The United States Meat Industry

The United States meat industry has drastically changed over the years. The former small food retailers, meat processors, and farms have banded together into fewer and larger businesses. These large businesses gradually began abuse the increasing control and power in politics they wielded. From the unsanitary meat produced to the extensive environmental abuse, these businesses are ultimately devastating the American people and the Earth. The consumers in the United States should be made aware of the negative health, environmental, and animal welfare impacts associated with meat production.  The meat industry targets a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on their business interests. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions, the industry has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years.

            The United States is faced with many diet related disease such as obesity, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. These diseases can be derived from several different factors, but consumption of the meat produced in “unsustainable manners” is certainly one of them. The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) reports “Diets high in red and processed meats have been found to be associated with greater mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer, and higher rates of Type 2 Diabetes” (PSR, 2009). Red meat consumed by American is often high in saturated fats, and can lead to a greater risk in heart disease and stroke. The high saturated fats in these animals can be attributed to the grains they are fed (corn, soy, etc.) Large corporations looking to make money quickly have decided it was easier, faster, and more cost-effective to feed their livestock grain as opposed to a more sustainable grass fed diet (PSR, 2009). The grain diet has caused animals to have less Vitamin E and C, beta-carotene, and omega-3 fatty acids compared to their grass fed counterparts (PSR, 2009).

In addition to an unhealthy diet for the livestock, the meat industry has gone so far as to use antibiotic treatments in their livestock. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), sixty thousand Americans die each year from antibiotic resistant disease (PSR, 2009). Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic (Science Daily, 2012). While this may be partially due to inappropriate use or over use of antibiotics in medicine by humans, it is mostly due to inappropriate use in agriculture. Eighty Percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are used in the non-therapeutic treatment on livestock (PSR, 2009).  Since the discovery of how daily doses of antibiotics would make animals gain three percent more weight than they otherwise would, farmers have increased their doses (PBS, 2012). They may add antibiotics through feed and water to prevent disease and promote growth (PSR, 2009). It is difficult to obtain accurate information on the amount of antibiotics given to food animals because the meat industry does not publicize its use of antibiotics. However, according to PBS, “Stuart B. Levy, M.D., who has studied the subject for years, estimates that there are 15-17 million pounds of antibiotics used sub-therapeutically in the United States each year” (PBS, 2012). The disease may originate from the overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions of the livestock (PSR, 2009). Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs) are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. CAFOs cluster animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area, not allowing animals to graze freely in open pastures (EPA, 2012). The habitual feeding of antibiotics to promote growth and prevent disease contributes to the presence of resistant bacteria (PSR, 2009). The increasing concern about the growing level of drug-resistant bacteria has prompted the European Union and Canada to ban sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in meat animals. In the United States however, such use is still legal. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests significantly curbing the use of antibiotics in the animals we eat to “reduce the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials in food animals for the protection of human health“(PBS, 2012).

There is also a large concern for the use of cloned and genetically engineered animals. In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the commercial sale of meat and milk from cloned animals.  Because of the increased medical problems associated with experiments of cloning, large amounts of hormones and antibiotics are administered to both the mothers and the clones (PSR, 2009). There have been few studies made to determine the health risks of consuming products from clones and their offspring. The genetically engineered animals have potential food safety risks including the introduction of new allergens into the food system, the continuation of bioactive proteins after digestion, and the creation of potentially toxic effects from novel protein expression (PSR, 2009). Consumption of products from clones and their offspring along with genetically engineered animals has not been thoroughly investigated, and may therefore pose a potential danger (PSR, 2009).

In addition to the health concerns to humans, the meat industry also poses a threat to the environment. According to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the meat in our diets has released more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. The FAO found that the current production levels of meat contribute between fourteen and twenty two percent of the thirty six billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year (Scientific American, 2009). The two main issued of livestock impact in water would be contamination and overuse. Leaking manure lagoons or runoff from manure fertilized fields enter streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, contaminating drinking water. Contaminated water can lead to diseases or death to those who drink it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), warned that “E. Coli, salmonella, and Giardia found in dairy cattle waste can contaminate drinking water and cause acute gastroenteritis, fever, kidney failure, and even death.” Overuse of water in livestock production has also created a large problem. Taking 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat, we are seriously abusing our resources. In addition, feeding the livestock grain products also contributes to overuse of water, the livestock feed of   soy and corn require heavy irrigation (PSR, 2009). Water is not the only resource we are taking advantage of, meat and land in general is being over used, and this ultimately is harming the environment. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), reports “A recent United Nations report concluded that a global shift toward a vegan diet is necessary to combat the worst effects of climate change” (PETA, 2012).

