Slaughter House Research Paper
Slaughter house animals and health related outcome
Claudia Santos
DeVry University
Slaughter House Animals and Health Related Outcome What happens in between the slaughterhouse and people’s kitchen is often overlooked, and many are still unaware of the horrors of industrialized factory farming. Truth is that the idea of your dinner happily grazing its way about the grass on a farm to your plate is a marketing scheme and pure fantasy. Animal treatment in slaughter houses is an issue that is not often discussed nor considered when making decisions about what to eat and how much this circumstance affects health. Although it can easily be seen that eating meat is a common way of living; there are many …show more content…
reasons that should be taken into consideration before consuming slaughtered meats. Moreover just as illnesses such as cancer and diabetes are researched and campaigned to increase awareness for positive health related outcomes, there too should be more research and a greater awareness of the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses.
An awareness of animal maltreatment in slaughterhouses is not sufficient information to deter people from consuming unhealthy meat produced by the slaughter houses; therefore, more research to understand the etiology of diseases due to the treatment of animals should be considered. In addition, people from low socioeconomic status are the one’s greatly impacted; that is why this population should have better access to healthier foods, since both these ideas promotes healthier eating lifestyles while minimizing the consumption of slaughtered meats. More research to understand the link between the treatments of animals to the etiology of diseases should be conducted, in addition to awareness campaigns. Awareness campaigns such as the ones conducted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) are two of the largest organizations that help prevent animal abuse in the US and around the world. Such research, and organizations like the ones mentioned above, can increase positive decisions related to health outcome. When information about health outcomes is properly collected and analyzed, these outcomes may …show more content…
be useful tools for assessing the effectiveness, quality and value of health care services. For example, in industrialized slaughterhouses, corn is mixed with antibiotics and growth hormones that are fed to these factory farmed animals. As a result, these animals fatten at an unnatural rate causing serious health risks for consumers. (Pollan, 2006) The reason slaughter houses use this procedure is that the faster an animal gets to slaughter weight or the more milk an animal produces, the more profitable the operation. This is called Factory farming and it refers to a type of commercial farming in which animal products are produced with the same preferred efficiency as any other type of production factory. Conditions on these factories typically involve containing the livestock in as small living spaces as possible, as this allows for the maximum number of animals to be kept in a smaller space, thus this procedure ultimately provides a higher profit for factory farms. Additional to this, there is the abuse on growth hormones, chemicals and antibiotics; the use of these low doses of antibiotics by the modern food animal industry is responsible for drug-resistant bacteria emerging on farms which reach the general population through the food consumers eat. For that reason public awareness and pressure are the most effective means we have for eliminating the horrific abuse posed by factory farming and slaughterhouses. Moreover, being educated and bringing awareness about the etiology of disease due to the treatment of animals is imperative, since this can help prevent such diseases for people who consume slaughtered meats. Such research can help in understanding why and how the treatments of animals can be connected to certain diseases. Since there is no “kind” way to slaughter animals, the best way to prevent their suffering is not to eat them. People need to know that animals that are raised for food are denied their most basic needs and suffer both physical and psychological disorders as result. Stressed and confined in filthy, cramped quarters, the animals we eat are constantly at risk for diseases. Therefore in order to prevent such diseases from spreading amongst these animals factory farms constantly administer low-dose quantities of antibiotics on them. Farming industries depends on regular amounts of drugs and other chemical inputs to keep farm animals “healthy”, alive and productive. According to journalist J. Fauber, the majority of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to farm animals. (The perils of animal antibiotics, 2001, para. 4). The threat of antibiotic resistance is real, but some argue that the actual danger seems small, some question the quantified harm this process causes (drug companies, for instance, that have an economic stake in this issue), is insignificant. Nevertheless excessive and irresponsible use of antibiotics has contributed to the development of dangerous, antibiotic-resistant pathogens, which render these formerly life-saving drugs useless for treating illnesses in people. In other words, bacteria in the human micro biome can learn how to resist more drugs because humans are exposed to slight amounts of antibiotics in the meats that they eat. All the same, antibiotics are used in animals and can help bacteria become resistant to the same or similar drugs used in humans. This then questions how much protein actually ends up going into a human’s body because the animal no longer contains the same amount of nutrients it once did. But let’s face it; people will not abstain from eating meats just by being told its bad for them. This is where awareness campaigns come into play, if more people are educated about the consequences of eating slaughtered meats, the animal abuse in these slaughter houses can stop. Some might argue that just bringing awareness of treatment of