Workers' groups join suit on poultry slaughter practices

A press release by East Bay Animal Advocates announces that a suit brought by EBAA and the Humane Society of the U.S. is being joined by two organizations representing the interests of slaughterhouse workers. HSUS outlines the somewhat confusing series of legislative actions leading up to a recent notice by the Department of Agriculture stating that federal law does not require humane slaughter of poultry. (An attempted summary: A 1978 amendment to the Federal Meat Inspection Act allowed USDA to refuse to inspect plants that violated the Humane Slaughter Act with regard to certain animals but did not mention poultry or contain general language regarding "livestock"; the HSA nonetheless requires humane slaughter of "other livestock.") The workers have joined the suit because the current practice of stunning an animal after it has been shackled means more workplace injuries for humans handling the animals.

The original complaint in the case sheds some light on this convergence of interests. On the one hand, prior to the passage of the Humane Slaughter Act, the House heard testimony from both humane societies and poultry industry workers. Para. 27. On the other, the complaint suggests that abuse by workers, including vicious violence against the animals outside the context slaughter, is common. Paras. 78-80.

Giving the courts a human reason to support humane slaughter is probably a good tactical decision,  somewhat similar to the complaint's foregrounding of the health problems to people of consuming inhumanely slaughtered poultry.^* And goodness knows workers in slaughterhouses are exploited by an industry that takes advantage of immigrant workers, busts unions, and doesn't recompense workers when they're hurt. (See this Human Rights Watch report.) While we cannot get too excited about making slaughter "humane," if something (be it vegetarianism, regulation, or direct action) makes it more tough for the poultry industry to do its business, eh, why not?

^* The groups likely also chose plaintiffs who consume poultry to make it easier for the courts to find standing to sue, as the Constitution (per the courts) requires a plaintiff to have suffered some injury and feeling bad for animals does not count.  Thus the old saying "Vegans make bad plaintiffs" ;)