American meat and its influence upon the public health

Preface

The pages which follow represent the results of a somewhat unusual inquiry. Up to a recent period, the writer regarded the products of American packing-houses with that implicit and unquestioning confidence which so generally prevails in America and England. There had been grave scandals and exposures ; but these had ended in rectification of all abuses, and in permanent reforms. The inspection of meat — the oversight of its manufacture into various products — had been confided to a Department of the Federal Government, where it was supposed there could be no temptation to formulate rules that should be contrary to the public health. It was while passing through one of the great meat-producing establishments of Chicago, that the casual remark of an employee suggested further investigations, leading to a revelation of conditions hitherto vi

PREFACE unsuspected, which it is the purpose of these pages to make known.

It will be noted that frequent references are made to the Meat Trust." The term is here used, not to indicate a business entity of any kind, but simply an influence which proceeds from the financial interests involved. Fifty years ago, in America, men spoke of the ''Slave power" as controlling the Government of the United States. In like manner, we refer to the Meat Trust. Of any such financial combination or organisation we have no evidence. But some power exists, capable of making its influence felt regarding everything that touches this trade in flesh. Some power has been able to prevent the total condemnation of diseased animals for food purposes. Some powerful influence induced Congress to place the cost of inspecting meat, not upon the producers, but upon the people of the United States. Some influence caused the regulations governing meat inspection to be always more favourable to sordid interests than to public welfare. This malign influence we designate the Meat Trust. The final analysis regarding its origin we leave to others.

PREFACE vii

It is certain that the conclusions brought forward in these chapters will be disputed by those whose financial interests are in any way concerned. Regret will be expressed because of the publicity given to methods of meat inspection which hitherto have eluded observation and criticism. Distinguished experts will be brought forward to assure us that in their judgment no danger to health is likely to result from the acts herein condemned. But one point is impregnable. In the face of evidence here produced, it is impossible to deny the practices which the Regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture explicitly sanction and permit. Are such permissions in perfect accord with public sentiment in England and America ? That is the problem which we here put to the test.

APPENDIX - -

Index

I am not of the opinion of those gentlemen who are against disturbing the pitblic repose ; I like a clamour when there is an abuse. The fire-bell at midnight disturbs your sleep, but it keeps you from being burned in your bed. The hue-and-cry alarms the country, but it preserves all the property of the province^'

Edmund Burke.

Chapter I The Packing-house Of To-day

During the early part of the year 1906, the world was startled by revolting disclosures concerning the stock-yards and great packing-houses of Chicago. By special investigators sent out by the President of the United States, it was shown that the methods of handling and preparing food-products were not only uncleanly, but dangerous to health ; that some of these establishments were not kept even reasonably clean ; that a traffic existed in questionable meats; that among the employees tuberculosis existed entirely out of proportion to their number, and that, in short, the conditions there prevalent were a menace to the public health. The financial losses occasioned by these revelations were beyond computation, and their effect probably continues to the present day.

What are the conditions which at present prevail in the great slaughter-houses of Chicago? It was to obtain light on this question that several visits were made to some of the largest establishments engaged in the preparation of meat.

I

In the first place, one is impressed by the courtesy with which the inquiring visitor is received. He will perhaps note a sensitiveness regarding the past criticism to which the meat-packers were subjected, and an evident desire to minimise the more revolting accusations. The fact that the great slaughtering establishments have been open to visitors for the past thirty years will be dwelt on, with insistent assertion, as proof that evils so terrible could not have existed, or they would not have escaped the public eye. Attention, perhaps, will be specially directed to the cleanliness now so generally observed in the preparation of animal food-products, and to the Government inspection of whatever is designed to enter our food-supply.

Inasmuch as former complaints were chiefly directed to the uncleanliness of the packing establishments, one could hardly expect other than decidedly improved conditions at the present day. In this respect, there would seem to be little to criticise. Some of the wooden buildings have been far too long in use; but aside from this, money would seem to have been freely spent upon all practicable improvements tending to insure cleanliness in the handling of meat. In one large establishment the floors of rooms intended for the reception of beef recently dressed were of hard wood, highly polished, and lightly strewn with clean sawdust. Personal cleanliness on the part of the workers is required; printed signs on the walls in English, Polish, and other languages, inform workmen that the white outer garments which they are required to wear will be laundered daily, at the expense of the establishment, and must therefore be regularly changed.

