Horse Meat Found in Other Ground Meat Sold in U.S.

Research into the mislabeling of meats has uncovered horse meat mixed in with other ground meat sold in the U.S. commercial market.
For a study of ground meat products sold in the U.S., researchers from the Food Science Program at Chapman University in California analyzed 48 samples and found that 10 were mislabeled.
One sample was entirely mislabeled with regard to what type of animal meat it contained. Nine samples had meat from an additional type of animal mixed in. In two of those cases, the mix contained horse meat, which is illegal to sell in the U.S.
Rosalee Hellberg, an assistant professor in the Food Science Program and co-author on both studies, states in a news release from Chapman University:

“Although extensive meat species testing has been carried out in Europe in light of the 2013 horsemeat scandal, there has been limited research carried out on this topic in the United States. To our knowledge, the most recent U.S. meat survey was published in 1995.”

 

© Flickr user 'Danielle Scott'

 

 The study notes two possible explanations for multiple types of animal meat being found in the same ground meat product:

• Unintentional cross-contamination at the meat processing facility. This occurs when multiple types of animal meat are ground on the same equipment without it being properly cleaned in-between.
• Intentional mixing in of a lower-cost animal meat with a higher-cost meat for economic gain, such as to reduce costs or increase profits.

Another study by the same researchers found that 10 out of 54 samples of game meat sold online by U.S. retailers were potentially mislabeled.
Two products labeled as bison and one labeled as yak were identified as domestic cattle. One product labeled as black bear was American beaver, and one labeled as pheasant was helmeted guinea fowl.
Both studies were published in the journal Food Control.
Overall, the researchers found that mislabeled meat was more commonly obtained from online specialty meat distributors rather than from supermarkets.
To learn more about food fraud, which includes mislabeling, check out “6 Tips to Avoid Becoming a Victim of ‘Food Fraud.'”

 
Do you worry about mislabeling of meat products you buy? Let us know your reaction to this news below or on our Facebook page.

Related articles

• Horse Meat Found in U.S. Food Chain(rtfitchauthor.com)
•  Study Says Americans Could be Eating Horsemeat Without Knowing(habitatforhorses.org)

  ---

• Are you eating HORSE? Researchers find 20 per cent of samples of 'ground beef' sold in the US contain the illegal meat(dailymail.co.uk)

  ---

• DNA Testing Shows Some Ground Meat Sold In US Contains Horse Meat(techtimes.com)

  ---

"Slaughterhouse" Sue Wallis Dead

reblogged from Straight From the Horse's Heart

A Statistical Analysis of Slaughterhouse Sue

By John Holland ~ President of the Equine Welfare Alliance

“Sue is a compulsive fact creator…”

“Slaughterhouse” $ue Wallis

Hi, my name is John Holland, and I am a data-holic. I usually spend my day furtively downloading statistics and information; analyzing it, graphing it, correlating it and trying to glean insights into the true workings of the horse world.
But today is different. Today, I was inspired to opine by a thing of great rarity in our struggle; a well researched article. It appeared in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch titled Horse slaughterhouse plans stalled in Missouri and it convinced me we are winning this struggle, at least for the moment.
No, the article did not contain a new revelation about the outcome of a court case, or the result of a vote. It contained something even more telling: It documented Sue Wallis slipping beyond the gravitational pull of reality and into an alternate universe of anti-logic, where up is down and dark is light.
Sue begins the interview with her now familiar claim that she chose Missouri because, “If you draw a 500-mile circle from western Missouri you encapsulate 30 percent of the horse herd in the U.S.” After musing over the concept of the US horse population constituting a single “herd”, I began wondered where she got this statistic.
You see, Sue and I share different forms of compulsion. I am a compulsive fact checker while Sue is a compulsive fact creator. So I ran the numbers and the result I got was 23.6% of the US horse population being within 500 miles (as the crow flies) of western Missouri.
This means Sue’s exaggeration coefficient for this statement is 27%[i]. This modest exaggeration would prove to be her perigee with reality before she would slingshot past it and off into the abyss of deep space.
After describing the law suit that had resulted in the Cole County judge’s directive to the Department of Natural Resources to hold off on issuing Rains the discharge permit, the story returned to the interview with Sue.

“The horse industry has been decimated,” Wallis said. “We have worthless horses being turned out and abandoned.”

As I read this, I again felt compelled to calibrate Wallis’ definition of decimation. The original term came from quaint custom of the Roman army by which they would execute every tenth soldier of a disgraced unit so as to improve morale. Was every tenth horse in America being abandoned?
 The only state I could find that keeps abandonment data is New Mexico. During my research, they provided me with a very detailed list of all the estray horses they had picked up since 2006. Last year they picked up exactly 124 horses.
 Given the estimated 147,181 horses in New Mexico, this means that the abandonment rate is 0.06% or one horse in every 1,186. Since decimation would be one in ten (10%), Sue’s exaggeration coefficient had suddenly rocketed from 27% to 16,666%.
Parroting the discredited 2011 GAO report, Wallis went on to say “People take care of animals that have value. It’s when they don’t that they neglect them.”
This was the conjecture used to excuse why the GAO studied horse prices instead of actually studying neglect as it had been assigned to do. It is, of course, utter nonsense. Few household pets have any monetary value, yet most people take good care of them.
It gets better. “Every breed registry is down 70 percent since 2007. Fewer colts are being born,” Wallis said.
Apparently Wallis has data I have not seen; data showing among other things that only the birth rate of colts is in decline. Is there some strange gender asymmetry going on here? Or is it possible that the Executive Director of the International Equine Business Association, the expert of CNN interviews and countless articles does not know that colts are males and the proper term would have been foals?
As for “every breed registry being off 70% since 2007”, Sue’s exaggeration coefficient is pretty substantial. According to the Jockey Club, thoroughbred foal registrations are off 34.5%, not 70%. Some breeds appear to have been almost unaffected, but the AQHA’s annual report does show about a 49% reduction in foal registrations from its peak in 2007.

 “Slaughterhouse” $ue Wallis ~ Horse guts and blood
are what drives this political nut-job

The pattern with Quarter Horses is a familiar one for those of us who have been around the horse world for a few decades. Breeds come into favor, resulting in indiscriminate breeding spurred on by the greed of their breed registry. Then the bubble bursts. Just before the decline began, the then executive vice president of the AQHA, Bill Brewer, gave an impassioned speech at their annual convention urging more breeding so there would be “enough good horses in the future”.

