The meat industry and exploitation

Behind the neatly packaged meat products in supermarkets lies a troubling reality. Not only does the meat industry give rise to serious concerns regarding animal welfare and environmental sustainability, it also relies on the exploitation of labour, very often migrant labour. This form of exploitation was criminalised in the Netherlands 20 years ago.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a brief period when heightened attention was given to the precarious working and living conditions of these workers. Looking back, this attention was driven less by concern for migrant welfare and workers’ safety than by fears of viral transmission. This selective awareness is telling. Although labour exploitation has been formally recognised as a form of human trafficking for over two decades, cases involving migrant labour are still rarely identified as such, let alone effectively addressed.

An ultimatum in June 2026

Recent developments in the Netherlands suggest a potential shift in this long-standing pattern. This month, the Dutch Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Hans Vijlbrief, issued a firm political ultimatum to the meat-processing sector. Referring to nearly 20 years of documented shortcomings in the sector, the minister demanded demonstrable and structural improvements by 15 June 2026. Should the sector fail to show concrete progress, the government intends to introduce a legal ban on the use of temporary agency workers within the industry.

From a policy perspective, this intervention marks a transition from predominantly soft-law approaches to more coercive regulatory mechanisms outside the criminal law realm. By addressing the legal framework that enables subcontracting, the state seeks to dismantle what may be described as the ‘veil of outsourcing’: a structure that allows companies to evade direct responsibility for exploitative practices. It also implies a growing recognition that the liberalisation of the temporary employment sector has led to unintended and harmful consequences.

Exploiting workers

At its core, the issue extends beyond poor working conditions or regulatory non-compliance. The combination of employer dependency, poor housing and low wages observed in the lower segments of the labour market matches established legal and sociological definitions of human trafficking and labour exploitation. This is particularly evident in sectors that rely heavily on workers, very often with a migrant background, where structural indifference and limited enforcement create an environment in which abuse goes largely unchecked.

Pressure from major retailers and narrow profit margins have led meat-processing companies to externalise labour costs wherever possible. Recruitment is often outsourced to a complex and opaque network of temporary employment agencies.

Dependency

Workers are frequently deceived or misinformed when they enter this system. They have no idea about their rights. Their vulnerability is further exacerbated by institutional arrangements where one agency functions as employer, landlord, and transport provider simultaneously. This creates dependency. Loss of employment often means loss of housing and income, and sometimes also losing residence rights. This severely limits workers’ ability to exercise their rights, report abuse, or protest against exploitative conditions.

Importantly, many workers do not perceive themselves as victims and lack awareness of the legal frameworks that could offer protection. This underscores the fact that approaches based on individuals coming forward are ineffective.

A new approach?

The recent political ultimatum and possibility of a legal ban in this sector – not the only one, of course – signals a growing acknowledgement that both voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives and criminal justice approaches have failed to bring about the changes needed.

Finally, it is essential to emphasise that a human trafficking framework should apply to all forms of severe labour exploitation, irrespective of workers’ background or migration status. Restricting its application to particular groups risks reinforcing existing blind spots and undermining effective intervention. Only by recognising the structural nature of these practices can meaningful and lasting change be achieved.

Last but not least: this is not just about companies – you, the consumer, also have a choice. So, please keep that in mind when you buy your next meal.