To get updates on new site content, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Pigs

From JFA Wiki
This is the latest revision of this page; it has no approved revision.
Revision as of 08:52, 1 November 2019 by Bethany.Chester (talk | contribs) (→‎Sentience and Cognition)

This draft is in the process of being written by User:Bethany.Chester. It will be moved to the main namespace when it is completed.

This article provides information about pigs that should prove useful to those advocating for animal rights, as well as to those exploring the rationale for veganism.

It covers various aspects of farmed pigs in the context of animal rights, including injustices and suffering, humane labels and certifications, pig sentience and cognition, the environmental consequences of farming pigs, the health risks of pig meat, and impacts to communities and workers

General Information

Lineage

Pigs were domesticated approximately 9000 years ago from various subspecies of the Eurasian wild boar.[1] Domestication occurred separately in Europe and Asia, though there is evidence that interbreeding later took place. Pigs were brought to North America by Spanish explorers in the 16th century.

Numbers

Worldwide, over 2 billion pigs are slaughtered for meat each year. In the United States alone, over 121 million are killed annually.

Using data from the USDA Census of Agriculture and the EPA's definitions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, the Sentience Institute estimates that 98.3 percent of pigs in the USA are factory-farmed.[2] The figures for other industrialized nations are likely to be similar.

Injustices and Suffering

The injustices inherent in exploiting pigs and other non-human animals stem from seeing them as commodities having only instrumental value, lacking any inherent worth apart from their usefulness to humans.

As Tom Regan put it, the animals we use "have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is."

As shown in the section on sentience and cognition, pigs not only have a will to live and value their lives, just as humans do, but also have desires, preferences, emotions, families, social communities, natural behaviors, a sense of themselves, and a sense of the future.

The injustices discussed below—all arising from a failure to recognize the inherent worth of other sentient beings—are either standard practice or not unusual. And, as shown in the section below on humane labels and certifications, this is true even for those pig products with a humane label or certification. To omit a significant number of these injustices would likely increase costs to the point of rendering pig meat unaffordable by all but the most affluent.

Loss of Life

We have no nutritional need for pork, so denying pigs their lives is unnecessary, as are the other forms of suffering enumerated here. Not only are we taking their lives—we are doing so after allowing them to live only about three percent of their natural life spans. Pigs are slaughtered after living only 5 to 6 weeks of a 10 to 12-year natural lifespan.

To take the life of any sentient being is to harm that being by depriving them of opportunities for fulfillment, even if it is done suddenly and painlessly (which it is not, as explained below).

Slaughter

<-- discuss methods of slaughter, for example: USDA inspecter testimonials, slaughter speed lines, and the cruelty involved. The books Slaughterhouse" and Eating Animals can help if you have them or can get them. —>

Many slaughterhouses kill 1000 pigs or more per hour. Pigs are supposed to be rendered unconscious by stunning before being slaughtered, but since the lines run so quickly, mistakes are inevitable. Many pigs are not properly stunned, and as a consequence are still alive when they reach the scalding tanks. This means they are effectively boiled alive.

Mutilations

Most piglets undergo painful routine procedures when they are less than a week old. For example, they may be tattooed or have their ears notched for identification purposes. Conventional tattooing is known to cause stress,[3] while ear notching is known to be painful.[4] Piglets may also have their sharp "needle teeth" clipped to prevent them from injuring each other when fighting over teats.

Pigs sometimes bite each other's tails when stressed, so some farmers cut off pigs' tails to prevent this. However, studies suggest that this can cause acute and possibly chronic pain.[5] Though tail docking is thought to reduce the incidence of serious injuries, it does not eliminate them. In Ireland, where 99 percent of pigs have docked tails, 72.5 percent were still found to have tail lesions at slaughter.[6]

Male piglets are castrated, primarily because their flesh can otherwise develop an unpleasant taste and smell. This is generally done by making an incision in the scrotum and pulling out the testes, before cutting the spermatic cord. In most countries, it is legal to carry out this procedure without anesthetic in the piglet's first week of life, despite the fact that this is known to be painful. Carrying out castration at this age is also risky as the testes are very small, which can lead to incomplete castration and increase the risk of prolapse of the intestine.[7]

