Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

History and political aspect behind the treatment of animals in…

- - - - “1870s: Dis-assembly line … By the 1870s, meatpacking plants were using technology like steam power, monorail trolleys, and mechanical mixers, choppers, and stuffers in factory settings where stationary workers doing individual jobs broke down and processed animal carcasses that continuously passed by them. These so-called dis-assembly lines allowed for fast, consistent, and efficient processing. A young entrepreneur named Henry Ford was so inspired by the process when he visited a meat plant that he used the concept for the basis of his automobile assembly lines.”
        
        “1884: Arthur forms the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) … In 1884, President Chester Arthur signed a law that created the BAI. As part of the USDA, the BAI was tasked with preventing sick animals from entering the U.S. food supply. Quarantine stations were set up across several cities to screen and separate diseased imported animals to prevent their meat from going to market.”
        
        “1893: Meat goes to college … In 1893, a University of Minnesota instructor named Andrew Boss taught a course called “Instruction in Killing, Dressing, Cutting, and Curing Meat”—it is the first known higher education course that provided instruction and education related to meatpacking. The moment spawned a revolution in which academia and agriculture would merge. The University of Minnesota unveiled the first meat laboratory around 1900, and in the first two decades of the 20th century, dozens of major colleges and universities across the country began adding courses dealing with livestock and meat.”
        
        “1900: Meatpacking dominates America … By the turn of the 20th century, meatpacking was America’s biggest industry by far. Its $1 billion in annual sales was more than the annual budget of the U.S. government. With demand soaring in America’s ever-expanding cities, enormous slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants emerged in Midwestern hubs like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City that were situated between the vast cattle ranches in the West and the densely populated cities that generated demand in the East. They were built and operated to process as much meat as quickly as possible, which led to ghastly conditions that were unsanitary and unsafe for animals and workers alike.”
        
        “1906: Upton Sinclair publishes 'The Jungle' … One of the most prolific and important writers in American history, Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” in 1906. In graphic detail, the book chronicled the dangerous, cruel, and filthy world where America’s meat was processed, shedding light on the plight of the impoverished and largely immigrant workers who toiled in them for what Sinclair called “wage slavery.” The book did for the meatpacking industry what “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” did for abolitionism a half-century before. An appalled and outraged public demanded action.
        “1906: The Neill-Reynolds report … In response to the public outcry in the wake of “The Jungle,” President Theodore Roosevelt commissioned Charles P. Neill and James Bronson Reynolds to investigate the claims made by Sinclair, which Roosevelt suspected the author might have embellished to advance his socialist agenda. After making surprise inspections to major plants across the country, the Neill-Reynolds report confirmed Sinclair’s assessment of the horrors of the American meat industry. One passage read, “In a word, we saw meat shoveled from filthy wooden floors, piled on tables rarely washed, pushed from room to room in rotten box carts, in all of which processes it was in the way of gathering dirt, splinters, floor filth, and the expectoration of tuberculosis, and other diseased workers.”
        “2001: ‘They Die Piece by Piece’ … On April 10, 2001, the Washington Post printed a front-page story with the headline “They Die Piece by Piece.” Harkening back to Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” the article chronicled in graphic detail appalling and widespread instances of animals commonly and regularly being chopped apart at the joints, bled to death, skinned, disemboweled, dunked in tanks of boiling water, and strung up by a single leg while alive and fully conscious, after being improperly stunned or not stunned at all. Also like “The Jungle,” the article sparked widespread outrage, raised mainstream awareness of animal cruelty at factory farms, and sparked boycotts of fast-food companies driving much of the demand.”
        
        “1906: The Federal Meat Inspection Act … Roosevelt had seen enough, and in 1906, he muscled Congress into passing the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), which he signed the very same year that Sinclair published “The Jungle.” It mandated strictly regulated sanitary conditions for before, during, and after the slaughter of animals, made it a crime to sell misbranded or adulterated cattle, and charged the USDA with conducting meticulous inspections. It also mandated strict inspections for all imported meat.”
        “1906: The Pure Food and Drug Act … On the very same day that Roosevelt signed FMIA, he also signed the Pure Food and Drug Act, a series of significant consumer protections that banned the sale or transport of any goods—including meat—that were mislabeled or impure. It represented the first time that companies had to list active ingredients on labels for things like drugs and cosmetics, and that meatpacking companies were forced to list any preservatives or other chemical agents used in production. Before that, apples were commonly treated with poisonous red dyes and meat was treated with poisons like borax and formaldehyde to kill mold or disguise rot.”
        
