CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

More documents

Recommendations

Info

enforCement of state laWs spokesperson said federal inspectors may have missed observing the incidents because they took place outside the inspectors’ assigned work area. 226 Alabama, 2005 In May 2005, PETA released results of a 10-week investigation, conducted from December 2004 through February 2005, of a Tyson Foods chicken slaughterhouse in Heflin. During that time, an undercover investigator for the advocacy group documented the treatment of some of the more than 100,000 chickens killed daily in the plant. Their investigator was told not to stop the slaughter line for birds who missed having their throats cuts. As a result, chickens are shown on video being immersed in tanks of scalding water while still conscious. Workers were also captured on videotape ripping the heads off conscious birds who had missed the immobilization bath, while other birds are shown being cut and mangled by malfunctioning throat-cutting equipment. According to the investigator, plant management informed workers that scalding 40 conscious birds per shift was acceptable, and even when this limit was exceeded no action was taken. 227 No cruelty charges were ever brought in this case. California, 2005 Students at University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) filed a report regarding a small custom slaughterhouse (L.A. Quail Farm) with the Bureau of Humane Law Enforcement in the summer of 2005. A humane officer investigated and found “large numbers of animals crammed into small, filthy spaces and the animals appeared to be sick and injured.” 228 The officer issued a notice to comply, giving the business 10 days to improve conditions. When the slaughterhouse failed to cooperate, a search warrant was issued and humane officers and volunteers returned to remove a large number of animals including several thousand quail. The owner forfeited his rights to the animals. Although humane officers have lobbied L.A. prosecutors to prosecute for animal cruelty, to date no action has been taken. 229 Arkansas, 2006 PETA filed a complaint with the Franklin County Prosecutor in September 2006 following release of its investigation into animal handling practices at a Butterball turkey slaughter plant (owned by ConAgra) in Ozark. Workers associated with the group observed and documented numerous incidents of inhumane treatment that occurred at the plant between April and July 2006. Incidents of intentional animal cruelty included decapitating birds, sitting on birds, punching and kicking birds, swinging birds like baseball bats into handrails, throwing carcasses at live birds hanging from shackles and breaking the limbs of conscious birds. Franklin County Prosecutor indicated his office would not consider animal cruelty charges until an investigation by the USDA was complete. 230 To date, no action has been taken. 226 Sweas M, USDA sends investigators to Pilgrim’s plant, http://www.Meatingplace.com, July 26, 2004. 227 PETA launches www.TorturedByTyson.com,releases undercover investigation of Tyson slaughterhouse (news release); PETA website (http://www.TorturedByTyson.com). 228 Slaughterhouse bust, Bureau of Humane Law Enforcement website. (http://www.bhleonline.com/cases.html) 229 Ibid. As with the Texas 2004 example above, this case did not involve animals in the process of being slaughtered or handled for slaughter. 230 Cody C, PETA’s video at turkey plant in Ozark triggers investigation, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, October 23, 2006. 79
Crimes Without ConsequenCes New Jersey, 2006 On January 9, a Trenton police officer responding to a noise complaint in the area of the Trenton Halal Meat Packing Company witnessed animals being crushed to death against a concrete wall. The officer ordered the slaughter plant owner to stop and later reported her concerns to a meeting of the Trenton City Council. According to the plant, goats are killed by Islamic practice, but bulls, due to their size, are stunned with a captive bolt gun prior to shackling and hoisting. However, the patrol officer reported she observed bulls being hoisted by use of a metal grate that pinned the animal against the concrete wall with enough force to lift the animal off the ground. She described the animals as “screaming in pain” during the procedure. The city council discussed the possibility of relocating the slaughter plant outside the city and of “limiting the amount of time trucks with live animals in them can sit outside the slaughterhouse.” However, the council was informed that it has no jurisdiction over what goes on inside the slaughter plant. 231 A spokesman for the USDA stated that the plant was operating within federal regulations and had never been cited for any humane violations. 232 To date, no action has been taken against the plant by state or federal officials. 233 North Carolina, 2007 Mercy for Animals, grassroots animal advocates located in the Columbus, Ohio area, filed a complaint with the Hoke County District Attorney in May 2007 alleging violations of the North Carolina animal cruelty statute at the House of Raeford Farms poultry slaughterhouse in Raeford. An investigator for the animal group worked at the plant in January and February 2007 in the “live-hang” area where chickens and turkeys are shackled onto the slaughter line. The investigator filmed several acts of cruelty, including a worker violently punching live turkeys, birds being thrown across the facility, workers ripping the heads off live turkeys and live birds being crushed under the wheels of trucks. The group has requested that the plant be charged under the state animal cruelty code. 234 A House of Raeford representative told www.Meatpoultry.com that four of the five workers shown in the videotape had been terminated shortly after the filming and that the slaughterhouse had scored 94.9 out of a possible 100 points on an animal welfare audit conducted by a third party company in November 2006. 235 California, 2008 A 6-week undercover investigation conducted by HSUS during the fall of 2007 at the Hallmark Meat Company in Chino resulted in the release of a videotape documenting 231 Dee J, Slaughter horrors recounted, The Times of Trenton, January 20, 2006; Dee J, Slaughterhouse denies inhumane practices, The Times of Trenton, January 21, 2006. 232 Dee J, Slaughterhouse denies inhumane practices. In fact, the USDA issued NRs to Trenton Halal Packing for humane violations on October 21, 2003 and February 16, 2004. 233 The New Jersey Cruelty to Animals Statute (Section 22-16.1) provides that standards for the humane treatment of domestic livestock be developed by the state board of agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that there is a presumption that treatment consistent with those standards does not constitute animal cruelty. However, this provision covers the “raising, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock” and does not specifically cover slaughter or handling in preparation for slaughter. 234 See Undercover poultry slaughterhouse investigation, Mercy for Animals website. (http://www.mercyforanimals.org) 235 House of Raeford responds to “malicious activity” by animal rights group, http://www.Meatpoultry.com, May 23, 2007. 80
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:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
3. History of U.S. Humane Slaughter
Page 30 and 31:
history of u.s. humane slaughter in
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
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 68 and 69: enforCement of federal laW in forei
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 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?