Monday, November 29, 2010
One Lucky Duck
Research Paper Final
Painless Death?
Should we care if our filet mignon suffered a painful death in the slaughterhouse soon before it made its way to our dinner table? After all we cannot directly experience anything else’s pain. Even if we were to look with our own eyes pain is a state of consciousness a “mental event” and such it can never be observed, at least not by the eye. Pain is something that we feel, and we can only infer that others are feeling it from various external indications (Singer 1-20). I feel that the animals were put on this earth for us with the intentions of coexistence with humans, but if we must kill them in search of food we should do so in the most humane and painless way possible.
First off we will look into the way in which animals are slaughtered in the western way – mainly cattle and sheep in the United States – and try and explore how the degree of pain in which they encounter in their death. Mammals killed in the U.S. (excluding rabbits because they are considered to be poultry) are required by law to be stunned before being killed (Singer, and Mason 67). The most common method for this is the use of the captive bolt stunning device. A captive bolt stunning gun kills the animal and reduces it instantly unconscious supposedly without causing pain. A captive bolt gun has a steel bolt that is powered by either compressed air or a blank cartridge. The bolt is driven into the animal's brain. It has the same effect on the animal as a firearm with a live bullet. After the animal is shot the bolt retracts and is reset for the next animal. A captive bolt gun is safer than a firearm (Grandin). There is some questioning on whether or not the bolt actually kills the animal or not but as seen in slaughter plants, if the bolt penetrates the cattle correctly the damage to their brain is irreversible and the animal will not be able to revive. But if the bolt is non-penetrating the cattle it will be rendered unconscious but still has the ability to revive unless it is promptly bled (Grandin).
Temple Grandin has long been dedicated to the cause of animal rights and in that she fights for the humane killing of animals. In her first survey, in 1996, only 36 percent of slaughterhouses were able to effectively stun at least 95 percent of animals on the first attempt. In 2002 she conducted another study and 94 percent were able to do so (Singer, and Mason 67). This is an extremely significant and dramatic improvement. But this still means that hundreds of thousands of animals are not being stunned on the first try and endure inhumane treatment.
For slaughterhouses that do not use penetrating stunning devices there are many more complications that come into consideration when trying to induce instantaneous insensibility. But they still should be evaluated with the American Meat Institute scoring system in the same manner as penetrating captive bolt (Grandin). They must still be able to stun 95% or more of the cattle correctly with a single shot. They must be able to attain an acceptable score of 75% of the cattle moved with no electric prod and 3% or less of the cattle vocalizing. If a head restraint is used, a vocalization score of 5% is acceptable (Grandin). To help ensure that cattle are killed with one shot when using a non-penetrating the introduction of head holders has been to hold the animals head steady while the shot is being administered in the right spot.
Slaughterhouses are always operating on a very precise schedule and must produce a certain amount of meat every day, which means that every hour there must be a certain number of cattle being slaughtered. A faster pace means greater profits. “The old meatpacking plants in Chicago slaughtered about 50 cattle an hour. Twenty years ago, new plants in high plains slaughtered about 175 cattle an hour. Today some plants slaughter up to 400 cattle an hour – about half a dozen animals every minute” (Schlosser, 173). When the workers are put under this much pressure in order to meet the company’s quota the margin for error is zero. This can sometimes even lead to animals not being properly stunned but still being hung on the rail. Since they have not been properly stunned they have a chance of reviving and once again becoming sensible. This is a direct violation of USDA regulations and hanging a sensible animal would cause suffering (Grandin).
Now we will explore the ways in which animals are killed in the religious or ritual manner. Ritual slaughter is a slaughter done to abide by the laws of the Muslim faith. When animals are slaughtered according to these laws it is called halal slaughter. Halal slaughter laws are based on interpretation of the Quran, the Muslim scripture. Before halal slaughter, prayers to Allah are required. This ritual requires the animal to be slaughtered without being stunned, but with a razor sharp knife (Grandin). In the Quran the holy Prophet Muhammad says "Allah calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter: sharpen your blade to relieve its pain." He also instructs that the blade should not be sharpened in front of the animal or other animals of the same species. Of course when you mention the use of a razor sharp knife it sounds like it’s clearly going to hurt more than if the animals were stunned and instantly killed. But that raises the question is it less painful for an animal to be rendered uncoincious before slaughter through the use of a stunning bolt or should it be killed with one swift, deep, and strategic slit to the throat? Through the research I have conducted it seems that this method of slaughter is widely looked down up just because of the fact that the animal isn’t made unconscious. But a study done in a non-Muslim country proves otherwise, through the use of science.
