Humane slaughter laws

Law and Contemporary Problems

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 175-206

  Welty, Jeff ^a  

^a Duke Law School

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548512494     PISSN: 00239186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (302)

1. See, e.g., Robyn Mallon, The Deplorable Standard of Living Faced by Farmed Animals in America's Meat Industry and How to Improve Conditions by Eliminating the Corporate Farm, 9 MICH. ST. J. MED. & L. 389 (2005);
2. David J. Wolfson & Mariann Sullivan, Foxes in the Hen House: Animals, Agribusiness, and the Law: A Modern American Fable, in ANIMAL RIGHTS: CURRENT DEBATES AND NEW DIRECTIONS 205 (Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum eds., 2004);
3. Nicole Fox, Note and Comment, The Inadequate Protection of Animals Against Cruel Animal Husbandry Practices Under United States Law, 17 WHITTIER L. REV. 145 (1995);
4. Amy Mosel, Comment, What about Wilbur? Proposing a Federal Statute to Provide Minimum Humane Living Conditions for Farm Animals Raised for Food Production, 27 DAYTON L. REV. 133 (2001);
5. Jimena Uralde, Comment, Congress' Failure to Enact Animal Welfare Legislation for the Rearing of Farm Animals: What Is Truly at Stake?, 9 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 193 (2001).
6. See Food & Agric. Org. of the U.N. Statistical Databases, http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/default.aspx (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
7. See id.
8. For general descriptions of the slaughter process, which varies slightly from slaughterhouse to slaughterhouse, see ERIC SCHLOSSER, FAST FOOD NATION 171-72 (2002);
9. DONALD D. STULL & MICHAEL J. BROADWAY, SLAUGHTERHOUSE BLUES: THE MEAT AND POULTRY INDUSTRY IN NORTH AMERICA 68 (2004);
10. and Michael Pollan, Power Steer, N.Y. TIMES MAGAZINE, Mar. 31, 2002, at 44, 71-72.
11. See infra Part III.
12. The sledge hammer was the generally accepted stunning method prior to the passage of the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-07 (2000). It was discussed extensively at the legislative hearings leading to the adoption of the HMSA. One witness testified that "[i]nspectors...have frequently seen knockers take 10 and more blows to stun an animal. The hammer often knocks off a horn or smashes an eye or the nose before the knocker beats the animal into immobility. And the fact that the animal is 'immobilized' by no means guarantees that the animal is unconscious of further pain." Proposals Relating to Humane Methods of Slaughter of Livestock: Hearings on S. 1213, S. 1497, and H. R. 8308 Before the S. Comm. on Agriculture and Forestry, 85th Cong. 30 (1958) [hereinafter S. Hearings] (statement of Fred Myers, executive dir., Humane Soc'y of the United States).
13. The use of both penetrating and non-penetrating captive-bolt guns is expressly authorized by the federal regulations governing the slaughter process. See 9 C.F.R. § 313.15(b)(1)(i) (2006).
14. See Temple Grandin, Recommended Captive Bolt Stunning Techniques for Cattle, http://www.grandin.com/humane/cap.bolt.tips.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) ("If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly").
15. Again, this is expressly authorized. See 9 C.F.R. § 313.30 (2000).
16. See generally sources cited supra note 4.
17. For an overview of ritual slaughter, see Temple Grandin & Joe Regenstein, Religious Slaughter and Animal Welfare: A Discussion for Meat Scientists, MEAT FOCUS INT'L, March 1994, at 115, available at http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html.
18. In recent years, some Jewish authorities have permitted stunning the animal after the cut but before the animal exsanguinates. Detailed information is available for the United Kingdom, where approximately half of the cows slaughtered for the production of kosher meat are stunned after the cut. See MEAT HYGIENE SERVICE, ANIMAL WELFARE REVIEW 2003, 13 (2004), http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ welfare/farmed/slaughter/awr03.pdf. No similar data are available for the United States, though animal welfare during religious slaughter is generally lower in the United States than elsewhere.
19. See Joe Regenstein, Religious Slaughter Practices, Address at the AMI Foundation Animal Care and Handling Conference (Feb. 19, 2003), available at http://www.meatami.com/Content/PressCenter/ AnimalCarePresentations/Regenstein.pdf.
20. The United States is behind other developed countries in eliminating the shackling and hoisting of conscious animals. See Regenstein, supra note 12.
21. See, e.g., Temple Grandin, Animal Welfare in Slaughter Plants, http://www.grandin.com/welfare/general.session.html (last visited Feb. 19, 2007).
22. See id. Again, detailed information is available for the United Kingdom where 100% of cattle (and a majority of sheep, but a minority of goats) killed for halal meat are stunned, generally pre-cut.
23. See MEAT HYGIENE SERVICE, supra note 12, at 13.
24. According to one report, over half of the animals killed in the developing world are not stunned prior to slaughter. See Neil Trent et al. The State of Meat Production in Developing Countries. 2002, in THE STATE OF THE ANIMALS II 2003 175, 175 (Andrew N. Rowan & Deborah J. Salem eds., 2003).
