Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Horse slaughter: the meat of the matter now that Congress has lifted controversial ban
If you're of a certain age, you might recall that until the 1940's, horse was eaten in the United States--most notably during World War II, when beef prices rose and supply dwindled. By the eighties, dining on Mr. Ed definitely wasn't culturally acceptable, even if purchased for "pet food," and in 1998, California Proposition 6 outlawed horse meat and slaughter for human consumption.
Why, when so much of the world--including much of the EU, Central Asia, Polynesia, Latin America, and Japan--routinely dines upon this delicious, lean, low cholesterol, abundant meat, do we shun it? Blame anthropomorphism and our fervent equestrian culture. Like dogs, cats, guinea pig, alpaca, and other cute, furry creatures consumed with gusto by other ethnicities, Americans just aren't down with eating what we consider pets.
According to The Chicago Tribune, however, it's likely that at least one national horse abattoir (slaughterhouse) will be opening soon, most likely in the Midwest. As stated in the story, "Congress lifted the ban in a spending bill President Barack Obama signed into law Nov. 18 to keep the government afloat until mid-December."
Before you get on your high horse (sorry) over this seemingly inhumane turn of events, let's examine why the ban was passed in the first place, and why reversing it isn't necessarily a bad thing. I should also state that I grew up on a horse ranch, and to me, meat is meat. My issues regarding its consumption have and always will lie with humane treatment of said animals during their life up until what should be a quick, merciful death. Is there such a thing as a humane death? Let's just say that some methods of livestock slaughter are less traumatic than others. But that's a separate issue, and not the point of this piece.
Despite our cultural aversion to eating horse, the U.S. still slaughtered old, sick,and injured animals, as well as retired racehorses. Even young healthy animals were sent to slaughter for a variety of reasons including overbreeding, profit, or abandonment. Even wild horses and burros were rounded up for slaughter as part of culling programs; it's still necessary to thin herds to keep them sustainable, as well as protect their habitat from overgrazing and erosion; starvation and predation are cruel deaths. Fortunately, these animals are now protected species and legally can't be sent to slaughter, so they're put up for adoption. The downside? What happens to aging and unsound animals, now that rescues and sanctuaries are at capacity and struggling for funding?
The U.S. exported horse meat to countries that do consume it, although it was also sold domestically to feed zoo animals. In 2007, the last horse slaughterhouse in the U.S., in DeKalb, Illinois, was shut down by court order, and that was that until the ban was lifted last month.
Photo credit: Flicker user Atli Harðarson]
Is this a good thing? The result of abattoir closures means that there's no outlet–-humane or otherwise–-for horses that can no longer be used for work or pleasure. Few people can afford to keep horses as pets due to age, illness, or injury, and as previously stated, most horse rescues are at capacity or struggling to find funding. The recession has only increased this problem.The Tribune cites a federal report from June, 2011, that noted local animal welfare organizations reported a spike in investigations for horse neglect and abandonment since 2007. In Colorado, for example, data showed that investigations for horse neglect and abuse increased more than 60 percent -- from 975 in 2005 to almost 1,600 in 2009. Explains Cheri White Owl, founder of the Oklahoma nonprofit Horse Feathers Equine Rescue, "People [are] deciding to pay their mortgage or keep their horse."
Adds Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker and vice president of the non-profit, pro-slaughter organization United Horsemen, "Ranchers used to be able to sell horses that were too old or unfit for work to slaughterhouses but now they have to ship them to butchers in Canada and Mexico [the latter of which has even more inhumane handling and shipping practices], where they fetch less than half the price."
The Tribune reports that the U.S. Government Accountability Office also determined that about 138,000 horses were shipped to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010: nearly the same number that were killed in the U.S. before the ban took effect in 2007.
I'm not disputing the lack of humanity previously displayed by U.S. livestock auctions and transport companies taking horses to slaughter (current treatment of other livestock: also fodder for another story). Fortunately, the 1996 federal Farm Bill mandated more humane conditions. Unfortunately, it didn't go into effect until 2001. And the down side of reinstating horse abattoirs here, according to the Tribune, is that the Obama's ban-reversal won't "allocate any new money to pay for horse meat inspections, which opponents claim could cost taxpayers $3 million to $5 million a year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would have to find the money in its existing budget, which is expected to see more cuts this year as Congress and the White House aim to trim federal spending."