animals is not enough to change health related behaviors because people will still indulge in their unhealthy eating habits. According to Gurung, R.A.R. (2010), the health belief model (HBM) states that “… individuals will perform healthy behaviors if they believe an illness will have severe consequences… their behavior will reduce the severity or susceptibility of an illness [and] the benefits of the behaviors outweigh the costs”. (pg. 162) This model conceptualizes decisions to take positive health actions as motivated by perceived threat associated with specific changes in behavior. It is vital to educate people about the relationship between the foods they consume and their health outcome. Empirical evidence, such as the one illustrated below, demonstrates that diseases are linked to the treatment of animals; hence this information will motivate individuals to make healthier eating decisions. According to Natural Society (2013), “…the use of these hormones has been shown to disrupt hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interference with the reproductive system and breast, prostate and colon cancer.” (Animals Raised Organically Are Not Given Growth Hormones or Antibiotics section, 2013, para. 4). Food-borne sicknesses infect millions of Americans every year, killing thousands, and whether these illnesses spring from animal products or other foods, the source of the contamination is often traceable to factory farms. Consuming too many animal products also clogs our arteries and leads to heart disease, which is our country’s number one killer. This nation’s sad reality is that most suffer from preventable illnesses and premature deaths. On the other hand there are other ways to promote a healthier lifestyle that include making populations aware of how the treatment of animals directly affects health, by empowering vulnerable groups on healthy foods they can consume and educating the groups on how to change into a healthy eating habit. Some would dispute that exposing the treatment of animals will not change the health decisions of people from low socioeconomic status (SES) because this population cannot afford the luxury of choosing healthier foods. Food cost and availability have been indicted in the diet quality differential by income. More wealthy populations consume higher-quality diets than do disadvantaged populations. Higher quality foods with more nutrients per calorie, such as, lean meats, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, and fruit cost more and are unaffordable by lower SES. High food costs can thus be seen as representing an increased burden on families of low socioeconomic means. When financial constraints become a barrier for poor and minority communities to access healthy foods, they are likely to consume fewer fruits and vegetables and instead to consume lower quality and high energy dense foods (e.g., processed) that are high in starches, added sugars, and added fats. Moreover, the advent of cheap, plentiful, over-processed foods has made it less expensive to purchase these foods, making it easy to maintain an unhealthy diet. Although most consumers believe that the only way of consuming an efficient amount of protein is through meat, there are numerous other ways that protein can be consumed. For example, all beans as well as most dairy products can contain just as much protein as any meat product can. The perceived barrier of food price and the perceived benefit of diet quality have both been found to be mediators in the association between socio-economic status and diet quality. Within society there are a range of approaches to balancing income with expenditure on food some of which impact on long term health and on the ability to contribute to society. It has been assumed that because food costs disproportionately impact the total budget of the economically deprived, they are less likely to be able to buy foods of appropriate quality. Therefore they buy what is available and affordable for them, such as junk, fatty fast foods at cheap fast food restaurants. It is well-recognized that groups of lower SES are more likely to be obese than those of higher SES. It is presumed that this obesity is a physical presentation of poor dietary and nutritional practices. Simultaneously, those in lower SES are at great risk. It is no secret that, while there is a wide variety of healthy food choices out there, such as organic and free range products, people from low SES are limited to buying only what is available to them at their local supermarkets, such as over processed meats and products that contain High- fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Too much added sugar as found on HFCS products can contribute to unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain and diabetes type 2, all of which boost your risk of heart disease. (CDC, 2011) Consequently, information about what products to consume can help those in lower SES to maintain a healthier lifestyle if it is made accessible for them to purchase healthier foods. These observations should help sensitize us to the complexity of addressing and interpreting the relationship of dietary factors as a causal mechanism for the disease burden of those of lower social class. Despite this deficiency, this class can be empowered through the promotion of food institutions, such as whole foods, that carry healthy foods to accept government supplements like EBT. If this class can afford to purchase healthy products from said supermarkets, it is more than likely that their overall health can improve. Full service supermarkets and grocery stores are more abundant in affluent neighborhoods, allowing those with higher incomes to more easily access healthier food choices compared to households with lower-income in low-income neighborhoods. Doing so will increase greater access to healthy foods by people from lower SES enabling positive eating habits. According to healthy people 2020 (2012), “…resources that enhance quality of life can have a significant influence on population health outcomes...” (para.1). In addition, according