A great breed has been degraded in the process. Quarter Horses now commonly suffer from a wide range of maladies such as GBED, HERDA, HYPP, and Navicular. The most common complaint of owners is that they “bred the feet off them.” This could explain why AQHA membership is down 18.6% since 2007. I wondered to myself, would Sue suggest killing off a bunch of their remaining members as a solution to the decline?
Sue continues, “That’s 70 percent less feed being sold, 70 percent fewer jobs, 70 percent fewer veterinarians.”
Apparently Sue believes that a short term drop in foal (excuse me colt) births means that the whole horse population suddenly drops by the same percentage. Despite Sue’s best efforts, horses do often live well into their 20s and beyond, meaning that recent foal crops would represent only a few percent of the population.
With a nearly 50% decrease in foals, the population of registered quarter horses dropped from 3,218,113 in 2007 to 2,978,776 in 2012 according to the AQHA annual reports, a decline of just 7.4%. Here Sue gets an exaggeration coefficient of 945%.
But at this point her thinking turns to what I will call anti-logic, because if it came into contact with rational thought the two would annihilate each other with a thunderous clap, probably decapitating their host. She is proclaiming that all of this devastation is because we have too few horses as a direct result of not killing enough of them! This would be laughable if 2012 had not seen more US horses slaughtered than any year since 1994!
One survival strategy of prey animals is to synchronize their birthing so as to overwhelm their predators. Sue has adopted this strategy with her spontaneously created facts. She spews so many at one time that at least a few have a good chance to get past us unchallenged.
At this point in the interview, Sue seems to sense her interviewer is not buying her nonsense. So she throws her hyperbole engine into warp drive, saying “This has wrecked communities — all because of the elitist snooty arrogance of this bunch of people telling us what’s culturally acceptable to eat.”
The community of Boggy Bottom, the neighborhood behind the Dallas Crown slaughter house, was truly devastated by the pollution, stench and crime caused by the plant. I witnessed it firsthand. But where is Sue’s example of a community devastated by a lack of slaughter? Apparently with anti-logic you automatically get an anti-logic twin to Boggy Bottom, at least in the brain of Sue Wallis.
It is impossible for me to calculate the exaggeration factor for this statement because, since there is no truth at all to be exaggerated, it would require dividing by zero. I think I now fully understand Einstein’s quote about only the universe and human stupidity being infinite.
Yet the second half of the outburst is the most interesting of all.
Sue had apparently learned that the influential Busch brothers (former owners of Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch) had thrown their considerable weight into the battle on the side of the horses. Victoria McCullough had sent them a link to our report How the GAO deceived Congress, and Victoria said she thinks the outrage at this government deceit had caused them to weigh in.
Lately there has been an avalanche of high profile support for ending horse slaughter completely. In the government sector; President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Vilsack have all come out against horse slaughter. At the state level, New Mexico’s Governor Susana Martinez, former governor Bill Richardson, Attorney General Gary King and others have spoken up for the horses. Celebrities such as the incredibly influential Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg have also taken a stand.
But most aggravating of all for Sue are the “snooty, arrogant billionaires”. This is because Sue knows that the money from big agriculture was the only advantage she had in this battle. Internationally known equestrian Victoria McCullough and her “snooty arrogant” friends, are serving to balance the scales by using their resources to multiply the impact of the tireless grass roots work of thousands of horse lovers and animal welfare organizations. This combination may well bring Slaughterhouse Sue crashing back to reality.

---

[i] How does a 6.4% error become an exaggeration factor of 27%?
Use this formula ((30-23.6)*100)/23.6), or ask your friendly local nerd.

PCRM | Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act

Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act

The Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, a crucial bill to protect both consumers’ health and American horses, was recently introduced in Congress. This legislation will prohibit the sale and transport of horse meat and horses intended for human consumption, thereby keeping toxic meat out of the nation’s food supply.

 Because horses in the United States are raised as companions and sport animals—not for human consumption—they are routinely given hundreds of drugs and chemicals that could cause harm to human health if their meat is ingested. Many of these substances have never been tested on humans, while some are known to be deadly if ingested by people. These pharmaceuticals—steroids, antibiotics, growth promoters, sedatives, artificial hormones, vaccines, painkillers, and others—are often labeled “not for use in animals used for food/that will be eaten by humans,” and more than 50 drugs regularly administered to horses are expressly prohibited by federal regulations for use in food animals.

There is no system in place to track these medications and veterinary treatments to ensure that horse meat is safe for human consumption. Even small traces of these chemicals in adulterated horse meat could pose serious health risks, most of which are completely unknown.

Please click here to urge your members of Congress to keep toxic horse meat out of the food supply by co-sponsoring and supporting the SAFE Act.

 Please follow the above link and support the SAFE Act. Let's keep horse slaughter out of our country!

Related articles

• Canada Bill C-322 Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act
• ABP settles one horse meat legal action and begins another
• Miniature horses are now recognized as important (and adorable) service animals
• ALDI confirms up to 100% horsemeat in beef products!!
• Current Crisis Evaluation.

Why Not Horse Meat? 05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Why Not Horse Meat?

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

There was a thought provoking blog published by The Huffington Post – Marc Vetri: Humanity And Justice For All regarding the topic of horse meat.  Disappointingly the current massive Horse Meat Scandal has put horse meat in the spotlight with curious foodies considering it for their next meal.  While I find the topic repugnant, as a meat eater, it would be hypocritical of me to dismiss it without careful regard.

The relationship humans have with horses is rooted in history.  Those roots grow deep.  Horses became our partners.  Much like dogs, they provided us with opportunities that we wouldn’t have had without them.  We could travel farther and faster while carrying heavy burdens.  We could till ground that would have been impossible without them.  We could travel in weather that would previously leave us housebound.  They provided us with sport and entertainment.  They provided us with the ability to round up other animals to raise for food.  While working together, deep relationships were born.  Yes, they are stunning to watch but the bond we share with them goes far beyond basic aesthetics.

Chances are at some point, just about everyone has enjoyed a horse in one respect or another.  Movies, horse races, grand prix event or rodeos – all would share the joy of horses.  Many have gone further by owning, riding, competing or working with horses in some way.  Ask someone about their horse and brace yourself for a deluge of proud stories.

How could we possibly eat these noble beasts?  If you take the emotional attachment out of it, technically we should.  They’re herbivores like cattle.  Horses aren’t that different.
Two key differences: Horses are not raised for food and our food system is not geared to handle them.

Not Raised For Food

Marc Vetri stated “If I were to find a livestock farmer who was raising them humanely, I would consider it.” However it goes far beyond simply raising them humanely.

Why not raise horses in the same manner as cattle?  In general, they’re harder to handle.  Unhandled horses bite and kick not only each other, but people as well.  They are a fight or flight animal and are very good at both.  Round ups of horses are much more difficult due to their speed, far beyond any cow.  Add their strength, power and height, handling them isn’t easy and accommodating them isn’t possible on every farm.  They’re harder on property and harder on fences.  ”Hard keepers” by cattle standards, the vast majority of horses need supplemental feeding to stay in good condition.  By their very nature, horses aren’t good candidates for food production animals.  There are easier more placid stock to raise.

Horses are currently handled from birth, halter broke, trained to accept grooming, leading, farriers, veterinarians and eventually a rider or to drive.  No one with the intent of sending an animal for meat wants to invest this much personal time or emotion.  While it would make them easier and safer to handle, the logistics of time and costs are not feasible.  With the average herd size of cattle in Canada being 61 head, imagine the time demands on keeping that many horses regularly handled and socialized.  It cannot be done.

