Upton Sinclair where art thou? The job of the muckraker responsible for the bane of high school literature students everywhere, The Jungle, has created more vegetarians than famous vegetarians from Gandhi to Pamela Anderson combined apparently is not yet finished. After the 1906 publication of The Jungle, a disgusted public offended at the thought of eating a line worker as part of their potted meat began to clamor for safer food and safer working conditions. Many years and many pieces of legislation later, if the statistics can be trusted, it would seem like the more things change in the meat packing industry the more they stay the same. During the 1970 creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the meat and meat products industry received the dubious distinction of being designated as one of the five classifications with the highest injury rates (Sparks Companies, 1999). Now almost forty years later the industry is still considered one of the most dangerous. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that the meat and meat products industry had the nation’s highest industrial injury for the five consecutive years from 1980 to 1985 (U.S. Department of Labor, 1988). Much the same as it was in 1943 (Horowitz, 2008). It was into this arena that Human Rights Watch decided to step. On its website Human Rights Watch describes itself as an independent organization dedicated to protecting human rights by exposing violations and trying to end abuses (Human Rights Watch, N.D.). Their 2005 study of three American meat packing plants revealed what they claim to be unsafe working conditions; intimidation of union organizers; denial of worker’s compensation claims for on the job injuries; and the exploitation of worker’ immigrations status to prevent complaints (Gonzalez, 2005). As a result of their investigation Human Rights Watch (2005) arrived at several recommendations they assert will address the problems they found. These recommendations include: new federal and state laws to reduce production line speeds; stronger state regulations to halt underreporting of injuries; stronger worker compensation laws; stricter enforcement of anti-retaliation laws; U.S. labor law compliance with international standards on workers' freedom of association; and new laws ensuring workers' safety regardless of their immigration status. The existence of existing laws and regulations that address the same areas as the Human Rights Watch report begs the question if these recommendations are worthy of support.
Denial of Problem and Recommendations As can be expected, the meat packers deny the Human Rights Watch claims and see no need for further regulation. The American Meat Institute’s J. Patrick Boyle said it would take as many pages to dispute the falsehoods in the report as the report itself. Boyle goes on to cite statistics showing a consistent decline in the number rate of injuries and illnesses in the industry. However, for all of Boyle’s protestations, Horowitz (2008) points to reasons other than safety improvements for the decline in the injury rates. He notes that beginning in the 1990’s packers began keeping injured workers on the job there by reducing the reported injury rates and the accompanying worker’s compensations claims. Horowitz (2008) also cites a change in the Bureau of Labor Statistics record keeping methods that no longer track the most common meatpacking line injuries as causing the government data to drastically under-report meatpacking work related injuries. The meatpackers try to claim that the Human Rights Watch report is inaccurate and should be discounted because the writer’s implied having first had knowledge of the conditions in plants they had not visited. While this may be a somewhat good point, it loses its validity in light of other similar reports. A 2008 report as cited by the Lincoln Journal Star noted that “production line speed remains brutally high and might even be increasing”; “455 workers in five communities a story of hazardous workplaces and unrelenting line speed”; Sixty-two percent of workers who responded to the survey reported they had been injured in the previous year…” (Walton, 2009). Meatpacking companies like to point to existing regulations and standards as proof that the Human Watch Rights recommendations are not needed. Yet the 1999 Sparks reports tells us that meatpacking injuries from repeated trauma were 75 times that of industry as a whole. Settlement agreements with the meatpacking companies called for programs to use an ergonomic approach to redesign job, workstations and tooling, to limit workers’ exposure to cumulative trauma disorders. About this same time, the state of Nebraska, home to some of the plants mentioned in the Human Rights Watch report, passed a bill of rights for meatpacking workers (Walton, 2009). This bill delineated workers’ rights, including the right to organize through union representation. As the Human Rights Watch report points out, the issues that were to be addressed by the settlement agreements and the bill of rights have had little effect on the companies operating on a business as usual standard. This shows that despite industry assurances that they are within the bounds of the current laws their claims have little basis in fact.