25. The report further states, "In a typical developing country, few slaughter facilities have any government oversight of sanitation or veterinary care. Animals may be stunned by repeated hammer blows to the head. They may be stabbed with sharp knives until they collapse. While the animals are still conscious, their throats are cut, and they die from excessive blood loss after minutes of struggling." Id. Plainly, enormous welfare gains can be made at little cost in developing countries.
26. See, e.g., FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL, REPORT ON THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS AT SLAUGHTER OR KILLING, PART 1: RED MEAT ANIMALS 29 (2003), available at http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf (noting varying degrees of breathlessness, hyperventilation, vocalization, and escape behaviors among pigs exposed to carbon dioxide).
27. See id.
28. The FWC report states, "Argon, in high concentrations, has been shown to cause anoxia with no noticeable aversive effect." Id. However, in part because pigs must be exposed to argon for a comparatively long time (about seven minutes) to achieve complete anesthesia, large producers have so far declined to use it.
29. See id.
30. A recent audit of twenty-eight large pork plants found that twenty-four plants used electrical stunning while only four plants used carbon dioxide. See Temple Grandin, 2005 Restaurant Animal Welfare Audits of Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants, http://grandin.com/survey/2005.restaurant.audits.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
31. See, e.g., Temple Grandin, Electric Stunning of Pigs and Sheep, http://grandin.com/humane/elec.stun.html (last visitd Nov. 15, 2006).
32. See FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL, supra note 17, at 30 (noting that "a successful stun is heavily dependent on the skill of the operator to position the electrodes accurately" and that surveys of slaughterhouses show improper tong positioning to be a serious problem).
33. See Grandin, supra note 20 ("Insufficient amperage or a current path that fails to go through the brain will be painful for the animal. It will feel a large electric shock or heart attack symptoms, even though it may be paralyzed and unable to move.").
34. See Temple Grandin, Cardiac Arrest Stunning of Livestock and Poultry, in, ADVANCES IN ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE (1985-86) (M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley eds., 2003), available at http://www.grandin.conu humane/cardiac.arrest.html ("In sheep and pigs, bleeding should take place within 10 to 17 second after conventional stunning to insure that the animals do not return to sensibility.").
35. See id. ("Too long an interval between conventional electric stunning and 'bleeding is, unfortunately, a common occurrence in some slaughter plants.").
36. See also Rebecca Smith, Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, Sentenced to Death, Part Six: Pig Slaughter, http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std6.htm (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) (discussing' objections to electrical stunning and summarizing evidence that a significant number of pigs stunned this way regain consciousness before slaughter).
37. See 9 C.F.R.§ 313.15 (2006).
38. Gas stunning requires "sophisticated technical equipment [that] is relatively costly to install." FOOD & AGRic. ORG. OF THE U.N., GUIDELINES FOR HUMANE HANDLING, TRANSPORT AND SLAUGHTER OF LIVESTOCK 68 (2001). available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/x6909e/x6909e03.pdf (the entire document can be found at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6909E/ x6909e00.HTM).
39. See 9 C.F.R. §§ 313.5-15 (2006).
40. See Grandin & Regenstein, supra note 11. Recent data for the United Kingdom indicates that lambs slaughtered for kosher meat are never stunned in that country, whereas a substantial majority of lambs slaughtered for halal meat are stunned.
41. See MEAT HYGIENE SERVICE, supra note 12, at 13.
42. See Trent et al., supra note 16, at 175.
43. General descriptions of the poultry slaughter process can be found in several sources, such as Daniel L. Fletcher, Slaughter Technology, 78 POULTRY SCI. 277, 277 (1999);
44. Julie K. Northcutt, Reference Guide for Solving Poultry Processing Problems, http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/b1156-w.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006);
45. and DAVIS, infra note 31.
46. This process is used to slaughter so-called broiler chickens, produced for their meat. Laying hens at the end of their productive lives - called "spent hens"-have no value as meat. They may be buried alive en masse, gassed using automobile exhaust, electrocuted using mobile devices of uncertain accuracy, or killed by a variety of other methods. See, e.g., KAREN DAVIS, UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION AND ELIMINATION OF ELECTRICAL IMMOBILIZATION 3-4, http://www.upc-online.oig/slaughter/slaughter3web.pdf (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
47. Anecdotal reports suggest that as many as five percent of all chickens processed avoid being stunned. See Karen Davis, United Poultry Concerns, Chicken: The Dangerous Transformation of America's Favorite Food by Steve Striffler, Yale University Press, 2005, (book review), http://www.upc-online.org/whatsnew/10406chickenreview.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) (discussing a worker's report that five percent of all chickens remain alive and moving despite having passed through the stunner and the neck cutting machine). However, two recent audits of poultry plants suggest that the number is smaller, perhaps one percent or two percent.
48. See Temple Grandin, 2005 Poultry Welfare Audits: National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Audit for Poultry has a Scoring System that is Too Lax and Allows Slaughter Plants with Abusive Practices to Pass, http://grandin.com/survey/2005.poultry.audits.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) (discussing audits by the National Chicken Council and by an unidentified major institutional chicken customer).
