16
the environment and the health have led to a significant decrease in the consumption
of raw beef, lamb and pork that, since 2012—as reported by the UK’s 2017 National
Food Survey— dropped more than 4.2% as well as that of other meat products
including sausages, bacon and poultry. Despite this dropping of the meat consumption in the developed countries, the Europe as well as the USA are experiencing an
overall growth in size of the livestock breeding facilities, due to the increasing values of the economic activities related to the meat processing. In this context, the
meat corporations are driving the consumer demand by way of aggressive advertising campaigns aimed at create in the consumer the need for meat.
This is particularly evident in USA, where the meat industries rely on marketing
techniques to “produce meat’s demand” and to influence and shape the people’s food
choices. To say that the consumers’ habits—especially those of children perceived
as future consumers—are “controlled” by the market strategies. On the one hand, the
idea that eating meat gives more strength and that the meat is full of proteins and
minerals, essential in every phase of the life, from pregnancy to old age, is used to
“naturalize” people’s habits. On the other, the meat is represented as a healthy, natural, not processed, food compared to the ordinary junk food. The same in Europe,
where some meat producers associations (Assocarni in Italy, Interveb in France,
VLAM in Belgium, SBK in Holland) have launched advertising campaigns in
defense of the livestock sector and of the industrial, artisanal and commercial meat
processing activities, to demonstrate the importance of meat consumption in the diet.
All the adverts’ campaigns dedicated to the products of animal origins (meat, cheese,
milk, eggs etc.) not only show that animals are cared for, they also highlight—contrary to the truth—that only meat can satisfy the human need for proteins. It is clear,
therefore, that the consumers’ education and their food choices can play an important role in reducing the consumption of natural resources for food production.
4 The “Tobacco Litigation” as a Possible Model for Future
Suits Against Animal-Based Food Industries
The documented link between the industrial livestock production and the outbreaks
of illnesses such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes and certain types of cancers (Pan
et al. 2012), not only should led to further the awareness that consuming animal
products is dangerous for the health, but also to an increased regulation of animalbased food industries legislation caring for the consumer health (Winalski 2013).
The Hallmark Meat Packing case offer a good example for future suits against
animal-based food industries and illustrated how the meat industries try to conceal
harmful facts. Inspecting a Hallmark plant in California, in 2007, the Human Society
of the United States (HSUS) found that behind the plant’s doors, animals were treated
and slaughtered with cruelty (Perry and Brandt 2008). After having the USDA
(United States Departement of Agriculture) and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) completed their inspection, Hallmark was issued a Notice of
Suspension for “failure to maintain and implement controls to prevent the inhumane
handling and slaughter of animals” (USDA 2008) and its contract was rescinded.
V. Zambrano
the environment and the health have led to a significant decrease in the consumption
of raw beef, lamb and pork that, since 2012—as reported by the UK’s 2017 National
Food Survey— dropped more than 4.2% as well as that of other meat products
including sausages, bacon and poultry. Despite this dropping of the meat consumption in the developed countries, the Europe as well as the USA are experiencing an
overall growth in size of the livestock breeding facilities, due to the increasing values of the economic activities related to the meat processing. In this context, the
meat corporations are driving the consumer demand by way of aggressive advertising campaigns aimed at create in the consumer the need for meat.
This is particularly evident in USA, where the meat industries rely on marketing
techniques to “produce meat’s demand” and to influence and shape the people’s food
choices. To say that the consumers’ habits—especially those of children perceived
as future consumers—are “controlled” by the market strategies. On the one hand, the
idea that eating meat gives more strength and that the meat is full of proteins and
minerals, essential in every phase of the life, from pregnancy to old age, is used to
“naturalize” people’s habits. On the other, the meat is represented as a healthy, natural, not processed, food compared to the ordinary junk food. The same in Europe,
where some meat producers associations (Assocarni in Italy, Interveb in France,
VLAM in Belgium, SBK in Holland) have launched advertising campaigns in
defense of the livestock sector and of the industrial, artisanal and commercial meat
processing activities, to demonstrate the importance of meat consumption in the diet.
All the adverts’ campaigns dedicated to the products of animal origins (meat, cheese,
milk, eggs etc.) not only show that animals are cared for, they also highlight—contrary to the truth—that only meat can satisfy the human need for proteins. It is clear,
therefore, that the consumers’ education and their food choices can play an important role in reducing the consumption of natural resources for food production.
4 The “Tobacco Litigation” as a Possible Model for Future
Suits Against Animal-Based Food Industries
The documented link between the industrial livestock production and the outbreaks
of illnesses such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes and certain types of cancers (Pan
et al. 2012), not only should led to further the awareness that consuming animal
products is dangerous for the health, but also to an increased regulation of animalbased food industries legislation caring for the consumer health (Winalski 2013).
The Hallmark Meat Packing case offer a good example for future suits against
animal-based food industries and illustrated how the meat industries try to conceal
harmful facts. Inspecting a Hallmark plant in California, in 2007, the Human Society
of the United States (HSUS) found that behind the plant’s doors, animals were treated
and slaughtered with cruelty (Perry and Brandt 2008). After having the USDA
(United States Departement of Agriculture) and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) completed their inspection, Hallmark was issued a Notice of
Suspension for “failure to maintain and implement controls to prevent the inhumane
handling and slaughter of animals” (USDA 2008) and its contract was rescinded.
V. Zambrano