Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
August 15, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21842
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
Summary
In 2006, two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food,
mainly for European and Asian consumers. In 2007, court action effectively closed the Texas
plants, and a state ban in Illinois closed that plant. However, horses continue to be shipped to
Mexico and Canada for slaughter, and several states have explored opening horse slaughtering
facilities. Animal welfare activists and advocates for horses continue to press Congress for a
federal ban. Bills in the 111th Congress would have made it a crime to knowingly possess, ship,
transport, sell, deliver, or receive any horse, carcass, or horse flesh intended for human
consumption. The bills were referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, respectively, and no further action
was taken. Companion bills entitled the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011 (S.
1176 and H.R. 2966) were introduced by Senator Landrieu and Representative Burton in June and
September 2011, respectively. The bills would amend the Horse Protection Act (P.L. 91-540) to
prohibit shipping, transporting, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating horses and other
equines to be slaughtered for human consumption. The bills were referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and to the House Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
A general provision in the House-passed FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2112,
§739) would have continued to prohibit any funds to pay salaries or expenses of the Food Safety
Inspection Service personnel to inspect horses under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
603). This general provision was not included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112, nor was
it included in the final bill (P.L. 112-55). Without this provision, FSIS could again inspect horse
meat. A facility in New Mexico became the first to apply for a grant of inspection from FSIS
following the lifting of the ban. Another facility in Missouri also has an application pending.
However, the FY2013 House agriculture appropriations bill (§744, H.R. 5973) would reinstate
the ban.
The provision had been included in Agriculture appropriations bills since 2008. The ban does not
prohibit the transport of U.S. horses into Canada or Mexico for slaughter. Its absence in P.L. 112-
55 may have reflected a June 2011 Government Accountability Office report that recommended
action on the unintended consequences of ending horse slaughter in 2007. The report provided
evidence of a rise in state and local investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses
since 2007. Some opponents of the horse slaughter ban, including the American Veterinary
Medical Association, have argued that humane slaughter in the United States is preferable to less-
regulated slaughter in Mexican abattoirs, or more humane than abandoning unwanted horses to
starve because owners can no longer afford to feed and care for the animals. Animal welfare
groups have countered the argument that there are large numbers of unwanted horses being
abandoned.
Congressional Research Service
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Federal Law............................................................................................................................... 1
Legal Developments.................................................................................................................. 2
Federal Legislation .......................................................................................................................... 2
USDA Appropriations Bans ...................................................................................................... 2
Legislation in the 112th Congress .............................................................................................. 3
Legislation in the 111th Congress............................................................................................... 4
Legislation in the 110th Congress .............................................................................................. 5
Legislation in the 109th Congress .............................................................................................. 5
Wild Horses and Burros............................................................................................................. 6
Selected Arguments ......................................................................................................................... 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 8
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 8
Congressional Research Service
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
Overview
Nearly 105,000 horses were slaughtered for human food in 2006, all in two foreign-owned Texas
plants and a third foreign plant in Illinois, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Virtually all the meat was for export, the largest markets being France, Belgium,
Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. The United States exported more than 17,000 metric tons
of horse meat valued at about $65 million in 2006. Most of these horses were raised for other
purposes, like riding. Dealers collected them for the plants from auctions, boarding facilities, and
elsewhere. Although U.S. horse slaughter had been rising since 2002—before a series of court
actions closed the three plants in 2007—it remained below levels of the 1980s, when more than
300,000 were processed annually in at least 16 U.S. plants.
Although U.S. slaughter has ended for the present, advocates continue to support federal
legislation to ban it permanently. They—and those who have opposed a permanent ban—also
express concern about the shipment of more U.S. horses to Canada and Mexico, where plants can
still slaughter them for food.
Federal Law
Outside of recent appropriations measures (see below), federal laws neither ban the use of
equines for food nor set on-farm care standards. Protection usually has been subject to varying
state and local laws. Some of these laws may set care standards, although more are likely to be
anti-cruelty measures. However, U.S. horse slaughter plants were long subject to the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) of 1906, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), which requires USDA
to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and equines slaughtered and processed into products for
human food. This act, administered by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), aims
to ensure that meat and meat products from these animals are safe, wholesome, and properly
labeled. FSIS safety 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 Methods of 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 graders from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 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 had to be shipped long distances to reach the few U.S. plants that, until 2007, were
slaughtering them. Horse advocates and animal 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 authorized 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
Congressional Research Service
1
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
effective on February 5, 2002.1 APHIS has recently amended its regulations regarding the
commercial transportation of equines to slaughter. In particular, the amended regulations (9
C.F.R. Part 88) will extend the humane treatment regulations for horses bound for slaughter, but
delivered first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. The new regulations, effective October
7, 2011, also ban the use of double-deck trailers when equines are transported directly to
slaughter houses.2
Legal Developments
Several states have laws aimed at preventing the slaughter of horses for human food. A federal
lawsuit filed by the owners of the two Texas slaughter plants, Beltex Corporation and Dallas
Crown, Inc., sought to clarify that the Texas state law banning the sale of horsemeat, first passed
in 1949, was not enforceable and that they should not be prosecuted. The U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth had earlier agreed with the plants’ owners that the
law had been repealed, was preempted by the FMIA, and violated the dormant Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution. However, on January 19, 2007, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit rejected all three arguments, declaring the Texas law to be in force and clearing
the way for the state attorney general to prosecute the plant owners if they continued to operate.