In addition to the meat industry’s negative effect on human health and our environment, their disregard for animal welfare is appalling. Most of our meat comes from CAFOs which make up only five percent of livestock operation but yet produce fifty percent of our food animals. They are designed to produce as much product possible for the lowest cost possible. To do this, they put animals in confined areas where they are often unable to act out innate behaviors, mate naturally, and because of stress and overcrowding, engage in aggressive behaviors that result in extreme action by farm operators. Their tight living conditions can lead to an increased risk of disease that can spread rapidly through their herd or flock (PSR, 2009).  In addition to confinement and concentration of animals, the cloning and genetic engineering is problematic. Cloned and genetically engineered animals often have health issues, with prenatal deaths as high as ninety percent (PSR, 2009).

Most of the companies involved in the meat business, including the big meatpackers, are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. They are a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in Washington. The health, environmental, and animal welfare problems associated with the meat industry have had an enormous impact on our world. From human diseases to the degrading environment to the unfair treatment of animals, we have dug a hole that will be difficult to get out of. The expanding meat industry in the United States seems to be harming more than improving the world. The enormous power they wield in the government makes it difficult for the people to try to make a change.

Rights of Workers of the Meat Industry

Civil rights are the government-protected rights of individuals against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by governments or individuals. Throughout history, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees have been the foundation of efforts to expand upon the original intent of the amendment. Building on the successes of African American and women, other groups including Hispanics, American Indians, Asian and Pacific Island Americans, gays and lesbians, and those with disabilities organized to appeal for expanded rights and to lobby for anti-discrimination laws. A newer group that has often been ignored or disregarded is the workers of the meat industry.

Working conditions in the U.S. meat industry are so hazardous and the tactics that employers use to prevent workers from organizing so threatening that the industry consistently violates basic human rights. Workers in American meat industries perform dangerous, physically demanding and exhausting jobs in bloody, greasy surroundings. The workers not only contend with abuses and an unprecedented volume and pace in sawing and cutting carcasses, but they also experience constant fear and risk, not only for their health and safety but for their jobs if they get hurt or attempt to organize.  Many of the workers are undocumented immigrants, so employers intimidate them by threatening to call immigration authorities. Many injured workers, who not uncommonly lose a limb or suffer severe life-threatening injuries, don't get workers' compensation when injured, and government laws, regulations and policies and enforcement fail to protect them.

The workers of the meat industry need to make a big statement in order to gain the rights that they have been deprived of. In order to do this, they must apply both political and economic pressure. One tactic that could be utilized would be to boycott the meat industry. If they promote their cause to gain more support, a strike against the meat industry would seriously hurt the business, and these large industries would have no choice but to make a change. The political pressure they could apply could be to constantly appeal to government officials, and try to gain some supporters who have positions in office. Through these actions, they can definitely make a change and get the rights they deserve.

The Right to Privacy

                The right to privacy is the right to be left alone. It was not derived directly from the specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights. However, there are many indications within the Bill of rights that imply that the Framers had expected that some areas of life should be off limits to government regulation.  The right to exercise private, personal beliefs is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment. It implies that persons can be secure in their homes and should not fear that police will show up at their doorsteps without cause. The Third, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments also contain aspects protecting one’s right to privacy.

                Birth control has been a controversial topic for some time. Some states often barred the sale of contraceptives to minors, prohibited the display of contraceptives, or even banned their sale altogether. In Griswald v. Conneticuit, Griswold gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. She was convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. It was finally decided that together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, created a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicted with the exercise of this right and was therefore null and void. Other rights to privacy include the right to have an abortion, and practice homosexual acts.

The Rights Of Criminal Defendants

                The rights of those accused of crimes are protected by Article I of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees writs of habeas corpus, court orders in which a judge requires authorities to prove that a prisoner is being held lawfully and that allow the prisoner to be freed if the judge is not persuaded by the government’s case. In addition, Article I prohibits ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. Ex post facto laws make an act punishable as a crime even if the action was legal at the time it was committed, and bills of attainder are laws declaring an act illegal without a judicial trial. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments expand on these rights with different guarantees.

                The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the court has generally refused to allow evidence seized in violation of this safeguard to be used at trial. Over the years, the Supreme Court-through a number of decisions-has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allow the police to search the person arrested, things in plain view of the accused person, and places or things that the arrested person could touch or reach or are otherwise in the arrestee’s immediate control. A warrantless search could occur if the police suspect that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime. Searches can also be made without a warrant if consent is obtained. In a situation where no arrest occurs, police must obtain a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate before conducting further searches. Ultimately, the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to deny the national government the authority to make general searches.

                The Fifth Amendment imposes a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to the rights of persons suspected of committing a crime. It provides for indictment by a grand jury and protection against self-incrimination, and prevents the national government from denying a person life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. It also prevents the national government from taking property without just compensation. The right not to incriminate oneself means that criminal defendants do not have to take the stand at trial to answer questions, nor can a judge make mention of their failure to do so as evidence of guilt. In addition, prosecutors cannot use as evidence in a trial any of a defendant’s statements or confessions that were not made voluntarily. In Miranda v. Arizona, a man accused of rape was interrogated without being told his rights. After his conviction, his case was appealed on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself had been violated because his confession had been coerced. A confession obtained in this manner was not truly voluntary; thus, it was inadmissible at trial. The Fifth Amendment also includes the double jeopardy clause in which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime in the same jurisdiction.