        1 more item...
  - - - “By the 1880s, animal slaughtering in the US had become an industrialized, mass-production industry (Pacyga 2008).7 According to some (e.g., Patterson 2002), animal slaughtering became the first mass-production industry in the United States, from which Henry Ford partially adapted his conception of assembly-line production. The industry continued to expand during this period as a result of increasing demand and increased distribution possibilities.” (61)
        “The continued expansion and harmful working and living conditions inside and around slaughterhouses gave rise to labor organizing. During the first two-thirds of the twentieth century labor unions became increasingly powerful in slaughterhouses, even as unions in other industries suffered.” (61) More information in the article.
        
        “Since the industrialization of slaughterhouses, the demand for meat has continued to grow. Despite the fact that per-capita consumption of beef in the US has dropped since the 1970s, the gross amount of meat consumed by the entire population has risen.” (62) More people fueling the expansion of the industry.
        “In 2002, meat and poultry consumption in the U.S. reached its highest level — 219 lbs per person (Marcus 2005). The increase in overall meat consumption, despite the publicized associated health and environmental consequences of meat eating, has been fostered by the low cost of meat (which has been facilitated by the mechanization of meat processing, the increasing economies of scale, and the continued decimation of organized labor in the industry).” (62)
        
        “Finally, profits have been increased by maximizing economies of scale, resulting in plants that can slaughter greater numbers of animals (Broadway and Ward 1990). This trend is evidenced by the increase in the number of large slaughterhouses. Between 1974 and 1997, the number of slaughterhouses employing more than 1000 workers doubled, while the number of plants employing fewer than 1000 workers dropped significantly (Broadway and Stull 2005).” (62).
        
        “IBP further altered the industry by changing the geography of production (Brueggemann and Brown 2003). In the United States and Canada during the Union Stock Yard era, slaughterhouses were located in densely populated urban areas, close to their markets and livestock were transported by rail. However, the importation of live animals to the slaughterhouses in urban centers resulted in a loss of value because of “shrinkage” (cows lose 5% of their weight in only 3 hours of shipping), bruising, and crippling during shipping (Stull and Broadway 1990). With improvements in refrigeration and the popularity of boxed beef, the slaughterhouses could be relocated to communities with smaller populations, near the feedlots, to reduce production costs.11 The slaughterhouses therefore moved from urban areas, such as Chicago, where the Stockyards had closed by 1970 (Azzam 1998), to small towns.” (62) Why slaughterhouses moved.
        “Finally, and related to the previous two steps that IBP took in reshaping the animal slaughtering industry, the company sought new sources of cheap labor. In addition to relocating to right-to-work states, they were able to drive wages down through technological innovations. These innovations made it possible to employ a less skilled workforce, and by locating in small communities where there was not a reservoir of labor available to meet their needs they were able to take advantage of the recruitment of immigrant workers for less pay (Brueggemann and Brown 2003), actually facilitating the entrance of immigrants into communities that had no recent history of immigrant settlement (Gozdziak and Bump 2004). For instance, IBP opened a new meatpacking plant in Garden City, Kansas in 1980, and by 1985 the population had grown by 33%. The majority of the new residents were Southeast Asian refugees and Latinos, many of whom were from Mexico (Stull and Broadway 1990).” (63) Taking advantage of cheap labor from immigrants and trying to drive costs down.
        
