CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

More documents

Recommendations

Info

enforCement of federal laW in foreign Plants slaughter conditions and procedures. Three of the deficiencies were cited in the body of the 2004-2005 audits and four were noted as having occurred during previous audits conducted in the years 2000 through 2003. No humane deficiencies whatsoever were noted in 33 foreign country audits conducted in 2006 and 2007. Following are the foreign country humane handling and slaughter deficiencies cited by the FSIS in its 2004-2005 audit reports (some deficiencies occurred in previous years, as noted in the paragraph above): Brazil—At one establishment, no water was provided to animals held in the suspect pen (August 2003 audit). 178 Costa Rica—In the animal holding pen at one establishment, a one-foot high cement barrier was identified as a potential trip hazard for animals (June 2004 audit); no water was provided to animals in holding pens at two establishments (September 2003 audit). 179 Honduras—In one of two establishments, the holding pen for cattle had numerous bolts protruding from the wall into the pen, presenting a potential safety hazard to animals (October 2005 audit). 180 Mexico—For two of three cattle observed, more than one application of the captive bolt device was required to render the animals insensible (November 2004 audit). 181 Poland—In one establishment, hogs were not properly stunned prior to being shackled, hoisted, thrown or cut (November to December 2003 audit). 182 Slovakia—In one establishment, hogs were not properly stunned prior to being shackled, hoisted, thrown or cut (June 2000 audit). 183 The small number of cited deficiencies of humane standards compared with the far larger number cited for food safety suggests that either foreign certified establishments are much better at animal welfare than they are at food safety, or that the FSIS makes little effort to observe and/or cite humane conditions and procedures. When the FSIS Office of International Affairs was questioned regarding the small number of deficiencies cited 178 USDA-FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an audit carried out in Brazil covering Brazil’s meat inspection system, August 26 to September 28, 2004. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/Brazil/ Brazil2004.pdf) 179 Costa Rica also cited for one establishment found to be slaughtering non-ambulatory disabled cattle. USDA- FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an enforcement audit covering Costa Rica’s meat inspection system, June 8 to June 17, 2004. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/CostaRica/CostaRica2004.pdf) 180 USDA-FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an audit carried out in Honduras covering Honduras’ meat inspection system, October 18 to October 28, 2005. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/ Honduras/HondurasOct2005.pdf) 181 USDA-FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an audit carried out in Mexico covering Mexico’s meat inspection system, November 3 to November 18, 2004. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/Mexico/ MexicoNov04.pdf) 182 USDA-FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an enforcement audit covering Poland’s meat inspection system, July 14 to August 6, 2004. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/Poland/Poland2004.pdf) 183 USDA-FSIS, Office of International Affairs, Final report of an audit carried out in Slovakia covering Slovakia’s meat inspection system, October 19 to October 25, 2005. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/ Slovakia/SlovakiaOct2005.pdf) 61
Crimes Without ConsequenCes in humane handling and slaughter, it responded that this finding “indicates a high level of compliance in foreign plants.” 184 However, it seems unlikely that foreign plants found to be grossly lacking in terms of food safety would be competent in the area of humane handling. The fact that FSIS does not even question foreign countries about humane standards during the eligibility determination process reinforces the perception that animal welfare is, in fact, a low priority for the agency. 184 Personal communication from Karen Stuck. 62
Page 2 and 3:
CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The En
Page 4 and 5:
CONTENTS Executive Summary ........
Page 6 and 7:
the enforCement of humane slaughter
Page 8 and 9:
Executive Summary Each year, about
Page 10 and 11:
exeCutive summary Federal enforceme
Page 12 and 13:
1. Introduction The purpose of this
Page 14 and 15:
2. Overview of Food Animal Slaughte
Page 16 and 17:
overvieW of food animal slaughter i
Page 18 and 19: overvieW of food animal slaughter i
Page 28 and 29: 3. History of U.S. Humane Slaughter
Page 30 and 31: history of u.s. humane slaughter in
Page 36 and 37: 4. Federal Humane Slaughter Law Con
Page 38 and 39: federal humane slaughter laW In 199
Page 40 and 41: 4.3 Exemptions federal humane slaug
Page 42 and 43: federal humane slaughter laW The US
Page 44 and 45: federal humane slaughter laW 01/18/
Page 46 and 47: 5. Enforcement of Federal Law in U.
Page 48 and 49: enforCement of federal laW in u.s.
Page 50 and 51: • enforCement of federal laW in u
Page 52 and 53: • • enforCement of federal laW
Page 54 and 55: Food in pens enforCement of federal
Page 56 and 57: 5.2 Reject Tags enforCement of fede
Page 66 and 67: 6. Enforcement of Federal Law in Fo
Page 70 and 71: 7. State Humane Slaughter Laws Thir
Page 72 and 73: state humane slaughter laWs Unlike
Page 74 and 75: state humane slaughter laWs Indiana
Page 76 and 77: 8. Enforcement of State Laws Animal
Page 78 and 79: Notes enforCement of state laWs Uta
Page 80 and 81: enforCement of state laWs penalty o
Page 82 and 83: 8.2 Application of anti-cruelty law
Page 84 and 85: enforCement of state laWs However,
Page 86 and 87: enforCement of state laWs spokesper
Page 88 and 89: enforCement of state laWs multiple
Page 90 and 91: 9. Industry Slaughter Guidelines Bo
Page 92 and 93: industry slaughter guidelines In 20
Page 94 and 95: industry slaughter guidelines k Gra
Page 96 and 97: 10. Slaughter Standards under Anima
Page 98 and 99: slaughter standards under animal We
Page 100 and 101: 11. Conclusion Fifty years ago, the
Page 102 and 103: ConClusion speeds, c) requiring eme
Page 104 and 105: • ConClusion Finding #9: State an
Page 106 and 107: Appendix A: Federal Regulations Rel
Page 108 and 109: • aPPendiCes Allows that inspecto
Page 110 and 111: aPPendiCes Appendix b: Federal Plan
Page 112 and 113: aPPendiCes Saint Croix Abattoir Sai
Page 114 and 115: aPPendiCes conditions…. This oper
Page 116 and 117: aPPendiCes 2. Inspection was suspen
Page 118 and 119:
aPPendiCes 3. Inspection was suspen
Page 120 and 121:
Fresh Pork (Lott, Texas) a aPPendiC
Page 122 and 123:
aPPendiCes cows and the sides of th
Page 124 and 125:
aPPendiCes also based on acts of in
Page 126 and 127:
aPPendiCes [Inspection personnel] s
Page 128 and 129:
Stagno’s Meat Co (Modesto, Calif.
Page 130 and 131:
aPPendiCes the pen. In these pens,
Page 132 and 133:
aPPendiCes any hospital, educationa
Page 134 and 135:
aPPendiCes Tennessee Section 39-14-
Page 136 and 137:
Statutes Exempting Slaughter Genera
Page 138 and 139:
aPPendiCes Name Location Est # 1 Di
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150:
Institute Animal Welfare www.awionl
show all

CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?