During the process of horse ownership they are often medicated.  Horses tend to be exposed to more illnesses and injury due to their work.  Drugs used for fertility, performance, pain killers, illness or other medical issues are common.  The vast majority of these drugs would never be used in food producing animals.  Due to horses having various roles of work, the introduction of these medications should be assumed.  Severe adverse reactions in humans, cancer causing agents and hormonal therapies should never enter our food chain.  There is never the intent to send a horse for meat, so the drugs chosen are never considered for human consumption safety before they are administered.

Phenylbutazone is a common anti-inflammatory drug administered to horses that is not safe for humans.  It can cause “…severe adverse effects such as suppression of white blood cell production and aplastic anemia.”  This drug has also been found in some of the horse meat scandal samples.
There are only so many carcasses tested.  Of those, only so many tests can be run.  Considering the amount of ecoli and salmonella cases found in recent years, do we really want to trust our health regarding an unknown cocktail of drugs that may or may not be tested for?

“Nobody has established when it is safe to eat meat that has been treated with phenylbutazone….”

Food System Not Geared Towards Horses

Horses enter the food chain via auctions.  When a cow enters an auction, they’re being purchased either by meat buyers (in which case they go to slaughter) or to other farms for breeding programs and eventual slaughter.  Either way, their intent for food and treatment as such remains intact.  Horses however come from every walk of life (racing, pleasure riding, competitive jumping, draft, companions, etc.), at every age, in various levels of health.  Hay Shortage Victims, many horses are landing in auction that would typically be home safe in a barn.  Other horses have failed to respond to medical treatments and are being given up on.  Many times, the money has simply run out.  It is safe to say that no horse in North America is born with the intent of going for meat.

In order to garner the highest price, many are drugged in hopes of covering obvious lameness, behavioural issues or due to their alien surroundings simply just to calm them.  Well behaved, good looking, sound animals are hopefully picked up by new owners who take them home to their barns.  Those owners pay more so they are catered to.  For sellers, there is a financial impact of not drugging.  Sometimes a horse might show a bit of a spark in some way, in which case they’ll be purchased, a little TLC given so that they can hope to raise a better price in another auction.  Horses in poor condition, injured, not eye catching, excessively shy or even aggressive have little hope of going to a home.  Those horses are sold to meat buyers for bottom dollar, intended for slaughter.  Any other meat animal would be banned from entering the food chain if they had these same drugs administered to them.  However, the people sending the horses to the slaughter houses wouldn’t have administered the drugs or necessarily have any knowledge of them.

This is the criteria of your possible dinner meat: ill, poor condition and quite possibly drugged.  In a society of demanding the highest of quality, free range, antibiotic free, grass and grain fed meats, this source doesn’t qualify in the least.  There is no quality control on selection at all.

Food animals are transported in large groups via stock trailers in order to decrease costs.  Again, by their very nature as fight or flight animals, groups of horses in close quarters are dangerous.  Stress is a key factor.  They kick, panic, slip and will fall without proper support.  Injuries are often severe.  These trailers don’t have provisions for food or water and many will collapse from exhaustion or dehydration or even arrive dead.  Due to their very nature, they require a more refined mode of transportation in order to ensure their welfare.  In general, the largest safe horse trailers only carry up to 6 horses.

The slaughter system is tailored to cattle and swine.   Again, the nature of the horse causes undue stress and panic.  Kill methods approved for horses (generally) are either via gunshot or captive bolt.  Horses are ‘head shy’, meaning they don’t handle close handling of their heads or things being held by their heads without a fight.  Gunshots miss the mark.  Captive bolt often requires to be ‘stunned’ several times due to their panic levels.  Horse advocates suggest that due to their nature, horses cannot be slaughtered humanely.

No.  I would not advocate horse meat.  Horses cannot be accommodated humanely at a commercial level for food either by transport or slaughter.  The meat itself is not safe for human consumption due to the routine drugs administered to them. Without a sustainable method taking effort, cost and safety to both horse and human to raise them purely for food, there is not a feasible food production model for them.

There is no shortfall of meats available for human consumption.  Simply because we physically can does not mean we should.  At some point, the line needs to be drawn.  Even with the emotional attachment to horses taken out of the equation, horse meat has no place on our dinner plates.

Related articles

• Horse Meat In Human Food Chain Causes Health Concerns
• BREAKING NEWS: N.M. moves to halt first U.S. horse slaughterhouse
• ASPCA Commends House Appropriations Committee for Voting to Eliminate Funds for Inspection of U.S. Horse Slaughter Facilities
• Chemically Tainted Horse Meat Unfit for Consumption

Trojan Horse Slaughter

James McWilliams

04/17/2013 | 9:28 am

As Americans watch Europeans condemn the discovery of horsemeat in their Ikea meatballs, we can take some solace in the fact that, for once, we’ve sidestepped an industrial food-related travesty. Our complacency, however, could be short-lived. Although less dramatic than horse DNA adulterating ground beef, another horse-related scandal is about to implicate U.S. citizens in a scheme that will send tainted horse meat into foreign markets while enriching U.S. horse slaughterers with taxpayer dollars.

The last U.S.-based horse slaughterhouse closed in 2007. The phasing out of horse slaughter in the United States ended the exportation of U.S.-produced horse meat to Canada, Europe, and Japan. This development, among other accomplishments, spelled the decline of a niche business that profited from a product that American taxpayers financially supported (through USDA inspection of horse slaughterhouses) but were loathe to consume (plus, it’s illegal to sell horse meat in the U.S.).
Over the past six years, though, a small cohort of national lobbyists and state representatives has worked to reopen U.S. horse slaughterhouses. Five states—Oklahoma, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa—have already taken legislative steps in that direction. Their collective justification for doing so is that U.S. slaughterhouses are better for the welfare of horses. Without them, they argue, an endless stream of retired race horses will inevitably head to Mexico for slaughter, a terrifying prospect for animals who, advocates further contend, will meet an especially gruesome south-of-the-border death.

On the surface, this argument seems to make sense. Why slaughter horses abroad when we can do so at home? A closer look, however, reveals three problems, each of which suggests that any claim to reinstate horse slaughter on welfare grounds is simply a cynical ploy to dupe Americans into supporting a business most of us find abhorrent.

First, advocates of U.S. horse slaughter—the very people who insist they care about shortening the distance a horse travels for slaughter—opposed legislation restricting the distance horses could travel in the aftermath of the American closings. Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state representative and the most vocal proponent of reopening slaughterhouses (they call her “Slaughterhouse Sue”), wrote in 2009 that, “A key early initiative is to muster resources to oppose bills now pending in Congress that would ban the transportation of horses to other countries for the purpose of slaughter.” The intent here was as simple as it was sinister: to normalize long horse hauls to foreign soil and then highlight its inherent cruelty, thereby buttressing the case for a more “humane” local option.