to the HBM model, “…perceived health barriers are the most powerful predictor of health behaviors”. Furthermore, this population is at risk for diseases by eating high fat foods. As a result of the hormone injections in animal feedlots, people from low SES are vulnerable to high cholesterol, obesity and other diseases. According to the American Diabetes Association (n.d.), obesity and high cholesterol can raise the risk for diabetes mellitus (diabetes type 2). Informing these populations of their vulnerability to diseases due to higher consumptions of fats, that as stated before is linked to hormone injection and the treatment of animals in slaughter houses, while assisting the agency of people from low SES through institutions that carry healthy foods, will all lead to more positive health outcomes. Furthermore learning about factory farming’s impact on your local community and our country, urging our elected representatives to support reforms and requesting more plant-based foods in our grocery stores and restaurants, we will be the change our food system needs. A change that centers on eating plants instead of animals; one that supports our health instead of undermining it; and one that helps us preserve the natural world, and our relationship to it, in a way that connects us to our better natures and the best we have to offer each other. It is not one factor such as the awareness of animal treatment in slaughter houses that will change the health behaviors of individuals but a number of variables. If more research is done to show how the treatment of animals in these slaughter houses affects health, new findings to improve health will come about and more people will be motivated to change their eating habits by weighing the pros and cons. A solid health foundation is built on awareness, information and then action. If other factors that create barriers for persons to eat healthy are explored, this will lead to better health decisions and therefore positive health outcome.
References
Animal Production System (2001) Transfer of Resistant Genes and Medical Implants.
The perils of animal antibiotics. Retrieved from http://pmac.net/AM/antibiotic_perils.html
American Diabetes Association (n.d.). Lower your risk. Retrieved from http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/prevention/checkup-america/
CDC. (2011, August). Rethink Your Drink. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/healthy_eating/drinks.html?mobile=false
Gurung, R.A.R. (2010), Health Psychology: A cultural approach. (2nd ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Healthy People 2020 (2012). Social determinants of health. Retrieved from http://healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39
Natural Society (2013), Animals Raised Organically Are Not Given Growth Hormones or Antibiotics. Retrieved from http://naturalsociety.com/animals-raised-organically-are-not-given%20growth-hormones-or-antibiotics/
Pollan, M. Omnivore 's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Retrieved from 1/e for DeVry University. Pearson Learning Solutions.
.
Claudia Santos
DeVry University
Slaughter House Animals and Health Related Outcome What happens in between the slaughterhouse and people’s kitchen is often overlooked, and many are still unaware of the horrors of industrialized factory farming. Truth is that the idea of your dinner happily grazing its way about the grass on a farm to your plate is a marketing scheme and pure fantasy. Animal treatment in slaughter houses is an issue that is not often discussed nor considered when making decisions about what to eat and how much this circumstance affects health. Although it can easily be seen that eating meat is a common way of living; there are many …show more content…
reasons that should be taken into consideration before consuming slaughtered meats. Moreover just as illnesses such as cancer and diabetes are researched and campaigned to increase awareness for positive health related outcomes, there too should be more research and a greater awareness of the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses.
An awareness of animal maltreatment in slaughterhouses is not sufficient information to deter people from consuming unhealthy meat produced by the slaughter houses; therefore, more research to understand the etiology of diseases due to the treatment of animals should be considered. In addition, people from low socioeconomic status are the one’s greatly impacted; that is why this population should have better access to healthier foods, since both these ideas promotes healthier eating lifestyles while minimizing the consumption of slaughtered meats. More research to understand the link between the treatments of animals to the etiology of diseases should be conducted, in addition to awareness campaigns. Awareness campaigns such as the ones conducted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) are two of the largest organizations that help prevent animal abuse in the US and around the world. Such research, and organizations like the ones mentioned above, can increase positive decisions related to health outcome. When information about health outcomes is properly collected and analyzed, these outcomes may …show more content…
