Let’s not mince words, the horse meat scandal is all about our chemical romance with flesh

The discovery of horseflesh in a number of otherwise-labelled meat products in Europe is being described as a scandal but it is an entirely predictable result of industrialised animal exploitation organised according to the values of neoliberal ideology within globalised capitalism. All forms of life…

7qj43k9h-1362030196
The current scandal may be about unacknowledged horse meat, but consumers also get dished up all manner of additives and potentially unsanitary processing. AAP

The discovery of horseflesh in a number of otherwise-labelled meat products in Europe is being described as a scandal but it is an entirely predictable result of industrialised animal exploitation organised according to the values of neoliberal ideology within globalised capitalism.

All forms of life are transformed into commodities and deregulated industries are allowed to police themselves as they seek to obtain the greatest profits using the cheapest ingredients, which, in this case, means the corpses of sentient beings.

The scandal is not so much that the flesh of certain animals rather than others has turned up where it wasn’t expected. The entire industry is ghoulish and repellent. There may indeed be some specific crimes involved but more generally the entire meat system that kills billions upon billions of animals every year is “a crime of stupefying proportions” as South African novelist JM Coetzee puts it in The Lives of Animals. Or as Charles Patterson calls it in his book, an “Eternal Treblinka”.

Certainly, there is a scandal here in the sense that commodities have been misleadingly identified. In relation to food in general, this is a serious concern as individuals may have serious, even fatal, reactions to certain substances.

Meat, with its susceptibility to contamination and disease, needs extra vigilance but inspections have been sharply reduced due to severe budget cuts and in the name of efficiency, cutting red tape and letting businesses regulate themselves.

Much of the scandal seems to focus on the fact that products labelled as beef actually contain the flesh of horses. This violates a cultural taboo in some countries, although horse flesh is regularly consumed in France and Belgium. Much less mention is made of the fact that when the discovery was made in November 2012 in Ireland, a third of beef samples contained horse DNA but over 85% contained pig DNA.

Contamination of beef products by pork products sounds less shocking because many people eat both cows and pigs, whereas horses are given special status. That is illogical, although it should not be taken as an argument to say that one might as well eat horses too. Rather, it raises the question of why we should not be repelled and disgusted by the idea of eating any animals at all.

It seems like an ethical inconsistency to find it wrong to eat a horse while accepting the idea of eating a chicken or a pig. Why not eat your cat or your dog? Why love one and kill the other? Humans may place particular symbolic value on horses or assert that cows and pigs are “raised to be slaughtered,” as if this was a justification rather than simply a statement of a grim and horrendous fact. Regardless of the uses we put them to, all animals want to live.

Even if it seems less scandalous to consume the flesh of pigs instead of horses, there are other reasons to be alarmed. While horsemeat has been deliberately mislabelled, the presence of pig DNA in products labelled as beef may be due to the fact that processing plants are unsanitary and the machinery used to kill and dismember animals is not cleaned thoroughly. This in itself is worrisome for reasons of contamination and public health.

Canadians learned about this in relation to the biggest recall to date of beef in Canada in 2012 from Alberta’s XL Foods. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency reported unsanitary tools and work areas, improper labelling, mixing of edible and inedible parts of animal corpses and problems with building maintenance that led to direct contamination of meat. It is also worth noting that the recall followed the discovery of E. coli contamination by USDA inspectors, and that this had been missed by Canadian inspections, which suggests additional problems.

Mislabelling the flesh of some animals as that of others is only part of the problem. Adulteration of meat is widespread, especially as consumers demand low prices. To make more profits, processors add other cheap material to bulk up the meat, injecting water, fat and concentrated proteins, obtained from the skin and fat of pigs and cows and identified as “seasoning.” So adulteration of meat is legal and widespread. Legally, in UK, beefburgers can contain less than half beef. Taco Bell’s taco meat filling reportedly contained only 35 percent beef and the rest consists of chemicals and industrial additives.

Responding to a class-action lawsuit charging the corporation with false advertising, Taco Bell responded with admirable frankness, stating in major US newspaper advertisements entitled “Thanks for giving us a reason to sue you":

“Plain ground beef tastes boring …The only reason we add anything to our beef is to give the meat flavor and quality. Otherwise we’d end up with nothing more than the bland flavor of ground beef, and that doesn’t make for great-tasting tacos.”

