Animal Welfare , Market Power and Tangential Interests

The history of social movements which atempt to bring previously marginalized issues to the forefront is replete with examples of confict between cooperaton, compromise and collaboratng among actors whose interests and motvatons only tangentally coincide on the one hand and a desire to work with people whose aims and beliefs ft (nearly) perfectly with one’s own. Historical pathways are rarely straight-forward and are rarely formed by isolated sets of actors.


1
The history of social movements which atempt to bring previously marginalized issues to the forefront is replete with examples of confict between cooperaton, compromise and collaboratng among actors whose interests and motvatons only tangentally coincide on the one hand and a desire to work with people whose aims and beliefs ft (nearly) perfectly with one's own. Historical pathways are rarely straight-forward and are rarely formed by isolated sets of actors.
In Kamila Lis' Coalitons in the Jungle, the author traces a brief history of the meat processing industry in the United States from 1890 to present and the industry's impact on animal welfare. She places special emphasis on how advances and retreats in animal protecton have come about ofen through cooperaton with actors exogenous to the animal welfare movement.
For Lis, the history of the meat processing industry and levels of animal welfare is one of market concentraton, de-concentraton and re-concentraton. The systematc abuse of animals has historically reached its zenith during periods of concentraton; oligarchic market power in the meat processing industry is closely linked with negatve externalites such as lax animal and human safety standards, poor labor conditons and the atendant accidents and animal abuse due to overwork and frustraton. When this market power is coupled with coziness between the industry and the regulators who oversee it animal abuses routnely go unchecked. As such, Lis considers the concentraton of the meat industry as the principal target for improving animal welfare and living standards. However, concentrated power rarely accedes to de-concentraton willingly and de-concentratng power requires acton across multple pressure points. This in turn necessitates coordinaton among actors and groups whose interests align only tangentally.
The original concentraton of the Meat Industry from the 1880's untl the 1930's. The widely acknowledged human and animal atrocites from this period are notably depicted in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. These practces, partcularly the human toll, came under fre from government Ant-Trust measures, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), and from increased pressure from unions striving to improve worker conditons within these plants. Lis sees the acton by unions in promotng laborers' working conditon as being vital to the promoton of animal welfare: "it was unions and not animal welfare groups that actually (albeit unintentonally) improved conditons for animals in slaughterhouses during the middle of the century." The common thread that ted together the human and animal mistreatment was the meat processing speed; observers had long noted that human and animal sufering was causally linked to increased processing speed. Union actvists championed the decrease of processing speeds because "it not only improved the physical safety of the workers, but also simultaneously decreased their levels of frustraton while on the job", benefts which decreased the prevalence of "inadvertent blunders" and "intentonal animal abuses in the slaughterhouse" (p. 75). Hence, Lis atests that the very real improvements to animal treatment that accompanied the following period of market de-concentraton came about as result of union actvists fghtng for beter working conditons. This contenton is not intended to diminish the work of animal welfare groups, but rather to show how actors with tangental interests and politcal voice can achieve material advances in animal welfare.
These increases in human and animal safety standards which accompanied the wave of de-concentraton proved ephemeral with the introducton of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operatons (CAFO's) in the 1960's, a renewed desire for meat consumpton and the rise of the American fast food industry. These three factors mutually reinforced one another, and concentraton within the meat industry rose again to fulfll the ever-expanding demand for meat products. The increased concentraton was once again accompanied by a rise in abuse, animal deprivaton and pain, and a reducton in animal welfare standards. Yet, just as in the past, when meat-packing workers conditons worsened, the new concentraton of the animal industry has forced negatve externalites over a broad swath of actors who could in turn be fruitul sources of collaboraton to challenge the concentraton of meat industry market power.
Lis focuses on one group of actors in partcular, small animal producers, whose producton capacites, measures and standards have all come under pressure or become subjugated to the rules of the meat-processing industry. Contracted meat purchases, imposed growing standards impossible to meet through natural growth processes, and distorted incentves for the agricultural cultvaton of corn combine to tangentally align the interests of small farmers with those of the animal welfare movement, just as the interests of unions were partally aligned with animal welfare groups in the past. In Lis' opinion, this creates a window of opportunity through which material gains for animals can be obtained via cooperaton with small animal producers, by combining the legal expertse of the animal welfare community with the untapped possible politcal, economic and moral 2 strength of small producers to exploit current legal ambiguites in court decisions related to the PSA and fght the tde of re-concentraton in the meat industry.
At its core, Lis' artcle is one that posits a queston most social movements have encountered in their history: the inescapable tension between purity of mission and the possibility of realizing tangible gains through compromise. The ultmate goals of animal welfare actvists can inevitably fnd tension with the goals of small animal producers, yet profound advances can be forged via cooperaton while the window of opportunity is stll open, though, as Lis contests, this avenue is one that has remained mostly unexplored. Given that negatve externalites from the meat processing industry are being imposed on a wide variety of actors (small farmers, environmentalists, public health advocates, among others), this queston of purity of mission versus tangible advances is one likely to come up again.