Meatpackers and zorreros : victims of anti-agrarian delusions

Warning to readers: this is a long, link-heavy post. Also, most of the links are in Spanish.

I read an article today in our local newspaper that our state, Boyaca, is set to consolidate and shut down many of its meatpackers. In most towns of Boyaca there exists a municipal meat processor. These are plants that are semi-publicly owned, that is to say that they were financed and built by the mayor and the people of the town. They buy local animals and process them, hence serving as a source of employment, a buyer for farmers, and a way of keeping the food supply under local control.

However, a law that will take effect soon insinuates that sanitary conditions are insatisfactory at such meat plants. Of the 132 meatpacking plants that existed in Boyaca in 2000, only 45 survive today, and under the new law there would only be 12 by 2012. I'm all for control of food-borne diseases, but this law seems suspiciously favorable to the few large private conglomerates that can meet its demands for capital investment. The law also mandates a government inspector for every lot of animals that is sacrificed, which obviously creates a motive for the government to reduce the total number of plants so there's no need for an inspector in every town. Despite the claims that bigger plants can better control sanitary conditions, the US example shows that consolidating and centralizing the food supply can lead to more grave food-borne illnesses, not less. I would posit that smaller producers and processors may not be able to comply with certain lofty technical norms, but they are likely to be more conscientious about providing a safe product to their neighbors.

If sanitary conditions were really the prime concern, wouldn't it make more sense to provide the means for the many existing plants to improve conditions, as opposed to putting the control of the meat supply in a few private hands? But the main motivation of the law seems to be to favor the beef export market. According to the article, Boyaca's meat does not meet standards for export. This is odd to me, because the meat I eat here in Boyaca is better than the meat I've eaten in any of the other countries I've lived in. As with many other products, the Colombian government seems to be prioritizing a system to provide meat to other countries instead of a well-functioning system that supplies Colombians. They still haven't figured out that there's a burgeoning national market that will pay higher prices and promote national prosperity better than the fickle global marketplace.

We see here that a local food system that for all intents and purposes seems to be functioning just fine is to be swept away in the name of that chimera of modernity. 3500 jobs would be lost in Boyaca due to the closure of local meatpacking plants, and the resulting oligopoly of only 12 large processors will surely lead to lower prices paid to farmers and higher prices charged to consumers.

This is an example of an anti-agrarian prejudice I see all the time, in Colombia and the rest of the world. In the name of modernity, or urbanity, or exports, or the global marketplace, or any number of other silly, irrational idols, functioning economic systems based on human beings and nature are intentionally destroyed.

What to do? In this case, I'd very much like to work with Boyaca farmers and meat processors so that they can comply with the new regulations, and hence maintain more market share and a better portion of the consumer's peso. There are plenty of initiatives like this in the US and Europe, but the difference is that in those places the consolidation and monopolization of food production and processing is already well-advanced, so people have to recover a lot of lost ground. Here in Colombia, it would be great if we could fight against these negative trends as they're barely getting started. I am currently talking with an agricultural policy research institute about their possibly hiring me to do work on improving farmer access to markets. The Boyaca meat supply chain would be a very timely subject for me to focus on.

This brings me to another theme, which on the surface seems different. But the thread of anti-agrarian thought, that is to say a fundamental disconnect from the real world of people and nature, is common to both cases.

The second theme is the movement to get zorreros off the streets of Bogota and other major Colombian cities. This article (from a Colombian journalist who worked a day in the trade) gives a bit of background on zorreros. "Zorreros" is the term given to the men and women who drive flat horse-drawn carts around the city of Bogota and other Colombian cities. I will mainly use the term "carreteros", because "zorrero" has a negative connotation. As I understand it, Bogota's carreteros used to pick up recyclable items left in front of houses, or they would even scavenge garbage bags to find recyclable items. They would then load these items onto their carts and take them to sell to recyclers. Many carreteros even belonged to a highly-organized recycling cooperative. This activity was prohibited when the sons of Colombia's current president founded a recycling company that was given exclusive rights to recycling for the city of Bogota. Now it is illegal to open garbage bags that people leave out. The municipal garbage truck picks up people's unsorted waste, and on the way to the landfill it stops at the president's sons' plant, where garbage is sorted through for recyclables. Obviously neither the old or the new system are as efficient as one in which people pre-separate their recyclables and non-recyclables, but at least with the old way the economic benefits of recycling were evenly distributed among thousands of poor people as opposed to concentrated in the hands of a few elites.