                The Sixth Amendment sets out the basic requirements of procedural due process for federal courts to follow in criminal trials. These include speedy and public trials, impartial juries, trials in the state where crime was committed, notice of the charges, the right to confront and obtain favorable witnesses, and the right to counsel. The provision of the right to counsel has been interpreted differently over time. Initially it only meant that an individual could hire an attorney to represent him or her in court. After Congress realized most defendants were too poor to afford an attorney, they required federal courts to provide an attorney to those who could not afford one. The Sixth Amendment also requires an impartial jury, although the meaning of impartial continues to evolve through judicial interpretation.

                The Eight Amendment prohibits states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments has been a concept rooted in the English common-law tradition. With this concept, comes the debate of whether the death penalty is constitutional. The people who are for the death penalty may argue that the availability of DNA testing and careful application of the rule of law can ensure that only guilty people are put to death, and that the death penalty is a cost effective way to deter capital offenses. People who are against the death penalty may argue that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, that there is a possibility that an innocent person may be put to death, and that the death penalty has been applied unevenly with respect to race and gender. However, as of now, the Eighth Amendment’s ban against “cruel and unusual punishments” has been held not to prohibit imposition of the death penalty.

Should more dramatic steps be taken to stop drunk driving?

Should more dramatic steps be taken to stop drunk driving? In my opinion, we should do everything in our power to prevent drunk driving. Those who drive under the influence not only put their own lives at risk, but if they have passengers in their vehicles, those people are at risk too, not to mention everyone else on the road. Drunk driving causes approximately one-third of all traffic fatalities in the United States. In 2010, 10,228 people were killed and approximately 350,000 were injured. Each crash, each death, each injury impacts not only the person in the crash, but family, friends, classmates, coworkers and more. We can reduce the lives lost and tears shed over this issue if we take more dramatic steps to stop drunk driving.

About one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders. A greater support in law enforcement can help deter drunk drivers through proven solutions such as sobriety checkpoints. A greater emphasis on educating youth on this matter could also have an impact on drunk driving. Every 52 minutes on average, someone is killed in a drunk driving crash.  Every 90 seconds, someone is injured because of this entirely preventable crime. 

First Amendment Guarantees and Limitations

One of the most delicate areas of constitutional interpretation has been the interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment's protection of speech and expression is central to the concept of American political system. It guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. The U.S Supreme Court has established constitutional protection to several aspects of speech and the press. Although the Supreme Court has allowed for few governmental bans on most types of speech, guarantees protected by the First Amendment have been subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court to fit the needs of the citizens.

A democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas, and the First Amendment shows that the Framers were well aware of this fact. The Supreme Court protects Various aspects of speech and press with respect to prior restraint, symbolic speech, and hate speech. Prior restraint is the constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact. As seen in the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had attempted to limit speech before the fact as early as 1798, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not take a firm position on this issue until the 1970’s. Likewise, in the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S government could not block the publication of secret Department of Defense documents illegally furnished to the Times by anti-war activists. In addition to limiting prior restraint, the Supreme Court has extended what the First Amendment has defined as pure speech to symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is symbols, signs, and other methods of expression. In Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a communist youth group director under a state statute that prohibited the display of a red flag, a symbol of opposition to the U.S government. Similarly, the right of student to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Hate speech is also protected under the First Amendment’s “free speech” guarantee. Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic. In R.A.V v. City of St. Paul, the Court ruled that a white teenager who burned a cross on a black family’s front lawn, could not be charged under the law because the First Amendment prevents governments from “silencing speech on the basis of its content.”The Court narrowed this definition in 2003, ruling that state governments could constitutionally restrict cross burning when it occurred with the intent of racial intimidation.

Although there are few bans on most types of speech, some forms of expression are not protected by the government. Libel, fighting words, obscenity, and lewdness are not protected by the First Amendment because “such expressions are no essential part of any exposition of ideals, and are of such slight social value as a step  to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Libel is a written statement that defames a person’s character. Slander is untrue spoken statements that defame the character of a person. In the court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, An Alabama state court found the Times guilty of libel for printing a full-page advertisement accusing Alabama officials of physically abusing African Americans during various civil rights protests. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and established that a finding of libel against a public official could stand only if there was a showing of “actual malice,” or a knowing disregard for the truth. In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court stated that fighting words, or words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend or incite an immediate breach of peace,” are not subject to the restrictions of the First Amendment. Likewise, obscenity-another form of speech-is not protected under the first amendment. In Roth v. U.S. the Court held that, to be considered obscene, the material in question had to be “utterly without redeeming social importance,” and articulated a new test for obscenity: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interests.” Over time, different situations have altered the Court’s and America’s perception of what works are obscene. Different interpretations of the First Amendment will lead to different conclusions.