49. See DAVIS, supra note 31 (referring to USDA figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act). Interestingly, a recent audit of twenty-six poultry plants found no such "red skins."
50. See Grandin, supra note 32 ("None of the 26 plants had a serious abuse such as uncut red birds."). Perhaps this is not surprising, given that even 3 million "red skins" represents only 1 out of every 3,000 chickens killed. Depending on how long the audits lasted, it is entirely possible that the auditors would have seen few, if any, "red skins."
51. See, e.g., Judy Oppenheimer, A 'Cutthroat' Business: Walking the Line of Halachah at Empire Kosher Poultry, BALT. JEWISH TIMES, June 2, 1995, at 44 (describing process).
52. See, e.g., Fletcher, supra note 30, at 279, ("In a series of research papers from the U.K., [sccientistsc] have shown that gas killing birds in their transport cages had both animal welfare and carcass quality benefits.").
53. See, e.g., THE MANE SOC'Y OF THE UNITED STATES, AN HSUS REPORT: THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF AE OPTING ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION PRACTICES TO ELECTRICAL STUNNING SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY, available at http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/econℓecstun.pdf (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) (arguing that CAK is superior economically as well as with respect to animal welfare).
54. 7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-07 (2000).
55. Many of these animals die excruciating deaths in leghold traps (if trapped in the wild) or by asphyxiation or mouth-to-anus electrocution (if raised on fur farms). The Humane Society of the United States estimates that fifty million animals are killed for their fur each year worldwide. The Humane Society of the United States, Fur and Trapping, http://www.hsus.org/wildlffe/fur_and_trapping (last visited Nov. 15, 2006). United States government data indicate that, in 2004, over 2.5 million mink were killed for their fur.
56. See NATIONAL AGRICULTURE STATISTICS SERVICE, U.S. DEP'T. OF AGRIC., MINK 1 (2005), available at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Mink/Mink-07-15-2005.pdf. As to trapping, in Wisconin alone, nearly 600,000 animals were trapped during the 2003-404 trapping season.
57. See BRIAN DHUEY & JOHN OLSON, FUR TRAPPER SURVEY 2003-404, 5, available at http://prodwbin99.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ land/wildlife/harvest/Reports/04furtrapsurv.pdf (study conducted by Wis. Dep't of Natural Res.).
58. USDA data reveal that 1.1 million animals covered by the federal Animal. Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. § 2E 1-59 (2000), were used in experiments in 2004.
59. See U.S. DEPT OF. AGRIC., IFY2004 AWA INSPECTIONS 3 (2004), available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awreports/awreport2004.pdf. Because the AWA excludes rats and mice, which constitute ninety-nine percent of the animals used in experiments, the USDA figure dramatically understates the total. Still, if 100 million animals are killed each year in biomedical research, that is only about one percent of the number of animals killed each year for food.
60. See infra Part IV. C.
61. 7 U.S.C. § 1902 (2000).
62. See 21 U.S.C. § 603(b) (2000).
63. See 21 U.S.C. § 676 (2000).
64. The Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC) provides data on how many federal criminal prosecutions are brought under each federal criminal statute each year. See generally Federal Justice Resource Center, http://fjsrc.urban.org/analysis/t_sec/stat.cfm (last visited Nov. 15, 200). The FJSRC reports between zero and six prosecutions for humane slaughter violations in each of the most recent five years for which data are available. If the FJSRC's data are accurate, and there have indeed been a few prosecution, it is remarkable that they have drawn no media coverage.
65. See infra Part IV.B.
66. See 85 CONG. REC. S15381 (1958) (statement of Sen. Humphrey) ("[sc]omewhat more than 3 years ago I introduced in the Senate the first humane slaughtering bill. I understand that it was the first ever presented to Congress.").
67. See also S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 17 (statement of Sen. Neuberger) ("Senator Humphrey 〈 first introduced such a bill in 1955.").
68. See 85 CONG. REC. S15412-13 (1958) (reprinting the text of the 1956 bill).
69. See 85 CONG. REC. S15378 (1958) (statement of Sen. Humphrey) (referring to "the testimony which was taken before our subcommittee in sessions on May 9 and 10, 1956").
70. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 10 (statement of Sen. Humphrey);
71. see alvo id. at 274-75, 318 (statements of Sen. Ellender).
72. See 85 CONG. REC. H1654 (1958) (statement of Rep. Poage) (referring to committee hearings the previous year).
73. S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 268;
74. see also id. at 29 (statement of Fred Myers, executive dir; Humane Soc'y of the States). Apparently the slaughterhouse visits took place en route to the 1956 Democratic Convention in Chicago. One animal advocate stated that "[t]his trip did more than any other single thing to bring about passage of [the HMSA]."
75. Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1977 Hearing on H.R. 1464 Before the Subcomm. on Livestock and Grains of the H. Comm. on Agric., 95th Cong. 8 (2d Sess. 1978) [hereinafter H. Hearings] (statement of Christine Stevens, Sec'y, Soc'y for Animal Protective Leoplation).