Nevertheless, there still exist from 1000 to 14000 carreteros in Bogota (depending on which source you consult). This vocation has often passed from grandfather to father to son. They now dedicate themselves to picking up and recycling cardboard (which people still leave out separately from their garbage), hauling construction waste, recycling or reselling discarded electronics and appliances, or contracting out their services to transport goods or to help people move. The carreteros are a sustainable, natural, poor-centered way of disposing of certain waste products in Bogota. Horsecarts emit no CO2, their only fuel is other garbage (corn husks, paper, grass clippings, potato peels, rotten fruit), and their only waste product is horse poop, which doesn't smell and has no toxic chemicals. Horsecarts provide a dignified, self-sufficient livelihood to some of Bogota's most marginal, vulnerable people. This is a true accomplishment in a city and a country where there exist so many destitute people displaced by the war, surviving only by begging or selling plastic trinkets on the street.

Now the city and national governments want to get carreteros off the streets of Bogota and all other major cities. They claim that they hold up traffic and represent a danger for drivers and pedestrians. If traffic were the real concern, the governments could enforce sensible, pre-existing laws to restrict horsecarts from using certain busy streets, or operating at certain hours, though obviously Bogota's jammed traffic and danger to pedestrians is due almost exclusively to cars, not to horses. The government proposal is to replace horsecarts with mini-motorcycles that have a truck-like back end. These would hold up traffic just as much, pose more of a danger for pedestrians than do horsecarts, and contribute more smog to Bogota's choked gray skies. And it goes without saying that a motocart, which has trouble hauling two people's weight, would not be able to haul the heavy, large loads that a horsecart can. Most importantly for me, outlawing horsecarts would destroy the livelihoods of some of Bogota's most vulnerable citizens, adding these independent businesspeople to the mass of the destitute displaced by violence (in this case violence not of the guerrillas or paramilitaries, but of bourgeois, urban renewal-touting politicians). The motocarts would not be given to them, but rather bought with a loan. As a carretero says in this article, this would mean taking away their horses and carts, which are paid-for free and clear, in exchange for a motocart that would be taken away from them within months because it would be impossible for carreteros to pay off the loan.

So it's really impossible to justify the outlawing of horsecarts on any practical, environmental, or social grounds. I am not alone in my belief that the Colombian State and the wealthy see carreteros as an ugly reminder that theirs is a country of the poor, a rural country. These actors presumably see the physical work of the real world as undignified, and wish for something more in line with Colombia's 21st century image of comfortable, bourgeois, urban modernity. Even David Luna, a highly-regarded House Representative from the Liberal party, implies in a letter to Bogota's mayor that carreteros are an undignified, animal-abusing lot that should be erradicated. He gives empty lip service to respecting the humanity of horsecart people, talking vaguely of "integral improvement for carreteros and their families, through which productivity and permanent capacitation will be improved; through accompaniment by programs that promote learning about other jobs and strengthen the care for animals". What the hell does that mean?

Here is an article about police and security guards harassing carreteros at the major market in Bogota. This includes not just people who drive horse-drawn carriages, but people who pull a human-drawn cart themselves. According to the article, the forces of law and order try to find any reason to pull over a carretero, take his cargo, and even confiscate his vehicle until he pays a heavy fine. This other article describes an animal defense organization that confiscates horses on shady grounds.