In the case of horsemeat, consumers are getting other chemical additives. Many of the horses were probably shipped from North America, where the industry uses racing horses and pets that have been treated with phenylbutazone and other drugs that are carcinogenic for humans who ingest them.

While the horse slaughter lobby claims that records are kept to indicate which horses have been treated with these drugs, it is clear that this is a complete sham. Of course, the presence of drugs in horseflesh should be seen in the context of drugs given to livestock generally.

In 2010 the US Food and Drug Administration reported that in 2009, 29 million pounds of antibiotics were given to animals used for food, accounting for 80 percent of all antibiotics used. The serious implications for development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are now being recognised, as are the devastating environmental consequences of global meat production.

The horsemeat scandal is simply one more illustration of the absurdity and brutality of this globalised system. Rather than supporting all this for what the industry itself acknowledges as “bland flavour,” sensible and compassionate people will adopt a vegan diet.

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Help us have better conversations — donate

Join the conversation

12 Comments sorted by

  1. Eric Anderson

    Eternal Student

    John,
    In the unlikely event that you read this -- any thoughts on the ethics of Quorn (tm)?

    report
  2. Brigit Busicchia

    PhD Candidate, Political Economy at Macquarie University

    Great write up on the cruelty and hypocrisy of our 'civilised' society and yes, tofu has never tested better!

    Thank you John!

    report
  3. Leigh Burrell

    No win, no file.

    "..the presence of pig DNA in products labelled as beef may be due to the fact that processing plants are unsanitary and the machinery used to kill and dismember animals is not cleaned thoroughly. This in itself is worrisome for reasons of contamination and public health."

    You've convinced me. I'm going to try some organic bean sprouts instead. Oh, wait...

    report
  4. neral

    logged in via Twitter

    You're dead right. Same same for vegetable, grains etc.

    report
  5. Sarah Best

    Blogger

    I agree with every word of this utterly brilliant article - thank you, John Sorenson.

    Yes - raising sentient beings as commodities, and in a context of unbridled capitalism, could ONLY ever have resulted in the ghoulish, repellent industry, the "Eternal Treblinka" and the "crime of stupefying proportions" referred to in the article.

    It's great to see someone talking about the wider issues here, rather than operating from the false assumption that we "need" to eat animals. To paraphrase a comment by Matthew Scully in his book 'Dominion', "When you start out with a necessary evil, and the necessity passes away, what's left?"

    report
    1. Baron Pike

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to ynes sanz

      No, next we'll be seeing nasty animals evolve to eat other animals.

      report
  6. Sharon Hutchings

    logged in via Facebook

    Spot on John.

    Can you imagine the outcry if tours of meatwork factories, intensive production sheds and slaughterhouses were a mandatory part of our primary and secondary school curriculum? I often wonder what % of children aspire to work in a slaughterhouse.

    “Of course, everyone has a pretty good idea what goes on, so that parents whose child wanted to be a cow-killer when he grew up (as opposed to, say, a soldier) would probably get him psychological counseling, but the bulk of mankind now has the luxury of forgetting how meat is made.”

    Just one of a myriad of apt quotes from this article ...
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/slaughterhouse-rules/309113/

    report
    1. John Phillip

      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Sharon Hutchings

      Sharon , I think it's a good idea for kids to know where their food comes from. Our daughter helps us kill chickens and dress the meat from anything (roo or deer) that I've successfully hunted. (When she's older and more skilled with a bow or rifle, she'll come hunting with me.).
      I am assuming (tell me if I'm wrong - happy to be corrected) that you think the modern mass processing methods are wrong. In some cases (chooks in particular, some of the live meat export practises as well) I wholeheartedly agree. However, unpleasant as the act of killing and processing meat is, someone has to do it. If you dont support the processing of meat fair enough, dont eat it. It's a bit much, though, to expect others to live by your doctrine(s).

      report
  7. Naren Chellappah

    Manager, marketing and communications

    Great article - thanks!
    There seems to be confusion and hypocrisy amongst us in that some cultural and religious groups find it acceptable to eat cow/pig/dog while others find it offensive and against religious beliefs. I believe we are conditioned to accept eat some meats and conditioned to not eat other meats e.g cat, dog and horse. The hypocrisy is evident when we choose which animals to factory farm and which animals to cuddle and have relationships with.

    report