Steve Striffler interviewed on Chicken - The Dangerous Transformation of America's Favorite Food

By Margaret Setter

Steve Striffler wrote a book on food production and the devastating fallout of todays relentless drive for maximum industrial “product” at rock bottom prices. Marion Nestle said of this book “This book will do for chicken what Fast Food Nation did for beef”.

You can read Margaret Setter's Review of Steve Striffler's book Chicken - The Dangerous Transformation of America 's Favorite Food by clicking here

Margaret Setter: Steve, was your book written with any particular readership in mind?

Steve Striffler: I was writing for a “popular” audience. I tried to write an accessible book that anyone could read, but particularly consumers of chicken who eat meat and other foods without much thought as to where they come from, how they are processed, and how workers, farmers, the environment and the animals are treated by the meat industry.

MS: In the chapters dealing with the historical development of the chicken industry you cite poverty as the driver of change. I read an advertisement in which one of the industry leaders claimed that the success of the industry was a “perfect example of the workings of Adam Smith's “Invisible Hand”. How important are government purchasing policies to the huge profits made by the most powerful members of this industry? And is there any opposition expressed by individual members of congress?

SS: Your point is well taken. Industry leaders – almost regardless of the business – frequently argue that the success of a particular industry from a purely economic standpoint (i.e. its relative efficiency, competitiveness, etc.) is due entirely to the hard work of entrepreneurs (such as themselves) who had no help from the government. In the case of poultry, there is some evidence to support this claim. Poultry has, from the very beginning, been highly competitive and characterised by low-profit margins. It is one of the reasons why we see such a concentration of power within the industry. Not only did the less efficient companies get pushed out of the industry from an early date, but the tight (and volatile) profit margins meant that the bigger companies would swallow up the smaller companies. Two percent profit on $5 million in sales is nothing; two percent profit on $15 billion is a whole other matter. It also meant that poultry companies had to continually innovate in order to create new ways of making profit. As I point out in the book, many of these profit-generating ideas were not particularly healthy for consumers, workers, or anyone else but the companies.

On the other hand, the US government has been supporting the poultry industry from the earliest days. The first major intervention was World War II when the US government effectively commandeered all of the chicken produced in the DelMarva peninsula, which at the time was the only place in the country that had something we could call a poultry industry. This policy, along with a number of others, made poultry more profitable and effectively jumpstarted the industry in the US South – which by 1950 was the most dynamic poultry producing region in the world. The US government has also supported scientific research within the industry.

More recently, the US military continues to be a huge purchaser of poultry, as are the nation's public schools, government cafeterias, etc. America is a meat-eating country. In addition, the government indirectly supports the entire meat industry because of the massive subsidies it gives to producers of corn and soy – which in turn are fed to animals.

There is no real opposition that I know of within the US Congress. On the state level agricultural lobbies are extremely powerful, and these companies themselves are extremely powerful and effective at throwing their weight around.

MS: On page 156 you identify food workers and farmers as being the people most likely to look out for consumer interests, most importantly in the area of health, because both workers and farmers are exposed to hazardous chemicals used in the industry. Consumers are also at risk from ingesting the residues contained in the flesh of the chickens they purchase. To what extent if any, are these three distinct but overlapping groups becoming aware of their common (class) interests?

SS: This is perhaps THE question. Such alliances have to happen if the industrial food industry is going to be challenged and reorganised in a more equitable and healthy manner. First, the bad news. There is no reason to be overly optimistic in this area. Such (food) alliances are much further developed in Europe, in part because Europeans have a different relationship to food in general, and in part because organising around class is much more common (and accepted and supported by European governments). In addition, in the US, there is a significant cultural gulf between poultry workers, who increasingly are immigrants from Latin America, and poultry farmers, who are almost exclusively white and from rural areas of the US South. Farmers tend to live in the countryside, while workers are concentrated around processing plants. Moreover, as I demonstrate in the book, American-born farmers are perhaps in an even more vulnerable position in relation to the large poultry companies than are undocumented workers. Farmers tend to be isolated from each other, have tremendous debt, and can have their contracts terminated at almost any moment. And the companies are not afraid to intimidate farmers or workers who try to organise. Finally, consumers in the US tend to be much more concerned about the health of the food (in the narrow sense of fat content and disease contamination) than the workers and farmers who produce it.

But there is reason to be hopeful. Most importantly, a growing percentage of the American population has some kind of doubt and complaint with the industrial food system. We are not in agreement as to what is wrong with our food system, but we are increasingly unhappy with it. This is reflected in all sorts of ways, including the growing importance of alternative ways of doing food -- organic, free-range, farmers' markets, fair-trade, etc. And many of these consumers are beginning to make connections with small farmers (in particular) and workers. Moreover, the big boys within the food industry are taking note of these changes (and of course trying to co-opt them). Still, there is a long way to go.

MS: Corporations also exert enormous influence over the minds of children in schools and entertainment and other areas of life. Their influence extends throughout the world. For example, in Australia, the largest children's teaching hospital in the country features a huge statue of Ronald McDonald in the entrance foyer. Are teachers and health care workers another possibility for building class-consciousness around the defence of children's rights?

SS: Yes, definitely. Even in the US, where everything seems as though it is for sale, there is a growing backlash against corporate power over the minds and bodies of our children. Ten years ago, for example, it was simply assumed that public schools would sign contracts with soda and junk food companies, giving those companies the exclusive right to market their products in junior high and high schools, and sometimes even in elementary schools. Today, this is no longer so. In fact, school systems are kicking these companies out of schools. This has been done in part because teachers and health care workers see the first-hand impact of poor food choices on our students.

