Stull formatted with page numbers v.2           Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists     Donald  D.  Stull               Abstract   “Industrial  meat”  is  produced  by  many  actors—from  growers  to  eaters,   from  processors  to  retailers,  from  multinational  corporations  to   unauthorized  immigrant  workers.  It  epitomizes  what  Joseph  Schumpeter   called  capitalism’s  “creative  destruction,”  as  companies  rise  and  fall,  all   the  while  providing  meat  to  an  ever  expanding  population.  For  three   decades,  the  author  has  critically  examined  the  social,  economic,  and   environmental  consequences  of  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  for   livestock  producers,  processing  workers,  and  host  communities  in   Kansas,  Nebraska,  Oklahoma,  and  Kentucky.  His  research  has  taken  him   not  only  to  farms  and  ranches,  but  also  to  the  killfloors  of  massive   meatpacking  plants.  He  has  worked  with  local  governments  and   community  groups  as  well  as  union  and  industry  representatives  to  apply   knowledge  gained  from  his  research,  and  he  is  actively  involved  with   advocacy  groups  to  resist  and  reverse  the  negative  consequences  of  the   corporate  concentration  and  vertical  integration  that  define  industrial   meat  and  poultry  production.  From  experience-­‐distant  research  on  the   industry  to  experience-­‐near  fieldwork  for  the  industry,  the  author  has   employed  long-­‐term,  multisited  ethnography  to  build  an  ethnology  of  the   modern  meat  and  poultry  industry,  and  the  food  factories  that  produce   and  process  its  products.           Page  1  of  17       JBA  6(1):  24-­‐40   Spring  2017     ©  The  Author(s)  2017   ISSN  2245-­‐4217   www.cbs.dk/jba                                                                                                           Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       25   Keywords     meat  and  poultry  industry;  applied  anthropology;  ethnography;  United   States     Over  the  course  of  the  20th  century,  American  agriculture  relentlessly   industrialized.  Small,  largely  self-­‐sufficient  farms,  relying  on  a  mixture  of   crops,  livestock,  and  wild  foods  gave  way  to  highly  mechanized  and  highly   capitalized  large  ones,  producing  a  limited  range  of  crops  for  commodity   markets.  As  control  of  our  food  system  shifted  from  independent  farms  to   highly  concentrated  and  vertically  integrated  corporations,  agriculture   became  an  industry,  manufacturing  food,  fiber,  and  fuel.     Meat  is  what  Mary  Douglas  (1970)  called  a  natural  symbol,  the   “the  food  most  directly  associated  with  the  idea  of  both  symbolic  and   functional  power”  (Montanari  2006:123).  It  has  also  become  “the  symbol   of  a  balance  needing  to  be  restored”  (ibid.:122).  “Industrial”  meat  is  the   product  of  many  actors—from  growers  to  eaters,  from  processors  to   retailers,  from  multinational  corporations  to  unauthorized  immigrant   workers  (Phillips  2006:41).  It  epitomizes  what  Joseph  Schumpeter   (1947)  called  capitalism’s  “creative  destruction,”  as  companies  rise  and   fall,  all  the  while  providing  meat  to  an  ever  expanding  population.  The   Beef  Trust  that  dominated  North  America  early  in  the  20th  century— Swift,  Cudahy,  Morrill,  Armour,  and  Morris—survives  only  in  a  few  brand   names.  Ironically,  the  very  firms  that  supplanted  those  earlier  giants  by   revolutionizing  the  industry  in  the  1960s  and  1970s—IBP  and  ConAgra   Red  Meats—have  disappeared  as  well,  absorbed  by  a  new  generation  of   companies,  most  notably  Tyson  and  Brazilian-­‐owned  JBS.       What  follows  is  a  brief  “confessional  tale”  (Van  Maanen  2011)   about  my  ethnographic  research  on  the  North  American  meat  and  poultry   industry  over  the  past  three  decades,  and  my  efforts  to  apply  what  I  have   learned  to  the  mitigation  of  its  negative  consequences  for  host   communities,  processing  workers,  and  livestock  and  poultry  producers.  It   is  also  a  “critical  tale”  of  the  challenges  anthropological  advocates  and,  for   that  matter,  activists  of  any  kind  face  in  bringing  reforms  to  an  industry   entrenched  in  a  multinational  oligopoly.     Garden  City,  Kansas,  where  it  all  began     I  came  to  the  study  of  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  in  a  roundabout  way.   After  the  opening  of  IBP  and  Val-­‐Agri  (later  ConAgra)  beef  plants  in  the   early  1980s,  the  population  of  Garden  City,  Kansas,  jumped  by  one-­‐third   to  become  the  state’s  fastest  growing  community.  Most  of  the  newcomers   who  flocked  to  jobs  in  these  plants  were  refugees  from  Southeast  Asia  and   immigrants  from  Mexico  and  Central  America.  Beginning  in  the  summer   of  1987,  I  led  a  team  that  investigated  changing  ethnic  relations  in  Garden   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      26   City,  as  part  of  the  Ford  Foundation’s  national  study  of  what  was  then   called  the  new  immigration  (see  Lamphere  1992).  Overwhelmingly  Anglo   and  agrarian  at  the  beginning  of  the  1980s,  by  the  time  we  arrived,   Garden  City  was  in  the  midst  of  dramatic  social  and  cultural   transformations  that  presaged  a  tide  of  economic  and  demographic   change  that  was  to  sweep  across  rural  North  America  in  the  years  ahead   (see,  for  example,  Gozdziak  and  Martin  2005).     We  submitted  our  final  report  to  the  Ford  Foundation  in  February   1990  (Stull  et  al.  1990).  It  concluded  with  a  series  of  recommendations  to   the  people  of  Garden  City  on  education,  housing,  health  care,  day  care,  and   social  services.  In  collaboration  with  the  school  district,  we  organized  an   advisory  board  representing  public  school  teachers,  city  government,   Garden  City's  three  main  ethnic  groups,  and  service  organizations.  We   worked  with  this  committee  to  fine  tune  our  recommendations  and   present  them  to  appropriate  institutions  and  agencies.     Social  service  agencies  used  our  findings  to  obtain  external  funds.   