        “ Their research has documented ten likely impacts of slaughterhouses moving into an area, including increases in the number of minority workers, low-paying jobs, offensive odors, demand for low-cost housing, strains on local infrastructure, crime, persons utilizing social services, the homeless population, health care strains, and linguistic and cultural differences (Broadway 1994). These impacts can be grouped into three major categories: the impact on the physical environment and human health, the impact on the workers, and the social impacts on communities (these effects are not, of course, mutually exclusive). Each of these categories is examined below in order to provide an understanding of the wide-ranging consequences of the contemporary slaughterhouse.” (63) Impacts of slaughterhouses on the population around it.
        “Negative impacts upon the air and water quality have been documented in regions experiencing growth in the livestock industry (Caldwell 1998; Walker, Rhubart-Berg, McKenzie, Kelling, and Lawrence 2005; Wing, Horton, Muhammad, Grant, Tajik, and Thu 2008). Stull and Broadway (2004) explain that much of the problem is caused by the amount of manure these large operations produce. The nitrogen and phosphorous contained in manure can be extremely dangerous to the environment and human health when they enter the water systems in large quantities.” (63). Environmental impacts of slaughterhouses
        
        “In addition to the dangers posed to human health in the form of pollution caused by the industry, …In the ten year span from 1984 to 1994, deaths from food poisoning more than quadrupled from 2,000 to 9,000 cases (Eisnitz 1997).” (64) Food poisoning cases has risen due to faster production lines and increased demand for meat.
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Trying to give more freedom to animals.
      - Pushing for more animal protection laws and legislation.
      - Undercover investigations uncover a lot in terms of animal treatment.
      - Big companies are also taking part in stopping animal suffering by not supporting ethical businesses. (Look in text for deeper info)
- - - - “The serum industry endorses the animal welfare standards set forth by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), as well as all existing local and national standards relating to the transportation of pregnant cattle and the collection of fetal blood. This article concludes that there is nothing negative or unethical about collecting blood from a dead fetus. Rather it would be unethical not to utilize available fetal tissues obtained from the slaughter of pregnant cattle, especially since FBS, used as an ingredient in cell culture media, contributes greatly to the advancement of the life sciences industry, as well as the replacement and reduction of live animals used in research and testing.” (1)
        
        “The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)[7] and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)[8] have cited scientific evidence showing that the fetus does not suffer when the cow is slaughtered, as long as the fetus remains inside the uterus for 15–20 minutes, the time it takes for the fetus to die.” (2)
        “In practice, when a fetus is detected at slaughter, the intact uterus with the fetus inside is removed from the carcass and taken to a separate room where care is taken to assure the fetus is not exposed to the outside air. Fetuses exposed to the outside air are immediately stunned and euthanized.” (2)
        
        “• The third trimester of gestation is when fetuses develop the relevant anatomical and neurological structures needed to feel pain, discomfort, and distress. • The fetus left inside the intact uterus after slaughter of the cow will remain unconscious and not suffer due to neuro-inhibitors acting on the brain. • Exposure of the fetus to air, outside of the protective environment of the uterus, will arouse the consciousness of the fetus, who will attempt to breathe air and experience possible discomfort. • Inside the uterus, death of the fetus occurs from anoxia within 15–20 minutes, according to OIE and AVMA. However, the ESPA took a more conservative stance, recommending the fetus not be removed from the uterus until at least 30 minutes after the cow has been slaughtered.” (2)
        
        “Remarkable developments in the life sciences have been made possible because of the availability of FBS and other animal serum collected at slaughterhouses. Cell culture techniques allow the development of life-saving (and sometimes Nobel Prize-winning[13] ) medical innovations such as cell, gene, and immune therapies.” (3) Good of FBS
        
        “Serum collected at slaughterhouses is valuable, unique and vital for the life sciences. It should be emphasized that animal serum, especially FBS, has made tremendous contributions to human and animal health, as an ingredient in cell culture media, which goes far beyond the food chain value of the animals which are slaughtered and processed for meat.”
        “Collecting fetal tissues at slaughter from a dead fetus is no different than harvesting tissues and organs for medical purposes from food animals slaughtered for their meat.” (4)
        