THE PACKING-HOUSE

Particular attention seems to be directed to the manufacture of sausage, an article chiefly composed of pork, and of which some millions of pounds are annually sent from Chicago to all parts of the world. In the various operations incident to the preparation of this article, there would seem to be little occasion for present criticism. The workers, mostly women and girls, were dressed in clean white gowns ; the rooms were well lighted ; the floors as clean as could be desired. So far as practicable, the operations incident to manufacture were performed by machinery; and in certain cases where much handling was necessary, it was done upon large tables of thick plate-glass, which could be readily cleaned at the close of the day's work. Taken all in all, it would seem that the principal meat-packing estabhshments of Chicago are now conducted with as strict attention to the demands of cleanliness as circumstances permit, or as the most fastidious critic could require. What the casual visitor may not remember is the fact that the real value of each and every food-product depends not merely upon the nicety with which the processes of manufacture are carried on, but, above everything, upon the quality of the meat composing them. It is probable that on this point the visitor will learn nothing from observation in the packing-house, no matter how frequent his visits, or how keen his sight.

One great evil of the former system, which in many respects does not appear to have been reformed to any notable degree, is the hideous cruelty to living animals, occasioned by the haste with which every operation pertaining to slaughter is carried on. The celerity with which living creatures may be turned into food-products

1—2 has long been a matter of subdued pride in slaughter-house society. And yet it would seem that when we had decided to sacrifice an animal in order to devour it, we might at least try to put it to death with the fewest pangs. It would hardly take a moment longer to deprive every animal of sensibility by a blow over the brain or by some similar procedure, as in the case of cattle; but only a small minority of the creatures slaughtered may experience so painless an exit from Hfe. Sheep, led by a little goat into the slaughter-pen, are caught up by the hind-leg in bunches of three or four at a time, passed on to the butcher, who cuts the throat, and then to a long line of assistants, each of whom has one thing to do. It is evident that too little time is allowed for dying, and removal of the skin is almost certainly commenced before sensibility can have ceased. One sees the palpitating dying thing in the hands of someone, actively at work upon it, from the moment it leaves the butcher's hands.^

The killing of cattle is more humanely performed. The animal is first stunned by a blow ; it falls on its side, the throat is cut, and the processes of removing the skin and evisceration follow very soon. As a rule, care is taken to strike the animal immediately over the brain; but sometimes one moved its head at the critical moment, and there were scenes over which the memory does not care to linger. All this might be avoided, if the animals were slaughtered with the

^ Since these observations were made, some of the packers have promised to repress the worst cruelties. As this result has been attained through persistent personal and private influence, we are precluded from giving particulars.

THE PACKING-HOUSE deliberation and humanity which obtains in some foreign lands.

Some of the worst abuses still prevail in the slaughter of swine. The obese animals, in a long procession, ascend an inclined passage-way which, beginning at the ground-level, ends on the upper floor of the packing-house, where the killing is done. A huge wooden wheel, some ten or fifteen feet in circumference, forms one side of a pen ; stout iron chains, two or three feet in length, hang from its circumference at regular intervals. A man enters the pen, fastens a small chain to the leg of a pig, deftly links it to the chain on the slowly revolving wheel, and the animal, however large, despite all struggles, is slowly lifted into the air and delivered automatically on a tramway, whereon, head down, it comes before the executioner. It is but a thrust of a keen blade, and the casual visitor perhaps questions whether any method of killing could be more merciful.

But this constant thrusting and letting out of life, this swift evasion of struggling animals and jetting blood, this killing at the rate of one every five or six seconds, cannot but create a terrible sense of weariness. The struggling creatures come swiftly against the slaughterer, and yet upon his unceasing activity depends the work of hundreds of men. The animals are supposed to bleed to death ; the carcasses are then plunged into a huge vat of boiling water. But sometimes not enough time is allowed for the creature to die ; sometimes the knife misses the artery at which it was aimed ; sometimes, even, the animal passes the butcher without being struck at all, and then the terrible spectacle is seen of living creatures writhing in torment, and slowly boiled alive. The packing-house cannot dispute this occurrence ; the workmen freely admit that it happens when the haste of butchery passes a certain point, and the writer has seen it more than once. The regulations issued by the Government admit the fact by ruling that hogs which have been allowed to pass into the scalding vat alive . . . shall be condemned."^ Possibly this regulation is strictly carried out, but there are reasons for doubt. ^

Personal observation of Government inspectors at their work left much to be desired. At a certain stage of their transformation into pork the carcasses of the slaughtered animals passed, head downward, on a tramway. One Government inspector, engaged in his duties, was seen in a chair, tipped back against a post, watching the monotonous procession of dead pigs go by him at the rate of six or seven a minute. It is perhaps permissible to question the value of any inspection thus perfunctorily performed. A special committee, reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture in 1906, declared that, owing to the system of slaughtering in vogue, and the inspector's adaptability to the work, he is enabled to examine each carcass carefully, although a large number of carcasses pass before him in a day." Probably any grave departure from normal conditions, if sufficiently prominent, might be seen by the skilled

^ See Appendix, Regulation 13, Section 29.