The  school  district  revised  policies  and  procedures  on  curriculum,   bilingual  and  English  as  a  second  language  (ESL)  instruction,   extracurricular  activities,  community  outreach,  personnel  training,   evaluation,  and  retention  with  our  recommendations  in  hand.  The  city   commission  established  a  cultural  relations  board  with  wide  community   and  ethnic  representation,  and  local  law  enforcement  sought  to  increase   its  minority  personnel.     From  community  ethnography  to  industry  ethnology   What  we  did  not  know  as  we  concluded  more  than  two  years  of  fieldwork   was  whether  the  changes  we  witnessed  in  Garden  City  also  confronted   other  packinghouse  towns.  Over  the  next  decade,  social  geographer   Michael  Broadway  and  I  studied  Lexington,  Nebraska,  where  IBP  opened   another  beef  plant  in  1990,  and  Guymon,  Oklahoma,  which  attracted  a   Seaboard  pork  plant.  Broadway  launched  a  study  of  Brooks,  Alberta,   Canada,  which  became  home  to  an  IBP  beef  plant.  I  turned  my  attention  to   my  birth  community  in  western  Kentucky,  which  in  the  mid-­‐1990s  began   sprouting  the  commonwealth’s  newest  cash  crop—chickens—and  the   plants  to  process  them.                                                                                                         Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       27     Figure  1:  Don  Stull  stands  between  feeding  trays  and  a  water  line  inside  a   western  Kentucky  broiler  house  in  1998.  Each  house  holds  some  25,000   broilers  (eating  chickens),  which  are  grown  to  maturity  in  about  seven   weeks.       Like  Garden  City,  each  of  these  places  faced  rural  industrialization   and  rapid  growth,  creating  an  array  of  problems  common  to  so-­‐called   boomtowns:  population  mobility,  severe  housing  shortages,  soaring   school  enrollments,  rising  rates  of  crime  and  social  ills,  inadequate   medical  services,  strains  on  infrastructure  and  social  services,  dramatic   increases  in  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity,  and  environmental  concerns.   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      28     Our  ethnography  of  Garden  City,  intended  to  explore  ethnic   relations  between  native-­‐born  Kansans  and  new-­‐immigrant  Mexicans  and   Vietnamese,  became  an  extended  natural  experiment,  evolving  into  an   ethnology  of  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  and  its  impact  on  host   communities,  processing  workers,  producers,  and  the  environment.  While   our  work  has  made  significant  scholarly  contributions,  its  greatest  value,   we  believe,  has  been  to  inform  communities  of  the  consequences  of  the   meat  and  poultry  industry  and  help  them  prepare  for  and  mitigate  its   impact.  To  that  end  we  have  consulted  with  and  provided  technical   assistance  to  a  number  of  communities  in  the  United  States  and  Canada.   Our  research  combines  the  methods  and  insights  of  cultural  anthropology   and  social  geography.  We  favor  longitudinal  analysis  of  selected  sites   using  long-­‐term  participant  observation,  in-­‐depth  interviews,  and   extensive  review  of  pertinent  documents.  We  have  returned  to  Garden   City  periodically  to  update  our  research,  especially  following  significant   events,  such  as  the  fire  on  Christmas  night  2000  that  closed  the  ConAgra   plant,  putting  2,300  out  of  work  (Broadway  and  Stull  2006).1         The  first  of  what  Crowley  and  Lichter  (2009)  call  Latino   boomtowns,  which  spread  from  the  Midwest  in  the  1980s  to  the   Southeast  in  the  1990s,  Garden  City  is  a  prime  example  of  what  the  U.  S.   Census  Bureau  now  defines  as  micropolitans:  “mini-­‐metros  with  rural   sensibilities”  or  “rurbans”  (Francis  2005)  that  blend  agricultural   economies  commonly  associated  with  rural  areas  and  immigration   patterns  typically  associated  with  urban  areas  (Brown,  Colmartie  and   Kulcsar  2004;  Zehr  2005).     In  addition  to  Garden  City,  we  have  carried  out  long-­‐term  research   in  two  other  places:  Broadway  in  Brooks,  Alberta,  and  me  in  western   Kentucky.  Our  research  has  expanded  beyond  industry  impact  on   communities  to  include  its  consequences  for  plant  workers,  growers,  and   the  environment.  Slaughterhouse  Blues:  The  Meat  and  Poultry  Industry  in   North  America  (Stull  and  Broadway  2004,  2013)  provides  an  overview  of   our  research  and  presents  in  depth  the  methods  and  findings  from   several  of  our  studies.             Anthropologists  (and  some  honorary  anthropologists  like   Broadway)  have  led  the  way  in  documenting  the  environmental   consequences  of  concentrated  animal  feeding  operations  (CAFOs)  (Thu   and  Durrenberger  1998);  the  impact  of  the  meat  industry’s  restructuring   and  relocation  on  rural  communities  (Stull,  Broadway,  and  Griffith  1995);   the  poor  working  conditions  inside  meatpacking  plants  (Grey  1999;  Stull                                                                                                                   1  Jennifer  Ng,  associate  professor  of  educational  leadership  and  policy  studies,   University  of  Kansas,  and  I  conducted  ethnographic  research  for  several  months   in  2013  on  how  Garden  City’s  schools  and  educators  have  dealt  with  four  decades   of  increasing  and  constantly  changing  ethnic,  cultural,  linguistic,  and  religious   diversity  (Stull  and  Ng  2016)  Thus,  in  some  sense,  I  have  come  full  circle  to  the   issues  that  brought  me  to  Garden  City  in  the  first  place.                                                                                                             Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       29   1994;  Stull  and  Broadway  1995;  Broadway  and  Stull  2008);  and  how   essential  immigrants  are  to  meat  processing  (Horowitz  and  Miller  1999;   Fink  2003).       Mark  Grey,  a  member  of  the  Garden  City  research  team,  founded   and  directs  the  Iowa  Center  for  Immigrant  Leadership  and  Integration.   