        “There is nothing negative or unethical about the process of collecting blood from a dead fetus. The FBS industry endorses the animal welfare standards which require that the extraction of fetal blood be carried out only after the death of the fetus from anoxia while still within the uterus or following stunning and euthanasia. From an ethical perspective, it is preferable to utilize tissues and derivatives obtained from fetuses rather than allowing them to go to waste. Our society has a moral and ethical obligation to: (1) assure that fetuses are properly retrieved and handled at slaughter; and (2) utilize all by-products available from the slaughter process in the most efficient and responsible manner. The production of FBS for furthering research needed to improve human and animal health is one of the most notable methods of achieving this goal.” (4) Conclusion
        Counterclaim
  - - - “Animal handling and transport are the most stressful and dangerous stages in the livestock production chain(5, 20,21). The present data confirm this in that the highest average lesion rates were in animals that had been transported in trucks (85.5 %) and minibuses (83.5 %). Abusive handling practices were also documented such as blows with fists and feet, stepping on the animal, as well as blows with wooden sticks, ropes, whips and rocks, among other stressful treatment (Table 1).” (386)
        
        “Distribution of pre-slaughter lesions in cattle is dominated by small area (2 to 8 cm diameter), and Grade 1 lesions (subcutaneous tissue) largely on the legs, iliac crest and abdomen. Larger, deeper lesions occur mostly in the loin, shoulder and thorax regions(19) . The lesion distribution observed here in SAC differs from the pattern in cattle in that 48% of the lesions were located between the thorax and the abdomen. A number of factors may contribute to this pattern, such as scant adipose tissue coverage, the minimal space provided animals during transport, and inappropriate design of transport vehicles. These factors can facilitate blows and traumas against the surface, walls and floor of the transport space, negatively affecting AW. Another possible factor is the use of ropes tied around the posterior portion of the animal, surrounding the caudal part of the abdomen and cranial region of the rump. Injuries occur when the animals attempt to stand, causing the ropes to scrape them and resulting in extensive surface damage. During transport the animals also bump into each, and hit the walls and/or floor. Inadequate restraints frequently cause unnecessary stress to the animals, as well as injury from the restraining method.” (386) Not good for the animals or the quality of meat.
        
        from the restraining method.” (386) Not good for the animals or the quality of meat.
        “Transport of South American camelids to the Huancavelica municipal slaughterhouse and their handling once there do not promote animal welfare. This was evidenced by evidence of blunt trauma on all the examined carcasses. The most frequent injuries were shallow and located in the thorax and abdomen regions. The absence of conditions promoting animal welfare lowers meat quality, and negatively affects its technological characteristics in storage (reduced preservation time) and processing (economic losses from removal of injured areas and the extra processing time). Consumers of SAC products are increasingly concerned that animal production, transport and slaughter be done under acceptable conditions and managed in a humanitarian manner. This has led to increasing demands for laws and regulations controlling animal welfare, although in Latin America, and especially Peru, any existing regulations are largely ignored. Effective legislation is needed based on research in the area, since animal welfare has both ethical and economic connotations. In addition, scientific research needs to be applied to train SAC producers and processers in prope
  - - - “1. Asphyxia. Fishes are taken out of water and slowly suffocate because they can only get oxygen from water through their gills. It can take up to 15 minutes for them to die.3
      - Chilling. Fishes are submerged in ice or in almost frozen water, causing hypothermia and death. This method does not necessarily reduce sensitivity to pain, as indicated by the fact that the reduction in temperature has been related to an increase in the animals’ levels of cortisone.4
      - Carbon dioxide narcosis. Fishes are put in tanks in which the water has high levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide dissolved in high concentrations in water has a narcotic effect on fishes breathing it. This stuns the fishes, but the process is slow, and as the carbon dioxide begins to affect them, they move around violently and try to escape. They display what in the scientific literature is called “aversive behavior”,5 which is a strong indicator of their being distressed.
      - Bleeding without stunning. Fishes are taken out of the water and, while held manually, their gills or their hearts are cut with a knife so they bleed to death. This process can last between four and 15 minutes or more, during which time the fishes are conscious and struggling, just as other animals would in their situation.” (Methods of killing the fish)
      - “Percussive stunning. The animals are hit with a wooden or plastic club so they lose consciousness. Electrical stunning. This method is used with big fishes. Fishes are stabbed with a harpoon that has an electrical connection. In some cases, this doesn’t work and the fishes remain conscious while bleeding to death.7 In other cases fishes are killed in a way that, at least in theory, cause them less suffering, such as shooting them in their heads.” (Ways of stunning)
        
        “During their trip to the slaughterhouse, animals are crowded together and often have little protection from temperature extremes. They are usually not fed along the way because it’s not in a farmer’s economic interest to give them food when there won’t be time for it to be digested and converted into more flesh,9 and also because it is easier for the truck driver and the slaughterhouse workers if they don’t have to deal with animal waste.”
        