Second, the claim that Mexican slaughterhouses are comparatively inhumane is equally problematic. Plants where U.S. horses have been slaughtered in Mexico are owned by the same European Union companies that once owned horse slaughterhouses in the United States. Supporters of local slaughter suggest that U.S. horses are being killed in an especially cruel and unregulated manner in Mexican-owned slaughterhouses, mainly by stabbing them in the spine. In fact, EU companies deploy standard procedures, using (most notably) captive bolt guns to stun horses before bleeding and processing them, just as they do in Europe and once did in the U.S. Ironically, the only documented cases we have of horse slaughterhouse cruelty and abuse come from the U.S. (back when slaughterhouses were legal).

Third, advocates of U.S. horse slaughter insist that, without the re-institution of slaughter at home, an unmanageable number of horses will continue to suffer the indignities described above. But the numbers don’t support this claim. Nearly 90 percent of U.S. horses die of natural causes or are euthanized at home. Bill Bullard, a California state representative and supporter of U.S. horse slaughter, says that the horse industry is desperate for “a way to dispose of our old, diseased, lame horses.” In fact, that problem has already been solved for the overwhelming majority of horses. They die the way our pets die—more often than not with quiet dignity.

Duplicity is one thing. But the upshot of this manufactured crisis is even worse: an impending public health disaster of global proportions. What supporters of U.S. slaughter never tell us is that the 150,000 or so U.S. horses that are annually slaughtered for export are bombarded daily with a hit list of toxic drugs, most notably phenylbutazone (“bute”), a common painkiller. While innocuous for horses, bute can cause, even in trace doses, aplastic anemia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, pancytopenia, and hemolytic anemia in humans. Eating U.S. horses, according to Tufts Veterinary professor Nicolas Dodman, “is about as healthful as food contaminated with DDT.”  The USDA currently has no program to regulate these substances.

In other words, lost in all the discussions about horse slaughter and horsemeat is a fundamental point: horses are not raised for food. They are, in essence, an industrial product. For Americans to recycle them into an edible but toxic by-product for foreigners to eat, doing so with taxpayer dollars and through an underfunded USDA, would be bad for everyone involved, most notably the 150,00 horses a year who’d be much better off not being used as Trojan horses to hide the profits of those who claim to care about them.

Related articles

• From the Horse Lover's Mouth
• WHOA: Wild horses at risk for slaughter
• Robert Redford Calls for a Ban on Horse Slaughter
• Responsible Horse Breeders Council Endorses Federal Bill to End Horse Slaughter
• Obama Moves to Block Horse Slaughter

Horse Meat Scandal Illustrates Need for Federal Action

Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics: Horsemeat Scandal Illustrates Need for Federal Action

Horse meat Scandal Illustrates Need for Federal Action

A food scandal has rocked Europe, where products labeled as beef—everything from frozen lasagna to Swedish meatballs—have tested positive for horsemeat. But it’s not just in Europe where government officials should take notice; the controversy affects the United States, too. More than 100,000 American horses are killed each year for their meat, and the main market for this product is Europe.

Former racehorses, carriage horses, family ponies, and other equines are scooped up at auctions by predatory “killer buyers,” who often outbid horse rescue groups and families that want to give the horses a new, loving home. The majestic creatures are crammed tightly into cattle trucks, and shipped hundreds or thousands of miles to slaughter plants across the border in Canada or Mexico.

They are butchered, shrink-wrapped, and air-freighted to Belgium, France, Italy, or other countries. It’s a grisly end for an American icon. And it’s generally reserved for the strongest, healthiest horses, with the most meat on their bones to fetch the most profit—not the sick and homeless as the horse slaughter boosters would have us believe.

Stopping the cruelty of long-distance transport and slaughter of our cherished companions should be enough to spur action. But there’s another major reason our lawmakers should act: We are dumping unsafe and contaminated horsemeat on European dinner plates and supermarket shelves.

The European Union forbids imports of American chicken because the carcasses are bathed in chlorine, and bans pork imports because American producers treat the animals with ractopomine. But tens of thousands of drugged-up American horses are entering the marketplace, even though they are routinely given medicines throughout their lives not intended for human consumption.

Clenbuterol, a bronchodilator with anabolic steroid properties, and Phenylbutazone, known as bute or horse aspirin, are among many commonly prescribed medications for treating ailing or lame horses—but banned for use in animals slaughtered for human consumption. The U.S. has no system in place to track the medications that are given to horses over their lifetimes, and therefore, there’s no reliable way to remove horses from the food chain once they have been given prohibited substances. It’s no surprise that bute was found last summer in horsemeat shipped from Canada to Belgium, and continues to turn up in random testing.

While horse slaughter apologists such as those in the Oklahoma legislature are rallying for a return to equine abattoirs on U.S. soil, it’s becoming uncertain whether they will have any remaining markets to sell their product—especially if the European Union decides to crack down on sales of horsemeat from North America in light of the recent scandal.

It’s time for the U.S. Congress to take a hard look at the serious and far-reaching food safety concerns associated with slaughtering American horses. Lawmakers should reintroduce federal legislation to prevent the slaughter and export of our horses for human consumption, and send a message that the global trade of U.S. horsemeat is simply unsuitable for the dinner table.

Related articles

• Horse slaughtering legal in US, but public won't bite
• America's secret and brutal horsemeat trade

Drug-alert horsemeat did enter Yorkshire food chain

Drug-alert horsemeat did enter Yorkshire food chain - Main Section - Yorkshire Post

Drug-alert horsemeat did enter Yorkshire food chain

The ABP Foods plant in Leeming Bar, North Yorkshire, was at the centre of the original horse meat scandal.

By Jack Blanchard Political Editor
Published on Saturday 2 February 2013 05:00

ILLEGAL horsemeat contaminated with a cancer-causing drug was butchered in a British abattoir and sent to a farm in Yorkshire for human consumption, a Government agency has confirmed.

Health Ministers revealed yesterday that, contrary to previous assurances, a horse which was killed and butchered in Britain and known to be contaminated with the carcinogenic drug phenylbutazone – widely referred to as “bute” – has indeed entered the UK food chain.

Food safety officials claimed the banned meat was eaten only by the horse’s original owner, a farmer in Kirklees, and an associate of his on another farm in Lancashire.

But Labour warned there was no real evidence the potentially dangerous meat had not been distributed more widely. Bute is given to horses as an anti-inflammatory, but can cause cancer in humans and is strictly banned from entering the food chain across the EU.

English: Mary Creagh in Parliament (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the wake of the recent scandal over quantities of horsemeat found in supermarket beefburgers, Labour’s Shadow Environment Secretary, Mary Creagh, has warned of several cases of bute being found in UK abattoirs.

Figures this week revealed that nearly 10,000 horses were killed and butchered for their meat in British abattoirs last year. Just over 150 were tested for bute, with nine coming back positive.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) moved to reassure the public that “none of the meat had been placed for sale in the UK”.

But it has now emerged that while most of the contaminated horsemeat was shipped to France, one carcase was divided up and sent to two farms in the north of England – one in Kirklees and another in Chorley, Lancashire.

In a written Parliamentary answer, Health Minister Anna Soubry said the FSA had contacted the relevant local authorities as soon as it realised the meat was contaminated – believed to be in September 2012. But she said that when environmental health officials visited the farms in question, they were told the meat had been “purchased for personal consumption – and had already been consumed”.

