Order Code RS21842
Updated March 3, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
More than 90,000 U.S. horses were slaughtered for human food in 2005, mainly
for European and Asian consumers. Congress voted to limit the use of FY2006
appropriated funds for such slaughter, but USDA anticipates that the practice will
continue, funded by industry user fees. Debate has focused on the acceptability of horse
slaughter, and how to care for and eventually dispose of such horses if they no longer
went for human food. This report will be updated if events warrant.
Overview
More than 90,000 U.S. horses were slaughtered in 2005 for human consumption,
virtually all for export, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
largest markets were France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. The United
States exported about 18,000 metric tons of horse meat valued at $61 million in 2005.
U.S. horse slaughter numbers have been rising since 2002, when they reached a recent
annual low of 42,000, according to USDA estimates. U.S. slaughter remains well below
levels of the 1980s, when more than 300,000 were processed annually in at least 16
federally inspected plants. Most of these horses were raised for other purposes but are no
longer wanted by owners; they are collected by dealers who supply the plants from
auctions, boarding facilities, and elsewhere. Two Texas plants and a third plant in Illinois
slaughter them. Foreign firms have invested heavily in these North American facilities.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that Canada and Mexico
respectively slaughtered a total of 88,000 and 626,000 head for horsemeat in 2005; a
small portion of these were shipped from the United States. (According to USDA, the
United States in 2005 exported more than 21,000 live horses to Canada and more than
11,000 to Mexico. Many are believed to have been destined for slaughter for food.)
Legal Authorities
U.S. horse slaughter plants are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906,
as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), which has required USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep,
swine, goats, and equines slaughtered and processed into products for human food. This
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
act, administered by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), is designed to
ensure that meat and meat products from these animals are safe, wholesome and properly
labeled. This inspection is mandatory, and most costs must be covered by appropriated
funds, except for overtime and holiday periods. Meat inspectors also are charged with
enforcing the Humane Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), which requires that livestock
(but not poultry) be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter.
Plants also can request that USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) graders
be placed in their plants to assign official grades to their products based on quality traits
and yield. Plants pay user fees for this inspection service, which is voluntary and
conducted under authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 as amended
(7 U.S.C. §§1621 et seq.). The 1946 AMA is also the authority FSIS uses to provide
voluntary food safety inspections of animals and products not specifically covered by
either the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Horses often must be shipped long distances to reach the few plants now
slaughtering 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. USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) developed the guidelines with the cooperation
of horse groups, and they became effective February 5, 2002. However, federal laws
neither ban the use of equines for food, nor set care standards. Protection usually is
subject to varying state and local laws. Some of these laws may set care standards,
although more are likely to be anti-cruelty measures.1
Recent Legislation
Amendment to FY2006 USDA Appropriation. During debate on USDA’s
FY2006 appropriation (H.R. 2744), the House on June 8, 2005, approved, 269 to 158, a
Sweeney amendment to prohibit funds provided in the measure to pay for the ante-
mortem inspection of horses under the meat inspection act. On September 20, 2005, the
Senate adopted an identical floor amendment by Senate Ensign, by a 69 to 28 vote. The
final conference report (H.Rept. 109-255), signed as P.L. 109-97 on November 10, 2005,
retains this amendment, but delays the effective date for 120 days.
Because the FMIA has long required FSIS inspection of equines (like other
designated livestock species) before the meat may enter commerce, the amendment’s
supporters presumed that these three plants could no longer process them for human food.
However, the final House-Senate report states: “It is the understanding of the conferees
that the Department is obliged under existing statutes to provide for the inspection of meat
intended for human consumption (domestic and exported). The conferees recognize that
the funding limitation in Section 794 prohibits the use of appropriations only for payment
of salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horses.”
1 Other federal laws protect horses used in research, and ban “soring” for shows. See also CRS
Report 94-731 A, Brief Summaries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes, by Henry Cohen.
CRS-3
Those interested in continuing horse slaughter assumed that ante-mortem inspection
might still occur under some other arrangement. They pointed to the relatively narrow
wording of the Sweeney-Ensign language — i.e., prohibiting use of funds for
ante-mortem horse inspection under the FMIA but not specifically for other post-slaughter
inspection activities — and to the conference report language which states that USDA
still is obliged to conduct inspections. Subsequently, the three plants, on November 23,
2005, petitioned USDA for voluntary ante-mortem inspection under the 1946 AMA, with
the ante-mortem portion funded by user fees.
On February 8, 2006, USDA-FSIS cited the AMA authority to publish such an
interim rule. FSIS is amending the existing regulations that now apply to “exotic species”
(bison, deer, etc.), adding a new subpart that will apply to horses, starting March 10, 2006.