Confinement

Pregnant sows are often kept in metal stalls called gestation crates. The crates typically measure just 6.5 ft x 2.0 ft, meaning sows are not able to turn around.[8] Some larger sows are not even able to lie on their sides (the way pigs normally sleep) in the crates. The stalls typically do not contain bedding material, instead having metal, plastic, or concrete floors. Sows often chew on the bars, a sign of boredom and frustration.[9] Pigs prefer to relieve themselves a long way from where they eat and sleep, which is impossible when they are confined to crates.[10]

A few days before they are due to give birth, sows are moved to farrowing crates. These are slightly larger to allow the sow to lie on her side and nurse her piglets. They also have an additional enclosure attached to prevent piglets from being accidentally crushed by the sow. The crates are said to reduce piglet mortality compared to keeping sows loose, but there is no convincing evidence that this is the case.[11] Sows remain in farrowing crates for about a month, before being impregnated again and returned to the gestation crates. Gestation crates have been banned in nine US states, but farrowing crates remain legal across the country. Use of the crates has also been banned or restricted in many other regions, such as the EU, New Zealand,[12] and Canada.[13]

After being removed from their mothers, piglets are crowded into pens where they barely have room to move until they reach slaughter weight. The filthy, crowded conditions lead to the development of pneumonia and mange. Many pigs die and their bodies are sometimes left in the pens for extended periods. Pigs may also develop arthritis from lack of exercise and be injured when their feet are caught in the floor slats. The stress of confinement can lead pigs to exhibit cannibalistic behavior, which is not found in pigs' wild ancestors.

Pigs Left to Die after Natural Disasters

<-- Discuss. I heard pigs have sometimes been left to die so that insurance can be collected after flooding and hurricanes. If you can find sources, include that. -->

In the USA, pigs have been left to die in the floods following major hurricanes. An estimated 5500 pigs drowned following Hurricane Florence,[14] and 21,000 were killed by Hurricane Floyd.

Humane Labels and Certifications

<-- These should be US-centric, but feel free to include other certifications/labels as well, particularly if they are widely used across multiple countries. -->

Many believe that we are not harming animals when we use them for food as long as we treat them well while they are living. The justification given for this view is that animals don't have a sense of the future, and thus don’t have an interest in continuing to live. However, current research in cognitive ethology and neurobiology, as shown below, says otherwise.

But if one holds this belief in spite of the science, and wants to live by their own values, they might, with good intentions, decide to buy only animal products that have some sort of humane label or certification.

In the sections that follow, we show that standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.

So even if you buy into the idea that it’s OK to eat animal products as long as the animals are treated well, there is virtually no chance that the animals have, in fact, been treated well, regardless of what label is on the package. While certain labels may represent less suffering for some of the abuses, other abuses remain. The mitigation of some of the cruelties does not justify the remaining ones.

Humane labels and certifications are, for the most part, marketing ploys. They are designed to assuage our guilt, and they can engender higher profits because the industry knows that concerned, kind-hearted consumers are willing to pay more for products they perceive to be humanely produced.

The life of any farmed animal can only be described as one of commodified, abusive servitude ending in brutal slaughter. When viewed objectively, free from the fog of our cultural norms, their treatment and slaughter, by any standard of fairness and justice—cannot be considered humane.

Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Certification

  • Sick animals can be euthanized by gunshot or captive bolt
  • Castration with sharp blade permitted
  • Tusk trimming permitted
  • Ear notching permitted
  • Artificial insemination permitted - pigs can be confined for up to 4 hours.
  • Feed can be withheld for 8 hours before transport.
  • Slaughter according to American MeatInstitute’s Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide

Animal Welfare Approved Standard

Like the GAP, the AWS standard permits artificial insemination. Surgical castration is permitted for piglets under a week old, and both tattooing and painful ear notching are also allowed.