76. See infra note 179 and accompanying text.
77. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 1-3 (1958) (reprinting two of the bills).
78. See id. at 10 (statement of Sen. Humphrey) (stating that the bill "is already a compromise");
79. id. at 321 (statement of Christine Stevens, President, Animal Welfare Inst.) (noting that the bill originally included poultry but later was stripped of that provision);
80. id. at 265 (stateme nt of Rep. Poage) (noting that the bill originally included criminal penalties but that these were later removed).
81. See 85 CONG. REC. H1672 (1958) (rejecting study amendment; Rep.. Hiestand argued that "the effect of the amendmeint is to kill the bill");
82. 85 CONG. REC. H1674 (Feb. 4, 1958) (passing bill).
83. The study bill was S. 1213. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 1-2 (reprinting bill).
84. See generally S. Hearings, supra note 6. The hearings spanned four days and resulted in 359 pages of testimony.
85. See id. at 229-44 (statement of E. L. Peterson, Assistant Sec'y of Agric.);
86. id. at 246-49 (statement of Col. Alpheus Seely, Office of the Quartermaster Gen., Dep't of the Army).
87. See, e.g., id. at 148-59 (statement of Rabbi Issac Lewin, Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada);
88. id. at 159-64 (statement of Rabbi Pinchas Teitz, Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada);
89. id. at 185-203 (statements of Moses Feverstein, Rabbi Solomon Sharfman, and Samuel Brennglass, Rabbinical Council of Am.);
90. see also infra notes 194, through 198 and accompanying text.
91. See generally S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 131-42 (statement of C. H. Esbaugh, consultant, Am. Meat Inst.);
92. id. at 175 (statement of L. Blaine Lillingquist, vice president, W. States Meat Packers Ass'n, Inc.) (stating that slaughterhouses "are strongly opposed to the compulsory features of these bills").
93. See 85 CONG. REC. S15377 (1958) (statement of Sen. Humphrey) (describing split committee vote).
94. See 85 CONG. REC. S15368-417 (1958).
95. See S. REP. No. 1724 (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3932 (recommending study amendment);
96. 85 CONG, REC. S15368-401 (1958) (debating the study amendment).
97. See, e.g., 85 CONG. REC. S15381 (1958) (statement of Sen. Humphrey) ("Are we finally to take some action ... or are we to wait and wait and wait? ... We have been studying this proposed legislation for more than 3 years.").
98. See 85 CONG. REC. S15401 (1958) (rejecting the study amendment 43-40).
99. See generally 85 CONG. REC. S15402-16 (1958).
100. See 85 CONG. REC. S15416-17 (1958) (passing the bill 72-9).
101. See 85 CONG. REC. H19717 (1958). Some critics have suggested that the HMSA was insufficiently radical or was driven by a concern for worker safety or production efficiency rather than by a concern for animals.
102. See generally GARY L. FRANCIONE, RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER: THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS 11, 95-102 (1996) (arguing, "At no point in the legislative process did anyone express concern that the use of animals as food might itself be morally objectionable" and noting evidence that implementing humane slaughtering techniques was cost-effective). At least as to the 1958 law, this claim is belied by the legislative history. Supporters of the bill time and again argued that it was critical to animal welfare. Admittedly, they sometimes engaged in a bit of salesmanship, suggesting that the economic costs of humane slaughter would not be too large. But low compliance costs were never the proponents' main selling point. Indeed, the bill passed over the vigorous objection of industry, which claimed that compliance costs would be onerous, especially for small slaughterhouses. The critics' point is closer to the mark as to the 1978 amendment to the HMSA. As discussed below, the amendment was supported by industry, which had learned by that time that compliance costs were not as large as they had feared.
103. See H. Hearing, supra note 51, at 2 (statement of Rep. George Brown).
104. Indeed, a representative of the American Meat Institute, the largest industry group, testified in favor of the 1978 amen ent. See id. at 5 (statement of Dewey Bond, vice president, Am. Meat Inst.).
105. Again, the 1958 law lacked any enforcement provisions beyond withholding federal purchases.
106. See 21 U.S.C. § 603(a) (2000). The 1978 legislation included what is now 21 U.S.C. § 610, which makes it unlawful to slaughter livestock "in any manner not in accordance with" the definitions of humane slaughter contained in the 1958 law
107. See id. § 603(b) (requiring the USDA to conduct humane-slaughter inspections).
108. See, e.g., H. Hearing, supra note 51, at 39 (statement of Humane Info. Serv., Inc.) ("[E]xisting personnel now continuosly employed as meat inspectors in all of these plants would be utilized also for the inspection of slaughtering methods.");
109. H.R. REP. No. 95-1336, at 4 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2650, 2652 (stating that inspections "would be carried out by existing personnel").
110. 21 U.S.C. § 661(a)(1).
111. See id. § 661(c)(1).
112. See generally U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION STATE MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION PROGRAMS, 2-3 (2002), available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/nacmpi/Nov2002/Paper,/StateMPIP.pdf (discussing so-called cooperative state inspection programs);
113. id. at 10 (noting specific requirement that state programs must monitor compliance with the HMSA).
