Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption in the U.S.
Similar to Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption in the U.S. (12)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption in the U.S.
- 2. Should equine slaughter for human consumption be allowed in the United States?
- 4. 105,000 horses 17,000 tons of meat $65 million
- 5. Ban Supporters Ban Opponents Food safety Unwanted horses Welfare Society’s opinion Export problems
- 7. Unwanted horses = starvation and neglect
- 8. + 148% Canada + 660% Mexico
- 9. “I think the total lack of connection with agriculture is the main thing. People have passed these laws and signed on to be sponsors of a national slaughter ban, a vast majority of them are urban legislators and their constituents are people that live in suburbs that don’t know which end of a horse to feed and which end to carry stuff away from.” Dr. Kevin Kline, University of Illinois Extension Equine Specialist
- 10. Ban Supporters
- 13. “By flooding the market with inexpensive, unsound horses, that drives the price down. When you sell a horse, you want to take a horse and you want him be surrounded by other good horses, because you’ve got a good horse and that good horse brings better money.” Chris Heyde, Deputy Director of Government and Legal Affairs, Animal Welfare Institute
- 14. Regulate Regulate transportation rescues Increase Educate horse slaughterhouse owners inspections Next steps
- 15. Questions?
Editor's Notes
- Say you are sitting down to lunch and you have in front of you a serving of lean, red meat. As Americans, we can automatically assume that this meat is beef. But, overseas, beef has a competitor. It’s horse—and it is on the plates of thousands of consumers in France, Japan, Belgium, and many other countries.
- There are many reasons why horsemeat isn’t on the plates of Americans—but this discussion isn’t just about why we don’t eat it. It’s about why wedon’t produce it. This discussion presents ethical and economic arguments from both sides of the slaughter debate. However, the main question is: should equine slaughter for human consumption be allowed in the United States? In reality, it hasn’t been funded in the U.S. since 2006. That year, and every year after, legislation haseliminated funding for the USDA inspection ofdomestically-produced horsemeat. Because horsemeat is not inspected, it cannot be traded, negating the need for a slaughter market.
- This eliminated funding is typically referred to as a “slaughter ban,” though not really a “ban.” For brevity and agreement, I will use this terminology as well. But let me be clear: Horses can still be slaughtered in the United States, but their meat cannot be traded legally—and no slaughterhouses accept horses. This situation has created deep division within the equine industry, producing ban opponents and ban supporters, and also introduces the discussion of horses as a mate or meat.
- For perspective, the scope of the slaughter industry was quite large prior to the ban, with 105,000 horses per year producing 17,000 tons of meat valued at $65 million dollars. These figures mean different things for ban supporters and ban opponents, which we will discuss in depth later. First, let’s look at the main arguments of both groups.
- Among the list of concerns, economic repercussions, a potential surplus of horses, and welfare issues have shaped stakeholder decisions. Today, we will discuss three main arguments for each side, as well as potential solutions.
- We will begin with the arguments from ban opponents.
- Opponents believe that the slaughter market provides a needed end-of-life option for unwanted, dangerous, or unskilled horses. Disallowing this option could lead to an increase in the population of these horses, overwhelming already packed shelters. Instead, these horses will either remain with owners that cannot or will not care for them, leading to a life of starvation and neglect.
- Since the slaughter ban, an increasing number of horses are exported across US borders, with 148% and 660% to Canada and Mexico, respectively. These figures represent two different things: 1) a decrease in domestic revenue from an exported commodity, and 2) an increase in the number of horses that are traveling further to meet the same fate. Further, the USDA is not able to regulate treatment of horses once they cross US borders into Canada and Mexico, presenting a host of welfare issues.
- Finally, many opponents of a slaughter ban believe industry decisions should be made by industry experts, not legislative power. As Dr. Kline points out, much of the legislation is supported by non-horse owners and people that do not rely on their horses as a source of business income.
- While ban opponents make their case on welfare, economics, market balance, ban supporters provide a different point of view on the slaughter debate. Let’s take a closer look.
- First, the changes in society, as briefly mentioned by Dr. Kline, have also lead to a change in the view of horses. A 2006 article by Ahern et al.,explains that horses are viewed differently than other livestock because they are given names, treats, blanketed, and cared for like a cat or dog in some cases. Further, horses are seen to ban supporters as an animal that has contributed to the development of western America through cattle drives, and pulling wagons.
- Food safety is also a sticking point for ban supporters. Because horses are not typically produced for food, they may be administered drugs not approved for slaughter animals. This is illegal, and though USDA inspections test for these drugs, ban supporters maintain that inspections are not thorough.
- Finally, ban supporters advocate a “forever home” for all horses. Chris Heyde, Deputy Director of Government and Legal Affairs with the Animal Welfare Institute believes welfare is a top priority. The group insists that horses are not slaughtered or transported humanely. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate slaughter indefinitely.
- Though ban opponents and supporters cannot reach a final agreement, there are some options to move forward that please both sides. Assuming slaughter is reinstated, an effort should be made to increase the number of inspectors at each site to ensure humane slaughter practices. Transportation should also be regulated, and has recently been altered by legal action. Both sides of the argument are calling for longer breaks and fewer horses per load. Rescues must also be regulated, expanded, and funded. Though dog and cat rescues are plentiful, horses require more space, more care, and more food. Finally, horses owners should be educated on responsible breeding, and breeding only the horses they know they can sell. With less horses being bred each year there will be fewer unwanted horses. Regardless, ban supporters and opponents will continue to debate the validity of all arguments for years to come.
- We may never sit down to a meal of horsemeat in the United States, but Europeans still demand the commodity, making this issue relevant and important in today’s agriculture industry.