Under the new rule, USDA plans to use many of the same guidelines that currently exist
for ante-mortem inspection under FMIA regulations for horses. Also, post-mortem horse
inspection is to continue under the FMIA, using appropriated funds. Congressional
supporters of the original Sweeney and Ensign amendments have objected to the rule,
declaring that it would circumvent their clear intent to halt that slaughter of horses. On
February 14, 2006, several animal welfare groups and individuals filed a lawsuit against
the USDA, challenging the legality of the interim rule; this suit was pending in early
March 2006.2
Another provision in the final bill (Section 798) amends the Meat Inspection Act to
alter the definition of livestock that are required to undergo mandatory inspection if
destined for human food — from “cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other
equines” to “amenable species.” The section then defines “amenable species” to mean:
(1) “those species subject to the provisions of the [Meat Inspection] Act on the day
before the date of enactment” of the 2006 appropriation. [One of those species is
horses];
(2) “any additional species of livestock that the Secretary considers appropriate.”
Horse Protection Act. Representative Sweeney and Senator Ensign have
introduced other legislation (H.R. 503; S. 1915) into the 109th Congress that would
prohibit the movement and slaughter of horses for human food. The legislation differs
from the above language now in the USDA FY2006 appropriation. H.R. 503 and S. 1915
would amend the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1821 et seq.), which currently makes
it a crime to exhibit or transport for the purpose of exhibition any “sore” horse (i.e., one
whose feet have been injured to alter its gait). The Sweeney and Ensign bills would
prohibit the “shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse or other equine to be slaughtered for human
consumption.” The bills permit USDA to detain for examination and evidence any horse
for which it has probable cause that the animal will be slaughtered for food. Violators
would be subject to specified criminal and civil penalties and prison terms. The bills
would increase the authorization of appropriations for administering the act from
$500,000 to $5 million annually.
2 Humane Society v. Johanns, No. 1:06CV00265 (D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2006). For a February 17,
2006 general distribution memorandum that discusses possible legal arguments for and against
the rule, contact Stephen R. Vina at 7-8079 or Geoffrey S. Becker at 7-7287.
CRS-4
The bills’ intent is similar to that of legislation (H.R. 857 and S. 2352) offered in the
108th Congress by Representative Sweeney and by Senator Ensign. However, H.R. 503
and S. 1915 differ in detail. For example, the earlier measures did not amend the Horse
Protection Act. The earlier bills also explicitly would have required officials to work with
animal welfare societies and animal control departments to place confiscated horses
temporarily with a nonprofit animal rescue facility, and required the owner of a
confiscated horse to post a bond sufficient to provide for necessary care for at least 60
days. Another provision in the earlier bills would have required the Secretary to make
grants to specified animal rescue facilities willing to accept confiscated horses.
Wild Horses and Burros. 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. In the 108th Congress,
a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (§142, P.L. 108-447)
gives federal agencies new authority to sell, “without limitation,” excess animals (or their
remains) that essentially are deemed too old (more than 10 years old) or otherwise unable
to be adopted (tried unsuccessfully at least three times). A second change removed
provisions of law that had barred wild horses and burros and their remains from being
sold for processing into commercial products. A third change removed criminal penalties
for processing into commercial products the remains of a wild horse or burro, if it is sold
under the new authority. Also, the law did not expressly prohibit the Interior
Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from slaughtering healthy wild horses
and burros, as had annual appropriations bills apparently each year starting in FY1988.
These recent changes were supported as providing a cost-effective way of helping
the agencies achieve “appropriate management levels” (AMLs), to improve the health of
the animals, protect range resources, and restore a natural ecological balance on federal
lands. The changes have been opposed, particularly by animal rights activists, as
potentially leading to the slaughter of large numbers of healthy animals. About 8,400
wild horses and burros are affected by this law, according to BLM. There are about 7,000
animals available for sale currently, with 1,445 having been sold and delivered as of
September 20, 2005. About 32,000 wild horses and burros currently are on the range,
with the national AML set at about 28,000, according to BLM estimates. BLM manages
another 24,500 animals in holding facilities.
Representative Rahall has introduced legislation in the 109th Congress (H.R. 297)
to overturn the changes to wild horse and burro management enacted during the 108th
Congress. The bill would repeal provisions that now allow the sale of certain excess
animals or their remains and that remove related criminal penalties for processing into
commercial products the remains of such animals. Senator Byrd has introduced a related
measure (S. 576).3
Selected Arguments
Most U.S. and Canadian consumers view horses as performance and companion
animals rather than food. Horse protection and animal welfare groups contend that
3 CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lands and National Forests,
by Ross W. Gorte and Carol Hardy Vincent (coordinators), from which this section is adapted.
CRS-5
Americans overwhelmingly favor an end to horse slaughter for human food, a practice
such groups have called cruel and unnecessary. According to these groups, horses are
transported long distances often in “deplorable conditions” in poorly equipped trucks and
trailers, where they are exposed to bad weather and often inadequate rest, food, and water.
At the slaughterhouse, “the suffering and abuse continue unabated.... Death is not swift
for these terrified and noble animals.”4
However, a veterinary journal article counters: “Market demand for horsemeat for
human consumption is almost certain to continue and may grow in the foreseeable future.