114. It has also earmarked a limited amount of funds for enforcement of the HMSA on several recent occasions. See infra note 153 and accompanying text.
115. See Joby Warrick, They Die Piece by Piece, WASH. POST, Apr. 10, 2001, at A1.
116. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, H.R. 2646, 107th Cong. § 10305(a)(1) (2002) (enacted). The resultant reports, and the findings contained within them, are discussed later in this article. See infra notes 155 through 159 and accompanying text.
117. 147 CONG. REC. S7311 (2001) (statement of Sen. Byrd).
118. See generally 9 C.F.R. §§ 313.1.50 (2006).
119. See id. § 313.1.
120. Id. § 313.2(a), (b).
121. Id. § 313.5.
122. Id. § 313.15.
123. Id. § 313.16.
124. Id. § 313.30.
125. See id. § 313.50
126. See id. §§ 300.1-381.500.
127. See id. §§ 310.1-25.
128. Id. § 313.2(a), (b).
129. Id. § 313.1(c).
130. See id. § 310.1.
131. See id. §§ 310.14-.17 (discussing disposal of bruised tissue, thyroid glands, lungs, and mammary glands).
132. See id. § 310.25.
133. But see infra note 168 and accompanying text (describing pending case regarding interpretation of the HMSA).
134. See Jones v. Butz, 374 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). The constitutional issues surrounding ritual slaughter are discussed in Part IV.D of this article, infra.
135. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 305 (statement of Rutherford T. Phillips, executive director, Am. Humane Ass'n);
136. id. at 320 (statement of Christine Stevens, president, Animal Welfare Inst.).
137. Alabama has no HMSA (although ALA. CODE § 2-15-110 (2006), which requires humane handling of livestock in livestock markets, arguably offers some protection);
138. Alaska has no HMSA; ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-2016 (2005) (similar to federal HMSA);
139. Arkansas has no HMSA; CAL. FOOD AND AGRIC. CODE §§ 19501-19503 (2006) (includes broilers, but not spent hens);
140. COLO. REV. STAT. §35-33-203 (2005) (regulations required to conform to USDA regulations under the federal HMSA);
141. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22-272a (2006) (similar to federal HMSA );
142. Delaware has no HMSA; FLA. STAT. § 828.22 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA; covers ratites but not "poultry and aquatic species");
143. GA. CODE ANN. § 26-2-110.1 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA; covers ratites, "nontraditional livestock" and rabbits);
144. HAW. REV. STAT. § 159-21 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
145. Idaho has no HMSA (although it did until 2006, when it repealed former Idaho Code § 37-1903; it was similar to the federal HNMSA);
146. 510 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 75/0.01-8 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
147. IND. CODE §§ 15-2.1-24-1 to -33 (2006) (applies to poultry as well as livestock);
148. IOWA CODE § 189A.18 (2005) (similar to federal HMSA; applies to "bovine, porcine, or ovine animals or farm deer");
149. KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 47-1401-05 (2006) (applies to traditional livestock and to "aquatic animals, domesticated deer, all creatures of the ratite family that are not indigenous to this state...and any other animal which can or may be used in and for the preparation of meat");
150. Kentucky has no HMSA; Lousiana has no HMSA; ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 22, §§ 2521-27 (similar to federal HMSA);
151. MD. CODE ANN., AGRIC. § 4-123.1 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA; explicitly excludes poultry);
152. MASS, GEN. LAWS ch. 94, §§ 139C-D (2006) (similar to federal HMSA; explicitly excludes poultry);
153. MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 287.551-56 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);.
154. MINN. STAT. §§ 31.59-.592 (2005) (similar to federal HMSA);
155. MISS. CODE ANN. § 75-35-7 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
156. Missouri has no HMSA; Montanta has no HMSA; Nebraska has no HMSA; Nevada has no HMSA; N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 427:33-:37 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA but specifically includes many nontraditional livestock species, such as llamas, ostriches, yaks, elk, and reindeer);
157. New Jersey has no HMSA; New Mexico has no HMSA; New York has no HMSA; N.C. GEN. STAT. § 106-549.17 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
158. North Dakota has no HMSA; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 945.01-.03 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
159. OKLA. STAT. tit. 6, § 183 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
160. OR. REV. STAT. § 603.065 (2005) (similar to federal HMSA);
161. 3 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. §§ 2361-62 (2006) (applies to "domestic animals," apparently including poultry);
162. R.I. GEN. LAWS §§ 4-17-1 to -7 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
163. South Carolina has no HMSA; S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 39-5-23.2 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
164. Tennessee has no HMSA; Texas has no HMSA; UTAH CODE ANN. § 4-32-6 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA; applies only to individuals who hold "a farm custom slaughter permit");
165. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 6, §§ 3131-34 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
166. Virginia has no HMSA; WASH REV. CODE §§ 16.50.100-.170 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
167. W. VA. CODE §§ 19-2E-1 to -7 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
168. WIS. STAT. § 95.80 (2006) (similar to federal HMSA);
169. Wyoming has no HMSA. I would like to thank Ritu Pancholy for her assistance in compiling this list. Also, a useful - but not complete - chart comparing state HMSAs is available at http://www.animallaw.info/ articles/ovusstatehumaneslaughterable.htm (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
170. See, e.g., 510 ILL. COMP. STAT. 75/2(6) (2006) (defining humane slaughter to include "(a) a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by gunshot or by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or (b) a method in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument").
