No More Horse Meat

The Star-Telegram reports that two Texas slaughterhouses were closed in the last year while a third one continues to hang on - though just barely. The catch? These slaughterhouses were killing horses for human consumption.

While the practice might sound almost to par with consuming dog or cat (the punchline of many south Asian jokes), I feel the entire argument rather serves to show how our American legal system is based solely upon cultural feelings and lobbying powers rather than logically founded arguments and conclusions.

Though the thought of consuming horse meat is not necessarily something that appeals to me (though I would happily try it), I feel it is purely illogical to legally assert that one species of an animal is somehow less worthy of slaughter than another. Rephrased: that it is somehow 'better' to kill a cow, chicken, goat, sheep, etc., while sparing a horse. Veal for example is a very popular dish in the United States and I think there are few not familiar with the process of 'obtaining' it from the small calf. Yet while frowned upon by some, the practice remains entirely legal.

Still, we have clearly drawn the line somewhere over the years namely with dogs and cats; both which remain illegal for consumption in most states (Hawaii is one particular exception). And why? For no other reason than cultural sensitivity. This is where you should feel the need to recall that "what's right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right."

By giving certain animals a 'place in society' while legislating that others are expendable, we are (a) creating an indiscernible opinion of whether or not a species should be eligible for consumption, (b) choosing to be unsympathetic to the cultures of other societies, and (c) proving once more that our legal system is not predicated upon intellect, logic, and fair practice, but rather dictated by feelings.

To argue that a horse (or other animal for that matter) should not be slaughtered because it is a majestic animal, or that it has a place in the family, etc. is about as sound as arguing one religion is better than another. It is not that the argument can't be made with pros and cons, but rather that it is impossible to draw a conclusion given that the antecedent is merely an opinion. An unregulated market would provide local areas the ability choose what foods were sold and consumed based upon simple supply and demand economics.

...or perhaps it would be better to outlaw lobster in Brooklyn?

So to conclude, while horse meat might not be the most popular consumable dish in our country, it seems that it would be better to legislate within logical legislative boundaries rather than continually appeal to the cries from lobbyists. Though I do not [personally] want to see an increase in the number of horses slaughtered, it seems a poor way to legislate all the while providing the general public the freedom to be ignorant of their own hypocrisy.