be useful tools for assessing the effectiveness, quality and value of health care services. For example, in industrialized slaughterhouses, corn is mixed with antibiotics and growth hormones that are fed to these factory farmed animals. As a result, these animals fatten at an unnatural rate causing serious health risks for consumers. (Pollan, 2006) The reason slaughter houses use this procedure is that the faster an animal gets to slaughter weight or the more milk an animal produces, the more profitable the operation. This is called Factory farming and it refers to a type of commercial farming in which animal products are produced with the same preferred efficiency as any other type of production factory. Conditions on these factories typically involve containing the livestock in as small living spaces as possible, as this allows for the maximum number of animals to be kept in a smaller space, thus this procedure ultimately provides a higher profit for factory farms. Additional to this, there is the abuse on growth hormones, chemicals and antibiotics; the use of these low doses of antibiotics by the modern food animal industry is responsible for drug-resistant bacteria emerging on farms which reach the general population through the food consumers eat. For that reason public awareness and pressure are the most effective means we have for eliminating the horrific abuse posed by factory farming and slaughterhouses. Moreover, being educated and bringing awareness about the etiology of disease due to the treatment of animals is imperative, since this can help prevent such diseases for people who consume slaughtered meats. Such research can help in understanding why and how the treatments of animals can be connected to certain diseases. Since there is no “kind” way to slaughter animals, the best way to prevent their suffering is not to eat them. People need to know that animals that are raised for food are denied their most basic needs and suffer both physical and psychological disorders as result. Stressed and confined in filthy, cramped quarters, the animals we eat are constantly at risk for diseases. Therefore in order to prevent such diseases from spreading amongst these animals factory farms constantly administer low-dose quantities of antibiotics on them. Farming industries depends on regular amounts of drugs and other chemical inputs to keep farm animals “healthy”, alive and productive. According to journalist J. Fauber, the majority of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to farm animals. (The perils of animal antibiotics, 2001, para. 4). The threat of antibiotic resistance is real, but some argue that the actual danger seems small, some question the quantified harm this process causes (drug companies, for instance, that have an economic stake in this issue), is insignificant. Nevertheless excessive and irresponsible use of antibiotics has contributed to the development of dangerous, antibiotic-resistant pathogens, which render these formerly life-saving drugs useless for treating illnesses in people. In other words, bacteria in the human micro biome can learn how to resist more drugs because humans are exposed to slight amounts of antibiotics in the meats that they eat. All the same, antibiotics are used in animals and can help bacteria become resistant to the same or similar drugs used in humans. This then questions how much protein actually ends up going into a human’s body because the animal no longer contains the same amount of nutrients it once did. But let’s face it; people will not abstain from eating meats just by being told its bad for them. This is where awareness campaigns come into play, if more people are educated about the consequences of eating slaughtered meats, the animal abuse in these slaughter houses can stop. Some might argue that just bringing awareness of treatment of animals is not enough to change health related behaviors because people will still indulge in their unhealthy eating habits. According to Gurung, R.A.R. (2010), the health belief model (HBM) states that “… individuals will perform healthy behaviors if they believe an illness will have severe consequences… their behavior will reduce the severity or susceptibility of an illness [and] the benefits of the behaviors outweigh the costs”. (pg. 162) This model conceptualizes decisions to take positive health actions as motivated by perceived threat associated with specific changes in behavior. It is vital to educate people about the relationship between the foods they consume and their health outcome. Empirical evidence, such as the one illustrated below, demonstrates that diseases are linked to the treatment of animals; hence this information will motivate individuals to make healthier eating decisions. According to Natural Society (2013), “…the use of these hormones has been shown to disrupt hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interference with the reproductive system and breast, prostate and colon cancer.” (Animals Raised Organically Are Not Given Growth Hormones or Antibiotics section, 2013, para. 4). Food-borne sicknesses infect millions of Americans every year, killing thousands, and whether these illnesses spring from animal products or other foods, the source of the contamination is often traceable to factory farms. Consuming too many animal products also clogs our arteries and leads to heart disease, which is our country’s number one killer. This nation’s sad reality is that most suffer from preventable illnesses and premature deaths. On the other hand there are other ways to promote a healthier lifestyle that include making populations aware of how the treatment of animals directly affects health, by empowering vulnerable groups on healthy foods they can consume and educating the groups on how to change into a healthy eating habit. Some would dispute that exposing the treatment of animals will not change the health decisions of people from low socioeconomic status (SES) because this population cannot afford the luxury of choosing healthier foods. Food cost and availability have been indicted in the diet quality differential by income. More wealthy populations consume higher-quality diets than do disadvantaged populations. Higher quality foods with more nutrients per calorie, such as, lean meats, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, and fruit cost more and are unaffordable by lower SES. High food costs can thus be seen as representing an increased burden on families of low socioeconomic means. When financial constraints become a barrier for poor and minority communities to access healthy foods, they are likely to consume fewer fruits and vegetables and instead to consume lower quality and high energy dense foods (e.g., processed) that are high in starches, added sugars, and added fats. Moreover, the advent of cheap, plentiful, over-processed foods has made it less expensive to purchase these foods, making it easy to