Animals as Food: (Re)connecting Production, Processing, Consumption, and Impacts (The Animal Turn)
“Oligopolists Then and Now.” | 152 Notes to Chapter 3 99. Broadway, “Where’s the Beef?” 100. Pachirat, Every Twelve Seconds, 22. 101. Brueggemann and Brown, “Decline of Industrial Unionism in the Meatpacking Industry.” 102. Stull and Broadway, “Effects of Restructuring on Beefpacking in Kansas.” 103. Skaggs, Prime Cut; Rifkin, Beyond Beef. 104. Rifkin, Beyond Beef. 105. Horowitz, Putting Meat on the American Table. 106. Brueggemann and Brown, “Decline of Industrial Unionism in
processing companies as part of the process of vertical integration.61 Although these most recent applications of science and technology to standardize animal bodies may read like science fiction, humans have been attempting to modify livestock animals’ bodies for quite some time. In the eighteenth century, scientific interventions with livestock animals were largely in the form of breeding or “improvement” programs. Then in the nineteenth century, those involved with animal husbandry began to
Consumption of dogs also has a history of being taboo in western cultures. A number of interrelated reasons may account for this specific taboo. First of all, dogs may not have been considered a suitable food choice because they were considered dirty and impure. Refusal to eat animals considered dirty or impure may have served to symbolically distance humans from animality; like the shift away from presenting the full animal’s body at the table, not consuming “impure” animals could frame humans
sector, which is interesting because so much of the attention paid to mitigating global climate change has been focused on changing public and private transportation strategies. World Bank researchers have since suggested that the contribution of animal agriculture to global climate change estimated by the FAO is actually too low. They instead estimate that animal agriculture is responsible for 51 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.125 To put these estimates into perspective, an average U.S.
termination of industrial animal agriculture specifically.4 Their proffered solution is that people stop consuming animal products entirely. They assert that improvements in animal welfare practices or standards cannot obviate the suffering animals endure by being imprisoned and killed. What is worse, according to this perspective, is that these minor modifications to the system can serve to perpetuate it because people may be lulled into thinking that the consumption of “humanely” treated