171. See 21 U.S.C. § 603 (2000).
172. See supra notes 75 through 77 (describing federal-state cooperative inspection).
173. See 21 U.S.C. § 623(a) (2000).
174. For example, in Oregon, custom slaughterhouses must be licensed, and all licensees must comply with the state's HMSA. See OR. REV. STAT. § 603.010,.025,.045 (2005).
175. See FLA. STAT. § 828.23(5) (2006).
176. See KAN. STAT. ANN. § 47-1402(c) (2006).
177. CAL. FOOD AND AGRIC. CODE § 19501(a) (2006).
178. IND. CODE § 15-2.1-24-1(4) (2006).
179. CAL. FOOD AND AGRIC. CODE § 19501.
180. 3 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 2362(a)(1) (2006).
181. Id. § 2362(b).
182. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 287.551(d) (2006) (emphasis added). A number of other states have similar provisions.
183. See, e.g., R.I. GEN. LAWS § 4-17-2(3) (2006) (defining livestock to include any animal "which can or may be used in and for the preparation of meat or meat products");
184. KAN. STAT. ANN. § 47-1402(c) (same).
185. See KAN. STAT. ANN. § 47-1404 (2006).
186. See FLA. STAT. § 828.23(6)(a) (2006).
187. See WASH. REV. CODE § 16.50.170 (2006).
188. See, e.g., OHIO. REV. CODE § 945.99 (2006) (providing for maximum penalty of $100 fine).
189. See COLO. REV. STAT. § 35-33-406 (2005).
190. See COLO. REV. STAT. § 35-33-405 (2005).
191. See, e.g., Jennifer H. Rackstraw, Comment, Reaching for Justice: An Analysis of Self-Help Prosecution for Animal Crimes, 9 ANIMAL L. J. 243, 245-48 (2003).
192. See, e.g., Temple Grandin, Commentary: Behavior of Slaughter Plans and Auction Employees Toward the Animals, 1 ANTHROZOOS 205 (1998), http://grandin.com/references/behavior.employees.html ("Good facilities, however, do not guarantee good handling. The two worst incidents of deliberate animal cruelty witnessed occurred in slaughter plants that had new, well-designed facilities.").
193. See id.
194. See Temple Grandin, Animal Welfare in Slaughter Plants (1996) http://www.grandin.com/welfare/general.session.html.
195. 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12601 (D. Kan., Dec. 15, 1987).
196. Id. at *3.
197. Id. at *5.
198. Id. at *10-11.
199. Id. at *11, *14.
200. Id. at *14.
201. Id. at *6.
202. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage for slaughterhouse workers is approximately $10 per hour. See U.S. DEP'T OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTIC, MAY 2005 NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE ESTIMATES, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. (last visited Nov. 15, 2006) (listing a mean hourly wage of $10.33 for job category 51-3023, "slaughterers and meat packers").
203. "Perhaps because of the job hazards and workforce demographics, labor turnover in meatpacking is quite high, and in some establishments can reach 100% in a year." JAMES M. MACDONALD ET AL., U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT No. 785, CONSOLIDATION IN U.S. MEATPACKING 15 (1999), available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer785/aer785.pdf;
204. see also GAIL A. EISNITZ, SLAUGHTERHOUSE 62 (1997) (reporting that "the worker turnover rate in high-speed plants approached 100% per year");
205. SCHLOSSER, supra note 4, at 160 (citing turnover rates between 80 and 100 percent annually).
206. See generally SCHLOSSER, supra note 4, at 161-62.
207. See, e.g., Neil Trent et al., International Animal Law, with a Concentration of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, in THE STATE OF THE ANIMALS III 2005 65, 65, 67-68 (Andrew N. Rowan & Deborah J. Salem eds., 2005) (noting that poorer countries generally have fewer animal-protection organizations; that American countries generally have comparatively low levels of animal protection; and that several countries in the region "have no animal-welfare legislation and no current plans to develop any.").
208. See generally The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing), 1995, S.I. 1958/731, sch. 1 (U.K.).
209. Id. ¶ 4.
210. Id. ¶ 8.
211. An even more modest proposal would be to require training and licensure of slaughterhouse managers. At least one expert believes that "[t]he most important factor determining whether a packing plant has good or bad animal welfare practices is the attitude of management personnel." Temple Grandin & Gary C. Smith, Animal Welfare and Humane Slaughter, http://grandin.com/references/humane.slaughter.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
212. H. Hearing, supra note 51, at 28 (statement of Robert F. Welborn, Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors, Humane Soc'y of the United States).
