CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

Crimes Without ConsequenCes
In 1957, a total of eight bills were pending in the U.S. House of Representatives
to establish requirements for humane slaughter. One of the bills, clearly the weakest,
attempted to deflect any action by setting up an advisory body to study the issue,
but each of the other seven measures mandated the humane slaughter of both
livestock and poultry. Industry pressure against federal oversight of slaughter was
intense and by the following year the legislation introduced and eventually adopted
by Congress covered livestock only.
The nation’s humane slaughter laws currently do not cover 98 percent of animals killed
for food, as the USDA has not applied the federal law to birds. Animal advocates
have made several attempts to promote the protection of chickens, turkeys and other
birds at slaughter, including the introduction of federal legislation. Moreover, in
November 2005 HSUS, joined by East Bay Animal Advocates and several individual
consumers, filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in San Francisco under the
Administrative Procedures Act seeking humane slaughter coverage for birds.
In December 2005, HFA also filed a complaint in the San Francisco court seeking that
the provisions of the Federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act be applied to poultry,
as well as to rabbits and specific exotic animals (bison, reindeer, elk and antelope). U.S.
District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel rejected a dismissal motion by the USDA, but also
dismissed the HFA suit entirely and dismissed the HSUS and East Bay Animal Advocates
as plaintiffs from the other case, citing lack of standing to sue.
However, Patel ruled that the HSUS suit could go forward with the individual consumers
as plaintiffs. In March 2008, Judge Patel granted summary judgment to the USDA and
dismissed the lawsuit, saying that Congress did not intend to include birds when it
enacted the HMSA. 82
4.2 Methods allowed
The humane slaughter law requires that animals killed for food, other than those killed in
accordance with ritual requirements, are rendered insensible to pain “by a single blow or
gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective.” Regulations
promulgated by the USDA recognize the use of gunshot, captive bolt device, electrical
current and carbon dioxide gas to stun animals. Neither the law nor its implementing
regulations prohibit the use of any particular stunning method. However, the USDA does
not consider the use of a sledgehammer or ax to be humane. 83
82 Karapetian A, Judge rules poultry are not “livestock,” http://www.Meatingplace.com, March 5, 2008.
83 USDA-FSIS, Human Resources Development Staff, For the welfare of livestock (interactive CD training
guide), July 1998.
32