FSA officials said last night that they had accepted this version of events, adding that as the Yorkshire farmer and his associate had effectively eaten their own horse, the meat was never actually sold in the UK.

But Ms Creagh, who is also MP for Wakefield, said people would not be reassured that the food safety system was working. “The public must have confidence that the food they buy is properly labelled, legal and safe,” she said.

“Despite last week’s denials, the Food Standards Agency have now confirmed that horsemeat contaminated with phenylbutazone – or bute – has been consumed in the UK, despite it being banned from the human food chain.

“The Government, retailers and the FSA need to get a grip and set out what steps they will take to ensure this does not happen again.”

The bute contamination is the second horsemeat scandal to hit the UK this year, after traces of horse were found in a range of supermarket burgers last month.

The FSA said in a statement: “Horses treated with ‘bute’ are not allowed to enter the food chain. The FSA carries out checks in slaughterhouses to ensure that horses presented for slaughter are fit for human consumption. In 2012, the FSA identified five cases where horses returned non-compliant results. None of the meat had been placed for sale on the UK market.”

Related articles

• FSA finds horsemeat in Northern Irish food company
• Horsemeat burgers 'could contain a carcinogen'

CONFUSION REINS AS CANADIAN SLAUGHTER PLANTS STOP SLAUGHTERING US HORSES

    
October 12, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

John Holland, Equine Welfare Alliance
540.268.5693
john@equinewelfarealliance.org

Sinikka Crosland, Canadian Horse Defence Coalition
250.681.1408
info@defendhorsescanada.org


CONFUSION REINS AS CANADIAN SLAUGHTER PLANTS STOP SLAUGHTERING US HORSES

Chicago (EWA) – US horses are no longer being accepted by Canadian horse slaughter plants, according to multiple sources. The Shipshewana auction in Indiana confirmed reports that they have discontinued loose (slaughter) horse sales for an indefinite period of time.

A spokesperson for the Sugar Creek Ohio auction also confirmed that the kill buyers were no longer
taking slaughter horses because “the plants are shut down”. This was further confirmed by a Richelieu slaughter house official. An unconfirmed report from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) indicated it was the result of a European Union (EU) directive.

Canadian customs officials, however, knew nothing of the action. To add to the confusion, at least one driver stated that he did deliver horses to an undisclosed plant Friday afternoon.

The move came so suddenly that many trucks were already on the way when they learned of it.
According to Lambright the issue is that the EU has banned American horse meat from being shipped for consumption in Europe. EWA has yet to receive confirmation from the EU.

Following the closure of US based horse slaughter plants in 2007, the export of horses to slaughter in
Canada and Mexico increased dramatically. In 2011 the US exported over 64,000 horses to Canada and 68,000 to Mexico.

Documents showing horse meat contaminated with phenylbutazone (a carcinogen) and clenbuterol (a
steroid) surfaced recently, indicating that the CFIA and the EU were accelerating their residue testing
programs. These reports were followed by claims from some kill buyers that blood was being drawn
from as many as half their horses (an unprecedented percentage) before they were being accepted.

Since most of the meat from both the Canadian and Mexican plants is being consumed by the EU, it is reported but not confirmed that Mexico too will curtail imports of US horses.

In 2008, the EU announced that it would require third countries to come into compliance with their
standards which require horses to be micro-chipped and all their medications tracked, but few observers expected any action would come before the expiration of a July, 2013 deadline.

The most likely explanation for the sudden move is that the expanded residue testing program has
yielded worse than anticipated results.

Related articles

 

• Horse Slaughter Grinds to a Halt
• Doors Close on America's Horses

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency | Horse Canada

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency | Horse Canada

As we can see, conditions in Canada are the same as in the U.S.: Denial and trivialization is serious problems involving unacceptable cruelty to the horses and unacceptable food safety issues for consumers. No wonder the European Union is planning to require the U.S., Canada, and Mexico all to implement a traceability system comparable to the passport system in use in the EU by July 31, 2013 or the horses from these countries will no longer be accepted by the EU for export for human consumption.

Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Canadian Thoroughbred March 15, 2012

An Open Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency

March 13, 2012

Dr. Martin Appelt
National Manager
Meat Programs Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road
Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9

Dear Dr. Appelt:

In view of Dr. Brian Evans’ prolonged leave of absence, we are sending this package for your review. Enclosed please find full, unedited video footage of our investigative report “Pasture to Plate – The True Cost of Canada’s Horsemeat Industry” at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation Inc. on July 13 and 14, 2011.

(Links to the Pasture to Plate web page: http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/lpn.html and the full 88-page report: http://canadianhorsedefencecoalition.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/pasture-to-plate.pdf.)

The Canadian Horse Defence Coalition notes that the CFIA has not at any time requested full footage of the 2011 investigation but has made numerous statements to the public based on posted information only. We trust that viewing the footage in its entirety as well as the memory stick containing photographs of EID documents (matched up to horses slaughtered at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation) will dispel many of the doubts expressed and misinterpretations made by the agency, including:

“You have expressed concerns about the safety of horsemeat with respect to possible drug residues and referenced photos of Equine Identification Documents (EIDs) that are purported to be incomplete, inaccurate or falsified. All equine owners intending to sell animals directly or indirectly to Canadian meat processors must provide an EID that reports all vaccines, medications or occurrences of illness within six months of slaughter. The photographs in question have been determined to be taken at an auction in the United States. There is no indication that these documents were presented to any Canadian slaughter plant.”

“The EU has accepted the EID as an alternative to its passport system because both systems achieve a similar outcome….EIDs are checked daily by CFIA veterinarians and filed by operators at each federally registered establishment slaughtering equine….Omission or falsification of information on EIDs of horses presented for slaughter is an offence.”

“There are significant limitations to the use of video footage in the absence of eye witness testimony as the basis for enforcement or prosecution purposes.”

“This [the inability of the recently released undercover video footage to be used for regulatory enforcement purposes] can be further compounded when there is a significant time lag between the shooting of the video and its presentation to the CFIA and when the video has been edited.

“Recognized subject matter experts and international humane standards call for assessment of several critical features to affirm the effectiveness of the stun procedure that include the eye, the tongue, and the nose, which can only be determined from the front of the animal. As the video was taken from behind, it is not possible to conclusively use the video to make these assessments.”

“With respect to the large Belgian that is seen to have received multiple stuns, while its state of consciousness is unclear, nevertheless this is one area of operations being assessed.”

