CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

enforCement of federal laW in u.s. Plants
or have had inspection services withdrawn by FSIS (see Appendix B). Many of these
had been cited simultaneously or separately for violations of food safety regulations
other than humane handling/slaughter. It appears that enforcement actions for humane
slaughter played a role in the closure of the following plants: Berry Packing (Crossett,
Ark.), GP Monroe (Grayson, Ga.), Kolob Packing (Burley, Idaho), Petaluma Livestock
(Newman, Calif.) and Ward’s Inc (Jerseyville, Ill.). In the case of Petaluma Livestock,
the plant was closed and subsequently sold after it was notified by the Alameda
(California) District Office of the USDA-FSIS that the office was recommending to
the FSIS Office of Field Operations that a formal complaint be issued to withdraw
inspection from the establishment due to the plant’s failure to adequately address
humane concerns. 159
5.5 Analysis of federal enforcement records
Review of records obtained through FOIA resulted in the identification of several serious
problems in the USDA-FSIS enforcement of federal humane handling and slaughter
regulations.
Incomplete and inconsistent record keeping
The FSIS was unable to produce copies of all NRs issued for humane slaughter violations
during the time period in question, as noted above. It is possible that 100 or more NRs
were missing from the documents released by the USDA. There was a lack of detail on
many of the records as to the type and cause of the violation(s). In addition, there was a
lack of consistent reference to the use of reject tags, and a lack of consistent follow-up
on corrective measures to be taken to prevent similar occurrences. Moreover, many NRs
were incomplete and did not include a plant management response, which is required on
the form.
Inadequate reporting of noncompliances
The FSIS produced only 432 humane slaughter NRs for an 18-month period of
time. However, slaughterhouse audits suggest that millions of cattle and pigs are
inadequately stunned on the first attempt, as required by federal humane slaughter
regulations (see Section 9). This indicates that many violations of the regulations are
either unobserved or unreported. A number of the NRs reviewed made reference to the
involvement of a district veterinary medical specialist in documentation of the incident.
However, these veterinarians visit each slaughter plant rarely, in some cases less than
once per year. 160 Moreover, a number of the NRs mention that inspection personnel
159 Communication from the FSIS, Alameda District, to Manuel Brazil, owner of Petaluma Livestock Auction
Yard, October 28, 2005.
160 In its report on humane slaughter enforcement, the GAO noted that one year after hiring of the district vets,
only 63 percent of federal plants had been visited. When interviewed by the GAO, all these vets said they
participated in a number of activities beyond the scope of humane handling and slaughter of animals. Nine of
the 17 vets indicated they spent 40 to 50 percent of their time at non-humane activities. In March 2003, after
reviewing results of a survey of its district vets, the FSIS allowed five of the vets to perform other duties, such
as food safety and food security. The remaining 12 were to focus solely on implementation of the humane
53