Humane-Slaughter-Guidelines

History of Regulations, Industry Guidance
and Employee Training in the United States
H1 History of Regulation of Slaughter in the United States
The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (as
amended) requires the USDA to inspect all cattle,
sheep, swine, goats, and horses brought into any plant
to be slaughtered and processed for human consumption;
1 it does not cover poultry. Inspection of poultry
products for human consumption did not become
mandatory until passage of the 1957 Poultry Products
Inspection Act. 1 The 1978 HMSA made mandatory the
humane slaughter and handling of livestock in connection
with slaughter of food animals in USDA-inspected
plants. Animals included under the 1978 Act are cattle,
calves, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, and other
livestock. Two methods of slaughter were determined
to be humane under the 1978 Act. The first requires
that livestock be rendered insensible to pain by a single
blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other
means that is rapid and effective before being shackled,
hoisted, cast, or cut. The second method is in accordance
with the ritual requirements of any religious
faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the
animal suffers loss of consciousness due to ischemia
caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance
of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.
Additionally, Section 1906 exempts the handling or
other preparation of livestock for slaughter under the
second method from the terms of the Act. Therefore,
the statutory requirement that livestock are rendered
insensible to pain prior to shackling, hoisting, casting,
or cutting does not apply to the handling or restraint
that is immediately associated with the cut when the
second method of slaughter is being used. Examples of
this type of slaughter include Jewish (kosher) slaughter
and Islamic (halal) slaughter. 2
Currently, the HMSA of 1978 does not cover poultry.
However, some practices that promote good welfare
for poultry are covered by regulatory requirements
for good commercial practices.These regulations can
be found in 9 CFR Part 381.65(b) (Poultry Products
Inspection Act Regulations). 2 Under the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, a poultry product is adulterated if,
among other circumstances, it is in whole, or in part,
the product of any poultry that has died by a method
other than slaughter. For example, poultry that are still
breathing on entering the scalder and die from drowning
and not from slaughter are considered adulterated
and unfit for human food and are condemned. Furthermore,
in 2005, the USDA published a Federal Register
Notice (Docket No. 04-037N) on the treatment of live
poultry before slaughter. The USDA defined a “systematic
approach” as one in which establishments focus
on treating poultry in such a manner as to minimize
excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury during
the time that live poultry are held in connection with
slaughter. 2 Currently, this approach is voluntary on the
part of industry. A provision in the USDA appropriations
act for fiscal year 2001 (P.L. 106-387) amended
the Poultry Products Inspection Act to include mandatory
FSIS inspection for meat from ratites and quail. 1
Regulations for the inspection of exotic animals
can be found under 9 CFR 352.10. The authority for
the inspection of exotic animals comes from the Agriculture
Marketing Act of 1946 found in 7 U.S.C. 1621
et seq, which promotes distribution and marketing of
agricultural products (includes exotic species not under
the Federal Meat Inspection Act). Exotic animals
that are defined by these regulations are reindeer, elk,
deer, antelope, water buffalo, or bison. This section
includes regulations that address humane handling
during antemortem inspection and stunning practices
to render the animals unconscious that are consistent
with the regulations pertaining to the 1978 HMSA (9
CFR 313.15 or 313.16).
Many countries have set standards for welfare practices
with regard to humane slaughter, and the OIE also
includes standards for the humane conduct of slaughter
in Chapter 7 of its Terrestial Animal Health Code. 3
The impact of such standards has just recently begun
to be felt in global trade. As an example, the European
Union’s Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of
Animals not only lays a foundation for improving welfare
standards in the European Union and making sure
those standards are applied and enforced in all European
Union countries, but also expresses intent to apply
equivalent welfare standards to imports from other
countries in the future. 4
H2 Enforcement of Humane Slaughter
in the United States
The FSIS of the USDA is tasked with the enforcement
of humane slaughter regulations. In the 1980s
and 1990s, enforcement of humane handling was not
a priority as FSIS focused on improving food safety
though the implementation of hazard-based inspection
systems. This was highlighted in 1997, when a survey
was conducted for the USDA. 5,6 Only three out of 10
beef plants were capable of rendering cattle unconscious
with a single shot from a captive bolt. The main
cause of poor captive bolt stunning was lack of maintenance.
6 There were numerous other problems observed
in the 22 beef, pork, lamb, and veal plants that were
surveyed. 5,6 The FSIS recognized a need for improvement
and produced a video that served as a correlation
tool for supervisory public health veterinarians.
In 2001, Congress provided the USDA with additional
funding to assist in enforcing the HMSA. This
funding enabled the FSIS to hire 17 district veterinary
medical specialists. The district veterinary medical specialist
is the primary contact for humane handling and
slaughter issues in each district and serves as the liaison
between the district office and headquarters on all humane
handling matters. In addition, in February 2004,
the FSIS began tracking the amount of time inspection
program personnel spend to ensure humane handling
and slaughter requirements are met.
In February 2010, the Government Accountability
Office published a report 7 that expressed concern about
uneven enforcement of humane handling and slaughter.
Enforcement discrepancies were found to be greater
in small plants than in larger plants.
Following the release of that report, in April 2010,
the FSIS established a Humane Handling Enforcement
Coordinator position to increase the frequency
AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals: 2016 Edition 11