2 The italics in this sentence, and in all the quotations which follow, are the writer's. They serve to indicate passages to which the especial attention of the reader should be given.

THE PACKING-HOUSE inspector. When we learn, however, that during the year ending June 30, 1907, of every thousand hogs which received post-mortem inspection, less than four were totally condemned for food, we may perhaps be pardoned if doubts arise. Upon the extent to which such doubts are justifiable the following pages may throw light. What the public needs to know is the extent to which meat derived from diseased animals is officially permitted to be sold as wholesome food. The charge has been made that abuses exist ; the evidence, however, must be sought otherwise than by inspection of the packing-houses.

The laws which Congress enacted were by no means the measures desired by the advocates of reform. Clauses intended for the protection of the public were antagonised by powerful combinations of capital, and failed to become law. The inspection of animals before their slaughter for food was not made mandatory, but left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. That the laws meet the demands of medical science in all respects few will assert. At the same time, it is generally believed at the present time, both in this country and abroad, that the legislation of 1906 practically insures the quality of American meat. The laws were apparently as explicit as human ingenuity could devise. The meat-inspection law seemed to be clear enough. There was to be an ante-mortem examination, and another inspection of the carcasses of slaughtered animals. " All carcasses and parts thereof of animals found to be unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food . . . shall be destroyed for food purposes." The solicitor of the Department of

Agriculture has declared in the most emphatic way possible that meat and meat-products bearing the Government stamp were from healthy animals. I am authorised to say to you," he declared, that this Administration has made, and will continue to make, the Federal stamp upon meats and meat-food products stand for something. When you see this stamp upon a product, you may know that the meat is from healthy animals ... It is hoped . . . that all obnoxious restrictions may be removed, when the various foreign governments understand the Meat Inspection label to he— what it really is— a guaranty by the United States, of the healthf Illness, wholesomeness and purity of the product:'^ Such assurances are impressive; they tend to incite confidence. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for incredulity and distrust. We propose to make known facts which seem to indicate that laws, passed by Congress for the protection of the public health, have been so construed, and so administered, as largely to favour the pecuniary interests of a great Trust whose rapacity and disregard for human welfare have already led to scandal and abuse. It may be shown upon the authority of Government documents that in some most important particulars the present Federal inspection of meat is but little better than a delusion and a sham. Notwithstanding official assurances to the contrary, it shall be shown that at the present time, the flesh of animals killed while suffering from most dangerous and loathsome diseases may be "passed'' by Federal inspectors as ''healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food." It shall be shown that the law as now executed permits ^ See U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Circular loi, pp. 14-15.

THE PACKING-HOUSE the manufacture of lard — a product which finds itself in so many articles of food— from some of the most disgusting materials it is possible to conceive, and that the highest officials in charge of the execution of the law not only permit the act, but assert in a Government publication that not the slightest objection can be raised against this procedure," so far as the public health is concerned. Perhaps the reader who studies the evidence it is proposed to adduce may reach a different conclusion.

Chapter II The Nullification Of Law

On the last day of June, 1906, as the result of an agitation which had spread throughout the world, two statutes affecting the public health received the formal approval of the President of the United States. The first of these laws, the Food and Drugs Act, and popularly known as the " Pure Food Law," related chiefly to medicines and drugs, but was made to include within its scope the adulteration of food. The second enactment was in form of an amendment to the Act, which made the annual appropriation for carrying on the work of the Department of Agriculture, and provided for the inspection of meat. Its object was to render illegal the transport from one state to another, or the shipment to a foreign land, of any meat or meat-food product, unless it had been duly inspected and passed by officials of the United States.

It will be seen that, so far as meat and meat-products were concerned. Congress placed the public health under the charge of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. Vast and important powers were conferred upon him ; and the general public, with abiding confidence in official wisdom, ceased to take further interest

NULLIFICATION OF LAW ii

in any reports affecting the quality of American meat. Undoubtedly there had been abuses in the past ; but the law must have rectified them all. Undoubtedly there may have been a time when the flesh of diseased animals had been permitted to be sold for food ; but, of course, this scandal had been made impossible by laws which distinctly made such an act a criminal offence. As a result of the agitation which had lasted for many months, it was believed that these two enactments by Congress must have effected a complete reform of any abuses which had previously existed.