The CHDC would like to respond to the above points. The allegation that the EIDs presented as evidence was “determined to have been taken at an auction in the United States” is totally unfounded. Please review the photographs of the EID forms and compare them to the tattoo numbers of horses killed at the plant. Our report, Pasture to Plate: The True Cost of Canada’s Horsemeat Industry (copy enclosed), unmistakably illustrates this connection. Has our report, which has been posted on-line since release of the investigation, even been read by the CFIA? There can be no dispute that the documents photographed at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation arrived along with the horses that were slaughtered. This then begs the question, why isn’t the regulation that dictates: “Omission or falsification of information on EIDs of horses presented for slaughter is an offence” being enforced? It is very evident when reviewing the EIDs that a pattern emerges and it is very clear to see that some EIDs have obviously been “pre-written” across the top with “Drug-free six months”, and the appropriate boxes checked to agree with this information. Why did the CFIA inspectors and slaughter plant operators not flag this for concern? What remedial actions has the CFIA taken against auctions and owners that have submitted incomplete, incorrect or falsified EIDs? In addition, what actions has the CFIA taken to ensure Canadian and American horses sold at auctions have EIDs that are filled in completely, correctly and truthfully?

Why is the CFIA expending so much energy on denial, rather than enforcing legislation and regulations that already exist and simply need to be utilized?

Regarding drug residues in horsemeat, has the CFIA taken into consideration studies such as a recent one conducted by the Wild for Life Foundation that showed 70% of the annual thoroughbred foal crop in the United States are dying in slaughterhouses each year

(http://www.wildforlifefoundation.org/Case_Study_U.S._Thoroughbreds_Slaughtered_2002-2010-WFLF.pdf)

Many of these horses are shipped to Canada for slaughter. Bred for the racing industry, they have been administered drugs such as phenylbutazone, which, as you know, is listed on your website for drugs not permitted for use in equines slaughtered for food, and banned from the food chain. The CFIA may wish to deny the connection, but this will not erase what the public already knows – that the likelihood of prohibited drugs being inadvertently consumed by people in Quebec and overseas is very high. By the CFIA’s own admission, two horsemeat samples have tested positive for phenylbutazone in Canada since 2010. As the most sensitive target for this drug is kidney [Metabolism Excretion, Pharmacokinetics and Tissue Residues of Phenylbutazone in the Horse, Lees, P., Taylor, J.B., Maitho, T.E., Millar, J.D., Higgins, A.J., 1987. Cornell Vet. 77, 192–21: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3568689, and not muscle as claimed by the CFIA, one can only wonder how many more positive samples would have been found if the target tissue were the correct one. Further, in an e-mail to CHDC, the CFIA stated that only 143 samples taken from 93,812 horses in 2009 were tested for phenylbutazone - a woefully inadequate testing sample considering that most horses at some point in their lives have been administered this drug.

With regard to the statement about video footage versus eyewitness testimony, we seriously wonder how this statement would play out in court. Video is an objective accurate account of an event; eyewitness testimonies have often been found to be flawed due to human error or bias. Is the CFIA saying that video images tell lies? The public can view the stun footage online, including longer clips of just some of the ineffective stuns that we released the day this letter was mailed, captured at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation in July 2011, and decide for themselves whether an eyewitness statement would have been more accurate than real-time footage. It is truly appalling that the CFIA has chosen to trivialize evidence and to shirk its responsibilities toward suffering animals and the general public that relies on the agency to be transparent and truthful.

The CFIA states that there was a “significant time lag between the shooting of the video and its presentation to the CFIA”. The time lag of less than five months occurred because it was our duty to have the evidence thoroughly assessed by independent animal welfare professionals before handing it over to an agency that has proven itself beholden to industry. We have learned this from the three prior horse slaughterhouse cruelty cases we have brought forward since 2008, to the disturbing documents we received in response to a freedom of information request on the CFIA's botched handling of the Natural Valley Farms/Natural Meat Company cruelty case. Truly the CFIA has become the fox that guards the henhouse. The mandate of the CFIA is to ensure food safety. The mandate of those involved in animal protection is exactly that—to safeguard the well being of animals. The CFIA’s poor track record in the past concerning slaughterhouse investigations did nothing to assure us that this most recent slaughterhouse footage would be handled fairly. As expected, the agency has once again demonstrated, via a continuing stream of shockingly poor and groundless excuses, that animal welfare is not only not a concern for the agency but that it appears to be the agency's role to protect industry at all costs - especially those costs borne by the animals under its “care”.

Certainly it is true that a number of checkpoints on the head of an animal are used to determine whether stunning has been effective. However, whinnying, rearing, mouthing (visible when horses moved their heads to one side) should not be ignored and were often evident on the videotape. The sheer numbers of re-stun attempts were also indicative of horses not rendered insensible after one shot, as was the shooter "replying" to unstunned horses' whinnying. Also, the shooter's statement "Aye - you're not dead" is clearly indicative of a still-conscious horse despite numerous attempts. The shooter was clearly visible from the front, showing his repeated attempts with the captive bolt pistol. We would like the CFIA to explain, if the inspector has the authority to stop the line, why he did not do so, given that this particular shooter was clearly lacking in training? We further ask the CFIA what retribution this shooter and/or Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation, as well as the CFIA inspector, received as a result of these obvious acts of incompetence. Were these acts treated as infractions, and have any prosecutions followed? To deny the importance of these other parameters in determining sensibility is illogical and proves to the public that the CFIA is simply covering up cruelty.

Dr. Nicholas Dodman, anesthesiologist and animal behaviourist at Tufts University stated the following regarding the large Belgian whose level of consciousness the CFIA is questioning: [After five shots] “This large horse still appears to be conscious and is shot again in the forehead and even that doesn’t do it as it heaves and tries to rise again…The large size of this horse plus imprecise CBG placement probably led to this totally unacceptable and inhumane result.”

Dr. Dodman’s expert opinion on practices at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation concludes with: “…my final conclusion, after reviewing 150-plus horse slaughters in this series of videos, is that the process was terrifying for most of the horses and, in many cases, horribly inhumane. The inhumane treatment of horses at Les Viandes de la Petite Nation must be stopped immediately.”

We would also like to address our concerns regarding the design of the knock box that was raised in our report. It is plainly evident that there is no provision made, besides a flimsy plastic curtain, for horses to avoid viewing the bleed-out/butchering room. Many horses looked inside past the curtain (that was sometimes left open) and this understandably elevated their fear levels. Also evident was the fact that larger draft breeds did not fit into the small dimensions of the knock box, causing many of them to hit their heads on the overhead stanchion. It was also these large draft types that more often required multiple shots to render them unconscious. In addition, the shooter had to reach up to these larger horses, causing him to shoot at the wrong angle, which is supposed to be from the top down, not reaching up high over his head to try to obtain the right angle. We noted as well that there was no evidence of rubber matting to secure their footing. The knock box floor was not hosed down regularly to clear slippery blood, urine and manure. Finally, the decreased elevation into the stun box caused many of the horses to stumble upon entering it.

We have learned from Dr. Brian Evans that a rifle will now be the weapon of choice at Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation. This decision is baffling to us as our past evidence from Bouvry Exports and Viandes Richelieu (2010) clearly illustrated blatant animal suffering when shooters were faced with moving targets, specifically the thrashing heads of terrified horses. We also recall that observers are not permitted to be in the shooting area. Who, therefore, does the monitoring, and how will oversight be achieved?

