Do Small Slaughterhouses Pose a Big Risk?

The New York Times recently published a public health warning: with the recent national outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), New York City’s live poultry markets pose a serious threat to the city and the world. The article describes unsanitary conditions, wanton animal cruelty, and poor regulatory oversight.

The piece opens with language designed to shock and disgust:

“Hundreds of chickens are squeezed into rows of tiny, stacked wire cages, urine and feces dribbling onto the ducks, the geese and the rabbits confined below.…”

Published as news not opinion, the Times argue that these markets be shut down or at the very least be subject to far more stringent regulatory oversight. I wholeheartedly agree that laws on the safe production of food should be widely and consistently enforced, particularly when pertaining to live animals and raw meat. But the focus on live markets in New York City stinks of inconsistency. An article published in “The Conversation” in 2020 examines how attacks on East Asian wet markets by media outlets including the Times portrayed the places “in a way that would be aesthetically unacceptable to its western audience”.

In this case, the New York Times is peddling in “not in my backyard” implicit racism hidden behind a thin veneer of HPAI fear mongering. Nowhere do they cite evidence that these markets actively spread HPAI, or properly compare live markets to their actual alternative: large-scale conventional slaughterhouses.

HPAI Risk in New York City?

Setting aside a lack of evidence for the claims about unsanitary conditions persisting under the noses of health officials (the feature photo shows a relatively clean operation with robust litter trays and other images show market workers actively cleaning), it is true that birds may be stuck in packed cages until their penmates are sold. The article does mention that most markets cycle their product daily, but this is presented as a “constant influx of animals potentially carrying new pathogens.” Of course this also means that it is rare for any bird to spend more than a day or two under these conditions, which are not dissimilar to how a grocery store chicken spends much of its life, particularly its final trip. The stress of transit can make birds more susceptible to contracting HPAI, but there is no special risk in live markets, which receive far fewer birds than most slaughterhouses.

In conventional systems, HPAI has impacted egg production more than meat production. In April, it was reported that the largest egg producer in the US temporarily halted operations and culled nearly 2 million chickens after detecting HPAI in their flocks. HPAI has also been found in dairy herds in fourteen states. While it is common for livestock to contract avian flu from interactions with wild and domestic birds, it is not known how the current strain of concern, H5-N1, was initially contracted by cattle. Veterinarians believe this strain of HPAI is spreading between herds by the movement of cows rather than birds. To date Fifteen human cases have been identified—ten in workers involved in poultry disposal and cull operations, four in dairy workers exposed to infected cattle, and a recent case in a Missouri resident who had no direct interaction with cattle or poultry.

The article casts doubt on City and State health officials. Indeed, avian flu was found in New York live markets six times in 2023, the second worst year in over a decade. Prior to 2008, a year with only six markets testing positive would have been cause for celebration.

While health and agriculture agencies have faced scrutiny for insufficient testing and surveillance of avian flu, the CDC currently says the threat to humans is low. Vigilant surveillance of viral threats is necessary, but with the HPAI present in multiple countries, continents, and all fifty states, the potential vectors for transmission of HPAI between animals and to humans are innumerable. Viral outbreaks, whether in commercial laying hens, backyard chicken coops, dairy cows, or live poultry markets, should be monitored and dealt with appropriately, but this does not extend to the outright banning of specific types of small businesses.

Not in My Backyard

Large slaughterhouses have their share of problems as well.

In 2020, the Times described slaughterhouses as “The Food Chain’s Weakest Link.” In 2021, an article told the stories of slaughterhouse workers at a Tyson chicken plant in Georgia encouraged to show up to work with cold and flu symptoms. In 2023, the Times investigated the death of an underage worker at a chicken processing facility in Mississippi, calling out hazardous conditions that resulted in injuries to workers and fines for the operator in years prior.

Nowhere in the recent article on small-scale live-poultry shops are these (or any) other investigations mentioned. Live poultry markets are compared to the almighty, not to the alternative. The crime of live markets is putting the treatment of food animals on display for the public. Some markets treat the animals better, and some worse, but there is no evidence that animal treatment in local live slaughter markets is systematically worse than animal treatment in modern, large-scale slaughterhouses. In an ideal world, animals would be slaughtered under sanitary conditions following robust humane treatment guidelines, and employees would be treated and paid well, in small and large slaughterhouses alike. In the pursuit of these basic goals, it is vital that journalists and policymakers act in good faith, valuing transparent and consistent action.

Queens council member Robert Holden was more blunt than the New York Times cared to be, telling a reporter: “I really feel strongly that these markets definitely should not be in New York City”. In other words, slaughterhouses are fine, just not in my backyard. This is partially true. Slaughterhouses are fine. Large-scale meat production has many problems, but it feeds the growing demand for meat both domestically and globally.

Small and Local is neither the Solution nor the Problem.

If the aim is to ensure the humane treatment of animals, political capital would be better spent passing more stringent regulations on the treatment of livestock and poultry or urging federal, state, and local authorities to enforce the rules that are already in place (these are different than standards for pets and other non-food animals, therefore this would not entail city police responding to animal cruelty complaints as the Times suggests). It is often assumed that large slaughterhouses are able to operate at a lower unit cost than small alternatives such as local live markets. If this is true, the large producers will be better positioned to meet a higher bar for the health and welfare of animals and employees alike.

Indeed, this has been the trend nationally. Outside of New York City and the San Francisco Bay area there are only a handful of live poultry markets anywhere in the U.S.A.

Once in decline, an influx of muslim immigrants who sought halal meat caused the number of live markets in New York City to grow to about 90 by 2009. In 2008, New York State banned construction of new live poultry markets within 1,500 feet of residential areas and now only allows for the transfer of ownership. As a result there are fewer than 70 such markets today.

If the city were to allow construction of new markets, facilities could be designed with modern health and welfare standards in mind. The Inflation Reduction Act made millions in subsidized loans available for the construction of new, modern small and mid-sized slaughterhouses, despite warnings from economists that these facilities would likely be uncompetitive in the long term. These are reasonable debates but, clearly, the New York Times and councilperson Holden are not actually interested in ensuring humane treatment, nor improving the livestock production system that produces the vast majority of our meat. If they were, they would not be targeting these local shops.

The Times has criticized factory farms and large slaughterhouses in the past, but they offer no comparison here, no common baseline against which to judge small businesses which cater mostly to immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities. The patrons of live poultry and meat markets, like the markets themselves, are diverse. Many markets specialize in kosher or halal products. Others sell retired laying hens and unique breeds like silkies that are popular with recent immigrants from East Asia and elsewhere. Some live markets cater to chefs who swear that fresh killed chicken just tastes better.

The Times article on live markets struck me the wrong way but at first I couldn’t put my finger on why. I have to admit that the conditions they describe do not sound acceptable anywhere. If I walked into a market to see “…urine and feces dribbling on to the ducks, the geese, and the rabbits confined below”, I would turn around and walk out. If I witnessed workers throwing birds carelessly into cages, leaving “scrawny chickens with broken wings,” I would feel the need to take further action. Of course, it is nearly impossible to learn how the duck I find far in the back of Kroger’s meat freezer was treated when alive, and as the Times has documented, workers are often treated poorly in mass slaughterhouses as well. Improvements are needed throughout the meat supply chain, but it is easy to simply focus on what is visible.

Certainly, food and agriculture reporters should not kowtow to culture and tradition without considering animal rights, public health, or climate and environmental concerns, but inconsistent application of standards leads to biased opinions and bad policy, and bad policy leads to public resentment for even well-meaning government action.