The two plants have ceased slaughtering horses for human food.
The Illinois legislature in May 2007 passed a law banning horse slaughter. The Illinois plant
(owned by Cavel International) was able to operate until September 2007, when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the state law does not violate the interstate and foreign
commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The plant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
in June 2008 declined to hear the case.
Several states (e.g., South Dakota, North Dakota, Tennessee, Missouri, Idaho), however, have
considering establishing horse processing facilities since the federal legislation was enacted.
Legislation to permit investor-owned equine processing facilities in Montana went into effect in
May 2009. In Nebraska, a bill was introduced in 2011 to create a state meat inspection program
that could sidestep mandates of the FMIA.
Federal Legislation
USDA Appropriations Bans
During debate on USDA’s FY2006 appropriation (H.R. 2744), the House on June 8, 2005,
approved, 269 to 158, an amendment by Representative Sweeney 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 Senator 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, retained this amendment, but delayed the effective date for 120 days.
1 Other federal laws protect horses used in research, and ban “soring” for shows. See CRS Report 94-731, Brief
Summaries of Federal Animal Protection Statutes, by Vivian S. Chu.
2 Federal Register, vol. 76, no. 173, pp. 55213-55217.
Congressional Research Service
2
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
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 the
plants could no longer process them for human food. However, the final House-Senate report
stated: “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 §794 prohibits the use of
appropriations only for payment of salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horses.”
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. The
plants and other horse slaughter supporters noted that the relatively narrow wording of the
Sweeney-Ensign language only prohibited use of funds for ante-mortem horse inspection under
the FMIA, not for other, post-slaughter inspection activities. They also cited the conference report
language, which stated that USDA still was obliged to conduct inspections.
On February 8, 2006, USDA cited the AMA authority to publish such an interim rule. FSIS
amended existing regulations that apply to “exotic species” (bison, deer, etc.), adding a new
subpart that applied to horses starting March 10, 2006. Under the rule, USDA used many of the
same FMIA guidelines for ante-mortem horse inspection. Also, post-mortem horse inspection
could continue under the FMIA, using appropriated funds.3 Congressional supporters of the
original Sweeney/Ensign amendment objected to the rule, declaring that it circumvented their
clear intent to halt horse slaughter.
The version of the FY2008 USDA appropriation (H.R. 3161, §738) passed by the House in late
July 2007 continued the prohibition against using appropriated funds to inspect horses prior to
slaughter for human food. Furthermore, the measure prohibited the USDA-FSIS rule (see above)
that provided for the collection of user fees as well. The committee-reported Senate version (S.
1859) did not include the ban. In lieu of a freestanding FY2008 bill, Congress included USDA
funding as Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). This
consolidated act (§741) included the House language to ban both appropriated funds and user fees
for horse inspection (although, as noted, slaughter at the three plants already had been halted by
the courts and by state law). The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), which includes
USDA funding as Division A, continued this prohibition (at §739), as does the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
(P.L. 111-80).
Legislation in the 112th Congress
Companion bills entitled the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011 (S. 1176/H.R.
2966) were introduced by Senator Landrieu and Representative Burton in June and September
2011, respectively. The bills would amend the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-540) to
prohibit shipping, transporting, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donating horses and other
equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.
3 USDA’s rule estimated that the new fees would amount to between $68,000 to $102,000 during FY2006. Total salary
costs for the six federal inspectors who staffed the three horse processing plants were about $400,000 per year; this
excludes some expenses such as lab fees and the costs of relief inspectors. Source: May 16, 2006, telephone
communication with FSIS budget official.
Congressional Research Service
3
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
A general provision in the House-passed FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2112,
§739) would have continued to prohibit any funds to pay salaries or expenses of Food Safety
Inspection Service personnel to inspect horse meat. The general provision stated that no funds
could be used to pay salaries and expenses of personnel to (1) inspect horses under Section 3 of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603); (2) inspect horses under Section 903 of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127); or (3) implement or
enforce Section 352.19 of Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations. This general provision was not
included in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112, nor was it included in the final bill (P.L. 112-
55). Without this provision, FSIS can again inspect horse meat.