Located  at  the  University  of  Northern  Iowa,  the  Center’s  technical   assistance  and  publications  are  valuable  resources  for  communities  and   agencies  facing  the  challenges  of  ethnic  and  linguistic  diversity  that   accompany  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  (see,  for  example,  Yehieli  and   Grey  2005).       Anthropological  research  has  informed  prize-­‐winning  exposés   (Horwitz  1994),  best-­‐selling  books  (Schlosser  2001),  and  gripping   documentaries  (Food  Inc.),  which,  in  turn,  have  brought  many  of  these   issues  to  ever  wider  audiences.  As  a  result,  a  growing  number  of   Americans  are  now  aware  of  how,  where,  and  by  whom  their  food  is   produced  and  processed.  And  they  are  increasingly  concerned.     By  the  late  1990s,  a  loose,  but  growing  coalition  of  secular  and   religious  organizations  was  condemning  the  environmental,  animal   welfare,  and  social  consequences  of  so-­‐called  factory  farming.  The   research  of  Kendall  Thu  and  his  associates  (Thu  and  Durrenberger  1998)   fueled  opposition  to  air  and  water  pollution  associated  with  industrial   pork  production.  Our  work  drew  attention  from  those  concerned  about   industry  impacts  on  workers,  communities,  environments,  and  animals.  I   was  often  asked  to  speak  at  public  forums  in  towns  where  new  packing   plants  were  being  proposed  or  were  soon  to  be  built.  I  became  a  regular   source  for  news  stories  on  meat-­‐related  issues,  from  the  strike  by  Tyson   workers  in  Jefferson,  Wisconsin  (Bill  Moyers’  NOW)  to  the  first  case  of   mad  cow  disease  in  the  United  States  (New  York  Times)  to  President   George  W.  Bush’s  proposed  guest  worker  program  and  amnesty  for   unauthorized  immigrants  (Western  Livestock  Journal)  to  demonstrations   across  the  nation  for  immigrant  rights  (New  York  Times)  and  concomitant   fears  of  a  reconquista  (The  Hutchinson  [Kansas]  News)  to  the  recall  of  500   million  eggs  after  salmonella  sickened  1,500  in  the  summer  of  2010  (Dan   Rather  Reports).  I  have  been  featured  on  public  radio  talk  shows  and   invited  to  write  on  industry  concentration  and  working  conditions  for   Corporate  Social  Responsibility  Newswire’s  series  Talkback.       But  producing  useful  information,  even  if  it  reaches  broad   audiences,  is  not  enough.    Anthropologists  and  other  social  scientists   must  find  better  ways  to  influence  users  of  that  information.  One  such   opportunity  seemed  to  come  my  way  from  a  most  unexpected  direction— the  corporate  office  of  a  major  meatpacking  firm.       Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      30   On  the  packinghouse  floor   Late  in  the  summer  of  1992,  the  “Running  Iron”  beef  plant  in  the   midwestern  town  of  “Valley  View”  abruptly  announced  it  would  change   second-­‐shift  fabrication  hours  from  1:15-­‐9:45  p.m.  to  3:15  p.m.-­‐1:45  a.m.   The  next  day  38  workers  called  in  sick—22  of  them  were  fired.  Their   termination  triggered  a  wildcat  strike  by  some  200  workers  who  walked   off  the  job,  citing  unfair  treatment,  racism,  poor  working  conditions,  an   unsafe  workplace,  and  low  morale.  Running  Iron  was  an  industry  leader   in  wages  and  benefits,  and  the  work  stoppage  caught  management  and   union  officials  alike  by  surprise.     In  the  settlement  it  reached  with  striking  workers  a  week  later,   Running  Iron  agreed  to  change  operations  of  second-­‐shift  fabrication   lines,  adequately  staff  crews,  improve  communication  between  workers   and  management,  and  rehire  strikers.  As  part  of  the  settlement,  Running   Iron  and  its  union  formed  a  joint  cultural  diversity  committee  to  address   issues  raised  by  the  striking  workers,  most  of  whom  were  Mexican   immigrants.  Corporate  executives  were  concerned  with  their  “inability  to   recognize  cultural  differences  and  then  manage  them.”  They  wanted   outside  researchers  to  identify  concerns  of  management  and  labor,   recommend  changes,  and  work  with  them  to  implement  improvements.  A   year  after  the  strike,  the  company’s  labor  relations  officer  invited  me  to   propose  such  a  study.  [I  later  learned  the  invitation  came  in  part  because   of  a  paper  I  had  written:  “Dances  with  Cows.”  The  industry  executives   who  awarded  me  the  research  contract  liked  the  title,  and  the  fact  that  it   criticized  their  primary  competitor.  An  expanded  version  of  the  paper   later  appeared  as  Gouveia  and  Stull  (1995).]     I  asked  Ken  Erickson,  a  practicing  anthropologist  and  a  former   member  of  the  Garden  City  research  team  who  speaks  Spanish  and   Vietnamese,  and  the  late  Miguel  Giner,  an  industrial  psychologist  and   Mexican  immigrant,  to  join  me  on  the  project.  We  studied  Running  Iron’s   Valley  View  beef  plant  for  eight  months  in  1994.       The  executives  who  chose  our  proposal  over  several  others   expected  us  to  survey  a  random  sample  using  a  standardized   questionnaire,  what  they  viewed  as  “proper  scientific  research.”  We   convinced  them  that  participant  observation  was  more  appropriate  as  a   primary  method.  It  began  with  a  tour  of  the  plant  one  Saturday  in   February.  By  August,  we  could  give  tours  ourselves—and  I  did  on  one   occasion.  Our  work  days  began  at  7:00  a.m.  with  the  “morning   management  meeting,”  and  often  did  not  end  until  the  second  shift  shut   down  well  after  midnight.       We  examined  company  and  union  policies  and  documents.  We   went  through  new-­‐hire  training.  We  talked  with  and  interviewed   managers,  union  officials  and  stewards,  line  supervisors  and  line  workers,   men  and  women,  English  and  non-­‐English  speakers,  Anglos,  Hispanics,                                                                                                         Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       31   and  Asians.  Interviews  were  problem-­‐focused  and  questions  open-­‐ended.   