It is the purpose of the writer to call in question the administration of these laws, and to disturb the confidence now felt in the purity of American meat. As previously stated, many of the horrible conditions revealed during the agitation of 1906 have generally disappeared. The visitor to a great packing establishment in Chicago will undoubtedly note evidence of improvement at nearly every step, and he may return home to London or New York ready to chant the praises of American slaughter-houses under the new regime. What he cannot possibly discover by any inspection of such establishments are the abuses regarding the quality of the meat, which even under his eye was being daintily manufactured into a food-product destined for some man's table.

If abuses exist, have they been infractions of the law ? Or has the law been so interpreted and administered as to permit them ? Has the law been construed in favour of the meat-producers, or in favour of the public health ? Have the laws been nullified or disobeyed ? Almost immediately after the passage of the two laws of June, 1906, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a new series of regulations governing meat inspection. These rules, which bore date July 25, 1906, differed but slightly from similar regulations put forth in June, 1904, long before any agitation began concerning the packing-houses.^ On April i, 1908, still another series of regulations governing the inspection of meat were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and these are the rules which are now in force. Proceeding from the Department of Agriculture, a bureau devoted to furtherance of the interests of the agriculturist and stock-raiser, what ought the public to expect regarding regulations of this kind? On the one hand is the public welfare, and the will of the people, expressed by laws. On the other hand, in some respects antagonistic to the public health are vast financial interests, which would be detrimentally affected by a scrupulous regard for the common good. In formulating rules regarding inspection of animals or carcasses of animals intended for food, which interest should we naturally expect to control conduct, the pubhc welfare or the financial benefit of the Meat Trust ? Let us look at a few typical instances wherein regulations have been changed, and see if we can discern for what reasons, or in whose interest, the changes have been made.

It would seem to have been the design of the framers of the meat-inspection amendment to require an examination of the living animals intended for slaughter before they entered the pens of the packing-house. The provision of the statute by which it was hoped to secure this object reads as follows :

" That for the purpose of preventing the use in interstate or foreign commerce, as hereinafter provided, of meat and meat-food products which are unsound, unhealthful, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, the Secretary of Agriculture, at his discretion^ may cause to be made, by inspectors appointed for that purpose, an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep, swine, and goats before they shall be allowed to enter into any slaughtering^ packings meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment, in which they are to be slaughtered and the meat and meat-food products thereof are to be used in interstate or foreign commerce ; and all cattle, swine, sheep, and goats found on such inspection to show symptoms of disease shall be set apart and slaughtered separately from all other cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, and when so slaughtered the carcasses of said cattle, sheep, swine, or goats shall be subject to a careful examination and inspection^ all as provided by the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture as herein provided for."

The reason for this wise provision is evident. Carried into effect, it would at least have tended to secure that no animal manifestly suffering from certain diseases could find admission to the pens of the packing-house. Unfortunately for the general public, this form of inspection outside the precincts of the packing-house was abandoned under the clause of the law which left it to the discretion of the Secretary. The solicitor of the Department of Agriculture thus explains the reason for this decision :

"The Secretary has directed that the ante-mortem inspection shall not be made until the animal becomes the property of the estabhshment which is to slaughter it. . . . Until the animal becomes the property of the establishment, the Department has no control over its disposition, and cannot enforce the provision of law that all animals suspected of disease on ante-mortem examination shall be slaughtered and the ante-mortem diagnosis confirmed or disproved by the post-mortem inspection."^

There are those, undoubtedly, to whom this excuse will seem ample. We cannot so regard it. If the law permits an owner to withdraw his stock after they have been inspected and condemned, then more ample powers should have been asked. We are not concerned so much with the action of unscrupulous owners outside the stock-yards, as with what may become of diseased cattle or hogs or sheep after they have entered the pens from which Congress hoped to exclude them. The Department of Agriculture has decided that the packing-houses must first buy the diseased animals, and then bring them upon their grounds, before the ante-mortem inspection shall take place. We can guess what will happen, from the experience of preceding years. During the period 1901-1906 inclusive, over 660,000 post-mortem inspections were made of animals, which before slaughter had been rejected in the stock-yards as apparently diseased. Of these, only 85,000 — less than one in eight — were finally condemned as wholly unfit for food purposes.^ May it not be possible that, on the whole, the average profits of the meat-packers upon animals suspected of disease are even greater than upon sound and healthy animals ? We shall see reasons for this inquiry.