        Notes - the animals are not treated well during or after transportation. They are supposed to be stunned before being killed. Electronarcosis - giving an electric shock to the animals until they are unconscious. Different depending on the type of animal. Bovines are not very good in this article. Carbon dioxide are used to kill the animals. Chickens are boiled alive. Additional factors can cause slaughterhouse deaths to be more painful and stressful such as improperly working equipment or worker brutality. (Look in text for gruesome details.)
- - - - “The primary reservoir for S. enterica is the gastrointestinal tract of humans and animals, particularly poultry, and swine. Contaminated meats, mainly from avian and livestock origin, are the primary sources of human salmonellosis [10].” (438) How the bacteria gets from animals to us.
        
        “Antibiotic use within Nepal is largely unregulated and use within animal medicine does not require veterinary oversight or consultation. …4. However, the lack of regulatory oversight of the sale and distribution of antibiotics makes enforcement of this policy difficult [4].” (443) The antibiotics that the animals are getting may be a reason for antibiotic resistant bacteria.
        
        “The higher rates of NTS positivity and resistance found in slaughterhouse samples versus on-farm samples is concerning, as people will increasingly be exposed to contaminated poultry from slaughterhouses as they purchase rather than raise their own poultry. Poultry represents an important source of both food security and economic security for a growing number of Nepalese. To ensure the success of this industry and the continued health of the population, it is important to understand the risks posed by foodborne pathogens such as NTS. It is also important to understand and regulate the use of antibiotics within this industry. Establishing good antibiotic stewardship, through collaborative education efforts among veterinarians, para-vets, and farmers could help mitigate the resistance of pathogens to antibiotics and improve the efficacy of treatment. Regulatory oversight of water quality, antibiotic sales and use, animal slaughter practices and facility hygiene, along with consumer education about food safety are critical components to control the spillover of drug-resistant strains of NTS from poultry to humans.” (443-444)
  - - - “To reduce the risk of meat borne associated diseases/poisoning inculcating hygienic slaughtering practices is the foremost measure of reducing the contamination of carcasses. …The State departments of animal husbandry should have sufficient delegated authority by district administration to carry meat inspection in the region.” (721-722) Solutions for the contamination problem.
        
        "...non of the veterinary officer/official had participated in any training on meat inspection, meat borne zoonoses, meat acts and bye-laws. ... However, majority of meat handlers in India receive training informally through family members or colleagues only [12]. Most of the butchers working in meat sector in India are not adapted to new meat processing techniques and quality standards. Also, there is no cadre of qualified veterinarians/technicians for meat inspection in many states of India. Therefore, there is an urgent need to train butchers and meat inspectors [10]. Identification of condemned meat, meat borne diseases and their common signs, symptoms, control and prevention can be some of the areas of continuous veterinary education training programmes to veterinarians. Similarly, awareness programmes at the level of producers, meat handlers and consumers with regard to the safe handling of meat are essential [14]."
  - - - "...we also find minor children as drovers, without any protection measures when they bring the animal into the bleeding room, this is done out of exaggerated aggressiveness, times also the animal resists and everyone is put in danger. On the bleeding side, no personal protective equipment (PPE) is present. The worst is that the clothes they wear are almost not washed after surgery because, in their understanding, these above are regularly dirty and should not be clean yet, it is a better way to contaminate themselves but also to contaminate the meat they handle at any time. Especially when they carry the half-quarter by hand to the conditioning room..." (96) Child labor and cross contaminating of meat since they don't wash their clothes.
        