Respondents  were  chosen  for  their  knowledge  or  position  (union   business  representative,  plant  manager,  trainer,  line  worker)  and  to   replicate  workplace  diversity  (gender,  ethnicity,  department,  job,  shift).   Our  report  addressed  relations  between  Anglo  plant  managers  and  their   multicultural  workforce,  recurrent  complaints  by  hourly  workers,  and   training  for  supervisors  and  new  hires.       In  February  1995,  a  year  after  we  began  our  study,  we  presented   our  findings  to  company  executives  at  corporate  headquarters.  Briefly,  we   found  that  the  company  had  not  one  workforce,  but  two:  one  consisted  of   old-­‐time  packers  who  had  been  with  the  company  for  many  years;  the   other  was  made  up  of  newcomers,  mostly  Mexican  immigrants.  Company   ideals  of  safety,  quality,  productivity,  and  loyalty  were  widely  shared  by   both  groups,  but  their  interpretations  of  these  ideals  and  how  to  achieve   them  often  differed.  Breakdowns  and  contradictions  between  company   ideals  and  managerial  behaviors  often  led  to  resentment  and  conflict   between  workers  and  managers.  Especially  problematic  was  the  tension   between  the  stated  ideal  of  “safety  first”  and  managers’  constant  efforts  to   reduce  costs  and  increase  product  output.  Invariably,  safety  (and  product   quality)  took  a  backseat  to  “getting  it  out  the  door.”       Corporate  officials  asked  us  to  propose  solutions  to  problems   identified  in  our  report.  Three  months  later  we  submitted  a  proposal  for  a   pilot  training  program  for  Running  Iron  supervisors.  We  never  heard   from  the  company  again.       We  were,  however,  invited  to  present  our  findings  at  a  major   industry  convention  and  publish  our  findings  in  Meat&Poultry  magazine,   the  industry’s  leading  trade  journal  (Stull,  Erickson,  and  Giner  1996).  I   have  maintained  good  relations  with  the  union  and  have  been  invited  to   speak  at  their  conventions.  But  I  have  never  again  been  asked  to  work   with  any  meat  or  poultry  company.       The  working  conditions  that  spawned  the  walkout  are  endemic  in   the  meat  and  poultry  industry.  Managers  will  tell  you  they  care  about   their  workers  and  they  spend  huge  sums  on  training,  but  they  will  also   tell  you  employee  turnover  and  elevated  rates  of  occupational  injury  and   illness  are  the  price  of  doing  business.  Despite  what  managers  say,   solutions  to  the  problems  that  continue  to  plague  Running  Iron—and  the   rest  of  the  industry—are  no  mystery.  Pay  a  fair  wage.  Provide  better  and   longer  periods  of  training  for  supervisors  and  line  workers.  Adequately   staff  work  crews.  Vary  job  tasks  to  relieve  muscle  strain.  Provide  longer   recovery  periods  for  injured  workers.  Most  of  all,  slow  down  the  chain.       Fifty  years  ago,  Tom  Lupton  (1963:201)  concluded  his  shop-­‐floor   ethnography  in  a  similar  vein:  “management  would  be  better  employed  in   putting  its  technical  house  in  order  than  [in]  complaining  about  ...  the   workers.”   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      32     But,  as  the  late  Del  Jones  (1976:222-­‐223)  said  in  “Applied   Anthropology  and  the  Application  of  Anthropological  Knowledge”:   [O]ne  does  not  influence  policy  through  the  collection  of  accurate   information  but  through  pressure  politics.  It  is  also  true  that   policymakers  could  do  a  better  job  if  they  utilized  accurate  and   complete  information.  But  this  will  not  come  about  until  the   producers  of  information  organize  as  a  pressure  group,  or  work   through  pressure  groups,  to  influence  the  users  of  information.  At   the  least  it  should  be  the  responsibility  of  the  producers  of   information  to  make  sure  that  relevant  facts  are  made  available  to   appropriate  parties.     I  have  studied  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  for  30  years,  making  “sure   that  relevant  facts  are  made  available  to  appropriate  parties”  and  doing   my  best  to  influence  policy  makers.  But  as  Jones  (ibid:  222)  also  observed:     [I]t  is  almost  a  perverse  arrogance  to  even  assume  that   information  collected  will  automatically  be  used  by  policymakers.   That  “useful”  information  may  be  known  and  not  utilized  by   policymakers  is  itself  a  policy  decision.  Political  processes  are  not   guided  so  much  by  truth  as  by  political  ideology,  group  interest,   pressure  politics.     The  executives  who  hired  us  to  help  them  “recognize  cultural  differences   and  then  manage  them”  knew  what  we  would  find.  They  commissioned   our  study  to  mollify  disaffected  workers  and  the  union  in  the  wake  of  a   strike,  not  to  be  a  catalyst  for  improved  working  conditions.       To  19th  century  cattle  barons,  who  worked  their  cowboys  long   hours  at  dangerous  jobs  for  short  pay:  “Men  were  cheap,  cattle  cost   money”  (Adams  1903:52).  To  the  men  who  sit  in  the  boardrooms  of  the   21st  century  corporations  that  control  the  meat  and  poultry  industry,  and   those  who  do  their  bidding  in  its  massive  factories,  workers  are  still   cheap.  And  cattle,  hogs,  and  chickens  still  cost  money.       Corporate  control  of  America’s  food  system   American  agriculture  is  controlled  by  large  corporations  like  Running   Iron.    Virtually  all  chickens  sold  in  the  United  States  are  grown  under   production  contracts  to  a  handful  of  companies,  who  own  the  birds  from   egg  to  supermarket.  Tyson  Foods,  the  largest  U.S.  poultry  company,   contracts  with  about  6,000  of  what  it  calls  family  farmers  to  raise  its   chickens.  They  are  expected  to  grow  birds  to  slaughter  weight  under   strict  company  guidelines  as  quickly  and  as  cheaply  as  possible.  If  Tyson   is  not  satisfied,  it  may  cancel  growers’  contracts  with  little  notice  and   even  less  recourse,  leaving  them  under  a  mountain  of  debt  for  their   otherwise  useless  chicken  houses.                                                                                                           Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       33     Nine  out  of  10  hogs  are  owned  directly  by  or  raised  under   contract  to  companies  like  Smithfield  or  Tyson.  More  than  half  of  the   cattle  now  slaughtered  in  the  United  States  are  secured  through  what  is   known  as  captive  supply:  they  are  owned  directly  by  corporations,  raised   under  contract  or  according  to  company  specifications,  or  sold  by  feeders   that  have  only  one  viable  buyer.  And  the  companies  that  bring  us  our   burgers,  bacon,  and  wings  are  very  often  one  and  the  same.         The  Packers  and  Stockyards  Act  of  1921  makes  it  unlawful  for   meat  and  poultry  companies  to  engage  in  “unfair,  unjustly  discriminatory,   or  deceptive  practice”  [or  to]  “give  any  undue  advantage  to  any  particular   person  ...  or  subject  any  particular  person  to  undue  disadvantage.”   Congress  and  the  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture  (USDA)  have  done  little   to  enforce  this  law.  Meanwhile,  concentration  and  vertical  integration   have  destroyed  meaningful  competition  in  livestock  and  poultry  markets   to  the  detriment  of  both  farmers  and  eaters.       In  his  first  term,  President  Obama  promised  to  reform  American   agriculture  through  vigorous  antitrust  enforcement.  And  Congress   included  language  in  the  2008  farm  bill  to  require  the  Department  of   Agriculture  to  write  regulations,  using  the  Packers  and  Stockyards  Act,  to   restore  fairness  and  competition  in  livestock  and  poultry  production.  In   2010,  the  USDA  and  the  Department  of  Justice  held  joint  workshops   across  farm  country  to  hear  from  producers—60,000  comments  were   received.  But  some  voices  are  louder  than  others.  Under  pressure  from   the  interests  that  dominate  industrial  agriculture,  Congress  refused  to   either  approve  or  fund  enforcement  of  almost  all  of  the  proposed  reforms.     Organization  for  competitive  markets   In  1998,  I  joined  with  a  group  of  concerned  farmers,  ranchers,   economists,  and  social  scientists  in  Kansas  City  to  found  the  Organization   for  Competitive  Markets.  OCM  is  a  nonprofit  research  and  advocacy  group   dedicated  to  fighting  concentration  and  vertical  integration  in  agricultural   markets.  In  2011,  I  was  elected  to  its  board  of  directors  and  currently   serve  as  its  vice-­‐president.       OCM  was  active  in  the  successful  campaign  to  require  country  of   origin  labeling  (COOL)  of  meats  and  some  other  agricultural  products.   Labels  were  first  required  in  2002,  but  the  meat  industry  vigorously   opposed  full  implementation.  In  February  2015,  the  U.S.  District  Court  for   the  District  of  Columbia  dismissed  a  lawsuit  brought  by  the  American   Meat  Institute  and  the  multinational  meatpacking  corporations  it   represents  to  stop  the  USDA  from  implementing  this  popular  law.  But   later  that  year  the  World  Trade  Organization  (WTO)  upheld  complaints   by  Canada  and  Mexico  that  COOL  put  their  meat  and  livestock  at   competitive  disadvantage  in  U.S.  markets.  WTO  threatened  to  impose  a  $1   billion  in  retaliatory  import  tariffs  if  COOL  was  not  repealed.  The  repeal   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      34   was  included  in  an  omnibus  spending  bill  signed  into  law  by  President   Obama  in  December  2016.     Efforts  to  stem  corporate  dismantling  of  livestock  markets  and   egregious  mistreatment  of  poultry  and  livestock  producers  have  yet  to   succeed  (see  Stull  and  Broadway  2014:60  for  one  example  of  a  failed   attempt).  One  arena  where  OCM  believes  it  may  be  able  to  weaken   corporate  control  over  livestock  production  is  the  “beef  checkoff.”       The  Beef  Promotion  and  Research  Program,  commonly  called  the   beef  checkoff,  assesses  cattle  owners  $1.00  each  time  an  animal  is  sold.   The  checkoff  program  was  created  to  promote  beef  consumption  through   research  and  marketing.  Remember  “Beef,  it’s  what’s  for  dinner”—that   was  checkoff  dollars  at  work.  Similar  checkoff  programs  exist  for  pork,   milk,  and  other  agricultural  products.  The  beef  checkoff  is  administered   by  the  board  of  the  National  Cattlemen’s  Beef  Association  (NCBA).  In   2010  a  performance  review  of  1  percent  of  transactions  over  29  months   by  an  independent  auditor  found  the  NCBA  had  misappropriated   $217,000.  No  penalties  were  imposed.  The  NCBA  continues  to  operate  as   the  prime  contractor  for  the  beef  checkoff,  from  which  it  derives  over  70   percent  of  its  operating  expenses.  This  audit  raised  serious  concerns   about  what  the  NCBA  does  with  the  $80  million  from  cattle  producers   each  year.       In  August  2012,  OCM  joined  with  the  Humane  Society  of  the   United  States  (HSUS)  to  mount  a  legal  challenge  to  the  beef  checkoff   program.  The  suit  maintains  that  the  NCBA  misused  checkoff  dollars  to   lobby  against  country  of  origin  labeling  and  to  support  meatpacking  firms   to  the  detriment  of  small  farmers  and  ranchers,  whose  numbers  have   fallen  sharply  since  the  checkoff  was  implemented.  OCM  and  HSUS   continue  to  seek  access  to  40,000  pages  of  unreleased  documents  under   the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (McGraw  and  Lowe  2015).         With  11  million  members  and  assets  in  excess  of  $100  million,   HSUS  is  the  most  influential  animal  welfare  organization.  Many  farmers   and  ranchers  view  HSUS  as  the  enemy,  and  OCM  was  sharply  criticized   and  lost  members  when  we  joined  with  HSUS.  But  OCM  and  HSUS  agree   that  only  by  joining  forces  can  farmers  and  eaters  hope  to  bring  about   significant  change  in  our  food  system.     The  forces  of  creative  destruction  in  the  meat  and  poultry   industry  have  affected  plant  locations  and  labor  force  composition,  and   they  have  stymied  efforts  by  unions,  farmers,  politicians,  scholars,   journalists,  and  activists  to  reform  it.  It  has  been  more  than  a  century   since  the  first,  and  still  the  best  known,  expose  of  the  meatpacking   industry—Upton  Sinclair’s  The  Jungle—appeared.  