The AWS standard states that piglets lighter than 12 lbs can be euthanized using a blow to the head with a blunt instrument. It also recommends that pigs be slaughtered in carbon dioxide gas chambers; as mentioned previously, this is extremely painful and distressing.

Certified Humane

  • Artificial insemination permitted
  • Tattooing permitted
  • Tooth trimming sometimes permitted
  • Castration permitted
  • Pigs can be transported for 8 hours, food can be withheld for 18
  • Vague slaughter requirements, American Meat Institute guidelines

American Humane Certified

  • Tattooing permitted
  • Tooth trimming, castration, tail docking, and tusk trimming permitted
  • No euthanasia guidelines
  • Breeding stalls allowed
  • Food can be withheld for 18 hours before slaughter
  • Slaughter according to Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide published by the North American Meat Institute Foundation

Sentience and Cognition

While we are not suggesting that the degree of moral consideration given to an animal be based on their cognitive capacity, it seems that most people are not fully aware of the rich cognitive, emotional, and psychological lives that pigs experience.

Studies have shown that pigs can distinguish between objects and remember objects for at least five days. This shows that they have long-term memory. They are also able to learn the meaning of symbols representing actions and objects. In one experiment, pigs were able to understand and respond to combinations of symbols that represented phrases such as “fetch the ball.”[15] They have also been recorded using tools.[16]

Few studies have been done on time perception in pigs, but there is evidence that they can anticipate the future. For example, one study found that pigs reacted negatively with high-pitched vocalizations when they knew a negative event was coming. They are also skilled at using spatial information — navigating mazes, for example.[15]

Pigs also engage in play, considered to be an indication of cognitive complexity. When raised without enough stimulation, they can develop behavioral abnormalities. They have been shown to make more positive decisions when given more stimulation, which is evidence that environmental enrichment can make them more optimistic.[15]

Studies show that pigs can discriminate between individuals, whether human or other pigs. Though it is not clear whether they can recognize their reflections, pigs in some studies have been able to find food that was only visible in a mirror. They have also been taught to play video games, controlling the joysticks with their mouths or snouts. This provides some evidence of self-awareness, as the pigs understood that their actions were causing the cursor to move. Many animals, such as dogs, do not show these capabilities.[15]

In one study, some pigs were trained to anticipate negative events when a certain piece of music was played. Others were not trained, but exhibited similar stress responses to the nearby trained pigs when the music was played. This provides evidence that pigs can recognize and pick up on each other's emotions, which may mean they experience empathy. It also shows that they have a sense of the future. Additionally, pigs show a range of personality traits such as sociability, exploration, and aggression.[15]

According to Dr. Donald Broom of the University of Cambridge, pigs are cognitively capable of being more sophisticated than three-year-olds.[17]

Environmental Consequences

The breeding, confinement, and slaughter of pigs have a profoundly negative impact on the environment. Factory farms raise thousands of pigs at a time, and each one produces 2-4 times as much waste as a human. The production of such huge quantities of waste in a relatively small area makes it difficult to manage effectively. Usually, waste from industrial pig farms is dumped untreated into vast lagoons that may leak or overflow.[18]

Untreated pig waste is often spread over nearby fields in an attempt to dispose of it. These excessive amounts of manure can pollute the soil. When the soil becomes saturated, manure may run off the fields and into waterways. This, along with overflow from lagoons, can contaminate water and kill fish. Pollutants from pig slaughterhouses may also be released into waterways. After flowing into rivers, nitrogen from manure can reach lakes and oceans, where it causes algae to bloom and use up much of the oxygen in the water. This makes it difficult or impossible for other aquatic species to survive.[18]

Waste lagoons and the spraying of manure pollute the air with toxins and greenhouse gases such as hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia. Nitrogen in the waste may also contribute to acid rain.

Factory-farmed pigs are fed largely on grains, which also causes environmental problems. Huge areas of land are needed to grow this grain, leading to deforestation and habitat destruction. According to the FAO, 47 percent of emissions from pig-rearing are caused by feed production. Another 13 percent is related to land use change due to the growing of crops.[19] Large quantities of water, fertilizers, and fossil fuels are also used in this process. Farmed pigs are also sometimes fed on fishmeal, contributing to overfishing.