213. Id.;
214. see also id. at 37 (statement of Humane Info. Serv., Inc.) (noting that any slaughterhouse seeking federal contracts "must submit a statement that it is in compliance with the law.... But there is no convenient way for the purchasing agency to check up on that statement.").
215. 21 U.S.C. § 603(b) (2000).
216. See, e.g., H. Hearing, supra note 51, at 39 (statement of Humane Info. Serv.; Inc.) ("[E]xisting personnel now continuosly employed as meat inspectors in all of these plants would be utilized also for the inspection of slaughtering methods.");
217. H.R. REP. NO. 95-1336, at 4 (1978), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2650, 2652 (stating that inspections "would be carried out by existing personnel").
218. Inspectors are also required to conduct an ante-mortem inspection of each animal to ensure that it appears healthy. See 9 C.F.R. § 309.1-18 (2006). However, this ante-mortem inspection is not normally conducted at the point of stunning and slaughter, but rather, before.
219. EISNITZ, supra note 132, at 189 (quoting USDA meat inspector Dave Carney).
220. GEOFFREY S. BECKER, CRS ISSUE BRIEF FOR CONGRESS: MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION ISSUES, CRS-1 (2005), available at http://ncseonline.org./NLE/CRSreports/05jan/IB10082.pdf.
221. Cf. id.
222. See U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT: USDA HAS ADDRESSED SOME PROBLEMS BUT STILL FACES ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES (2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ d04247.pdf ("FSIS does not have adequate data on the number of inspectors responsible for enforcing the HMSA or the actual time they spend on humane handling and slaughter requirements.").
223. BECKER, supra note 145, at CRS-7.
224. Id. at CRS-6.
225. According to one recent report, "Today, the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is demoralized and understaffed. In 1978, before the first known outbreak of E. coli O157:H7, the USDA had 12,000 meat inspectors; now it has about 7,500. The federal inspectors I interviewed felt under enormous pressure from their USDA superiors not to slow down the line speeds at slaughterhouses. 'A lot of us are feeling beaten down,' one inspector told me. Job openings at the service are going unfilled for months."
226. SCHLOSSER, supra note 4, at 215.
227. Warrick, supra note 79 (quoting Lester Friedlander).
228. See Grandin, supra note 122 and accompanying text.
229. See, e.g., EISNITZ, supra note 132, at 93-95 (recounting slaughterhouse worker's admission that he beat a hog to death, cut off another hog's nose and salted the wound, and other atrocities).
230. See Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 22 (reflecting appropriation for "enhanced inspection activities").
231. The conference report states that the money was to be used "to hire no fewer than 50 [full time equivalent employeesc] for enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) through full-time ante-mortem inspection, particularly unloading, handling, stunning, and killing of animals at slaughter plants." H.R Rep. No. 108-10, at 576 (2003), reprinted in 2003 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4, 18.
232. The same conference report that instructed the USDA to hire additional enforcement personnel also instructed the GAO to prepare a report "on the scope and frequency of HMSA violations, and provide recommendations on the extent to which additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and other agency functions are needed to properly regulate slaughter facilities in the area of HMSA enforcement." H.R Rep. No. 108-10, at 576 (2003), reprinted in 2003 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4, 18-19.
233. See U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 147.
234. See id. at 17-21 (noting 675 violations contained in 553 noncompliance records issued at 272 facilities).
235. See id. at 17.
236. See id. at 5.
237. Id.
238. EC Health & Consumer Prot. Directorate-Gerteral, Directorate F, Food and Veterinary Office, Overview of Results of a Series of Missions to Evaluate Controls of Animal Welfare on Farms in Seven Member States Carried out Between June 2001 and June 2002, at 5 (2002), available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/inspections/ special_reports/sr_rep_9008-2002_en.pdf.
239. Id.
240. See, e.g., EISNITZ, supra note 132, at 207-12 (discussing the relationship between USDA employees and the management of the plants in which they work).
241. See 9 C.F.R. § 310.1 (2006).
242. See Food & Agric. Org. of the U.N, supra note 2.
243. See, e.g., Donald G. McNeil, Jr., KFC Supplier Accused of Animal Cruelty, N.Y. TIMES, July 20, 2004, at C2 (describing saughterhouse workers "jumping up and down on live chickens, drop-kicking them like footballs and slimming them into walls, apparently for fun.").
244. 7 U.S.C. § 1902(a) (2000).
245. 21 U.S.C. § 603 (2000).
246. See Levine v. Johanns, No. 3:05-cv4764 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 21, 2005).
247. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 801 (4th ed. 2004).
248. THE RANDOM HOUSE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 784 (revised ed. 1980).
249. American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, Livestock Breeds, http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/wtchlist.html#livestock (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
250. American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, Poultry Breeds, http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/wtchlist.html#poultry (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
251. See Department of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Breeds of livestock, http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
252. See Department of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Poultry Breeds, http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).
253. 101 CONG. REC. 4184 (1955).
254. See 101 CONG. REC. 4188 (1955) (statement of Sen. Humphrey). Interestingly, he sometimes expressed the distinction as being between "animals" and poultry.