Its  publication  in  1906   prompted  the  passage  of  the  Meat  Inspection  Act  and  the  Pure  Food  and   Drug  Act.  In  1999,  journalist  Eric  Schlossier  reignited  public  concern  over   the  meat  industry  with  Fast  Food  Nation,  which  was  made  into  a  motion                                                                                                         Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       35   picture  and  inspired  the  popular  documentary  Food  Inc.  Industry  exposés   continue  to  pile  one  on  top  of  another.  Foodopoly:  The  Battle  over  the   Future  of  Food  and  Farming  in  America  (Hauter  2012);  The  Meat  Racket:   The  Secret  Takeover  of  America’s  Food  Business  (Leonard  2014);  The   Chain:  Farm,  Factory,  and  the  Fate  of  our  Food  (Genoways  2014)  are  the   best  examples  of  recent  investigative  journalism  on  the  meat  industry.             The  crescendo  of  scholarly  and  journalistic  indictments  of  the   industry  has  certainly  raised  public  awareness.  But  Upton  Sinclair’s   (1962:126)  famous  lament—“I  aimed  at  the  public’s  heart  and  by   accident  I  hit  it  in  the  stomach”—is  shared  by  today’s  would-­‐be   reformers.  The  American  public  is  quick  to  react  to  reports  of  evils   lurking  in  their  meat  and  when  abuses  are  heaped  upon  the  animals  from   which  it  is  made.  The  industry  has  reluctantly  responded  to  mounting   public  pressure  to  reduce  nontherapeutic  use  of  antibiotics  in  animal   production  and  to  treat  farmed  animals  more  humanely.  But  repeated   exposés  of  low  wages  and  oppressive  working  conditions  in  meat  and   poultry  plants,  as  well  as  corporate  practices  that  have  destroyed   competitive  and  equitable  livestock  and  poultry  markets,  raise  scant   concern  with  eaters  or  policy  makers.  If  anything,  things  may  be  getting   worse.  As  just  one  example,  in  October  2014,  the  USDA  approved  the  New   Poultry  Inspection  System  (NPIS)  that  allows  turkey  and  chicken   processing  plants  to  increase  line  speeds  and  replace  most  government   inspectors  with  company  employees  (USDA  2014).     America’s  food  system  remains  in  the  grasp  of  an  oligopoly  of   multinational  corporations,  and  the  factory  system  it  has  created  remains   the  dominant  model  of  meat  production  and  processing.  Alternative   production  models  in  which  animals  are  raised  locally  and  sustainably  on   family  farms  under  socially  just  conditions  have  reemerged,  however.   Whether  they  will  effectively  challenge  the  hegemony  of  industrial  meat   production  for  all  but  the  wealthiest  eaters  in  high-­‐income  nations   remains  to  be  seen.         In  January  2015,  OCM  and  HSUS  convened  a  meeting  of   representatives  of  other  organizations  that  also  work  to  end  the  abuses  of   industrial  agriculture  and  develop  viable  alternative  food  systems.  Slow   Food  USA,  Food  for  America,  the  New  America  Foundation,  the  Farmers   Union,  and  the  United  Food  and  Commercial  Workers  were  among  those   represented.  These  organizations  and  many  others  have  pursued   individual  goals:  animal  welfare,  competitive  agricultural  markets,   sustainable  agriculture,  wholesome  foods,  environmental  and  social   justice,  better  conditions  for  food  processing  workers.  Even  within  these   general  movements,  efforts  have  been  fragmented  and  poorly   coordinated.  The  goal  of  this  meeting  was  to  begin  to  build  networks  and   develop  collaborations.  The  long-­‐range  goal  is  to  develop  and  implement   effective  challenges  to  the  dominant  food  system  and  to  nurture  viable   alternatives  that  are  sustainable,  fair,  just,  and  affordable.  Under  OCM’s   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      36   leadership  this  collaboration  has  been  formalized;  it  has  established   priorities  and  developed  campaign  strategies  around  each  goal.  Goals   include  passage  of  legislation  ending  marketplace  abuses  of  commodity   checkoff  programs,  promoting  fair  and  just  contracts  for  poultry  growers,   and  pushing  for  adoption  of  the  Good  Food  Purchasing  Policy  for  public   schools  in  several  major  U.S.  cities.       The  system  that  currently  dominates  production,  processing,  and   distribution  of  our  food  is  not  likely  to  be  replaced  in  the  foreseeable   future.  But  alternatives  at  each  stage  of  the  food  chain  have  already   emerged.  The  challenge  is  now  to  grow  them,  to  make  them  more   available  and  affordable.  As  one  of  the  reviewers  of  this  article  reminded   me,  alternatives  are  much  more  viable  today  than  when  I  began  studying   the  industry  30  years  ago.  Farmers  markets  and  expanding  digital   platforms  bring  food  producers  and  eaters  into  direct  contact.  “Local,”   “sustainable,”  “organic,”  and  “humanely  produced”  foods  give  progressive   groceries  and  restaurants  competitive  advantage  in  more  markets.  As   people  become  disenchanted  with  or  afraid  of  “industrial”  foods,  they   turn  to  alternative  providers.  If  these  new  producers  and  processors   resist  the  siren  call  to  sell  out  to  the  companies  that  currently  dominate   the  food  system,  we  may  yet  see  decentralized  food  systems  as  viable   competitors  to  the  concentrated  and  centralized  system  of  today.  But   eaters  must  seek  out  these  options,  actively  participate  in  them,  and  be   willing  to  pay  for  their  products.  And  emergent  food  providers  must   eschew  the  “cheap  food”  model  of  the  dominant  companies,  the  low   wages  and  oppressive  working  conditions  that  have  gone  with  it.       “Shall  we  therefore  mix  science  with  politics?”     Anthropologists  have  historically  studied  one  people  in  one  place  for  one   year  or  so,  then  left,  perhaps  to  return  once  in  a  while,  but  more  often  not.   Increasingly  ethnographers  have  “entered  the  corporation,”  to  use   Melissa  Cefkin’s  (2009:1)  apt  phrase,  “invited  there  to  influence  the   organizations’  understandings,  and  effectiveness  and  profits.”  