This is a positive article in English about carreteros. The author, a foreigner in Colombia, can see certain things that Colombians might not. She recognizes that the carreteros are a marginalized group, one that by luck and hard work has found an economic niche that allows them to support their families. In 2002, when now-presidential candidate Antanas Mockus was mayor of Bogota, he tried to get the zorreros and their carts off the streets. He wanted to create a neat, bourgeois city, which apparently implied getting rid of horses and their poop so cars could move faster on the congested Bogota streets. (This measure would not have affected the genteel carriages that carry tourists about the city.) The zorreros successfully fought the city's attempt by citing a law that protects people's wellbeing and livelihood.

Here is another well-done article. It is from just a few days ago, and fairly treats both the problems of horse traction in Bogota as well as the livelihood of the carreteros. The article reasserts that motocarts would be costly and undesirable for the carreteros, but presents another alternative that is in the works: a cooperative recycling plant, whereby ex-carreteros could work in a legal truck fleet hauling recyclable materials from the city. The catch is that no one knows if such a plant and its associated activities could absorb the thousands of carreteros that will lose their current source of employment.

Here is another rare Colombian article that recognizes zorreros as human beings. The bloggers specifically rode with carreteros to get over the common stereotypes that they are thieves or vagabonds, and to understand the vital role they play in the city, specifically the pickup and recycling of certain solid waste. The bloggers map out major routes of horsecart recyclers, recommend alternate routes to reduce congestion, and design a modification to horsecarts so they can capture and store solar energy in batteries! The bloggers even expand their vision to recognize the importance of the informal sector in general. And they recommend that carreteros be considered as potential contributors to Bogota's sustainable development, as opposed to scorned as backwards elements of the city. If objectors to the presence of horsecarts on the Bogota streets are really interested in solving specific problems (street congestion, manure, etc.) and not simply animal rights nuts or haters of the poor, these types of solutions are what they should be looking at. However, judging by the comments written by readers of the blog, citing zorreros as criminals who mistreat noble horses and even rob puppies (!?!), it seems that the innovative bloggers are fighting a difficult battle.

Here are an article and a news video about the census of carreteros that Bogota undertook earlier this year. On the one hand, the census is supposedly the first step in incorporating horsecart drivers into various social welfare programs. According to the article, the census-takers and even some carreteros see it as a way of incorporating them into the city's development (as if they weren't already an integral part). However, the census is also the first step in the definitive prohibition of the carreteros' professional activity. The point of the census isn't to integrate their current activities into the new plans of the city, but rather to illegalize zorreros and channel them into another livelihood. A transport minister interviewed in the video says that "for environmental, traffic, and quality-of-life reasons, we want to erradicate this activity," formalize zorreros, and improve their productivity, whatever formalize and productivity mean in this context. Once again, it seems that the State sees carreteros' work as undignified, and thinks it would be better to integrate them into patriarchal charity programs or to "give" them another job. Though I disagree with the implicit scorn for the work that carreteros do, I wouldn't object to such a measure if it resulted in their being compensated for any capital they're supposed to give up, and provided with new jobs that pay as well as the old. There would still be the stupidity of replacing a nonpolluting means of transport (horses) with other means (whatever new vehicle assumes the old work of the carreteros), and moving Bogota one step further from a sustainable agrarian society. But at least you wouldn't be robbing a vulnerable population of its livelihood. That said, usually things like the zorrero census end up being a nice show of social concern before the machinery of the State rolls over people. My suspicion seems confirmed by a provision in the law mandating the census. The law allows a few months to carry out the census, after which anyone not counted will not be entitled to the supposed social benefits the State will provide after outlawing their livelihood. This stinks of a symbolic inclusion that justifies posterior exclusion. Also, in the video the interviewed carreteros all seem to believe that the census process is to help them maintain their horsecart livelihood. If this is the case, the census-takers are profoundly violating the trust of the horsecart drivers. The carreteros adamantly oppose the replacement of their carts with motocarts--one woman in the video says she only knows how to drive a horse, not a motor vehicle. Aside from all this, the implantation of computer chips in censused horses seems a little Orwellian to me!