USDA has stated that, although the limitation on FSIS inspection has been lifted, there are still
significant regulatory obstacles to resurrecting horse slaughter in the United States.4 For example,
any processing facility will have to obtain a federal grant of inspection, conduct a hazard analysis,
and develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan prior to the processing
of any horses for human consumption. A facility in New Mexico became the first to apply for a
grant of inspection from FSIS following the lifting of the ban. Another application is pending for
a plant in Missouri, and there are plans to open other facilities in Wyoming and Oklahoma.
The FY2013 House agriculture appropriations bill (§744, H.R. 5973) would reinstate the ban. The
Senate appropriations bill does not reinstate the ban.
As discussed above, the provision had been included in Agriculture appropriations bills since
2008. Its absence in P.L. 112-55 may reflect a June 2011 Government Accountability Office
report that recommended action on the unintended consequences of ending horse slaughter in
2007. The report provided evidence of a rise in state and local investigations for horse neglect and
more abandoned horses since 2007. Some opponents of the horse slaughter ban, including the
American Veterinary Medical Association, have argued that humane slaughter in the United
States is preferable to less regulated slaughter in Mexican abattoirs, or more humane than
abandoning unwanted horses to starve because owners can no longer afford to feed and care for
the animals.
A group of horse owners in New Mexico (the New Mexico Horse Council) have sent a letter to
the governor in support of the facility currently with an application before USDA. The letter
argued that humane slaughter is preferable to abandonment, starvation, or long-distance transport
to slaughter facilities in other countries. The New Mexico administration opposes horse slaughter
and has called on USDA to deny the petition.5
Legislation in the 111th Congress
H.R. 503, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers, and S. 727, introduced
by Senator Landrieu, were companion bills to amend the criminal portion (Title 18) of the U.S.
Code to make it illegal to knowingly possess, ship, transport, purchase, sell, deliver, or receive
any horse, horseflesh, or carcass intended for human consumption. Violators would have been
4 The Deputy Administrator for FSIS issued a statement on December 9, 2011, that discussed other federal regulatory
barriers that would have to be addressed by slaughtering facilities before such facilities could again begin slaughtering
horses. The statement is accessible at http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/12/09/setting-the-record-straight-on-
congress%e2%80%99-lifting-of-the-ban-on-horse-slaughter.
5 See http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/nm-meat-plant-owner-defends-horse-slaughter-plan.
Congressional Research Service
4
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
subject to fines or up to three years in prison. (A different measure, H.R. 305 by Representative
Kirk, would have prohibited the transportation of horses in double-decker trailers, subjecting
violators to civil penalties of between $100 and $500 for each horse involved.) H.R. 503 and S.
727 were referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, respectively, where no further action was taken in the
111th Congress. H.R. 305 was reported by the House Committee on Transportation (H.Rept. 111-
645) and placed on the Union Calendar, but no further action was taken.
Legislation in the 110th Congress
The Conyers bill had been introduced into the 110th Congress as H.R. 6598.6 The Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6598 on July 31, 2008, and ordered the bill to be favorably
reported (H.Rept. 110-901) on September 23, 2008. Full House action did not occur. (The Kirk
bill banning the movement of horses in double-decker trailers was H.R. 6278 in this Congress.)
Also in the 110th Congress, companion bills to prohibit permanently the movement and slaughter
of horses for human food were introduced by Representative Schakowsky and Senator Landrieu
(H.R. 503, S. 311). These measures would have amended 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
Schakowsky and Landrieu bills would have prohibited 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 would have permitted 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 have been subject to specified criminal and civil penalties
and prison terms. The bills would have increased authorized appropriations for administering the
act from $500,000 to $5 million annually. The Senate Commerce Committee ordered the bill to be
favorably reported (S.Rept. 110-229) on April 25, 2007; full Senate action did not occur.
Legislation in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, the full House had approved H.R. 503 by a 263-146 vote on September 7,
2006, turning aside opposition, and major changes made earlier, by the House Agriculture
Committee. Senate action on S. 1915 did not occur. In the 108th Congress, proposed bills (H.R.
857 and S. 2352) to halt horse slaughter differed in detail from the more recent measures. For
example, these earlier bills did not amend the Horse Protection Act. H.R. 857 and S. 2352 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,
required the owner of a confiscated horse to post a bond sufficient to provide for 60 days of care,
and required the Secretary to make grants to specified rescue facilities willing to accept
confiscated horses.
6 This earlier Conyers bill (H.R. 6598), but not H.R. 503 in the 111th Congress, contained a provision requiring the U.S.
Attorney General to “provide for the humane placement or other humane disposition of any horse seized in connection
with an offense under this section.”