By   happenstance  and  by  design,  I  have  ended  up  studying  one  industry  in   scattered  locations  for  three  decades.  I  have  examined  each  of  its   sectors—beef,  pork,  and  poultry—on  farms  and  ranches,  in  factories  and   towns,  scattered  across  rural  North  America.  I  have  looked  at  it  from   varied  vantage  points:  the  towns  that  host  its  massive  plants;  hourly  line   workers  who  make  meat  on  its  kill  and  fabrication  floors;  farmers  and   ranchers  who  grow  its  raw  product.       This  research  has  added  to  the  social  science  of  boomtowns.  Rapid   growth,  high  wages,  and  social  disorders  characterize  energy  boomtowns.   Meatpacking  has  created  a  different  kind  of  boomtown,  with  high   turnover,  minimal  benefits,  dangerous  working  conditions,  low  wages,   and  rising  tides  of  impoverished  residents  (Broadway  and  Stull  2006).                                                                                                           Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       37     Some  ethnographers  have  conducted  clandestine  research  in  meat   and  poultry  plants  (Fink  1998;  Pachirat  2011;  Strifler  2005).  I  have  not.   This  has  meant  I  have  often  been  kept  at  a  distance  by  industry   gatekeepers,  but  clandestine  researchers  have  uncovered  no  more  than   me.  And  as  a  Running  Iron  consultant,  with  my  own  company  ID  and   parking  place,  I  learned  more  than  I  could  ever  have  dreamed  possible.  It   was  an  opportunity  that  never  would  have  come  my  way,  had  I  masked   my  identity  and  intentions.       I  have  come  to  my  research  sites  as  a  traditional  outsider   anthropologist  and  as  a  native  ethnographer,  living  and  working  in  my   hometown  among  relatives  and  lifelong  friends.  I  have  been  a  basic   researcher,  an  applied  researcher,  and  an  advocate.  Had  I  not  committed   myself  to  the  long  haul,  and  had  I  not  actively  pursued  broad  exposure  to   the  industry  from  diverse  perspectives,  I  would  never  have  seen  what  I   have  seen  or  learned  what  I  have  learned.       In  an  influential  presidential  address  to  the  American   Anthropological  Association,  which  he  called  “The  Anthropology  of   Trouble,”  Roy  Rappaport  (1993:295,  297)  warned  that  to  survive,  let   alone  flourish,  necessitates  “the  relocation  of  both  engaged  and  domestic   research  from  anthropology’s  periphery  toward  its  center….  To  publish   critiques  of  institutions  or  values  in  the  society  in  which  they  prevail  is,   almost  unavoidably,  to  support  or  subvert  them…  Increasing  distance   from  value  neutrality  increases  responsibility  for  precise,  accurate,  and   well-­‐grounded  accounts.  They  need  to  stand  up  not  only  to  critical   reviewers  but  also  to  hostile  lawyers.”           My  work,  and  that  of  other  social  scientists  who  have  examined   the  meat  and  poultry  industry,  has  stood  up  to  critical  reviewers  and   more  importantly  to  a  hostile  industry,  and  its  high-­‐powered  lawyers.   But,  in  all  honesty,  they  are  more  worried  about  disenchanted  eaters  who   are  voting  with  their  forks  and  powerful  interest  groups  that  are   influencing  legislation  and  challenging  industry  practices  in  court.                 American  anthropology  languishes  at  a  crucial  juncture,  desirous   of  greater  recognition  and  influence,  but  “branded”  as  peripheral  to  policy   formation  and  the  solution  of  contemporary  social  problems.  It  is   imperative  that  we  “direct  the  discipline  toward  the  generation  of   knowledge  that  has  some  more  useful  purpose”  (Blakey  et  al.  1994:297).     None  other  than  Malinowski  himself  declared  that  “research  in  order  to   be  of  use  must  be  inspired  by  courage  and  purpose...  Shall  we  therefore   mix  politics  with  science?...    Decidedly  ‘yes.’”  (quoted  in  Hackenberg  and   Hackenberg  1999:1).           Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      38   References     Adams,  A.  1903  The  log  of  a  cowboy:  a  narrative  of  the  old  trail  days.   Boston:  Houghton  Mifflin.     Blakey,  M.  L.,  F.  Dubinskas,  S.  Forman,  C.  MacLennan,  K.  S.  Newman,  J.  L.   Peacock,  R.  A.  Rappaport,  C.  G.  Velez-­‐Ibanez,  and  A.  W.  Wolfe  1994  “A   Statement  to  the  profession:  the  American  Anthropological  Association   Panel  on  Disorders  of  Industrial  Societies.”  In  S.  Forman  (ed.)  Diagnosing   America:  anthropology  and  public  engagement,  pp.  295-­‐311.  Ann  Arbor:   University  of  Michigan  Press.       Broadway,  M.J.  and  D.D.  Stull  2006  “Meat  processing  and  Garden  City,   Kansas:  boom  and  bust.”  Journal  of  Rural  Studies  22:  55-­‐66.     _____________  2008  “’I=ll  do  whatever  you  want,  but  it  hurts’:  worker  safety   and  community  health  in  modern  meatpacking.”  Labor  5(2):27-­‐37.   Brown,  D.L.,  J.B.  Crowmartie,  and  L.J.  Kulcsar  2004  “Micropolitan  areas   and  the  measurement  of  American  urbanization.”  Population  Research   and  Policy  Review  23:  399-­‐418.   Cefkin,  M.  2009  “Business,  anthropology,  and  the  growth  of  corporate   ethnography.”  In  M.  Cefkin  (ed.)  Ethnography  and  the  corporate   encounter:  reflections  on  research  in  and  of  corporations,  pp.  1-­‐37.  New   York:  Berghahn  Books.   Crowley,  M.  and  D.T.  Lichter  2009  “Social  disorganization  in  new  Latino   destinations.”  Rural  Sociology  74:  573-­‐604.   Douglas,  M.  1970  Natural  symbols.  London:  Barrie  &  Rockliff.   Fink,  D.  1998  Cutting  into  the  meatpacking  line:  workers  and  change  in  the   rural  Midwest.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press.     Fink,  L.  2003  The  Maya  of  Morgantown:  work  and  community  in  the  Nuevo   New  South.  Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press.   Francis,  L.  2005  “Micropolitan  statistical  areas  redefine  rural  America.”   Http://www.  unitedcountry.com/micropolitan.htm.  Retrieved  July  8,   2005.     Genoways,  T.  2014  The  Chain:  farm,  factory,  and  the  fate  of  our  food.  New   York:  Harper-­‐Collins.     Gouveia,  L.  and  D.D.  