Human Health, Nutrition

Cardiovascular Disease

Pig meat contains saturated fat, cholesterol, and heme iron, which contribute to an increased risk of heart disease.[20][21][22][23] In 2012, a meta-analysis concluded that both red and processed meat are linked to an increased risk of stroke.[24] A Finnish study carried out between 1972 and 1992 found that heart disease rates in the country dropped dramatically when the intake of saturated fat and cholesterol decreased.[25]

Cancer

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated 800 studies and concluded that processed meat (such as sausages, bacon, and ham) is a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning it definitely causes cancer. The processing and cooking of meat was found to form various carcinogenic chemicals.[26] Other Group 1 carcinogens include tobacco and asbestos.

The report also concluded that unprocessed red meat (including pig meat) is Group 2A carcinogen, meaning it is a probable cause of cancer. It has been linked to colorectal, prostate, and pancreatic cancer.

Type 2 Diabetes

Red meat is associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, especially if it is processed. This is thought to be because it contains high levels of fat, heme iron, nitrites, and other harmful substances.[27]

Animal Protein

All animal protein, pig meat or otherwise, carries risks that are not associated with plant protein. A review by Dr. Sofia Ochoa cites 42 studies showing that animal protein[28]

  • elevates hormone insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and "has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy"
  • "results in us having higher circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)," which "injures the lining of our vessels, creates inflammation, and facilitates the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels"
  • causes the overproduction of the hormone fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which damages our blood vessels, can "lead to enlargement of the cardiac ventricle, and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure"
  • can result in the overabsorption of heme iron, causing the conversion of other oxidants into highly reactive free radicals that "can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA" (heme iron "has also been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers")
  • can result in a higher incidence of bone fractures because of animal protein's high concentrations of sulfur
  • contributes to atherosclerosis—plaques of cholesterol that accumulate in the lining of our vessels; this condition is far less common on a vegan diet because absorbable cholesterol is not found in plants

Social Consequences of Pig Production

The vast majority of pigs in industrialized nations are raised on factory farms. This has profound consequences for those who live nearby. One of the most studied cases is North Carolina, the second-largest hog producing state. Those who live near factory farms complain of foul odors that invade their homes and force them to cover their mouths and noses when they step outside. Some even spend nights in motels to escape it if they can afford to do so. The smell can permeate clothes and upholstery, making it difficult to remove.[29] The farms are disproportionately located in low-income communities inhabited largely by ethnic minorities.[30]

Excess manure from factory farms is spread over nearby fields. In some areas, manure is spread so close to communities that a mist of it covers houses, cars, and laundry left out to dry.[29] Other waste is stored in lagoons, which can leak or overflow and contaminate the local water supply. Factory-farmed pig manure often contains pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals, which can cause illness if inhaled or ingested.[18] Studies show that these substances can contribute to decreased quality of life, higher blood pressure,[31] respiratory problems, and mental stress. The odors can also lead to headaches, nausea, and vomiting, among other symptoms.[32] Factory farm workers may also have an increased risk of health problems, such as asthma.[33]

Slaughterhouse workers have some of the highest injury rates of any industry, as lines move at unsafe speeds and workers handle very sharp knives. Several workers have even been killed in US slaughterhouses. Workers are also prone to repetitive strain injuries from repeating the same movements for hours on end. They are often dismissed when they become injured, leading many to hide their injuries and continue working.[34]

Those who work in slaughterhouses are often undocumented immigrants who speak little English. They may not be aware of their rights and often fear deportation if they try to improve their conditions. Workers may be forced to work excessively long shifts and threatened with dismissal if they refuse. Some are expected to work as much as twelve hours a day, six days a week. This can lead to fatigue and depression.[34]

