September 24, 2007
Horsemeat Cake, Anyone?
A new ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may finally put an end to the Cavel horsemeat slaughter saga that has been on our radar for some time. On Friday, the court upheld the Illinois Horse Meat Act, effectively shutting down the DeKalb County-based slaughterhouse.
The ever-prolific Richard Posner penned the 15-page opinion. In his trademark witty style, he writes,
But even if no horses live longer as a result of the new law, a state is permitted, within reason, to express disgust at what people do with the dead, whether dead human beings or dead animals. There would be an uproar if restaurants in Chicago started serving cat and dog steaks, even though millions of stray cats and dogs are euthanized in animal shelters.
You can find the PDF of the ruling here. As we read through it, it became clear the issue was not so much about the horsemeat itself, but more to do with interstate commerce laws, combined with a healthy does of equine love. Also in the report? Apparently horsemeat is all the rage in American zoos, and sometimes the very bored zookeepers feel the need to make horsemeat cakes for their animals. From the PDF of the opinion:
Not much we can say to that, except "ew." There is pending legislation in Congress that would prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption nationwide. Make yourself heard, if you like, by signing a petition on the Humane Society's website.
Image from the ruling Above the Law.
|
there is absolutely no reason to ban the sale of any meat, much less meat as plentiful as horses.
as long as we are still able to slaughter our unborn children!! Do NOT take that choice away from us!
Guest 1 -- I disagree. The state can and should ban the sale of meat from illegal sources, such as endangered animals. What you've said is that "their is absolutely no reason to ban the sale of contraband". For example, prohibiting the SALE of STOLEN property is one way to fight STEALING. Libertarian absolutism is so cliche.
The 7th Circuit's decision may well be correct, but the law itself is witless. There are horses available for slaughter precisely because horse owners sell them for that purpose. Horses, unlike cats and dogs, are half-ton animals that are very expensive to feed and keep.
It should be kept in mind that this law passed primarily because Bo Derek went to Springfield to testify, and apparently impressed the hicks and hacks that make up the General Assembly.
I don't particularly want to eat horsemeat, but I can't see one good reason why doing so should be unlawful.
Guest 4 - it is expensive to keep horses. But why do we have to address this problem by providing owners with the easy out of selling the horses for slaughter when the owners can no longer pay for their upkeep? Maybe potential horseowners should have to demonstrate their willingness and ability to fork over the cash it takes to care for them before getting whatever license they need to keep the horses.
I actually think there is a good argument for banning sale and human consumption of horses. They are very intelligent and sensitive animals and domesticated horses develop social relationships to the people who live with them and work with them. Subjecting them to the horror of slaughter seems like a betrayal. I actually don't eat any meat, but I think it is especially wrong to slaughter animals that we have socialized as much as we have horses.
It's meat.
Why is this different from other forms of meat?
So what they are smarter than some other animals? They are still non-human animals, and as long as health and environmental concerns are addressed, what's the problem, then?
No, I don't eat horse meat, or much meat at all, but I don't see the controversy here beyond sentimental attachments to a certain type of animal. What I am missing?
Poster 5 uses the term betrayal. I don't mean to be cold-hearted, but I don't seem how using animals for meat constitutes a betrayal. For one, most people have no emotional attachments to horses, not anymore, not in our mostly non-farming society. Second, one could make the betrayal argument when it comes to, for instance, beef (ask a Hindu about that).
I don't eat horse meat, or much meat for that matter. But I see some people's point, Guest 6: horses, unlike cattle, are not bred and raised in this country for meat. They are bred for racing or as companion animals. According to the USDA, Americans today expect a similar standard of care for horses that are offered to family pets, such as dogs and cats--just as the Hindus in India have a standard for cows. That is why animal protection agencies get involved in the welfare of horses.
Yes, it is meat, but I do not see why the US has a need for human consumption of horse meat. Historically, the reasons that we do not eat horse meat (kosher law, christianity banning the practice because it was pagan) are cultural and anthropological. And unlike Europe, we have not had a problem with BSE, so at this time there is no need for an alternative to beef. Perhaps if we do have a BSE epidemic that wipes out the beef industry, we may need to "rely" on horse meat again (as the Europeans do), but even then, I would imagine we would switch to bison.
Yes, the reasons may be cultural and anthropological, but American consumption of horse meat, I imagine, will remain taboo for some time.
7: No doubt it will remain taboo. I just think the taboos are more sentimental than logical.