Stull  1995  “Dances  with  cows:  beefpacking’s  impact   on  Garden  City,  Kansas,  and  Lexington,  Nebraska.”  In  D.  D.  Stull,  M.  J.   Broadway,  and  D.  Griffith  (eds.).  Any  way  you  cut  it:  meat  processing  and   small-­‐town  America,  pp.  85-­‐107.  Lawrence:  University  Press  of  Kansas.   Gozdziak,  E.  and  S.  F.  Martin  2005  Beyond  the  gateway:  immigrants  in  a   changing  America.  Lanham,  Md.:  Lexington  Books.     Grey,  M.  1999  “Immigrants,  migration,  and  worker  turnover  at  the  Hog   Pride  Pork  Packing  Plant.”  Human  Organization  58:  16-­‐27.                                                                                                           Stull  /  Cows,  Pigs,  Corporations,  and  Anthropologists       39   Hackenberg,  R.  A.  and  B.  H.  Hackenberg  1999  “You  CAN  do  something!   Forming  policy  for  applied  projects,  then  and  now.”  Human  Organization   58:  1-­‐15.   Hauter,  W.  2012  Foodopoly:  the  battle  over  the  future  of  food  and  farming   in  America.  New  York:  New  Press.       Horowitz,  R.,  and  M.  J.  Miller  1999  “Immigrants  in  the  Delmarva  poultry   processing  industry:  the  changing  face  of  Georgetown,  Delaware,  and   environs.”  JSRI  Occasional  Paper  No.  37,  The  Julian  Samora  Research   Institute.  East  Lansing:  Michigan  State  University.   Horwitz,  T.  1994  “Nine  to  nowhere:  blues  on  the  chicken  line.”  Wall  Street   Journal,  December  1:  A1,  A8-­‐A9.       Jones,  D.  J.  1976  “Applied  anthropology  and  the  application  of   anthropological  knowledge.”  Human  Organization  221-­‐230.   Lamphere,  L.  (ed.)  1992  Structuring  diversity:  ethnographic  perspectives   on  the  new  immigration.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.     Leonard,  C.  2014  The  meat  racket:  the  secret  takeover  of  America’s  food   business.  New  York:  Simon  &  Schuster.     Lupton,  T.  1963  On  the  shop  floor:  two  studies  of  workshop  organization   and  output.  Oxford:  Pergamon.     McGraw,  M.  and  P.  Lowe  2015  “Ranchers  take  on  the  beef  industry  over   mandatory  checkoff  payments.”  Harvest  Public  Media,  January  17.   Montanari,  M.  2006  Food  is  culture.  New  York:  Columbia  University  Press.     Pachirat,  T.  2011  Every  twelve  seconds:  industrialized  slaughter  and  the   politics  of  sight.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press.   Phillips,  L.  2006  “Food  and  globalization.”  Annual  Review  of  Anthropology   35:  37-­‐57.   Rappaport,  R.  A.  1993  “The  anthropology  of  trouble.”  American   Anthropologist  95:  295-­‐303.   Scholsser,  E.  2001  Fast  food  nation:  the  dark  side  of  the  all-­‐American  meal.   New  York:  Houghton  Mifflin.     Schumpeter,  J.  1947  Capitalism,  socialism  and  democracy.  New  York:   Harper  &  Brothers.   Sinclair,  U.  1962  The  autobiography  of  Upton  Sinclair.  New  York:  Harcourt,   Brace,  &  World.     Stull,  D.D.,  ed.  1990  “When  the  packers  came  to  town:  changing  ethnic   relations  in  Garden  City,  Kansas.”  Urban  Anthropology  19:  303-­‐427.   _____________  1994  “Knock  ‘em  dead:  work  on  the  killfloor  of  a  modern   beefpacking  plant.”  In  L.  Lamphere,  A.  Stepick,  and  G.  Grenier  (eds.)   Newcomers  in  the  workplace:  immigrants  and  the  restructuring  of  the  U.S.   Journal  of  Business  Anthropology,  6(1),  Spring  2017      40   economy,  pp.  44-­‐77.  Philadelphia:  Temple  University  Press.      Stull,  D.D.,  J.E.  Benson,  M.J.  Broadway,  A.L.  Campa,  K.C.  Erickson,  and  M.A.   Grey  “Changing  relations:  newcomers  and  established  residents  in  Garden   City,  Kansas.”  Final  report  to  the  Ford  Foundation's  Changing  Relations   Project  Board,  Binghamton,  New  York,  February  5.  Institute  for  Public   Policy  and  Business  Research  Report  No.  172.   Stull,  D.  D.  and  M.  J.  Broadway  1995  “Killing  them  softly:  work  in  a   modern  beef  plant  and  what  it  does  to  workers.”  In  D.  D.  Stull,  M.  J.   Broadway,  and  D.  Griffith  (eds.)  Any  way  you  cut  it:  meat  processing  and   small-­‐town  America,  pp.  61-­‐83.  Lawrence:  University  Press  of  Kansas.   _____________  2004  Slaughterhouse  blues:  The  meat  and  poultry  industry  in   North  America.  Belmont,  Calif.:  Wadsworth.   _____________  2013  Slaughterhouse  blues:  the  meat  and  poultry  industry  in   North  America.  Second  edition.  Belmont,  Calif.:  Wadsworth.   Stull,  D.  D.,  M.  J.  Broadway,  and  D.  Griffith  (eds.)  1995  Any  way  you  cut  it:   meat  processing  and  small-­‐town  America.  Lawrence:  University  Press  of   Kansas.     Stull,  D.D.  and  J.  Ng  2016  “Majority  educators  in  a  U.S.   minority/immigrant  public  school  district:  the  case  of  Garden  City,   Kansas.”  Human  Organization  75:  181-­‐191.     Strifler,  S.  2005  Chicken:  the  dangerous  transformation  of  America’s   favorite  food.  New  Haven:  Yale  University  Press.     Thu,  K.  M.  and  E.  P.  Durrenberger  (eds.)  1998  Pigs,  profits,  and  rural   communities.    Albany:  State  University  of  New  York  Press.   USDA  2014  “Modernization  of  poultry  slaughter  inspection.”  Federal   Register  79(162),  August  21.  9  CFR  Parts  381  and  500.  Food  Safety  and   Inspection  Service,  US  Department  of  Agriculture.     Van  Maanen,  J.  2011  Tales  of  the  field:  on  writing  ethnography.  Second   edition.  Chicago:  University  of  Chicago  Press.     Yehieli,  M.  and  M.A.  Grey  2005  Health  matters:  a  pocket  guide  for  working   with  diverse  cultures  and  underserved  populations.  Yarmouth,  ME:   Intercultural  Press.         Zehr,  M.A.  2005.  “Newcomers  bring  change,  challenge  to  region:  spike  in   English-­‐learners  strains  resources,  traditions.”  Education  Week  24(34):  1,   18-­‐19,  21.   Don  Stull  is  professor  emeritus  of  anthropology  at  the  University  of   Kansas,  where  he  taught  from  1975  to  2015.  He  has  been  editor-­‐in-­‐chief   of  Human  Organization,  president  of  the  Society  for  Applied   Anthropology,  and  a  recipient  of  the  SfAA’s  Sol  Tax  Distinguished  Service   Award.  In  2001  he  was  presented  with  the  key  to  Garden  City,  Kansas,   and  made  an  honorary  citizen  in  recognition  of  the  value  of  his  work  to   this  community.