Animal welfare aside, the loss of horse abattoirs is a divisive issue. I'm of the opinion that it's impractical and wasteful to not have an outlet for surplus animals. This, of course, assuming the transport and facilities abide by regulations. I'm not a supporter of industrial livestock production and thus large abattoirs, which have been documented to cause undue stress to animals. Despite that issue, isn't it ultimately more kind to put an end to their suffering, and make good use of the meat?
Proponents of horse slaughter frequently make the comparison to the millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized yearly in the U.S., because their owners were too irresponsible to spay or neuter. The cremation of these poor creatures is more than just a senseless loss of life: it's wasteful.
While I'm sympathetic to recession-impacted horse owners, keeping a horse isn't cheap no matter what your financial situation. When you buy, adopt, or take in any "pet," you're responsible for its welfare. If you can't commit to providing for that animal for the duration of its life (barring certain illness/injury situations), have the decency to do the necessary research and surrender it to a reputable animal rescue or loving home.
If you're not capable of that, a.) please don't ever have children, and b.) never own a pet. It's a living creature, not a toy, and I have absolutely no tolerance for irresponsible pet owners. There are valid arguments on both sides of the horse slaughter debate, but at the end of the day, the most important thing is the humane treatment of the animals in question.
[Photo credits: cheval, Flicker user noodlepie; sashimi, Flickr user rc!]
Filed under: Activism, Arts and Culture, Business, Food and Drink, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Japan, United States, News, Consumer Activism, Central America
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
abs Dec 4th 2011 12:39PM
Are you seriously suggesting that stray dogs and cats, instead of being euthanized, should actually be butchered to make use of their meat?
Gobble Dec 4th 2011 12:49PM
The ban resulted in shipping horses to Mexico where we know humane conditions seldom exist. Another government regulation that backfired and made things worse. Reversing the ban is the right thing to do.
Laurel Dec 4th 2011 1:05PM
ABS, I'm making the point that other countries--most of them developing
nations suffering dire poverty and malnourishment--don't have a
problem with eating "alternative meat" sources. It's why they do it.
We may consider it disgusting by our cultural standards, but there's
nothing wrong with it (removing the issue of lack of humane treatment,
which continues to be a problem).
We're very blessed to live in an industrialized nation where true
starvation isn't an issue. Perhaps this is why we condone the
senseless euthanization and subsequent disposal of millions of dogs
and cats each day.
While I personally don't have a problem with eating these animals (and
during my travels, I have eaten dog, as well as horse, and a host of
other "pets"), I realize Americans are never going to accept dining on
shelter pets (which would also require an alternative method of
euthanization to render them fit for human or animal consumption). I'm
using this example to prove a point:
Most Americans are very hypocritical about meat consumption, or at
least the consumption of specific species. We judge other cultures,
yet many of us refuse or neglect to spay or neuter our pets. When some
horse owners can no longer afford to keep their animals, they abandon
them or have them euthanized rather than taking the time for find a
home for them.THAT is animal cruelty
AAMI Dec 5th 2011 8:57AM
The Intended Consequences of Horse Slaughter
Since the closure of the US horse slaughtering plants the pro slaughter groups have spent millions of dollars on paid lobbyists and propaganda in an effort to re-open slaughter facilities. They achieved a small victory last month when a few politicians held a closed door session and removed language from the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would have continued to ban funding for USDA inspectors in horse slaughtering plants. This decision was based on misinformation provided by various pro slaughter and special interest groups.
Due to economic conditions every small animal rescue in this country has experienced a significant increase in abandonment and neglect cases. However, pro horse slaughter articles cite the closure of the US slaughter plants as the sole reason for equine cases. Horse owners still have the option to sell and ship to slaughter but approximately the same number of American horses have been slaughtered each year since the US plants were closed as when the plants were open. Since the slaughter option is still available, it’s ridiculous to assume that owners are starving and abandoning horses because of the location of slaughter plants. If a true relationship existed between slaughter and the number of abuse/neglect cases, the number of horses slaughtered would have significantly increased while the number of abandonment and abuse cases would have decreased.