It is therefore proper and necessary that we continue to work with national and
international groups to provide humane care for horses intended for slaughter and
maintain as much consensus and practicality on these issues as possible.”5
One concern expressed by the earlier bills’ opponents is that “rescued” horses are
more likely to become neglected and abused by owners who lack the knowledge, financial
resources, and/or interest to care for them. At the same time, the existing U.S. horse
infrastructure cannot absorb the large numbers of animals that would be confiscated or
otherwise diverted from slaughter as a result of a slaughter prohibition, opponents of such
a ban believe. The American Horse Protection Association (AHPA) is opposed to the
slaughter of horses for food but did not endorse the slaughter ban bills in the 108th
Congress. AHPA, which maintains a list of U.S. and foreign horse sanctuaries, had
observed that not all sanctuaries may have the means or business skills to take in large
numbers of horses, and that no nationwide standard-setting or oversight system exists for
them.6 A Texas rescue group stated: “Some equine rescues are large organizations with
a system of checks that keep everyone honest. Others may be small one or two person
operations. There are no national oversight organizations that can verify the honesty of
a nonprofit equine rescue.”7
The National Horse Protection Coalition (NHPC), whose goal was passage of H.R.
857, asserted that sanctuary associations have accreditation programs and “strict
guidelines” for the sanctuaries, and that state and local animal welfare laws exist to ensure
humane animal care. Others countered that such guidelines, if they exist, have not been
developed, endorsed, or overseen by any professionally recognized group or government
authority. Also, most state and local laws are anti-cruelty measures used to react to
existing cases of mistreatment; they are not proactive care standards, it has been argued.
Some experts including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) observe
that equine shelters are less well-established than cat and dog shelters, which often are
associated with local governments and humane societies. Citing the “extreme costs” and
4 Animal Welfare Institute, Horse Slaughter, at [http://www.awionline.org]. As noted, the
Humane Slaughter Act was passed to prevent suffering at the plants, and the 1996 farm bill
directed USDA to adopt guidelines for humane shipment. AWI calls these guidelines
“substandard.”
5 Reece and others, “Equine Slaughter Transport — Update on Research and Regulations,”
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, April 15, 2000.
6 Personal communication, May 4, 2004, AHPA.
7 Habitat for Horses, Inc., Texas, at [http://www.habitatforhorses.org/rescues/rescuelinks.html].
CRS-6
staff time needed to shelter horses, HSUS warned of needing to be aware of “distinctions
between sheltering horses and sheltering other companion animals.”8 The American
Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) estimated that the cost of a horse’s basic care
approximates $1,825 annually, exclusive of veterinary and farrier care. Horses can live
many years after they are retired from service, according to experts.
NHPC responded: “Not every horse currently going to slaughter will be rescued by
one of these non-profit organizations, but many horses will be kept longer, will be sold
directly to a new owner ... or will be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian,”
among other alternatives. Euthanasia methods — primarily chemical injection and in
some emergency situations, gunshots — are considered by the NHPC and others to be
more humane than slaughter, which generally involves stunning with a captive bolt to
make the animal unconscious before it is killed and bled. Euthanasia averages from $50
to $150 per horse, a “tiny fraction of the cost of keeping a horse as a companion or work
animal,” NHPC has stated in response to arguments about the high expense of dealing
with a horse diverted from slaughter. Also, with passage of the bill, rescue organizations
could redirect resources away from advocating a slaughter ban and outbidding the dealers
seeking horses for the meat market, and toward the horses’ care, NHPC had argued.9
Bill opponents also contend that the need to dispose of many additional horses each
year could create environmental problems, such as soil and groundwater contamination.
Bill supporters counter that hundreds of thousands of U.S. horses die naturally or are
euthanized each year, and are now safely disposed of. Many are not buried but sent to
rendering plants, where their remains are used in industrial products and animal feeds.
Renderers already handle millions of cattle and hogs that die before slaughter; another
90,000 horses easily could be absorbed into the existing system, they maintain.10
The debate over U.S. horse slaughter for human consumption “has brought attention
to the plight of tens of thousands of unwanted horses,” the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) declared recently. Many thousands of unwanted horses exist
beyond those horses slaughtered for human food and the wild horses rounded up by BLM
but not adopted, according to horse experts who participated in a recent panel discussion.
Cutbacks in the pregnant mare urine industry last year left an estimated 20,000 mares
without homes; another 100,000 or more horses die or are euthanized each year on farms,
according to one equine veterinarian.11
8 HSUS, Animal Sheltering, May-June 2000 issue.
9 NHPC website, accessed in May 2004 at [http://www.horse-protection.org/info.php?id=30].
10 One expert estimated that almost 200,000 deceased horses (or 3% to 4% of the total U.S.
equine population) must be disposed of annually, of which about a third are processed for human
food. Source: Messer, Nat T. IV, DVM. “The Plight of the Unwanted Horse: Scope of the
Problem,” at an April 19, 2005, Washington, D.C. workshop on unwanted horses. (See also CRS
Report RS21771, Animal Rendering: Economics and Policy, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
11 At the December 2004, AAEP Annual Convention in Denver; reported February 1, 2005, by
AVMA in “The Unwanted Horse,” at [http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb05/050201d.asp].