Order Code RS21978
Updated August 22, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Humane Treatment of Farm Animals:
Overview and Issues
Geoffrey Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Animal protection activists in the United States have long sought legislation to
modify or curtail some practices considered by U.S. agriculture to be both acceptable
and necessary to animal health. Some Members of Congress over the years have offered
various bills that would affect animal care on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter.
The House and Senate Agriculture Committees from time to time have held hearings on
farm animal welfare issues, but their members generally express a preference for
voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to humane methods of care. This report will
be updated if significant developments ensue.
Background
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for
enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA; 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), which requires
minimum standards of care for certain warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale,
used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. However, the act
excludes commercial farm animals (as well as birds, rats, and mice) from coverage.
The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), enforced by USDA’s
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), governs the humane slaughter and handling
of livestock (but not poultry) at packing plants. Also, under the so-called Twenty-Eight
Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502, last amended in 1994), many types of carriers (but
apparently not trucks) “may not confine animals in a vehicle or vessel for more than 28
consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest.”
At the state level, laws that prevent deliberate animal cruelty often (but not always)
apply to farm animals, but few state laws have prescribed on-farm treatment standards.
Florida voters in 2002 approved a ballot measure outlawing gestation crates for breeding
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
pigs, and animal activists have been lobbying in other states to force various changes in
farm animal care.1
Criticisms of Animal Agriculture Practices. Many animal protection groups
assert that today’s intensive farming systems perpetuate standard practices that in their
view are harmful to animals’ well-being. Examples include:
! Rearing large numbers of livestock or poultry in close confinement with
little or no room for natural movement and activity;
! Isolating veal calves in small crates;
! Performing surgery such as docking hog tails, dehorning cattle, and
trimming poultry beaks (done so that confined animals do not hurt each
other);
! Permitting commercial movement of nonambulatory livestock
(“downers”) that are disabled due to sickness or injury;
! Not fully stunning poultry (which are not covered by the Humane
Slaughter Act) and, sometimes, livestock (most of which are covered)
before slaughter;
! Slaughtering horses and other equines for human food.
These groups sometimes link intensive animal agriculture with soil and water
pollution, food safety problems (e.g., misuse of animal drugs, and foodborne bacterial
illnesses), and the decline of smaller-scale, “family” farms. They also believe that if
regulators approve future applications of biotechnology — such as animal cloning, genetic
alterations to improve productivity, and the use of livestock as “factories” for
pharmaceuticals and human organs — animal well-being will be compromised. Some
animal rights groups advance the more controversial argument that humans have no right
to use animals for any purpose, including for food.
Defense of Animal Agriculture Practices. Farmers and ranchers maintain that
they understand their animals’ welfare needs and address them adequately. They express
concern that efforts by poorly informed critics could lead to the imposition of costly and
counterproductive regulations harmful to their industry and the animals alike.
Agricultural, food processing, and a number of animal science groups have argued that
support for science, education, and voluntary guidelines are more effective ways of
assuring animal welfare.
Recognizing that a growing number of customers are concerned about animal
treatment, some within the food industry are developing humane animal care guidelines
and requiring suppliers to adhere to them. Chains such as McDonald’s, Burger King, and
Wendy’s in the late 1990s began requiring various meat and poultry suppliers to meet
specified care standards. In 2001 the Food Marketing Institute, which represents
supermarkets, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants began an animal welfare
audit program to develop, in cooperation with animal producer groups and animal
1 See CRS Report 94-731, Brief Summaries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes; and the farm
animal website of the Animal Welfare Information Center at USDA’s National Agricultural
Library, at [http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/farmanimals/farm.htm].