I cannot understand very well the mindset of people who would propagate the laws criminalizing carreteros, but I will try to put forth some theories, based on the tone of certain bloggers and web commentators. I must make the disclaimer that most professional journalists I have read treat the issue quite fairly, recognizing carreteros' humanity and their right to a decent livelihood. But if the laws to outlaw horsecarts in the cities aren't attracting a huge public outcry, I have to assume that they are supported by a good number of people. My way of understanding the thoughts of these people is through consulting online responses to articles on the subject, as well as facebook pages calling for the elimination of zorreros in Bogota. My wife makes the good point that many of the people who post online might be minors or other people that rely on the internet and other unreliable media for a disproportionate share of their information, so they may not represent public opinion. But in any case it's the best source I've found to decipher some possible motivations of the anti-zorrero camp.

I will try here to explain the anti-zorrero prejudice in terms of a larger, anti-agrarian bias. This expresses itself in two ways: a slavish fetishizing of modernity, and a mix of anti-poor and pro-animal rights sentiments.

Modernity: Many posters and bloggers on the internet scorn the carreteros because having people and horses pulling carts in the streets is supposedly primitive. There are comments to the effect of, "other countries got rid of these practices 100 years ago, why can't we?" First off, this is a silly argument, because there is plenty that other countries have done in the past 100 years that is not to be copied just because it's modern. I'm thinking of rampant pollution, manufacture of atomic arms, things like that. Furthermore, what is primitive about using your body or a horse to do work? Humans and horses exist in the same form as we did in the past, and we can do the same work as our forebears did, so pulling a cart in 2010 is no more or less modern than doing anything else in 2010. Obviously there now exist other machines and methods we can employ to do work, but these are only preferable when they are better suited to a given situation. The existence of new ways of doing things doesn't mean that other ways are bad or should be eliminated. In fact, given that the world is trying to reduce its carbon footprint, using horses or humans instead of other gas-guzzling, polluting vehicles seems entirely appropriate and even, dare I say?, modern.

This issue of worshiping modernity is a symptom of a society removed from reality. It's what I call an anti-agrarian prejudice. Presumably people who decry the existence of non-motorized transport in the modern age assume that if motors exist, anyone who doesn't use them is simply being contrarian or ugly. Obviously the wealthy dweller of Bogota that rarely leaves the city (and is perhaps more familiar with other cities of the world than with his or her own rural backyard) can allow himself the illusion that the entire world resembles his little corner of the world. Food comes from supermarkets, work is done by machines or invisible poor people, garbage disappears when you leave it outside your door, etc. Of course this type of existence is an aberration in human history and even in today's world. Bourgeois urban existence is not possible without a real, agrarian world to maintain the cities' lifestyle. Even as our world becomes more urbanized, even when rural dwellers are statistically a minority (by some counts), the fact remains that food comes from a real, dirty field with real, dirty animals; work is done mainly by humans and animals, not by machines; garbage has to go to a real, dirty place after it leaves your doorstep. The illusion of a sanitized city separated from the natural world is precisely that, an illusion. No matter how modern we become, no matter how little our urban dwellers know about the functioning of the natural world, we are a part of the world. We can't eat jet planes or computer programs; cutting-edge cellphones can't treat our drinking water or dispose of our feces.

Animal rights over the rights of the poor: Another effect of the urban modern fantasy is that most commentators on the issue decry zorreros as criminals and animal abusers. Unless they have specific evidence to support this claim, I see no reason to assume that zorreros abuse their animals any more or less than the millions of other domestic animal owners in Bogota. In fact, there are a few points in the carreteros' favor here. First off, since they depend on their horses for their livelihood, I would think that they must treat them well enough. Secondly, a carretero's horse is doing basically what horses are meant to do--be outside and work. Conversely, a cat or a dog in an apartment in Bogota is robbed of the possibility to be outside, where it belongs, or to exercise as it is naturally inclined to do. As with the modernity claim, it seems that there is sort of a scorn for work operating here. The assumption is that making an animal work is cruel. The counterargument would of course be that submitting an animal, especially a horse, to a sedentary life would be the true cruelty. Work dignifies, occupies, and exercises to animals, just as it does for people. Perhaps the urbanite critics of carreteros believe that the good life consists in being sedentary and consuming things, and they transpose that bizarre worldview onto animals. But it's wrong to equate animal needs and wants with human needs and wants. A striking example of this ridiculous thinking is a blog commentator who says that horses shouldn't haul heavy loads, because a person couldn't or wouldn't want to haul them. A contrary but equally stupid train of thought is that horses suffer in the middle of the stress and pollution of the city. If this is the case, presumably cats, dogs, and even human children similarly suffer. Should people be prohibited from having pets and children in the city?