We expect to receive a detailed response within 30 days explaining how the agency will respond to the violations of the Meat Inspection Act (specifically 62. (1), 63. (2), 64, 65, 78, 79 (a) and 80); the OIE Standards of Slaughter (Chapter 7.5); the American Meat Institute Slaughter Audit standards; and the fraudulent EID activity. Specifically, we require answers to the following areas of concern:

High percentage of inaccurate stuns (40+% over two days of recording)
Use of “pithing” of horse which is known to render an animal immobile but not unconscious when stabbed for bleed-out
Length of suffering inflicted on horses repeatedly shot (up to 3 1/2 minutes for horse 33 on day 1)
Terror-filled environment
Mishandling of a “downed” animal (the downer horse shown during the walk-through who was not penned alone or euthanized)
Fraudulent EID activity
Lack of CFIA inspector presence

We also require an explanation for the agency’s choice of preference for testing muscle tissue rather than kidney for phenylbutazone. What scientific study is the CFIA relying upon when choosing muscle as the target for testing?

And, finally, Dr. Evans states in his earlier letter: “As a result of investigations and enhanced inspection activities, a number of actions have been taken, including training and certification delivered…et al.” We would like to see documentation of all corrective actions the CFIA has introduced, including monetary penalties, suspensions and/or revocation of operating licences, and/or legal charges brought against either persons or companies at any and all of the four slaughter plants operating currently in Canada.

It is not too late for the denial to stop and for truth and pursuit of justice to take its place.

Sinikka Crosland, Executive Director
Canadian Horse Defence Coalition
sinikka@defendhorsescanada.org
http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/

Related articles

• Secy. Vilsack - USDA Cannot Enforce Horse Slaughter Laws
• HSI/Canada Renews Calls for Prohibition on Horse Slaughter as Banned Substances Found in Canadian Horse Meat

Secy. Vilsack - USDA Cannot Enforce Horse Slaughter Laws

Secy. Vilsack - USDA Cannot Enforce Horse Slaughter Laws | Animal Law Coalition

Posted Aug 17, 2012 by lauraallen

USDA/FSIS Cannot Meet the Legal Requirements for the Return of Horse Slaughter to the U.S.

Dear Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack:

The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) Administrator, Alfred Almanza, has been quoted as saying that the agency is moving quickly to accommodate two pending applications to open horse slaughter plants in the U.S. Though as I understand since then, the applicant in New Mexico has withdrawn the application, and the Missouri applicant is beset with legal problems and was apparently not even the owner of the property proposed for the horse slaughter facility and cannot acquire any ownership interest.

Regardless, a horse slaughter proponent is circulating a "petition" to urge FSIS to move more quickly in approving applications and make inspectors available for horse slaughter for human consumption. The USDA has a number of legal obligations when it comes to slaughtering equines for human consumption; USDA cannot meet any of these obligations and for this and economic, environmental and other health and safety reasons, should not allow horse slaughter.

Substantial Taxpayer Costs with No Economic Benefit

As the U.S. struggles to climb out of the most devastating economic recession since the Great Depression, it is puzzling why FSIS would take funds from an already depleted budget to use for a program to inspect horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. Surely, the threats to food safety and humane treatment of animals are already significant with a reduced budget. Why would any funds be used for a program that results in no economic benefit to the U.S. and instead threatens the health and safety of our local communities and equines?

Prior to the closure of the 3 horse slaughter plants in 2007, FSIS spent approximately $5,000,000 annually for inspectors, basically subsidizing the three foreign-owned (Belgian and French) horse slaughterhouses. Americans don't eat equines so there were no sales of horsemeat domestically and thus no sales tax revenues from slaughter. Horse slaughter facilities pay virtually no income taxes. One facility operating in Texas prior to 2007 paid $5 in federal income tax one year on $12 million dollars in sales. In the preceding 5 years the federal income tax was .3% or 1/3 of 1% of gross revenues or sales. A forensic analysis of the tax returns revealed that the company avoided U.S. income taxes by selling the horsemeat at a loss to an entity it owned in another country and then that entity distributed the product overseas at substantial profit. With no sales or distribution in the U.S. and no tax revenue, there is simply no benefit to the U.S. economy from horse slaughter.

The property tax revenue to Kaufman, Texas where a horse slaughter facility operated until 2007 was generally less than $2,000 per year, a mere pittance when compared to the city's costs for pursuing the facility's continual violations of its wastewater permit and in working to address violations of regulations of Texas Dept. of Health and the Commission on Environmental Quality. The city's legal fees just to address issues related to the horse slaughter plant exceeded its entire budget for legal fees in one year. The city was even fined by the TCEQ for the plant's failure to comply with backflow regulations that meant horse blood and waste backed up into sinks, toilets and tubs. When the plant finally closed, the city was left with nearly $100,000 in unpaid fines for wastewater permit violations.

The situation was no different at the horse slaughter plant in Ft. Worth and the other in DeKalb, Illinois. In DeKalb, the horse slaughter facility had waste permits that allowed contamination levels for waste water that were eight times higher than usual. Yet, the facility was out of compliance hundreds of times. It was not a matter of having old facilities. The owner, Cavel International, built a state-of-the-art pre-treatment system that became operational in 2004. The facility remained out of compliance with its permit regularly until it finally closed in 2007. The blood and waste from slaughtered horses oozed from the state of the art tanks. There were also hundreds of FSIS violations.

The same was true of Canadian Natural Valley Farms where a 2008 investigation revealed the state of the art waste pre-treatment facility overflowed as well with blood and waste, and large amounts of waste and blood were dumped into nearby rivers. When the state of the art facility was shut down, the community was left with environmental contamination and a bankrupt company that claimed $42 million in losses.

None of this includes the plummeting property values, loss of new business, increased crime rates and a general stench and pall that hung over the communities. All courtesy of the horse slaughter plant. This is what President Obama's USDA wants for American communities?

If horse slaughterhouses are allowed to re-open, they would again be subsidized by American taxpayers. Estimates are that the U.S. government would spend at least $3,000,000-5,000,000 annually to subsidize private horse slaughter facilities.

On top of that, the USDA could give foreign owners of U.S. horse slaughter facilities, such as Bouvry, the Canadian company that has explored the possibility of opening a horse slaughter plant near Stanwood, Washington, or the Belgian company, Chevideco, which claims it may contribute to the building of a horse slaughter house in Oregon or Missouri, a subsidized loan of $750,000 through the RUS World Utilities Services.

Mr. Vilsack, it is outrageous that the American taxpayer should support wealthy investors in a business that profits from animal cruelty, benefits only foreign interests and wrecks the U.S. communities where the facilities are located. This money would surely be much better spent on American interests. It would seem more appropriate for USDA to focus on the live horse industry worth $112.1 billion of gross domestic product.

Few Low Wage Jobs

The argument that significant jobs would be created is specious. Horse slaughter plants operating until 2007 never created more than 178 low wage jobs -and many of these were held by illegal aliens. When horse slaughter plants operated in the U.S., this meant workers and their families overran local resources like the hospitals and government services. It meant low income housing and a decline in the overall standard of living.

