Denver slaughterhouse measure would upend workers’ lives for nothing

Election judges process primary election ballots at the Denver Elections Division offices on June 28, 2022. (Quentin Young/Colorado Newsline)

The slaughterhouse ban on Denver ballots this fall has been the subject of recent debate over larger questions about the ethics of meat consumption. In fact, representatives from the campaign behind the ban have admitted that their ultimate goal is to “work up to a statewide ‘factory farming’ ban,” while also admitting that Denver doesn’t currently have any factory farms.

Regardless of the contradictions, they’ve chosen to begin their anti-meat crusade in Denver by targeting one 70-year-old business, a worker-owned slaughterhouse that provides good jobs to over 160 families and billions in economic activity per year.

But whether Denverites choose to eat meat, or opt not to, I don’t believe it’s fair or right to use a ballot measure to target a single, well-regulated, employee-owned business and put its employees out of work, all to start a movement to use the government to shut down businesses that these folks don’t ideologically approve of.

As president of UFCW Local 7 and an international vice president of our union representing 23,000 members in Colorado and Wyoming, I know that giving employees more power to effect positive change in their workplace safety conditions, health benefits, and wages has been a hard-fought struggle for many generations. Workplaces with strong labor protections and empowered workers provide enhanced safety, financial security for workers and their families, and make our local economy stronger. Those are the values we fight for when representing our own union members at one of the largest meat processing plants in North America.

The sole Denver business that would be shut down by this potential ban is 100% employee-owned, offering its 160 workers excellent wages, health benefits, and safe working conditions, nearly 90% of whom identify as Latino or Latina. It is a facility that is fully regulated at the city, state and federal level, with USDA inspectors on site at all times.

Many of the workers at Denver’s only slaughterhouse have been at the facility for 30 years. The plant’s manager started as a janitor and worked his way up. Yet the ban’s proponents have blithely stated that, should the measure pass, these workers “could do construction or different types of jobs” instead. This kind of blanket statement demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of working class people and their motivations, needs and personal goals, to say nothing of the pride they feel earning a paycheck to support their families by providing quality food to Denver and much of the country, all while owning a piece of their workplace.

Some may point to the ballot measure’s language that states that these workers will be retrained and given job assistance, but voters should be aware that this claim is categorically false. There are absolutely no guarantees that, by passing the ban, workers at this facility will get the help they need or any compensation at all. It’s a feel-good line with zero actionable policy behind it.

It’s wrong for other reasons, too.

Supporters of the ban have stated that a very small percentage of Americans eat lamb. But Denverites may not be aware of the fact that the slaughterhouse targeted by the ban produces 100% Halal-certified meat. This certification is based on humane treatment throughout the entire lifecycle of the animal in accordance with Muslim religious traditions. On top of that, the facility was designed in consultation with the legendary Temple Grandin, an expert on animal welfare and the humane treatment of animals. If the proponents of this measure were looking for the exact wrong type of facility to target with their claims, they certainly found it by picking on Superior Farms.

Setting aside the question of who eats this meat — and whether or not they should have access to a local producer that can provide it — I also have questions about the ban’s claims that it will be better for our climate goals and overall environmental sustainability. The next-largest lamb producer is in New Zealand. Denverites are not going to stop eating meat, and Colorado restaurants are not going to stop serving lamb, so are we really willing to shut down local food production in favor of importing meat from thousands of miles away at the cost of higher carbon emissions and lower quality? If, as the ban’s proponents have implied, this measure is just stage one of a larger plan to shut down industrial meat production statewide, the costs of food will only go up, and that cost will be fully carried by consumers.

The slaughterhouse ban on Denver ballots this fall will do many things: eliminate jobs, raise our food prices, shut down one local 70-year-old company, and hurt the economy. The one thing it does not do is improve animal welfare or foster productive conversations about our food systems and the workers and suppliers who ensure we have access to the food we need. By targeting a single employee-owned local food producer that is well-regulated already, and forcing 160 hard-working people out of a business they own, it’s an unfair and wrong approach for Denver.