Committing violent acts against animals leads many workers to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[35] It may also lead them to commit violence against humans. Rates of violent crime, including domestic abuse and rape, are higher in communities located near a slaughterhouse.[36]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Giuffra, E., J. M. Kijas, V. Amarger, O. Carlborg, J. T. Jeon, and L. Andersson. “The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and Subsequent Introgression.” Genetics 154, no. 4 (April 2000): 1785–91.
  2. ↑ “US Factory Farming Estimates.” Sentience Institute. Accessed October 22, 2019. http://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates.
  3. ↑ Brach, E.J., B.S. Scobie, and D.P. Raymond. “Hog Tattooing Techniques.” Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 41, no. 4 (December 1988): 339–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(88)90218-1.
  4. ↑ Torrey, S., N. Devillers, M. Lessard, C. Farmer, and T. Widowski. “Effect of Age on the Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Piglets to Tail Docking and Ear Notching1.” Journal of Animal Science 87, no. 5 (May 1, 2009): 1778–86. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1354.
  5. ↑ Herskin, M. S., K. Thodberg, and H. E. Jensen. “Effects of Tail Docking and Docking Length on Neuroanatomical Changes in Healed Tail Tips of Pigs.” Animal 9, no. 4 (April 2015): 677–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002857.
  6. ↑ Harley, S, La Boyle, Ne O’Connell, Sj More, Dl Teixeira, and A Hanlon. “Docking the Value of Pigmeat? Prevalence and Financial Implications of Welfare Lesions in Irish Slaughter Pigs.” Animal Welfare 23, no. 3 (August 1, 2014): 275–85. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.3.275.
  7. ↑ Prunier, A. “A Review of the Welfare Consequences of Surgical Castration in Piglets and the Evaluation of Non-Surgical Methods.” Animal Welfare, no. 15 (2006): 277–89.
  8. ↑ “Welfare Implications of Gestation Sow Housing.” Accessed November 1, 2019. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-of-Gestation-Sow-Housing.aspx.
  9. ↑ Cronin, G. M., P. R. Wiepkema, and J. M. van Ree. “Andorphins Implicated in Stereotypies of Tethred Sows.” Experientia 42, no. 2 (February 1986): 198–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952467.
  10. ↑ “Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a Request from the Commission Related to Welfare of Weaners and Rearing Pigs: Effects of Different Space Allowances and Floor.” The EFSA Journal 268 (October 28, 2005): 1–19.
  11. ↑ Aland, Andres, and Thomas Banhazi, eds. Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-771-4.
  12. ↑ https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/11959
  13. ↑ Humane Society International. “Canada Bans Lifelong Confinement for Pigs in Controversial Gestation Crates,” March 6, 2014. https://www.hsi.org/news-media/canada-gestation-crates-ban-30614/.
  14. ↑ “NCDA&CS Moving into Communities to Assess Damage & Assist in Recovery.” Accessed October 25, 2019. http://www.ncagr.gov/paffairs/release/2018/NCDACSmovingintocommunitiestoassessdamageassistinrecovery.htm.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Marino, Lori, and Christina M. Colvin. “Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus Domesticus.” International Journal of Comparative Psychology, no. 28 (2015). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c.
  16. ↑ Root-Bernstein, Meredith, Trupthi Narayan, Lucile Cornier, and Aude Bourgeois. “Context-Specific Tool Use by Sus Cebifrons.” Mammalian Biology 98 (September 2019): 102–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.08.003.
  17. ↑ Cambridge Daily News, “New Slant on Chump Chops,” Cambridge Daily News, 29 Mar. 2002
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Marks, Robbin. “CESSPOOLS OF SHAME: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health.” Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network, July 2001. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cesspools.pdf.
  19. ↑ “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pig and Chicken Supply Chains: A Global Life Cycle Assessment.” FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 2013. http://www.fao.org/3/i3460e/i3460e.pdf.
  20. ↑ Hu, Frank B., Meir J. Stampfer, JoAnn E. Manson, Eric Rimm, Graham A. Colditz, Bernard A. Rosner, Charles H. Hennekens, and Walter C. Willett. “Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women.” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 21 (November 20, 1997): 1491–99. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711203372102.