In the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hanover University in Germany a study was conducted. Led by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and assisted by Dr. Hazim the study was named: "Attempts to objectify pain and consciousness in conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and ritual (Islamic method of cutting with knife) methods of slaughtering sheep and calves." As part of the study several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skulls of the animals, touching the surfaces of the brain. They were allowed to recover for several weeks following the implantations (Ali). Some of the animals were slaughtered in accordance to the Islamic method, taking a sharp knife and making a swift and deep incision cutting the jugular vein, trachea, esophagus, and the carotid arteries. The other animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol (Ali). They used an electroencephalograph (EEG) and an electrocardiogram (ECG) to record the condition of the brains and the hearts of the animals during the slaughtering and stunning (Ali).
During the (CBP) Captive Bolt Pistol stunning method the animals seemed to be unconscious soon after stunning but the EEG showed severe pain following the shot. During the Islamic method the first three seconds following the incision did not show any change on the EEG indicating the animal did not feel any recognizable pain during or after the incision (Ali). During the following three seconds the EEG recorded a deep sleep and unconsciousness a result of the large amount of blood gushing out of the body. So six seconds have now passed and there have been no signs of pain shown on the EEG from the Islamic method of slaughter. The heart still pounding and the body convulsing (as a result of the spinal cord) there was a significant amount of blood driven out from the body thus resulting in more hygienic meat for the consumers as compared to the animal that was stunned, its heart stopped beating instantly leading to the retention of more blood, this is not hygienic (Ali).
This study shows that through science it has been discovered that animals slaughtered in the correct Islamic manner feel no pain as opposed to the CBP method where they feel a sever amount of pain and retain an alarming level of blood which is not hygienic. Though the sight of a convulsing body might to the eye look extremely painful and not pleasing to the eye it is just a reflex as a result of a proper halal slaughter. Slaughtering animals to induce the least amount of pain is something that is still being debated heavily. But whenever you are eating any type of meat you must not rule out the probability that the animal you are eating might be from one that endured an extremely horrible and painful death.
Works Cited
Ali, Syed. "Halal:The most humane slaughter." Halal Journal (2008): n. pag. Web. 20 Nov 2010..
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. Pimlico, 1975. 1-20. Print.
Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. The Ethics of What We Eat. Holtzbrinck, 2006. 67. Print
Grandin, Temple. "Recommended Captive Bolt Stunning Techniques for Cattle." Grandin.com. N.p., March 2009. Web. 21 Nov 2010..
Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.
Should we care if our filet mignon suffered a painful death in the slaughterhouse soon before it made its way to our dinner table? After all we cannot directly experience anything else’s pain. Even if we were to look with our own eyes pain is a state of consciousness a “mental event” and such it can never be observed, at least not by the eye. Pain is something that we feel, and we can only infer that others are feeling it from various external indications (Singer 1-20). I feel that the animals were put on this earth for us with the intentions of coexistence with humans, but if we must kill them in search of food we should do so in the most humane and painless way possible.
First off we will look into the way in which animals are slaughtered in the western way – mainly cattle and sheep in the United States – and try and explore how the degree of pain in which they encounter in their death. Mammals killed in the U.S. (excluding rabbits because they are considered to be poultry) are required by law to be stunned before being killed (Singer, and Mason 67). The most common method for this is the use of the captive bolt stunning device. A captive bolt stunning gun kills the animal and reduces it instantly unconscious supposedly without causing pain. A captive bolt gun has a steel bolt that is powered by either compressed air or a blank cartridge. The bolt is driven into the animal's brain. It has the same effect on the animal as a firearm with a live bullet. After the animal is shot the bolt retracts and is reset for the next animal. A captive bolt gun is safer than a firearm (Grandin). There is some questioning on whether or not the bolt actually kills the animal or not but as seen in slaughter plants, if the bolt penetrates the cattle correctly the damage to their brain is irreversible and the animal will not be able to revive. But if the bolt is non-penetrating the cattle it will be rendered unconscious but still has the ability to revive unless it is promptly bled (Grandin).
Temple Grandin has long been dedicated to the cause of animal rights and in that she fights for the humane killing of animals. In her first survey, in 1996, only 36 percent of slaughterhouses were able to effectively stun at least 95 percent of animals on the first attempt. In 2002 she conducted another study and 94 percent were able to do so (Singer, and Mason 67). This is an extremely significant and dramatic improvement. But this still means that hundreds of thousands of animals are not being stunned on the first try and endure inhumane treatment.
For slaughterhouses that do not use penetrating stunning devices there are many more complications that come into consideration when trying to induce instantaneous insensibility. But they still should be evaluated with the American Meat Institute scoring system in the same manner as penetrating captive bolt (Grandin). They must still be able to stun 95% or more of the cattle correctly with a single shot. They must be able to attain an acceptable score of 75% of the cattle moved with no electric prod and 3% or less of the cattle vocalizing. If a head restraint is used, a vocalization score of 5% is acceptable (Grandin). To help ensure that cattle are killed with one shot when using a non-penetrating the introduction of head holders has been to hold the animals head steady while the shot is being administered in the right spot.