255. Id.
256. 102 CONG. REC. 13904 (1956).
257. Id.
258. See, e.g., 103 CONG. REC. H66 (1957) (reflecting the introduction of H.R. 176, "[a] bill to require the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock and poultry");
259. 103 CONG. REC. H637 (1957) (H.R. 3029, similar);
260. 103 CONG. REC. H3238 (1957) (H.R. 5671, similar);
261. 103 CONG. REC. H3411 (1957) (H.R. 5820, "[a] bill to promote the development and use of improved methods for the humane handling, transporting, and slaughtering of livestock and poultry").
262. See 103 CONG. REC. S3079 (1957) (reflecting the introduction of S. 1497, "[a] bill to require the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock and poultry in interstate or foreign commerce").
263. 103 CONG. REC. H10042 (1957) (reflecting the introduction of H.R. 8308).
264. This concern was raised openly by others. See 104 CONG. REC. S15406 (1958) (statement of Sen. Anderson) (raising the possibility that "[i]f the bill goes to conference, it will be wrangled with until too late in the session for a conference report to be agreed upon by the conferees and then to be agreed to by both Houses.").
265. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 1 (reflecting Sen. Humphrey's decision to substitute the text of the House bill for the text of his own bill, S. 1497).
266. See, e.g., id. at 20 (statement of Sen. Neuberger).
267. See, e.g. id., at 39 (statement of E.L. Peterson, Assistant Sec'y of Agric.) (replying, when asked whether the bill covered poultry, "I am not sure of that point. I don't believe it would.").
268. See 104 CONG. REC. H1659 (statement of Rep. Hoffman) (arguing that chickens and turkeys may be "livestock" under the dictionary definition).
269. See S. Hearings, supra note 6, at 321.
270. 104 CONG. REC. H1655 (1958).
271. CONG. REC. S15376 (1958). He also described the bill as "a mild and modest beginning in the field of humane slaughter." Id. However, Senator Humphrey was clearly conflicted about this issue. In the same colloquy, he suggested that the Department of Agriculture might have the authority to regulate turkey slaughter under the bill, a position that is impossible to reconcile with the apparently purposeful exclusion of poultry.
272. See id.
273. See supra notes 108 to 113 and accompanying text.
274. See, e.g., Gaverick J. Matheny & Cheryl Leahy, Farm-Animal Welfare, Legislation, and Trade 70 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., 325, 341 tbl.2 (Winter 2007) (summarizing European laws on poultry slaughter).
275. Humane Methods of Poultry Slaughter Act of 1993, H.R. 649,103d Cong. §2 (1993).
276. See 95 CIS H 16120 (1994) (listing witnesses for and against the bill).
277. 104 CONG. REC. H1654 (1958) (statement of Rep. Poage),
278. 7 U.S.C. § 1906 (2000).
279. See generally S. Hearings, supra note 6.
280. Id. at 341 (statement of Rabbi Isaac Lewin, Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada).
281. Id. at 157 (statement of Rabbi Lewin).
282. See generally 85 CONG. REC. S15402-15 (1958).
283. These methods were described during the debate on the Senate floor. See id. at S15375 (statement of Sen. Yong). Some are still used today. See Grandin, supra note 14.
284. Senator Javits, the sponsor of the handling amendment, argued that the handliqg exemption was necessary to make the religious slaughter exemption "complete" and to ensure that religious slaughter was permitted. See id. at S15402.
285. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872,881 (1990).
286. The Welfare of imals (Slaughter or Killing), 1995, S.I. 1958/731 (U.K.). 204. See id. pt. 4, reg 22.
287. See id. sch. 12.
288. See FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL, supra note 17, at 33-34.
289. Id. at 35.
290. See id. at 36.
291. See, e.g., Aisha Labi, A Stunning Debate, TIME EUROPE, June 23, 2004, at 52;
292. Robin Oakley, Meat Ban Call Unites Muslims, Jews, CNN, June 13, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/13/britain.meat/index.html.
293. See FAWC RESORT ON THE WELFARE OF FARMED ANIMALS, PART 1: RED MEAT ANIMALS, DEFRA RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 17 (2003) (Response to Recommendation 201), available at http://www.fawc.org.uk/ reportr./pb8347.pdf.
294. See generally The Association of Religion Data Archives, http://www.thearda.com (last visited Nov. 15,2006).
295. 374 F. Supp. 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
296. Id. at 1289-90.
297. Id. at 1291.
298. Id. at 1292.
299. See, e.g., Erwin Chemerinsky, The Parsonage Exemption Violates the Establishment Clause and Should Be Declared Unconstitutional, 24 Whittier L. Rev. 707 (2003) (arguing that income tax exemption for ministers violates the Establishment Clause).
300. See, e.g., Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-pay Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding exemption of religious organizations from federal law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of religion);
301. Walz v. Tax Comm'r, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) (upholding property tax exemption for religious organizations);
302. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) (upholding program that permitted public school students to miss class without penalty to participate in religious acitvities). But see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) (plurality opinion) (striking down sales tax exemption that applied only to religious literature).