Pro slaughter groups claim that opening plants in the US will create jobs and increase tax revenue. The last three plants in the US, all foreign owned, employed less than 200 people in low-paying positions with the majority of the workers proven to be undocumented. In one year the Beltex plant in Texas generated millions in income but paid a total of $5 in federal income taxes. This was largely due to the tax benefits offered to foreign owned corporations which is why they operated plants in the US as opposed to their own countries. The cost to the communities in which these plants resided was astronomical. Regardless of EPA oversight, regulations continued to be ignored. The plants were repeatedly charged with wastewater violations. In some areas this illegal activity caused blood products to seep into homes. The same violations take place at the Canadian slaughter plants one of which was recently closed after it was found to be illegally dumping truckloads of blood into a river. In every area in which a horse slaughtering plant existed, increases in crime, including stolen horse cases, and decreases in property values occurred.
Those in favor of slaughtering horses claim that horse flesh is safe to consume. This may have been true in the 1920’s and 1930’s before the widespread use of equine medications became commonplace. Currently, we give our horses numerous medications to keep them healthy and comfortable. One of the most regularly used medications is Phenylbutazone (bute). Bute, an NSAID, is as common to equines as aspirin is to humans. At one time this drug was prescribed to humans but was pulled from the market after causing significant health detriments including deaths due to aplastic anemia. While the US plants tested for bute, of the 140,000 horses slaughtered in 2005 only 318 samples were taken. Of these, 10% were positive for bute. More frightening is the fact that the samples were tested using the ELISA method which is a urine based test. There is no research to show how long bute or its many metabolites remain in muscle tissue which is precisely why the FDA completely bans this product from use in food producing animals. Even pet food manufacturers understand the hazards of bute which is why in the 1970’s they ceased using horse meat in their products.
Other often used arguments claim that domestic slaughter is needed in order to set a minimum value for horses and to provide an outlet for old, sick and crippled horses. These arguments are based on an opinion that some owners, who value quantity over quality, and irresponsibility over doing the right thing, should be rewarded for producing a product which has no real marketable value. In other words, they want a set financial reward for producing an unwanted or unmarketable product instead of having to incur a cost to dispose of the product. Every industry relies on demand to price a product but the pro slaughter minority subset of the equine industry wants a base price set on supply. The ‘old, sick, and crippled’ argument is negated by the consistent reporting by the USDA that nearly 95% of horses slaughtered in the US were young and in good condition.
The last of the most often used pro slaughter arguments relates to the cost of humane euthanasia and disposal of horses. The cost of such averages $350. This amount is less than the monthly cost at a typical boarding facility and is not much more than the cost to euthanize and cremate a canine. Even the cost of a low quality, run of the mill saddle exceeds the cost of euthanasia and disposal.
Slaughter is not a humane death for horses. The USDA provided proof of this when they obliged a FOIA request for documented violations which occurred at the Beltex plant in Texas from January to November of 2005. This report is over 900 pages long and cites violations ranging from issues with transporting and incomplete documentation to the inhumane activities observed throughout the slaughter process which included horses still functioning and able to feel pain when bled out and vivisected.
With animal ownership comes the responsibility to provide food, water, safe shelter, and a humane death. Common sense dictates that the larger the animal, the greater the costs. One cost that none of should have to incur is the cost of providing USDA inspectors in horse slaughtering plants. If the taxpayer funded USDA can spare millions of dollars, this money should be used to inspect facilities that produce or import products that Americans consume, not toxic products sold to unsuspecting foreign markets.
Animal Advocates of Michigan
Karlee Dec 4th 2011 9:37PM
The term Humane Horse Slaughter does not exsist. You are a hypocrite if you are for horse slaughter due to the fact of all the neglect and horse abuse in our country. It is a PROVEN fact that horse neglect decreased when horse slaughter was banned in Calif 1998. Actually legalized horse slaughter will just cause people to hoard them and try to save as many horses as they can from slaughter, which in turn causes neglect because that person usually is not capable of providing for that many horses.
The last three slaughterhouses in the U.S. to close were foreign owned, employed undocumented workers, and devalued the properties around it. Which means all the money did not go into our economy and did not create a lot of jobs.
As far as the cost of humane euthanasia being a factor....It costs, on average, $250 to keep a horse each month. You will be lucky to get $500 for a horse for meat. If you look at this from an economic stand point, it shows that a person pouring $250 a month into our economy is better than someone putting in $500 just one time. Horse are better for out market alive than dead.
And the USDA said 92% (not 95%) of horses sent to slaughter were of normal health and weight.
Lets talk about that meat now....Horses, unlike cattle and swine, are not raised to be eaten. They are given dewormers and this nice little medicine called "bute" which will contaminate any meat and therefore it cannot be used.
Those are all of my logical arguments.....