maintain an unhealthy diet. Although most consumers believe that the only way of consuming an efficient amount of protein is through meat, there are numerous other ways that protein can be consumed. For example, all beans as well as most dairy products can contain just as much protein as any meat product can. The perceived barrier of food price and the perceived benefit of diet quality have both been found to be mediators in the association between socio-economic status and diet quality. Within society there are a range of approaches to balancing income with expenditure on food some of which impact on long term health and on the ability to contribute to society. It has been assumed that because food costs disproportionately impact the total budget of the economically deprived, they are less likely to be able to buy foods of appropriate quality. Therefore they buy what is available and affordable for them, such as junk, fatty fast foods at cheap fast food restaurants. It is well-recognized that groups of lower SES are more likely to be obese than those of higher SES. It is presumed that this obesity is a physical presentation of poor dietary and nutritional practices. Simultaneously, those in lower SES are at great risk. It is no secret that, while there is a wide variety of healthy food choices out there, such as organic and free range products, people from low SES are limited to buying only what is available to them at their local supermarkets, such as over processed meats and products that contain High- fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Too much added sugar as found on HFCS products can contribute to unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain and diabetes type 2, all of which boost your risk of heart disease. (CDC, 2011) Consequently, information about what products to consume can help those in lower SES to maintain a healthier lifestyle if it is made accessible for them to purchase healthier foods. These observations should help sensitize us to the complexity of addressing and interpreting the relationship of dietary factors as a causal mechanism for the disease burden of those of lower social class. Despite this deficiency, this class can be empowered through the promotion of food institutions, such as whole foods, that carry healthy foods to accept government supplements like EBT. If this class can afford to purchase healthy products from said supermarkets, it is more than likely that their overall health can improve. Full service supermarkets and grocery stores are more abundant in affluent neighborhoods, allowing those with higher incomes to more easily access healthier food choices compared to households with lower-income in low-income neighborhoods. Doing so will increase greater access to healthy foods by people from lower SES enabling positive eating habits. According to healthy people 2020 (2012), “…resources that enhance quality of life can have a significant influence on population health outcomes...” (para.1). In addition, according to the HBM model, “…perceived health barriers are the most powerful predictor of health behaviors”. Furthermore, this population is at risk for diseases by eating high fat foods. As a result of the hormone injections in animal feedlots, people from low SES are vulnerable to high cholesterol, obesity and other diseases. According to the American Diabetes Association (n.d.), obesity and high cholesterol can raise the risk for diabetes mellitus (diabetes type 2). Informing these populations of their vulnerability to diseases due to higher consumptions of fats, that as stated before is linked to hormone injection and the treatment of animals in slaughter houses, while assisting the agency of people from low SES through institutions that carry healthy foods, will all lead to more positive health outcomes. Furthermore learning about factory farming’s impact on your local community and our country, urging our elected representatives to support reforms and requesting more plant-based foods in our grocery stores and restaurants, we will be the change our food system needs. A change that centers on eating plants instead of animals; one that supports our health instead of undermining it; and one that helps us preserve the natural world, and our relationship to it, in a way that connects us to our better natures and the best we have to offer each other. It is not one factor such as the awareness of animal treatment in slaughter houses that will change the health behaviors of individuals but a number of variables. If more research is done to show how the treatment of animals in these slaughter houses affects health, new findings to improve health will come about and more people will be motivated to change their eating habits by weighing the pros and cons. A solid health foundation is built on awareness, information and then action. If other factors that create barriers for persons to eat healthy are explored, this will lead to better health decisions and therefore positive health outcome.
References
Animal Production System (2001) Transfer of Resistant Genes and Medical Implants.
The perils of animal antibiotics. Retrieved from http://pmac.net/AM/antibiotic_perils.html
American Diabetes Association (n.d.). Lower your risk. Retrieved from http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/prevention/checkup-america/
CDC. (2011, August). Rethink Your Drink. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/healthy_eating/drinks.html?mobile=false
Gurung, R.A.R. (2010), Health Psychology: A cultural approach. (2nd ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Healthy People 2020 (2012). Social determinants of health. Retrieved from http://healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39
Natural Society (2013), Animals Raised Organically Are Not Given Growth Hormones or Antibiotics. Retrieved from http://naturalsociety.com/animals-raised-organically-are-not-given%20growth-hormones-or-antibiotics/
Pollan, M. Omnivore 's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Retrieved from 1/e for DeVry University. Pearson Learning Solutions.
.