Another important provision of the law of June 30, 1906, is that which makes obligatory a

^ U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Circular loi, 1907, p. 5.

2 Since July i, 1906, these most important facts have been withheld from publication, and no longer are to be found in the official reports.

post-mortem examination of all carcasses of animals butchered outside the packing-houses before they can be brought therein. The law says :

" The foregoing provisions shall apply to all carcasses or parts of carcasses of cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, or the meat or meat-products thereof which may be brought into any slaughtering, meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar establishment, and such exa7ni7iation and inspection SHALL BE HAD before the said carcasses or parts thereof shall be allowed to enter into any department wherein the same are to be treated and prepared for meat-food products." (Italics ours.)

Now this provision of the law seems very plain. So far as one can discover, there is conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture no power or right to annul or revoke this clause of the law. Its wisdom is evident. It was designed to keep away from the packing-house the carcasses of animals slaughtered without Government supervision and possibly diseased, unless they could be inspected with all the internal organs and parts attached. Without such provision as this, diseased meat to almost any extent might find its way to the manufacturers of canned goods and of sausage. Yet on December 5, 1906, this provision of the law was partly annulled by the Secretary of Agriculture for reasons so extraordinary that they deserve quotation in full. A circular issued by the Department of Agriculture affords us the following authoritative statement :

"The law provides that the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections shall apply to all carcasses or parts of carcasses of the four animals, or the meat or meat-food products thereof, which may be brought into any establishment where inspection is maini6 tained, and that such examination and inspection shall be had before the carcasses or parts thereof are admitted into the establishment. Under this clause of the law, the Department ruled, originally, that carcasses of animals which had been killed without inspection, and from which the viscera had been removed (such as animals killed upon the farm), could not be admitted into establishments where inspection was maintained. The ruling was deemed necessary, because of the fact that all meat-inspection authorities agree that it is impossible to conduct an efficient post-mortem examination of the carcass unless the principal viscera be present and held with natural attachments.

" It was found that the strict application of this rule was a hardship to the farmer, particularly in the eastern part of the country, as it limited their market for their farm dressed hogs and calves. The Secretary of Agriculture, as you are probably aware, is a practical farmer ; his heart is with the farmer^ and he will not let the farmer suffer if he can help it. . . . The regulation has been amended to permit the entrance into establishments where inspection is maintained of carcasses of animals which have been slaughtered without Federal inspection, if the head and all viscera except the stomachy bladder^ and intestines are present, and held together by natural attachments. Inspection is then had ; and if the carcass is found to be free from disease and otherwise fit for food, it is marked ' U.S. Inspected and Passed,' and admitted into the establishment. And Secretary Wilson is satisfied, because the farmer has been taken care ofJ"* ^

We are not satisfied with the reason for the Department's action, thus officially announced. This is partial inspection. It does not seem to be that post-mortem examination which is required by the regulations in regard to animals slaughtered in the packing-houses. It is not the inspection demanded

1 Circular loi, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued January 4, 1907 : "An Address on the New Meat Inspection Law," by George P. McCabe, Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture, pp. 6, 7. (Italics ours.)

by the regulations of 1904 for animals killed at other than regular hours, when not only the thoracic viscera were left attached, but all other viscera were to be identifiable. We may be certain that Congress had in view no partial and incomplete inspection like this. To-day, animals slaughtered outside the packing-house without Government supervision may be brought to the producers of meat with bladder, stomach and intestines removed, and if then found satisfactory, the carcass may be transmuted into food-products, and stamped with the guarantee of the United States. Undoubtedly the farmer has been taken care of," and the meat-packers as well. But was it quite fair to the consumer to decrease in any way the few existing safeguards established for the protection of the public health ?

The tendency to favour a lax construction of the law is perceptible in other directions. Take lard, for example. To Great Britain alone we sell annually an average of over two hundred million pounds. Regarding animals the carcasses of which were brought into a lard-making or rendering establishment, the law was explicit : they could not be admitted unless a post-mortem inspection had been made under the usual formalities. In accordance with these provisions, the regulations of 1906 stated that ''animals that die in abattoir pens, and those in a dying condition before slaughter . . , in all cases shall be condemned. ... No dead animals shall be brought into an establishment for rendering, from outside the premises of said establishment." The necessity for this regulation is evident. It was intended to keep suspected carcasses away from the tanks where lard is rendered. Yet hardly two years later — in April, 1908 — another regulation is framed which makes this prohibition depend on the will of an official. The clause at present reads thus :