Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance Transparency Page: 3 of 18
This text is part of the collection entitled: Government Accountability Office Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U. S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) implementation of its program to ensure that
animals destined for human consumption are handled and slaughtered
humanely. More than 150 million cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals
ultimately destined to provide meat for human consumption were
slaughtered in fiscal year 2007, at some 700 federally inspected slaughter
facilities throughout the United States. The Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), within USDA, is responsible for enforcing the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which prohibits the slaughtering of
animals, or the handling of animals in connection with slaughtering, unless
it is humane. However, the recently documented inhumane treatment of
disabled cows slaughtered at the Westland/Hallmark plant in California
and the entry of their meat into the market calls into question FSIS's
enforcement of the act. In particular, federal regulations prohibit
companies from processing and selling meat from disabled
(nonambulatory) cows without explicit FSIS inspector approval.
Nonambulatory cows raise particular concerns because they have a higher
probability of being infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy,
commonly known as mad cow disease.
In 2004, we reported that FSIS was not adequately recording instances of
noncompliance with HMSA, and thus could not assure the Congress that it
was fully enforcing the act at federally inspected slaughter facilities.'
Specifically, we found the following:
Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to
determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter
violations. Those inspection records showed that inspectors did not
always document violations of HMSA and that when they did, the
inspectors did not consistently document the scope and severity of each
incident. Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and
regulations were also inconsistent.
* FSIS officials were not using consistent criteria to suspend plant
operations. As a result, plants in different FSIS districts were not subject
to comparable enforcement actions.GAO-08-686T
1GAO, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still
Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).Page 1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
United States. Government Accountability Office. Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public Reporting on Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and Enhance Transparency, text, April 17, 2008; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc290630/m1/3/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.