        "Although it is not easy to meet all the environmental conditions within the slaughterhouse, there are minimal conditions that could not be left aside such as, avoid stressing the animals before they are slaughtered. On the contrary, it is today embedded in the collective memory that animals destined for slaughter have no right and can be mistreated in any way." (96) The mistreatment of animals is okay according to some and that minimal conditions should be met. Counterclaim
- - - - “ Most Americans don’t pay attention to regulatory requirements at slaughterhouses — at least, until there’s a massive outbreak of foodborne illness as a consequence of inadequate safety procedures. Critics of the USDA’s new regulations argue that such an outbreak is nearly inevitable because, they say, the new process doesn’t allow for adequate food safety testing.” Not good since if there is no time for the meat to be tested then there is a risk for food borne illnesses.
        
        “The way we raise and slaughter animals on factory farms makes for cheap meat, but also introduces serious public health, sustainability, and animal welfare problems. The cramped conditions on factory farms are perfect for breeding disease, and the mass use of antibiotics to manage that disease risk leads to antibiotic resistance. Pig factory farms produce huge amounts of biohazardous waste that is poorly contained in large hog waste lagoons, which overflow during serious storms.” The environment of slaughterhouses and how diseases build up in there.
        
        “One is the increasing delegation of inspection responsibilities to local plant employees, who are not obligated to have undergone any particular training in food safety or regulatory compliance. The other is an increase in “line speeds.” Faster line speeds mean that more pigs can be killed each minute, which increases capacity for the slaughterhouses but also makes some inspection tasks much harder to carry out.” Changes in regulation
        
        “Former USDA hog inspector Joseph Ferguson has been one of the more vocal critics of the proposed change in procedures. Ferguson retired in 2015; he worked on both the traditional inspection system and on a trial program for the new system. He told the Washington Post this spring that the trial program had been a failure. “All the power gets handed over to the plant,” Ferguson said. “I saw the alleged inspections that were performed by plant workers; they weren’t inspections. They were supposed to meet or exceed USDA standards — I never saw that happen.”” Ethos “The video they released showed obvious safety concerns, such as pigs with gaping wounds and dripping pus being sent down the slaughter line, as well as pigs covered in feces. Critics argue that with more inspectors and a slower line speed, these problems are much rarer.” Problems with the new regulations that were being tested.
        
        “And in a 2012 report, the USDA itself raised questions about whether the new system was working as intended. … “As a result, plants have repeatedly violated the same regulations with little or no consequence. We found that in 8 of the 30 plants we visited, inspectors did not always examine the internal organs of carcasses in accordance with FSIS inspection requirements, or did not take enforcement actions against plants that violated food safety regulations. As a result, there is reduced assurance of FSIS inspectors effectively identifying pork that should not enter the food supply.””
        
        ““It is unacceptable to put public health, worker safety, and animal welfare at risk so that the pork industry can run faster lines and avoid government inspection,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter argued in a press release. “We urge the USDA to withdraw this rule and fulfill its duty to protect food safety.”” Ethos
  - - - “Federal law requires FSIS inspectors to be present at all times meat and poultry slaughter plants are operating. Among other requirements, an inspector must observe every live animal before slaughter, both at rest and in motion, to detect signs of any disease or health problems that might render the animal unfit for human food. Plants must notify FSIS when animals first arrive, and the “antemortem” inspection is to be conducted on the day of their slaughter. Although inspectors are not stationed in the antemortem areas for the entire day, they are to return randomly after initial inspection to verify proper handling of the animals. This contrasts with “postmortem” inspection, where inspectors are stationed constantly along the processing lines inside the slaughter plants to examine each carcass and monitor other processing activities.5”
        
        “The HMSA’s key provision states: “No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane ... [meaning] ... (a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are 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, thrown, cast, or cut.”6” (Humane Methods of Slaughter Act)
        