Now for you to call the cremation of dogs and cats a waste, well then , what is your opinion on human corpses? should we eat them too? there are cannibals in other countries and we have resorted to cannibalism in this country too (donner party) so those arguments of yours are very invalid and useless against this subject.
Laurel Dec 4th 2011 9:54PM
Hi Readers,
Karlee raises an excellent point, with regard to human corpses. Suggested reading for anyone wanting to learn more about green burial:
http://www.utne.com/mind-body/Composting-Your-Body-The-New-Green-Burial.aspx. Sweden is on the (ahem) cutting edge of this technology.
The very excellent book Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, by Mary Roach, has more detailed information on this subject.
JRS Dec 4th 2011 11:10PM
"Why, when so much of the world--including much of the EU, Central Asia, Polynesia, Latin America, and Japan--routinely dines upon this delicious, lean, low cholesterol, abundant meat, do we shun it? Blame anthropomorphism and our fervent equestrian culture. Like dogs, cats, guinea pig, alpaca, and other cute, furry creatures consumed with gusto by other ethnicities, Americans just aren't down with eating what we consider pets."
I believe you've hit the nail on the head with this statement....Americans just aren't down with eating what we consider pets. Other cultures can do what they want...it's THEIR culture, NOT ours and we, as Americans, living in America, should not have to agree, nor condone, nor assist, nor supply or pay for with our tax dollars, something we find distasteful. In this case, horse meat. If other cultures want to consume it, then let them supply their own.
Horse slaughter is not and never will be humane and it's not the answer to the alleged excess horse problem. The answer is STOP over breeding by registries like the AQHA who supplies most of the 100,000+ horses sent for slaughter to Canada and Mexico,. The AQHA registers more than 100,000 new foals each and every year, and has done so for decades and even during the years since slaughter was banned in the US in 2007. In 1990, more than 350,000 horses were slaughtered in the US, and that was well before the ban. This is NOT a new problem, and obviously slaughter has not and will not ever be the solution to abuse or neglect. The pro slaughter people can spin it any way they want, but the fact of the matter is, slaughter has never prevented any of the problems it is supposed to cure...it only exacerbates them.
Jennifer Madden DVM Dec 4th 2011 11:16PM
For the first, you imply that wild horses and burros die mainly from starvation and predation, a "fate far worse than the abbatoir". Seems to me (call me a doctor) that old age might figure in as well, and predation has actually been proven to be pretty painless due to natural shock reactions and given what I've seen from slaughterhouse videos, a lot more efficient and quick. Although our BLM likes to claim starvation is rampant on the range, the many photos of fat, slick mustangs and burros seem to bely this. Yearly statistics prove that from 93 to 95% of all horses presented to slaughter are young, sound and fat, not the old and infirm you claim we need this outlet for. Racetrack rejects? Now that's pretty true. Greater than 70% of all Thoroughbreds raised for racing, some claim, die before reaching the age of 7 years, used up in an industry where money is everything and the horses are pawns in a game. Ending slaughter completely, even the out of country shipping, could perhaps end all that overbreeding as the industry would have to deal with those slow but lovely horses, rather than kill them to make room for next year's gamble.
And the drug residues are a very real threat to human as well as pet health when it comes to consuming American horse flesh. All those drugs we give our horses? Most are marked clearly: Not for use in food producing animals.
No withdrawal times, just NOT FOR USE. as in, no safe with holding period.
Get your facts straight, mr. reporter. I think your article is rather biased, and glib. More like an infomercial than true reporting. For shame.
Carolannlocks Dec 5th 2011 12:23AM
I agree with your comments. Overbreeding is the whole problem. I actually am a fan of horseracing & i own 1 horse -he is a warmblood & i ride dressage however, i feel that breeders should be limited on what they breed & i think it should be enforced -which is actually quite easy on the track- you have to have your horse registered and he has a racing no. in order to race him/her- i think if they regulated that industry as well as the AQHA with their bluebloods you would see a huge , and i mean huge difference. It would take a couple of years to actaully see the difference however it would happen. I almost welcome this hay rise and the recession- cause maybe horse breeders will slow they busines down a litle.