Utilitarian Ethical Considerations Utilitarianism is the school of ethical thought often identified with the writings of Bentham and Mills. It theorizes that ethical conduct is that which creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Lee, N.D.) Other tenets of utilitarianism asks for determination for all of the possible benefits and harms that would arise from action for each party that would be affected by the action and weigh the benefits versus the cost (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2007). Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer (2007) note that over time the principles of utilitarianism have been expanded to include variations. One variation sees the happiness factor as being a monetary benefit. But as Velasquez et al (2007) ask if the moral course first relies on comparing value and benefit versus cost and harm, how then do we put a value on life and how are we to compare the value of life to a monetary benefit? Another view sees the key as doing what will tilt the balance of good versus evil towards the good. Velasquez et al (2007) pose the question “What effect would everyone's doing this kind of action have on the general balance of good over evil?" They hold that the moral answer is “that morality must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of our conduct.” When looking at these somewhat conflicting view of utilitarianism, it may appear that this school of thought, with its basis on doing the best for the most, might be in support of the Human Rights Watch’s recommendations for improving the lot of meatpacking workers, but this would be incorrect. Utilitarianism, at its core, asks that we look beyond self-interest to the good of all (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2007). With that in mind, one can use utilitarian ethical considerations to support the acts that will advance the lives of the people that help to feed the nations.
Deontological Ethical Considerations According to a North Carolina State University (N.D.) study guide, deontological ethics, as postulated by Kant, stresses the idea the fidelity to principle and duty are the most important consideration for deciding on the correctness of an action, and that consequences should not matter. From this viewpoint, the meatpacking industry has no obligation other than following current statutes as they exist today. So it would appear that deontological reasoning would not support the recommendations put forth by Human Rights Watch. But variations of deontological reasoning would alter that opinion. According to W. D. Ross, deontological thinking included more than only obeying existing codes, it also set down prima facie duties that one should commit to. Included in Ross’ duties is the responsibility to not physically or psychologically harm anyone and to avoid deontological harming their health. Further expanding on deontological thought Locke and Hobbs posit that reasoning required respecting an individual’s legal and human rights (Garrett, 2004). When expanded to include Ross, Locke, and Hobbs deontological reasoning provides support for the recommendations put forth by Human Rights Watch. Some of their recommendations deal with steps than need to be taken to protect meatpacking production line workers health and safety. Other recommendations serve to protect workers legal rights, such as the right to unionize.
Conclusion
The study of ethics is a valuable tool. To have a foundation on which to draw when trying to assess the proper course of action will hopefully allow people to make better judgments. However, there are times where the course of action is so clearly trying to correct a blatant evil that the proper course of action is abundantly clear. There are things that try men’s souls and to obsess over Mill’s and Kant’s view of ethics while workers toil in unsafe conditions is the type of exercise that blackens the reputation of the human race. Whether the production lines are meeting current standards is not the real issue despite what the operators claim. The issue is that they can improve the safety of their workers and they should not wait for Human Right Watch to force the government to force them.

Works Cited
Garrett, J. (2007). Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://web2.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/rossethc.htm
Gonzalez, G. (2005). Group criticizes packers Meat industry officials dismiss Human Rights Watch reportRecommendations :[Iowa, Nebraska Edition]. Omaha World - Herald,p. 01B. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 784462621).
Human Right Watch. (N.D.) Human Rights Watch Mission Statement. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://www.hrw.org/en/about
Horowitz, R.. (2008, June). Government, Industry Play the Numbers Game on Worker Safety in Meatpacking Plants. Labor Notes,(351), 1,14. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from ProQuest Central. (Document ID: 1499791791).
Lee, E. (N.D.) An Introduction to Utilitarianism. The Victorian Web. Retrieved December 9, 2009 from http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/utilitarianism.html
Sparks Companies. (1999) Worker Safety Related to Advanced Meat Recovery. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from http://www.fisis.usda.gov.oppde/rdad/frpubs/98-27r/workersafetyissues related to amr.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (1988) Safety and Health Guide for the Meat Packing Industry. Retreived December 9, 2009 from http://www.osha.gov/Publications/
OSHA3108/osha3108.html

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. (2007) Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/ decision/calculating.html
WALTON, D. (2009). Center: Despite reforms 10 years ago, things have remained same. Lincoln Journal Star,A.1. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1875058181).