        “Until early 2004, FSIS required that inspectors consider all seriously crippled livestock (cattle and other species) and those commonly known as “downers” to automatically be identified as “U.S. Suspects”—i.e., possibly having a disease or condition that would require their condemnation. FSIS required that an agency veterinarian examine them both before and after slaughter, and that they be slaughtered separately, before being cleared for food. After a cow imported from Canada was found to have BSE in late 2003, FSIS issued a number of rules aimed at keeping BSEinfected beef from entering the food supply, including a prohibition on the slaughter of any nonambulatory cattle, regardless of the reason, or of when they became disabled. ... On July 13, 2007, FSIS modified its rule to say that “FSIS inspection personnel will determine the disposition of cattle that become non-ambulatory after they have passed ante-mortem inspection on a case-by-case basis” (72 Federal Register p. 38729). In the preamble to the rule, the agency said a notice to its personnel—issued after the January 2004 interim rule—already was directing FSIS veterinarians to permit such animals to be slaughtered, so long as the veterinarian could verify that the animal had suffered an acute injury (e.g., a broken leg).7 However, the agency also reaffirmed its earlier findings that BSE clinical signs cannot always be observed in a nonambulatory animal even though BSE was much more prevalent in such animals. Thus, its general ban on their use in food—with this noteworthy exception—would be continued by the final rule.” (3)
        
        “Past Congresses had attempted to address humane oversight in a number of past, mainly appropriations, acts. After a number of major news stories reported continuing abuses at slaughterhouses in 2000, Congress, in the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-20), directed USDA to spend not less than $1 million to enforce the act. USDA in turn allocated $1.25 million to hire 17 newly established District Veterinary Medical Specialists exclusively to oversee enforcement. Lawmakers next included, in the 2002 farm law (in § 10305), a resolution urging USDA to fully enforce the act and to report the number of violations to Congress annually. USDA’s FY2003 appropriation (in P.L. 108-7) included an increase of $5 million for FSIS to, as a Senate report stated, hire “50 additional inspection personnel to work solely on HMSA enforcement through full-time ante-mortem inspection, particularly unloading, handling, stunning and killing of animals at slaughter plants.” The Senate Appropriations Committee noted in its report (S.Rept. 107-223) that it was “extremely concerned” that FSIS did not have adequate inspection personnel dedicated to checking for or reporting HMSA violations, and it questioned the effectiveness of simply instructing all inspectors to stop production when a violation is observed. Subsequent appropriations continued and then increased designated funding for HMSA enforcement, which now is at 63 positions and $5 million annually. Appropriators also have provided a total of at least $10 million over several years since FY2005 to incorporate FSIS’s “Humane Animal Tracking System” into its field computer systems.” (7)
  - - - “That authority, however, may be designated to a state agency in those states that chose to apply for such authority, as long as the state requirements are “at least equal to” those enforced by USDA-FSIS.”
        
        “The requirements that processors must follow differ significantly depending on what services they intend to provide, who their customers are and in what state they operate. Small differences between processing facilities, such as one facility offering to smoke meat, can cause significant regulatory and inspection differences between the two facilities. The complexity and variability surrounding the operation of these facilities makes it essential for operators to work closely with governmental agencies before beginning construction, let alone operation.”
  - - - Handling of livestock: Bringing livestock places such as to the holding pen or the stunning area should be done with minimal discomfort to the animals and they should not be forced to move at a faster rate than normal walking speed. Electric prods and other tools that are used to drive animals should be used as little as possible to minimize injury and any use of these tools that are excessive is prohibited. Pipes, sharp or pointed objects, and other items which would cause injury or unnecessary pain to the animals should not be used to drive livestock. Disabled animals and animals that are unable to move should be separated from normal animals and places into covered pens. They should not be dragged while conscious but stunned animals may be dragged. Disabled animals and other animals unable to move may be moved, while conscious, by equipment. Animals should have access to water in all holding pens and access to feed if they are held for longer than 24 hours. There should be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals to lie down if they are held overnight. Stunning methods should be effectively applied to animals prior to them being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.
        
        Chemical; carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide should be introduced in a way that they will be anesthetized with minimum discomfort before they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Delivering animals to the carbon dioxide chamber should be done with as little discomfort as possible and electrical equipment should be used with the lowest effective voltage. From the carbon dioxide tunnel animals should be in a state of surgical anesthesia and remain in this condition throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding except in swine since death has been induced by carbon dioxide. Asphyxia or death from any cause should not be produced in animals before bleeding expect for swine.
        
        Mechanical: captive bolt: Captive bolt stunners should be applied to the livestock so as to produce immediate unconsciousness in the animals with little discomfort felt. Delivery of the animals to the stunning area should be done with little discomfort and electrical equipment should be used as little as possible and with the lowest effective voltage. The animals should be in a state of complete unconsciousness and remain in this condition throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding.
        