  21. ↑ Kannel, William B. “Serum Cholesterol, Lipoproteins, and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: The Framingham Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine 74, no. 1 (January 1, 1971): 1. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-74-1-1.
  22. ↑ A, Daphne L. van der, Petra H. M. Peeters, Diederick E. Grobbee, Joannes J. M. Marx, and Yvonne T. van der Schouw. “Dietary Haem Iron and Coronary Heart Disease in Women.” European Heart Journal 26, no. 3 (February 2005): 257–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi027.
  23. ↑ Tzonou, A., P. Lagiou, A. Trichopoulou, V. Tsoutsos, and D. Trichopoulos. “Dietary Iron and Coronary Heart Disease Risk: A Study from Greece.” American Journal of Epidemiology 147, no. 2 (January 15, 1998): 161–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009429.
  24. ↑ Kaluza, Joanna, Alicja Wolk, and Susanna C. Larsson. “Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.” Stroke 43, no. 10 (October 2012): 2556–60. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663286.
  25. ↑ Pietinen, Pirjo, Erkki Vartiainen, Ritva Seppänen, Antti Aro, and Pekka Puska. “Changes in Diet in Finland from 1972 to 1992: Impact on Coronary Heart Disease Risk.” Preventive Medicine 25, no. 3 (May 1996): 243–50. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0053.
  26. ↑ Bouvard, Véronique, Dana Loomis, Kathryn Z. Guyton, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi Mattock, and Kurt Straif. “Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat.” The Lancet Oncology 16, no. 16 (December 1, 2015): 1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1.
  27. ↑ Pan, An, Qi Sun, Adam M Bernstein, Matthias B Schulze, JoAnn E Manson, Walter C Willett, and Frank B Hu. “Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: 3 Cohorts of US Adults and an Updated Meta-Analysis.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94, no. 4 (October 1, 2011): 1088–96. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.018978.
  28. ↑ Ochoa, MD, Sofia Pineda. “7 Ways Animal Protein Is Damaging Your Health.” Forks Over Knives, December 31, 2016. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://www.forksoverknives.com/animalproteindangers/.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Wing Steve. “Social Responsibility and Research Ethics in Community-Driven Studies of Industrialized Hog Production.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 5 (May 1, 2002): 437–44. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110437.
  30. ↑ Edwards, Bob, and Anthony Ladd. “Race, Poverty, Political Capacity and the Spatial Distribution of Swine Waste in North Carolina, 1982-1997.” The North Carolina Geographer 9 (2001): 51–70.
  31. ↑ Wing, Steve, Rachel Avery Horton, and Kathryn M. Rose. “Air Pollution from Industrial Swine Operations and Blood Pressure of Neighboring Residents.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 1 (January 2013): 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205109.
  32. ↑ Wing, Steve, Rachel Avery Horton, Stephen W. Marshall, Kendall Thu, Mansoureh Tajik, Leah Schinasi, and Susan S. Schiffman. “Air Pollution and Odor in Communities Near Industrial Swine Operations.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 10 (October 2008): 1362–68. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11250.
  33. ↑ Dosman, J. A., J. A. Lawson, S. P. Kirychuk, Y. Cormier, J. Biem, and N. Koehncke. “Occupational Asthma in Newly Employed Workers in Intensive Swine Confinement Facilities.” The European Respiratory Journal 24, no. 4 (October 2004): 698–702. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.04.00112102.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 “Blood, Sweat, and Fear | Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants.” Human Rights Watch, January 24, 2005. https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/01/24/blood-sweat-and-fear/workers-rights-us-meat-and-poultry-plants.
  35. ↑ Dillard, Jennifer. “A Slaughterhouse Nightmare:  Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees  and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform .” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy XV, no. 2 (Summer 2008).
  36. ↑ Fitzgerald, Amy J., Linda Kalof, and Thomas Dietz. “Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover From ‘The Jungle’ Into the Surrounding Community.” Organization & Environment 22, no. 2 (June 2009): 158–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338164.

Meta

This article was originally authored by Bethany Chester with contributions by Greg Fuller . The contents may have been edited since that time by others.

Retrieved from "https://justiceforanimals.org/index.php?title=Pigs&oldid=5396"