Slaughter Contributes to Numbers of Horses in Need

Slaughter proponents have widely claimed that slaughter is somehow an alternative for "unwanted" horses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Slaughter actually creates a salvage or secondary market that enables overbreeding and poor breeding practices. Slaughter and a poor economy have resulted in horses in need. Slaughter is driven by a demand for horsemeat in some foreign countries; it is not a "service" for unwanted horses and that is why, as one of your department's own studies confirms, most horses, 92.3%, are healthy when they are sent to slaughter. Kill buyers are interested in buying the healthiest horses for horsemeat that is sold as a delicacy in some foreign countries.

The rise in numbers of horses in need and drop in horse prices is a result of the worst recession in memory. In fact, if slaughter controlled numbers of horses in need, there would be none as slaughter is still available and horses are sent to slaughter in the same numbers as before the 2007 closings of the slaughterhouses that were located in the U.S. It is the availability of slaughter that actually increases the numbers of excess horses and other equines on the market. Banning slaughter would reduce the number of excess horses and other equines.

Also, slaughter accounts for only about 3 cents for every $100 of the equine industry. It makes no sense for anyone to suggest a limited salvage market could influence prices in the entire horse industry.

The Live Horse Industry

Again, it is the live horse industry that USDA should support. Most horses end up at slaughter because they are purchased by kill buyers. Many horses could have easily been purchased by someone else other options include adoption programs, placing them as pasture mates/babysitters to a younger horse, donating them for use in horse therapy, or placing them in a retirement home.

Humane Euthanasia is Available and Affordable

Also, about 900,000 horses are humanely euthanized in the U.S. each year. The infrastructure could easily absorb those sent to slaughter. The average cost of humane euthanasia including the farm call and either burial, rendering or placement in a landfill can be as little as $50 depending on the method used, and at most $400.

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Unenforceable for Equines

The USDA is responsible for enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 7 USC Sec. 1902(a)("HMSA"). USDA/FSIS failed miserably at this when horse slaughter was legal. That is because the slaughter of horses and other equines simply cannot be made humane: Dr. Lester Friedlander, DVM & former Chief USDA Inspector, told Congress in 2008 that the captive bolt used to slaughter horses is simply not effective. Horses and other equines, in particular, are very sensitive about anything coming towards their heads and cannot be restrained as required for effective stunning. Dr. Friedlander stated, "These animals regain consciousness 30 seconds after being struck, they are fully aware they are being vivisected." The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") in 2004, GAO-04-247; and dozens of veterinarians and other witnesses have confirmed that ineffective stunning is common and animals are conscious during slaughter. It is simply not possible for USDA/FSIS to make equine slaughter humane and it is a myth to pretend otherwise. Also, the GAO in 3 subsequent reports in 2008, GAO-08-686T; and 2010, GAO-10-203 and GAO-10-487T, has continued to find disparities and inconsistencies in FSIS enforcement of HMSA, an abysmal record of tolerating cruelty at slaughter facilities.

Having to provide sufficient FSIS inspectors even to try to enforce HMSA means even more cost to the taxpayer. For a job that cannot be done when it comes to equines.

Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter Act Unenforceable

GAO has also confirmed that USDA/APHIS has not - and cannot - enforce transport regulations for equines sent to slaughter. 9 CFR Sections 88.1-88.6. Changing a few words here and there in the regulations will not make transport of equines to slaughter humane. USDA/APHIS allows the kill buyers and haulers to fill out and provide the documentation - which is routinely missing, incomplete or inaccurate - relied on for enforcement. It is impossible to enforce regulations when the information to determine violations is supplied solely by the kill buyers and haulers, the very people USDA/APHIS is supposed to be regulating.

A 2010 Office of Inspector General report confirmed APHIS lacks the resources and controls to enforce regulations for humane transport of equines to slaughter. Not only is the information relied on for enforcement supplied by the kill buyers and haulers, APHIS continues to approve of new shipments to slaughter by kill buyers or haulers that have outstanding unpaid fines for violations of humane regulations. The current regulations do not give APHIS the authority to refuse approval.

OIG also found there is no adequate system for tracking the information, such as it is, that is supplied by the kill buyers and haulers about the horses. It is very difficult to track what happens to the horses, meaning enforcement is virtually non-existent. Also, APHIS often does not receive any information from kill buyers or haulers. OIG noted in 2011 that for the past year or more, APHIS had not received the required paperwork, owner/shipper certificates, from kill buyers or haulers for any horses sent from Texas to Mexico.

On top of that, APHIS only has two agents to try to enforce these regulations. Your agency is hamstrung by its own regulations and cannot assure humane transport of equines to slaughter. There is every reason to think your agency could not even begin to assure humane transport of horses within the U.S. to newly opened slaughter facilities.

Food Safety

The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") does not regulate equines as food animals. Americans don't eat horses and other equines. American horses are not raised, fed and medicated within the FDA guidelines established for food animals, making them unfit and unsafe for human consumption. Equines are given all manner of drugs, steroids, de-wormers and ointments throughout their lives. Equines are not tracked and typically may have several owners. There is no way to know when they are sold for slaughter what these animals have ingested over their lives.

The danger of American horsemeat to consumers was confirmed in a study, "Association of Phenylbutazone (Bute) Usage with Horses Bought for Slaughter" that was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology and authored by Dr. Ann Marini, Department of Neurology, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences; Nicolas Dodman, DVM, Tufts University, and Dr. Nicolas Blondeau, The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology.

A kill buyer has no idea of the veterinary or drug history of a horse or other equine taken to slaughter, and many of the most dangerous drugs have no or a very long withdrawal period. A typical drug given routinely to equines like aspirin, phenylbutazone or Bute, is a carcinogen and can also cause aplastic anemia in humans. It has no withdrawal period. The FDA bans bute in all food producing animals because of this serious danger to human health. The FDA and USDA would prohibit Americans from consuming horses because of this danger. Yet, neither the FDA nor the USDA prohibits the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption. It is a grave risk to public health to continue to allow the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption in other countries.

The European Union has recognized this and has initiated steps to try to stop the import into the EU of meat from American horses that may be contaminated. Kill buyers have been found to falsify veterinary and drug reports to avoid the restrictions. There is no enforcement at the borders, meaning the US continues to dump contaminated and deadly horsemeat on Europe and other countries. A petition has been filed with the USDA to stop the slaughter of many U.S. horses for this reason.

Conclusion

Mr. Vilsack, in view of all of this, why would the Obama administration allow, let alone facilitate as a priority, the opening of horse slaughter facilities in the U.S.? I would urge the administration to reconsider this and instead work with horse owners, animal welfare organizations, the 80% of Americans who want horse slaughter banned, and end this grisly practice once and for all. Equines are in danger and equine welfare is threatened as long as slaughter remains available.

Related articles

• Butchering Family Gives Up on Horse-Slaughter Plant in New Mexico
• New EU Regs Spell Likely End to Euro Markets for American Horse Meat
• Crash Shines Light On Horse Slaughter Issue
• Horse Slaughter: The Truth Revealed Part 1 of a series by Jerry Finch | Habitat For Horses
• The Art of Deception