I also wonder if the people who criticize the use of workhorses by carreteros would criticize leisure riding of horses by the wealthy, or cowboys' use of horses to round up cattle. I would imagine that in the former case a critic might associate a person's leisure with the horse's, and thus feel that leisure horses are not subjected to undignified work. And in the latter case I can imagine an argument that cowboys "really need" horses to do their job, while carreteros presumably use horses out of perversity or backwardness. Cowboys can be classified as residents of an exotic, outside world where animals and nature still count, while zorreros simply impinge on the leisurely, modern, shopping-mall reality of citydwellers.

The real stunner here is that the very people who seem to have a great deal of empathy for animals, lack any semblance of empathy for fellow human beings. The majority of posters on the subject express a disdain for zorreros as criminals, animal abusers, dumpers of garbage in wetlands, and even puppy stealers! This is similar to the general disdain that the upper classes in any society have for normal people. I imagine that to justify one's unfair privilege in society, it helps to demonize those who don't enjoy that same privilege. But because we are in the progressive, egalitarian 21st century, society's elites don't like (or know it isn't acceptable) to scorn the poor simply for their poverty. So in this case we see the creation of a zorrero bogeyman who beats and even kills his horses out of pure malice. It is easy to hate an abuser of defenseless animals, and there exist plenty of uncited photos of dead horses on the internet that one could attribute to zorreros if one weren't too concerned with sources and context. The shocking thing to me is that it can be so easy to demonize normal people that you share a city with. I understand when a bigot who's never seen a Jew invents awful stories about them, or when someone who has never met a gay person imagines gays as monsters. But in this case, all Bogotanos see and interact with zorreros every day. How can someone hold such a false, negative image of his very neighbor?

A fascinating example combining a modern, anti-natural worldview with great empathy for animals, is a blogger's claim that we're already removed from nature, which can't be avoided, but we should be sensitive enough to nature to remove its last traces (animals) from the city, where it has no place.

My post has given two awful of idiotic, anti-agrarian thinking leading to the State's inflicting tangible damage on the most vulnerable members of society. It's pretty grim, and there are many more examples of this type of oppression in Colombia and in the rest of the world. I want to end on a positive note, so here is a wonderful article from 2007 about a veterinarian and his association, Refugio Animal, that work with carreteros and their horses. The vet claims that the rate of horse abuse among carreteros is only 5 to 10 percent, though poverty often prevents carreteros from accessing needed medicine and care for their horses. The vet's organization holds field days where the horsecart men and women bring in their horses for checkups and advice on how to care for them. This veterinarian has even trained 13 carreteros in horse medicine, and these go among their peers healing horses. It is a rare example of someone in Colombia doing something constructive about a hot-button issue, instead of intolerant polemicizing or working to impose one vision on a weaker group. In fact, the veterinarian tells a story in the article of a time when he was fighting to save a horse from rolling on the ground and killing itself. The horse's owner and the vet kept slapping the horse so it would stand up and get better, but bystanders saw the spectacle and started yelling that the brutish zorrero was beating his horse, and the veterinarian wasn't doing anything to help. It is disheartening to see that one of the few people who is making a positive contribution to carreteros and their horses is cried down by an ignorant public, but I am convinced that pragmatic, compassionate people like this veterinarian can play a role in solving Colombia's problems and winning over those who would impede progress and justice.