Alerts
PREVIOUS MEAT RELATED VERSUS:
Chris Walker Vs. Good Meat Vs. Bad Meat
Chris Walker Vs. A Bone To Pick With Vegetarians
Chris Walker Vs. You Are What You Eat
Chris Walker Vs. USDA Certified
Chris Walker Vs. Bullfighting, And Meat In America – As It Was Intended
Chris Walker Vs. Offal Good: Chris Cosentino
Chris Walker Vs. Bullfighting, And Meat In America
Posted: December 9th, 2008 | Author: Chris Walker | Filed under: Food | 9 Comments »
What made the Westland/Hallmark situation so paramount was that–while information about slaughterhouses and the ethical treatment of animals is always readily available–public attention to the problem was prompted by bringing footage of immobile cattle (preparing to say their last words) into the homes of families alike. People nibbled away at their pot roast and cheeseburgers while they saw the horrifying images on their own televisions, thanks to an ‘undercover video’ that snuck into the hands of a major network. And, much like when they were inadvertently coaxed into seeing Janet Jackson’s decorated breast, people demanded an explanation. The reaction from California was probably already in progress, but the attention may have sped it up (no publicity is bad publicity).
While CAFOs and the typical slaughterhouse won’t disappear anytime soon (and people will still be unwilling to change their eating habits, unless they are put on television and paid for it), we can only hope that California will serve as a positive example for operations throughout the US; making it abundantly clear that something needs to be done.
As positive of a change California has made, and the advocacy it has upheld with Assembly Bill 2098, I do not think we will see a mass conversion in the United States towards better functioning and effective food operations. Granted, special interest groups do lobby for better food handling practices, but a monumental policy systems change of this nature will take years.
Public Policy, as well as other policies that fall in between the lines of health and human services do attempt to better protect a population-based disposition or wellness. Personally, from working on the front-lines, I just cannot see public policy working for this betterment. It is not that is not important, but the condition of the United States budget and its political framework is in an upheaval.
Additionally, asking for the adjustment of “humanistic traits” such as eating habits may be a far flung approach to solving a problem of this magnitude. It is feasible for some individuals to educate themselves on nutrition and eating habits, but the majority of Americans are not truly concerned about what they put into their mouths. This fact, or merely statement, is proven with the health disparities we statistically can read from Census and WHO reports. Reframing the argument about not how they (individuals) can change their traits but how the issue can present itself as merely an incentive for individuals sounds more plausible of an argument to me.
You think because this is “drama” free (this post), anyone will leave comments. Kinda sad.
tara-
some of us prefer to take it to the streets and instead of post comments, we try to get friends/strangers to check out chris’ research. you should try it sometime.
ps: I’m joking. don’t get butthurt.
I do not understand why you insist on making fun of me. We all get it. Now get over it. Thanks
PS
Don’t steal my lines.
Chris, in continuation to our convo last night, and I will follow up with you about this because there are many cool sites I have for you, check this out:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2098_cfa_20080630_180504_sen_floor.html
It is a pretty cool bill analysis. You can check out the players in this entire thing. Look over it and lets talk about the policy paradox that I brought up last night. The wheels…they are a’ turning.
Being the journal article guy, I came across something you all might find interesting.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1277407&pageindex=1