Using CCTV Cameras To Monitor Slaughterhouses

The slaughter of farmed animals is regulated in many countries to protect their welfare. To monitor for violations of these regulations, many slaughterhouses install Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras. There is an existing theory that people who intend to commit a crime will consider the risk of detection, which means the presence of CCTV may reduce the likelihood of slaughterhouse violations. In turn, CCTV may increase animal welfare at the time of slaughter. But is this really the case? 

In this post on the Effective Altruism Forum, researchers from Animal Ask explore whether CCTV is an effective crime deterrent and discuss the impact it can have on animal welfare. They ultimately try to decide whether campaigning for CCTV is a better priority for animal advocates than other welfare campaigns. 

The authors begin by reviewing the existence of CCTV in slaughterhouses around the world. Some governments mandate the use of video surveillance in slaughterhouses. For instance, in England, Scotland, Spain, and Israel, CCTV is required by law in all slaughterhouses. The authors note that Israel has a particularly effective system where all footage is transferred live to the Ministry of Agriculture, which may be a strong crime deterrent. 

Some governments do not mandate CCTV cameras, but many slaughterhouse owners install them voluntarily. In Wales, installing CCTV cameras is encouraged by the government via grants and is required for some certification schemes. As a result, although it is not mandatory, over 97% of chickens and 90% of animals slaughtered for red meat are sent to slaughterhouses with CCTV presence. According to the authors, most large U.S. slaughterhouses have voluntarily used CCTV for more than 10 years. 

Not all countries have success stories when it comes to CCTV installations. For example, the French government tried a program where slaughterhouses had two years to voluntarily install cameras. Only three out of 934 facilities did so, suggesting that voluntary installation of video surveillance is less successful than mandates unless it is supported by grants and certification schemes (like in Wales). 

CCTV footage requirements vary from government to government as well. While some countries require the footage to be kept for 90 days (e.g., England and Scotland) some mandate a 30-day storage period (e.g., Spain). While Spain’s regulations include a clause about not having any blindspots in the footage, regulations in the Netherlands do not have such a clause. The authors argue that these varying requirements and the extent to which slaughterhouse owners follow them raise questions about the effectiveness of CCTV surveillance. 

Most of the support for the use of CCTV is based on what the authors consider anecdotal evidence. It is mostly first-hand accounts of slaughterhouse staff or government employees indicating that installing cameras has reduced violations. The authors suggest that currently there is not enough empirical data available on this issue. However, the U.K. government is publishing a report in 2023 that may address the link between CCTV and animal welfare violations at slaughterhouses. 

There is also evidence showing that video surveillance is useful to prevent crime in general. According to one study, CCTV was associated with less vehicle and property crime when installed in car parks and residential areas, but only when it was actively monitored and accompanied by other crime deterrents. Another study suggests that CCTV may reduce crime in urban subway stations and public streets. 

What about crime in more private settings? The authors point out that studying CCTV use in private facilities like retail stores may be more comparable to slaughterhouses. One randomized control trial showed that CCTV cameras reduced shoplifting. However, both in public and private settings, the research suggests that it’s important for CCTV to be accompanied by rapid responses from authorities in order to make a significant impact on crime rates. 

Despite this evidence, the authors raise doubts about the benefits of using video surveillance in slaughterhouses as the most effective way to reduce animal suffering. Although they recognize that welfare violations at the time of slaughter can cause extreme suffering, they argue that the slaughterhouse represents only a brief moment of time in an animal’s lifespan. Instead, they argue that campaigning to install CCTV on farms, for example, can be more effective to improve welfare for longer periods of time. However, this strategy may receive pushback from farmers. 

For animal advocates interested in promoting the use of CCTV in slaughterhouses, the authors make several suggestions based on case studies in other countries:

• Generate Awareness: Advocates can garner public and political support for CCTV by revealing undercover images of cruelty from slaughterhouses. 
• Start With The Slaughterhouses: Encouraging some slaughterhouses to install CCTV cameras may reduce resistance in other slaughterhouses. In England, CCTV laws followed after many slaughterhouses had already installed cameras. One way to encourage slaughterhouses to use CCTV is by encouraging certification schemes that require them. 
• Focus On CCTV Design: It’s important to avoid backlash or any undesired effects on animals. For instance, there shouldn’t be any blindspots in the footage, which may result in cruelties going unseen. 
• Encourage Communication: The government should communicate with slaughterhouses to address any questions and concerns. The authors note that government grants can help smaller slaughterhouses that may struggle to install full CCTV systems. 
• Don’t Neglect Privacy: In any video surveillance program, the cameras can’t violate the data protection rights of employees. 

Beyond implementing CCTV, it’s also important to consider other ways of reducing animal suffering at the slaughterhouse. For example, some studies show that negative work environments are linked to more animal suffering. So, another important way to increase animal welfare in slaughterhouses is to increase employee well-being by improving their physical and interpersonal work environment and protecting them from abuse and exploitation.