        Mechanical: gunshot: The animal should be immediately unconscious once they are shot with a minimum amount of discomfort. Delivery of the animals to the shooting areas should be done with a minimum amount of discomfort. They should remain in the state of unconsciousness throughout shackling, sticking and bleeding.
        
        Electrical: stunning or slaughtering with electric current: The electric current should produce a surgical anesthesia with little discomfort before they are killed. Delivery of the animals is important as to not cause them any discomfort. They should remain in a state of surgical anesthesia throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding.
        
        Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or compartments to prevent inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter: When an inspector sees an inhumane slaughter or handling eh should tell the operator of the establishment and request that the operator takes the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence. If the cause of inhuman treatment is the result of facility deficiencies, disrepair, or equipment breakdown the inspector should tag it as “U.S. Rejected” which means that the equipment should not be used until it is acceptable to the inspector. If the cause of inhuman treatments is the result of establishment employee actions the inspector shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag to the alleyways leading to the stunning area until the inspector receives assurances from the establishment that there will not be a recurrence. If the cause of inhuman treatment is the result of improper stunning the inspector should attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag to the stunning area and stunning procedures should not occur until the inspector receives assurances from the establishment that there will not be a recurrence.
        
        In all three instances the tag should not be removed by anyone other than an inspector and all livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.
  - - - Personal/Individual Use Exemption : “Under certain conditions, a person may slaughter/ prepare livestock of his/her own raising for the exclusive use by him/her, members of his/her family, and his/her non-paying guests without the benefit of inspection. Absolutely no product produced under this exemption may be sold commercially.”
        
        Custom Exemption : “A custom-exempt establishment is one that slaughters and prepares livestock belonging to someone else for the exclusive use of that person. The custom-exempt facility provides a service for the livestock owner; it is not producing commercial product. Custom-exempt facilities are exempt from the FMIA requirements for carcass-by-carcass inspections and the daily presence of inspectors during operations. Even so, the facility is not exempt from the adulteration, misbranding, and certain record-keeping provisions of those statutes. Custom-exempt establishments are reviewed periodically to verify that facilities are maintained and operated in a manner that produces a safe, clean, and wholesome meat food product in a sanitary environment and are otherwise complying with the FMIA.”
        
        State Inspection: “Establishments that produce meat products sold entirely within a State require Federal inspection unless they are regulated under a State Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program. These State MPI programs are required to enforce requirements “at least equal to” those imposed under the Federal Acts. State MPI programs certify annually, and FSIS reviews each State MPI program annually to determine whether each program meets the requisite “at least equal to” standard. As of September 2015, 27 States maintain cooperative agreements with FSIS to administer MPI programs, and FSIS reimburses a portion of the State’s operating costs.” “Exemptions: Certain meat products may be exempt from inspection requirements. However, they are still subject to the adulteration and misbranding provisions of the FMIA.”
        
        Federal Inspection: “The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) requires that all meat sold commercially be inspected and passed to ensure that it is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for providing this inspection. The FMIA requires inspection for any product intended for human consumption, wholly or in part, from the carcass or parts of any cattle, sheep, swine, and goat. These animals, defined as “livestock” in the regulations, must be slaughtered and processed under Federal inspection, and the meat food products must be inspected and passed for human consumption. Food products from animals not subject to inspection under the FMIA (nonamenable species) are subject to regulation by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and State and local authorities. Federal inspection personnel must be present at all times during livestock slaughter operations and for at least part of each shift during which there is further processing of meat products. In slaughter plants, inspection personnel verify the humane handling of animals and conduct antemortem inspection to ensure that the live animal is fit for slaughter. These inspection personnel also conduct post-mortem inspection to ensure that the meat from the carcass and internal organs are fit for human food. When meat is distributed to other federally inspected establishments for further processing, the product is inspected to ensure that the product is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. Inspected establishments must maintain and follow written Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans. In addition to inspecting the meat products, inspection personnel inspect the facilities and equipment to ensure sanitary conditions are maintained. FSIS also reviews records to ensure they accurately document establishment verification that the meat food products are in compliance with all applicable requirements.”