Slaughterhouses are always operating on a very precise schedule and must produce a certain amount of meat every day, which means that every hour there must be a certain number of cattle being slaughtered. A faster pace means greater profits. “The old meatpacking plants in Chicago slaughtered about 50 cattle an hour. Twenty years ago, new plants in high plains slaughtered about 175 cattle an hour. Today some plants slaughter up to 400 cattle an hour – about half a dozen animals every minute” (Schlosser, 173). When the workers are put under this much pressure in order to meet the company’s quota the margin for error is zero. This can sometimes even lead to animals not being properly stunned but still being hung on the rail. Since they have not been properly stunned they have a chance of reviving and once again becoming sensible. This is a direct violation of USDA regulations and hanging a sensible animal would cause suffering (Grandin).
Now we will explore the ways in which animals are killed in the religious or ritual manner. Ritual slaughter is a slaughter done to abide by the laws of the Muslim faith. When animals are slaughtered according to these laws it is called halal slaughter. Halal slaughter laws are based on interpretation of the Quran, the Muslim scripture. Before halal slaughter, prayers to Allah are required. This ritual requires the animal to be slaughtered without being stunned, but with a razor sharp knife (Grandin). In the Quran the holy Prophet Muhammad says "Allah calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter: sharpen your blade to relieve its pain." He also instructs that the blade should not be sharpened in front of the animal or other animals of the same species. Of course when you mention the use of a razor sharp knife it sounds like it’s clearly going to hurt more than if the animals were stunned and instantly killed. But that raises the question is it less painful for an animal to be rendered uncoincious before slaughter through the use of a stunning bolt or should it be killed with one swift, deep, and strategic slit to the throat? Through the research I have conducted it seems that this method of slaughter is widely looked down up just because of the fact that the animal isn’t made unconscious. But a study done in a non-Muslim country proves otherwise, through the use of science.
In the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hanover University in Germany a study was conducted. Led by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and assisted by Dr. Hazim the study was named: "Attempts to objectify pain and consciousness in conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and ritual (Islamic method of cutting with knife) methods of slaughtering sheep and calves." As part of the study several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skulls of the animals, touching the surfaces of the brain. They were allowed to recover for several weeks following the implantations (Ali). Some of the animals were slaughtered in accordance to the Islamic method, taking a sharp knife and making a swift and deep incision cutting the jugular vein, trachea, esophagus, and the carotid arteries. The other animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol (Ali). They used an electroencephalograph (EEG) and an electrocardiogram (ECG) to record the condition of the brains and the hearts of the animals during the slaughtering and stunning (Ali).
During the (CBP) Captive Bolt Pistol stunning method the animals seemed to be unconscious soon after stunning but the EEG showed severe pain following the shot. During the Islamic method the first three seconds following the incision did not show any change on the EEG indicating the animal did not feel any recognizable pain during or after the incision (Ali). During the following three seconds the EEG recorded a deep sleep and unconsciousness a result of the large amount of blood gushing out of the body. So six seconds have now passed and there have been no signs of pain shown on the EEG from the Islamic method of slaughter. The heart still pounding and the body convulsing (as a result of the spinal cord) there was a significant amount of blood driven out from the body thus resulting in more hygienic meat for the consumers as compared to the animal that was stunned, its heart stopped beating instantly leading to the retention of more blood, this is not hygienic (Ali).
This study shows that through science it has been discovered that animals slaughtered in the correct Islamic manner feel no pain as opposed to the CBP method where they feel a sever amount of pain and retain an alarming level of blood which is not hygienic. Though the sight of a convulsing body might to the eye look extremely painful and not pleasing to the eye it is just a reflex as a result of a proper halal slaughter. Slaughtering animals to induce the least amount of pain is something that is still being debated heavily. But whenever you are eating any type of meat you must not rule out the probability that the animal you are eating might be from one that endured an extremely horrible and painful death.
Works Cited
Ali, Syed. "Halal:The most humane slaughter." Halal Journal (2008): n. pag. Web. 20 Nov 2010.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd ed. Pimlico, 1975. 1-20. Print.
Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. The Ethics of What We Eat. Holtzbrinck, 2006. 67. Print
Grandin, Temple. "Recommended Captive Bolt Stunning Techniques for Cattle." Grandin.com. N.p., March 2009. Web. 21 Nov 2010.
Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: the Dark Side of the All-American Meal. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
One Very Un-Happy Meal
The entire nature of E.Coli is extremely alarming to me. When the side effects of this disease are explained it sounds like something that could only happen in a horror movie. It is even more alarming that unless you personally oversee the entire lifespan of the animals you eat, you are completely out of control in making sure your meat isn’t contaminated. You would also need to prepare the food with your own hands in order to know that the food was handled in a proper manner. I feel that we place too much trust into the people who prepare our foods, especially when they are not required to know how food should be properly handled in order to be hired.
“His illness began with abdominal cramps. . .It progressed to diarrhea. . .doctors drilled holes in his skull to relieve pressure, inserting tubes in his chest to help him breathe as the Shiga toxins destroyed his internal organs" (Schlosser, 200). “Toward the end, Alex suffered from hallucinations and dementia, no longer recognizing his mother or father. Portions of his brain had been liquefied.”(Schlosser, 200) It sounds like Alex might have overdosed on some sort of medication or maybe even given the wrong type of medication during an operation, but no, this all came from a seemingly harmless hamburger. This quotation depicts an extremely tragic death that no one might have seen coming. But maybe if some more precautions were taken in the handling of this burger either from when the animal was still alive to the teenager who might have mishandled it when it was being cooked, Alex Donley might still be alive. This is the most hardcore example that unfortunately when you are eating food prepared by someone else, you are potentially putting your life into their hands. It is hard to point a finger at who is to blame in this case and the only clear cut solution to not getting E.Coli is to stay away from anything manufactured by the industrial food organization. Food borne illnesses will always be present and forever cause people to become ill because no matter how clean we try and keep our foods, nature will be nature and our immune system is not ready to handle everything that nature has to offer.
“His illness began with abdominal cramps. . .It progressed to diarrhea. . .doctors drilled holes in his skull to relieve pressure, inserting tubes in his chest to help him breathe as the Shiga toxins destroyed his internal organs" (Schlosser, 200). “Toward the end, Alex suffered from hallucinations and dementia, no longer recognizing his mother or father. Portions of his brain had been liquefied.”(Schlosser, 200) It sounds like Alex might have overdosed on some sort of medication or maybe even given the wrong type of medication during an operation, but no, this all came from a seemingly harmless hamburger. This quotation depicts an extremely tragic death that no one might have seen coming. But maybe if some more precautions were taken in the handling of this burger either from when the animal was still alive to the teenager who might have mishandled it when it was being cooked, Alex Donley might still be alive. This is the most hardcore example that unfortunately when you are eating food prepared by someone else, you are potentially putting your life into their hands. It is hard to point a finger at who is to blame in this case and the only clear cut solution to not getting E.Coli is to stay away from anything manufactured by the industrial food organization. Food borne illnesses will always be present and forever cause people to become ill because no matter how clean we try and keep our foods, nature will be nature and our immune system is not ready to handle everything that nature has to offer.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Prospectus!
For my research paper I will discuss the different ways in which animals are treated before they become food. I will explore the different areas of the world (through research not like Indiana Jones) and attempt to find differences and similarities that we share as a global community of meat eaters, but more importantly meat treaters. I feel it is important to know how animals are being treated before we eat them because they in a sense are one of the main reasons the human race continues to exist.
I will look into each of the different areas and try to see if the way they treat their animals has any negative or positive impacts on their communities. I would also like to compare the ways in which other cultures treat their animals with the way we treat ours and note if we could make any changes to our current system which has extremely questionable ethical and moral issues. I would also like to look into the health of the people in each location and see if any correlation can be made with how they treat their meat. I feel that communities that treat their animals better will be more likely to lead more comfortable lives and also have fewer problems among their society.
For my research I plan on using many world publications including newspapers that address global issues, mainly about food. I will then use the subscription databases offered on the library website to conduct further research on the places that I choose to do research on. I will also look into the major food producers and try and find out more about their companies through newsletters, guidelines, and investigative reports that have been done in their name. This will all help me put together a uniform paper that will interest and inform my readers.
I will look into each of the different areas and try to see if the way they treat their animals has any negative or positive impacts on their communities. I would also like to compare the ways in which other cultures treat their animals with the way we treat ours and note if we could make any changes to our current system which has extremely questionable ethical and moral issues. I would also like to look into the health of the people in each location and see if any correlation can be made with how they treat their meat. I feel that communities that treat their animals better will be more likely to lead more comfortable lives and also have fewer problems among their society.
For my research I plan on using many world publications including newspapers that address global issues, mainly about food. I will then use the subscription databases offered on the library website to conduct further research on the places that I choose to do research on. I will also look into the major food producers and try and find out more about their companies through newsletters, guidelines, and investigative reports that have been done in their name. This will all help me put together a uniform paper that will interest and inform my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)