---

CRS-3
scientists, more data on animal welfare on farms and in slaughterhouses, and to help their
members use it to implement standards of care, with third-party compliance audits.2
Some animal welfare groups contend that the industry standards are not strong or
specific enough, and/or are not enforceable. Emerging from the animal protection
movement itself is a “Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label,” available for
placement on retail food products that come from animals raised under welfare standards
set by Humane Farm Animal Care, a nonprofit group.3
In Congress
In recent decades, Members of Congress have offered various proposals to require
changes in the treatment of animals on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter.
Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, which generally have
jurisdiction over such legislation, have held hearings on various farm animal welfare
issues, but they generally express a preference for voluntary rather than regulatory
approaches to improving animal care.
Humane Slaughter. In 2002, FSIS was under criticism for what some said was
lax enforcement of the humane slaughter act. Lawmakers subsequently included, in the
2002 farm law (P.L. 107-171, Section 10305), a sense of Congress resolution calling for
USDA to fully enforce the act and to report the number of violations to Congress
annually. Since then, committee reports accompanying the annual USDA appropriations
measures have earmarked millions of dollars to FSIS for full-time inspectors to oversee
compliance, and for incorporation of a humane activities tracking system into the
agency’s field computer systems.
Legislative proposals to include poultry under the humane slaughter act were
introduced in the 102nd through 104th Congresses, but no action was taken.
Downers. The 2002 farm law also contains a requirement that USDA investigate
the treatment of downer livestock, and issue regulations if findings warrant (Sec. 10815).
In November 2003, the full Senate approved an amendment (S.Amdt. 2088) to its version
of the 2004 USDA appropriation that would have barred the use of federal funds to
inspect downer livestock (cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines).
Since inspection is required for any meat to enter the human food supply, the Senate
amendment effectively would have prohibited downers from being slaughtered for human
food, lowering their market value. The House in July 2003 had defeated, 199-202, a
similar floor amendment (H.Amdt. 230) during its consideration of the USDA FY2004
money bill (H.R. 2673). Both amendments were similar in purpose to bills (S. 1298 and
H.R. 2519) introduced by Senator Akaka and Representative Ackerman.
Conferees on the FY2004 consolidated appropriation (H.R. 2673; P.L. 108-199),
which incorporated USDA’s FY2004 appropriation, deleted the Senate-passed
amendment. In its place, the House-Senate conference report (H.Rept. 108-401) noted
2 See [http://www.awaudit.org/].
3 See [http://www.certifiedhumane.com/].

---

CRS-4
that USDA had only recently begun data collection on the downer livestock investigation
required by the 2002 farm bill, and conferees directed the Secretary to expedite this work.
After a cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow” disease)
was found in December 2003 in Washington State, the Secretary of Agriculture — among
other things — administratively invoked an immediate ban on all nonambulatory cattle
(considered to be at higher risk for BSE) from slaughter establishments. The number of
such animals was estimated by the Secretary to be 150,000-200,000 out of the 36 million
U.S. cattle slaughtered yearly. Officials did note that animals can become unable to walk
for non-BSE reasons such as broken bones, and they are not necessarily hazardous to the
food supply.4
Some food safety officials have criticized the downer ban, arguing that it could be
deleterious both to food safety and to animal disease prevention. This argument contends
that euthanizing and removing downed animals before arrival at a federally inspected
slaughterhouse would deny USDA veterinarians the opportunity to see and evaluate them
for safety and disease purposes. In response to such concerns, USDA officials said they
are working more closely with the industry to collect samples on the farm, at rendering
facilities, and other places. Meanwhile, many animal protection advocates believe a
legislated downer ban is still necessary to attain animal welfare benefits — not only for
cattle but for other farm-raised livestock not covered by the Secretary’s BSE-related ban.
Horse Slaughter. During the June 8, 2005, floor debate on USDA’s FY2006
appropriation (H.R. 2744), the House approved, 269 to 158, an amendment by
Representative Sweeney to prohibit funds to pay for the inspection of horses. The
Senate’s committee-reported version does not contain the provision (floor action was
pending in August 2005), so a conference committee could determine whether the
amendment is retained. Currently, three foreign-owned plants in two states (Texas and
Illinois) slaughter a total of about 66,000 horses annually for human food. The meat is
exported primarily for consumption in parts of Europe and Japan. A number of horse
protection groups have been seeking a ban on such slaughter for several years; a Sweeney
bill (H.R. 503) with the same objective has been introduced in the 109th Congress. Policy
issues focus on the acceptability of slaughtering horses for food, and on how to dispose
of and/or care for unwanted horses if such slaughter were no longer permitted.
Horses are shipped long distances to reach the three U.S. plants that slaughter them.
Horse practitioners and welfare groups gained passage of language in the 1996 farm bill
(P.L. 104-127, Title IX-A, Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter, 7 U.S.C.
note) that authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines for regulating such
transport, subject to available appropriations. APHIS developed the guidelines with the
cooperation of horse groups, and they became effective February 5, 2002.5
4 See also CRS Issue Brief IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress.
5 A somewhat related issue revolves around provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.), which seeks to protect wild horses and burros on
federal lands. Members of Congress have differed over whether such horses could be sold for
slaughter for human food under certain circumstances. For more information, see CRS Report
RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues.

---