Congressional Research Service
5
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
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. At issue has been whether, and under what conditions, such horses could be
acquired and eventually sold for slaughter. While not concerned with horse slaughter, a bill has
been introduced in the 112th Congress that directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
agreements to manage free-roaming wild horses in and around the Curritick National Wildlife
Refuge in North Carolina (H.R. 306, Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act). As noted above, the
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 2966/S. 1176) would prohibit the
slaughter of other equines as well as horses. An explanation of wild horse and burro management
can be found in CRS Report RL34690, Wild Horses and Burros: Issues and Proposals, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
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 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.
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.”7 The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the
American Association of Equine Practitioners actively opposed H.R. 503. The AVMA opposed
the bill because it did not provide for the care of unwanted horses, or provide funding for the care
and placement of horses seized by the government in accordance with H.R. 503.
One concern expressed by opponents of a ban on horse slaughter 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.8 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
7 Reece and others, “Equine Slaughter Transport—Update on Research and Regulations,” Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, April 15, 2000.
8 Personal communication, May 4, 2004, AHPA.
Congressional Research Service
6
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
person operations. There are no national oversight organizations that can verify the honesty of a
nonprofit equine rescue.”9
The National Horse Protection Coalition (NHPC) asserted that sanctuary associations have
accreditation programs and “strict guidelines,” and that state and local animal welfare laws exist
to ensure humane animal care. Others counter that such guidelines, if they exist, have not been
endorsed or overseen by any nationally recognized authority, and that most state and local laws
are anti-cruelty measures, not proactive care standards.
Some, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have observed 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 staff time needed to shelter
horses, HSUS warned of needing to be aware of “distinctions between sheltering horses and
sheltering other companion animals.”10 The American Association of Equine Practitioners
estimated that the cost of a horse’s basic care approximates $1,825 annually, exclusive of
veterinary and farrier care. A more recent study estimated the annual cost of caring for an
unwanted horse at $2,340.11
NHPC has argued: “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.12
Opponents of a slaughter ban contend that disposing of many additional horses each year could
create environmental problems, such as soil and groundwater contamination. Ban 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, ban supporters maintain.13
9 Habitat for Horses, Inc., Texas, at http://www.habitatforhorses.org/rescues/rescuelinks.html.
10 HSUS, Animal Sheltering, May-June 2000 issue.
11 “The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter (Processing) of Horses in the United States,” for
the Animal Welfare Council, May 15, 2006. The study set the total U.S. horse population at 9.2 million. See
http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.org.
12 Former NHPC website accessed May 2004. In 2008, the NHPC was redirecting its website visitors to the National
Horse Protection League at http://www.horse-protection.org/about/.
13 One expert estimated that almost 200,000 deceased horses must be disposed of annually; 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. Dr. Messer cited similar statistics in an updated presentation at a June
2008 forum entitled “The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now?” The proceedings were accessed May 8, 2009, at
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/FTAAProceedings/unwantedhorseproceedings2008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues
One issue has been whether the unwanted horses that had been sent to U.S. packing plants are
now simply moving into Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered there—and if so, what if anything
should be done to halt the practice. According to USDA, the United States in 2006 exported
nearly 26,000 live horses to Canada and more than 19,000 to Mexico. In 2007, the year all three
U.S. slaughter plants closed, 47,000 U.S. horses went to Canada and 45,000 to Mexico. In 2008,
Canada and Mexico imported approximately 77,000 and 69,000 U.S. horses, respectively. In
2010, nearly 138,000 were transported to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. The American
Veterinary Medical Association, which generally has opposed the slaughter ban legislation, has
asserted that the majority of these horses have been slaughtered for food in those countries, and
otherwise would have been transported and slaughtered in the United States under close U.S.
regulatory oversight and humane conditions.14 Supporters of legislation to ban horse slaughter
argue that one intention of bills such as H.R. 503 and S. 727 in the 111th Congress was to prevent
such exports, by prohibiting the possession, shipment, transport, purchase, sale, delivery, or
reception of a horse “with the intent that it is to be slaughtered for human consumption.” Critics
have countered that enforcement and oversight are problematic once horses leave the country.
In a June 2011 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided evidence of a rise
in state and local investigations for horse neglect and more abandoned horses since 2007.15
California, Texas, and Florida also reported more horses abandoned on private or state land since
2007. Certain animal welfare organizations, however, questioned the relation of ending slaughter
to these problems. The GAO report also noted that with the cessation of domestic horse slaughter,
USDA now lacks the staff and resources at the borders and foreign slaughtering facilities that it once
had in domestic facilities to help identify problems with shipping paperwork or the condition of horses
before they are slaughtered.
Author Contact Information
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Geoffrey S. Becker, Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
14 See also “Horse slaughter conditions in Mexico explored by AAEP group,” JAVMA News, March 1, 2009, accessed
May 8, 2009, at http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar09/090301h.asp.
15 Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Horse Slaughter.
GAO 11-228. June 2011. Report accessible at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-228.
Congressional Research Service
8