MS: In preparing to write this book you worked for two summers at Tyson Foods in Springdale Arkansas. You were assigned to the saw line where whole chickens are cut up and breaded, before being packaged. The line supervisor, a 22year old graduate, named you “the little flour boy”. He spoke to hard-working Hispanic women twice his age, in a manner that was similarly patronising. Was his attitude toward workers typical?

SS: The styles of supervisors vary as much as the personalities of workers, but the speed of the work makes it difficult for supervisors to be anything but dismissive. Add to this the fact that supervisors and workers often do not speak the same language and it is difficult to establish more genuine relationships. Still, most folks I met, supervisors and workers, were trying to do the best they could with the hand they were dealt.

MS: My favorite chapter in the book, one I found greatly moving, is titled Growing Pains. This story relates how the citizens of Siler City used peaceful methods to thwart the efforts of KKK leader, David Duke to incite the predominantly white Anglo-Saxon community to acts of violence against the Hispanics. Given the state of race relations in the South less than fifty years ago does this example confirm your faith in the capacity of people to grow and change?

SS: The “immigrant problem” has suddenly become THE issue in America and it is hard to tell which direction it will go at this point. So far, at least, the most draconian anti-immigrant measures do not seem to have a lot of support. But during periods of economic insecurity and angst it is not uncommon for anti-immigrant sentiment to emerge – and here, at least, the US is not alone. Fortunately, however, alliances are developing between immigrants and progressive sectors of native communities.

MS: When I was visiting the UK 20 years ago I read a newspaper report of a study carried out among former West Indian immigrants. The overwhelming majority were unaware that they were the descendants of Africans forced into slavery by the British and before them, the Dutch. The border separating the US and Mexico is an arbitrary line created by military conquest. Has this historical fact been obliterated from the collective Mexican memory?

SS: Most Americans aren't aware of this fact, and if they are consider it ancient history. However, Mexicans are very aware that much of the US used to belong to Mexico. It is a fundamental and widely known part of their history. In fact, there is a running joke within the Mexican community, and a fear among nativists within the US, that Latin Americans are quietly reconquering California and parts of the Southwest United States.

MS: In an interview you were asked if you consume Tyson's Chicken. You replied that you don't have much choice in the matter. Have you ever considered a personal boycott of products manufactured under such conditions? If not, why not?

SS: When one goes to a restaurant in the United States it is very difficult to tell where the chicken comes from – in part because you have to ask, the server rarely knows, and because sometimes restaurant chicken comes through intermediaries, etc. Tyson is a major force in supermarkets, but it is even a bigger player in what we call “institutional” chicken – restaurants, cafeterias, schools, convenience stores, etc. So if you eat chicken outside the home you really have to be diligent to avoid Tyson. Moreover, it is unclear what such diligence will get you – other than another form of industrial chicken produced by another corporate giant under similar conditions.

MS: Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns, takes you to task in her review for your lack of sympathy for chickens, who are living beings, but treated as if they are machines. In light of her criticism do you concede that there is an ethical case to answer? That “when industry spokespersons use words like “animal welfare”, “humane treatment”, and “responsible care”, they must be thinking that, like Humpty Dumpty, they can make these words mean anything they choose. In fact, as Alice could have told them, they can't”. *

SS: I do have sympathy for the chickens, and think they should be treated better – and in fact advocate this in my book. [The statement in my book she is referring to is taken out of context, or at least misunderstood.] There is an ethical question here, but it is one that it is not disconnected from other ethical questions about workers and farmers. It is also connected to an important reality -- for at least the foreseeable future the majority of people will continue to eat meat. In this sense, “total” solutions -- that insist that anything less than zero meat consumption is somehow selling out -- seem misplaced to me. It speaks to how you communicate with people and form alliances. I hope this book is read by animal rights advocates, but they are not my primary audience in part because they are already highly critical of the industrial food system and want to change it. What I hope this book stimulates is a dialogue between animal rights advocates, labour organisations, farmers, environmentalists, and consumers. At least in the United States, the dialogue between animal rights and labour is virtually non-existent, in part because there is no middle ground for many animal rights advocates.

Karen Davis is right in suggesting that I have more “sympathy” for workers and farmers than I do for chickens. The book is definitely people-centered, and can be criticised as such. Perhaps it is a personality flaw. My broader point, really, is that alliances based on “sympathy” have both a limited appeal in terms of potential audience and in terms of long-term commitment. I don't think effective, broad-based, long-term alliances that will lead to meaningful reform can be based on sympathy.

The industry's use of terms such as “animal welfare” and “humane treatment” should be viewed with caution. However, it is significant that they are using these terms at all. Twenty years ago these terms would not have even been on the table, simply because industry leaders would not had to give them the time of day. It reflects the fact that the market is forcing companies to respond in positive ways (even if in practice it often falls short of our ultimate goals).

MS: On page 167 you state, “It is difficult to be optimistic about an industry in which power is so concentrated, government involvement so one-sided, and abuses so routine and outrageous. Are you satisfied you have made a strong case in your book out of the findings of the Sierra Club's Rap Sheet on Animal Factories, and the 2005 Human Rights Watch Report that slams the US meat and poultry industry for its human rights violations?

SS: Yes. The case is clear in my book and elsewhere. The industrial chicken may be healthy for American corporations, but it is not healthy for workers, farmers, consumers, the environment, or the chicken.

* This sentence is a direct quote from Tom Regan's book Empty Cages : Facing The Challenge of Animal Rights. Publishers, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham MA, USA