Meg Pylant Dec 4th 2011 11:25PM
What are you suggesting, we eat our cats and dogs? What's next, aborted babies? We are talking about the American horse here, our American Icon, a part of our culture for centuries. Now you speak as though America should adopt the culture of other countries. How is it you think our horses should become food for other countries and tax payers pay for it. 70+% Americans oppose slaughter and the consumption of horse meat which is carcinogenic to humans. So are you suggesting that we poison people, give Aplastic anemia to children because that is exactly what you are promoting? We don't raise horses for slaughter and that is why 99% have been given prohibited meds that makes their meat unsafe to consume. Next you will be saying we should eat Uncle Bob when he dies and not waste his meat. This is purely disgusting.
Morgan Griffith Dec 4th 2011 11:43PM
The overwhelming majority of people here in the United States do not eat horses. That's just a fact. We don't want to see horse meat in our grocery stores all wrapped in plastic. The ugly side of politics allowed just 3 legislators to remove the amendment that had been in place defunding USDA inspectors for horse meat. The estimated cost would be at least $5 million dollars to inspect meat we do not consume. This at a time when the hue and cry is to save money on government programs. Now these 3 legislators in all their wisdom and lack of concern to the wishes of most Americans did not insist on language that would give additional funding to pay for these inspections. Now the already thinly spread USDA inspectors will have to be taken away from inspecting the food we do consume to go inspect food we do not consume. The effects of tainted food products have been in the news a lot lately. Every year U.S. citizens die from tainted foods. Now thanks to a small handful of people who this industry would benefit the food that I do consume will be less safe.
On another note I would like to point out that when the horse slaughter plants were up and running before they completely overwhelmed the water treating plants of the towns that housed them. About a hundred thousand dollars of fines were left unpaid while the slaughterhouse's bled dry the legal funds of the city through numerous court precedings. Are these investors going to build a new sewage/water treatment plant in the next town they ruin? Property values plummeted, businesses suffered and tourism-forget about that. Who wants to visit a town that literally reeks from the smell of slaughter?
Roy Hobbs Dec 5th 2011 1:19AM
I personally would never eat horse meat and I don't support killing horses to profit off their death. I stopped eating animals and dairy products 20 years ago. First for health reasons due to an intensive travel schedule. Later I became more aware of how animals in factory settings are treated, I decided that I did not want my lifestyle to contribute to animal cruelty and confinement. I became convinced that meat and dairy is not the best option for me, and in general the American public is overweight and suffering from multiple ailments that lead directly back to consuming animal products. To me it's not worth it. I can understand why people still eat them as I grew up eating pigs, cows, chickens also. I am glad however that I stopped.
Horses to me are in a really tough place in our society. Some say livestock. Some say companion animal. Some say they are a cross between the two. I grew up with horses and my Dad is a veterinarian and now I have family members on the hunter/jumper circuit, and my Dad has 5 horses that he considers companion animals. He feels good caring for them, and they have a wonderful home.
My main concern if they reopen the plants, is how the horses might or might not be treated from the time they are bought to the time they are shot with a captive bolt gun. Those for slaughter and those that will work the plants have had 5 years to consider the serious atrocities of the past : improper transportation, abusive handling, lack of food/water, failed plant inspections/violations, and documented links back to the BLM with trucks full of wild mustangs coming off the range or directly from long term holding areas. Will they do better? Can do they do better? 24/7 monitoring via a 3rd party will be the only way to know if they will for the horse's sake.
Corette Rushton Dec 5th 2011 3:33AM
They are in there until the they need the animal. It is plain horrible, and i don't like it.
http://free.yudu.com/item/details/445269/Hcg-Ultra
justruss Dec 5th 2011 8:14AM
I would suggest that the ban on slaughtering horses for meat was not constitutional and would not have withstood a serious test had one been made.
I'll not judge other cultures or people based upon their dietary choices.
ramerd Dec 6th 2011 1:56AM
ブティックをご覧ください。披露宴ドレスのブティックは、アイデアのために買い物に最適な場所です。彼らは、デザイナーのさまざまなガウンの幅広い選択を運ぶ。 5または6 カラードレス 格安ブティックにショッピングを制限し、お好みのウェディングドレス格安の詳細をメモするノートブックを持っていくようにしてください。可能であればより多くの個別の関心を受けることができるように、、、週末や夕方などの忙しい時間を避けてください。
Styggiti Dec 6th 2011 4:40PM
Just a quick fact check. You say "... millions of dogs and cats that are euthanized daily in the U.S." The number of companion animals (mainly cats and dogs) that are euthanized in the U.S. is actually 3-4 million per year, not per day:
http://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.aspx