Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

In 2006 two Texas plants and one in Illinois slaughtered nearly 105,000 horses for human food,
mainly for European and Asian consumers. In 2007, court action effectively closed the Texas
plants, and a state ban in Illinois closed that plant. Meanwhile, activists continued to press in the ^th
110 Congress for a federal ban. Appropriators prohibited use of funds or user fees for inspection
of horses for human food in FY2008, and continuing appropriations for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329) ^th
appear to do the same. Additional legislation is possible in the 111 Congress.

Overvi ew ....................................................................................................................... .................. 1
Legal Authorities.............................................................................................................................1
Federal Law...............................................................................................................................1
Legal Developments..................................................................................................................2
Federal Legislation..........................................................................................................................2
FY2006 USDA Appropriation...................................................................................................2
FY2008 USDA Appropriation...................................................................................................3
Horse Protection Act.................................................................................................................3
Other Bills.................................................................................................................................4
Wild Horses and Burros............................................................................................................4
Selected Arguments.........................................................................................................................4
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

Nearly 105,000 horses were slaughtered for human food in 2006, all in two foreign-owned Texas
plants and a third foreign plant in Illinois, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Virtually all the meat was for export, the largest markets being France, Belgium,
Switzerland, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. The United States exported more than 17,000 metric tons
of horse meat valued at about $65 million in 2006. Most of these horses were raised for other
purposes, like riding, but were no longer wanted by owners. Dealers collected them for the plants
from auctions, boarding facilities, and elsewhere. Although U.S. horse slaughter had been rising
since 2002—before a recent series of court actions closed the three plants—it remained below
levels of the 1980s, when more than 300,000 were processed annually in at least 16 U.S. plants.
Although U.S. slaughter has ended for the present, advocates continue to support federal
legislation to ban it permanently. They—and those who have opposed a permanent ban—also
express concern about the shipment of more U.S. horses to Canada and Mexico, where plants can
still slaughter them for food.

Prior to the passage of recent appropriations measures, federal laws neither banned the use of
equines for food nor set on-farm care standards. Protection usually has been subject to varying
state and local laws. Some of these laws may set care standards, although more are likely to be
anti-cruelty measures. However, U.S. horse slaughter plants were long subject to the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) of 1906, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), which requires USDA
to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and equines slaughtered and processed into products for
human food. This act, administered by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), aims
to ensure that meat and meat products from these animals are safe, wholesome, and properly
labeled. FSIS safety inspection is mandatory, and most costs must be covered by appropriated
funds, except for overtime and holiday periods. Meat inspectors also are charged with enforcing
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), requiring that livestock (but not
poultry) be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter.
Plants also can request that graders from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) be
placed in their plants to assign official grades to their products based on quality traits and yield.
Plants pay user fees for this inspection service, which is voluntary and conducted under authority
of the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 as amended (7 U.S.C. §§1621 et seq.). The
1946 AMA is also the authority FSIS uses to provide voluntary food safety inspections of animals
and products not specifically covered by either the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.
Horses often had to be shipped long distances to reach the few plants that, until 2007, were
slaughtering them. Horse practitioners and welfare groups gained passage of language in the 1996
farm bill (P.L. 104-127, Title IX-A, Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter, 7 U.S.C.
note) that authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines for regulating such transport,
subject to available appropriations. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

developed the guidelines with the cooperation of horse groups, and they became effective on ¹
February 5, 2002.
Several states have laws aimed at preventing the slaughter of horses for human food. A federal
lawsuit filed by the owners of the two Texas slaughter plants, Beltex Corporation and Dallas
Crown, Inc., sought to clarify that the Texas state law banning the sale of horsemeat, first passed
in 1949, was not enforceable and that they should not be prosecuted. The U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas in Forth Worth had earlier agreed with the plants’ owners that the
law had been repealed, was preempted by the FMIA, and violated the dormant Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution. However, on January 19, 2007, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit rejected all three arguments, declaring the Texas law to be in force and clearing
the way for the state attorney general to prosecute the plant owners if they continued to operate.
The two plants have ceased slaughtering for human food.
Elsewhere, the Illinois legislature in May 2007 passed a law banning horse slaughter. The Illinois
plant (owned by Cavel International) was able to operate until September 2007, when the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the state law does not violate the interstate and
foreign commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The plant appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which in June 2008 declined to hear the case.

During debate on USDA’s FY2006 appropriation (H.R. 2744), the House on June 8, 2005,
approved, 269 to 158, an amendment by Representative Sweeney to prohibit funds provided in
the measure to pay for the ante-mortem inspection of horses under the meat inspection act. On
September 20, 2005, the Senate adopted an identical floor amendment by Senator Ensign, by a 69
to 28 vote. The final conference report (H.Rept. 109-255), signed as P.L. 109-97 on November

10, 2005, retained this amendment, but delayed the effective date for 120 days.

Because the FMIA has long required FSIS inspection of equines (like other designated livestock
species) before the meat may enter commerce, the amendment’s supporters presumed that the
plants could no longer process them for human food. However, the final House-Senate report
stated: “It is the understanding of the conferees that the Department is obliged under existing
statutes to provide for the inspection of meat intended for human consumption (domestic and
exported). The conferees recognize that the funding limitation in § 794 prohibits the use of
appropriations only for payment of salaries or expenses of personnel to inspect horses.”
Subsequently, the three plants, on November 23, 2005, petitioned USDA for voluntary ante-
mortem inspection under the 1946 AMA, with the ante-mortem portion funded by user fees. The
plants and other horse slaughter supporters noted that the relatively narrow wording of the

¹^O^t^he^r^f^e^de^r^a^{l la}^w^s^pr^ote^c^t^h^o^r^s^e^s^us^e^dⁱⁿ^r^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^{, a}ⁿ^d^baⁿ^“^s^or^ing^”^f^o^r^s^how^s^.^Se^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^94-⁷³¹^,^Brie^f
^Sum^m^a^rⁱ^e^s^o^f^Fe^de^r^a^l^Anim^{al Pr}^ote^c^tion^St^atu^t^e^s^{, by}^H^e^nr^y^C^ohe^n.

Sweeney-Ensign language only prohibited use of funds for ante-mortem horse inspection under
the FMIA, not for other, post-slaughter inspection activities. They also cited the conference report
language, which stated that USDA still was obliged to conduct inspections.
On February 8, 2006, USDA cited the AMA authority to publish such an interim rule. FSIS
amended existing regulations that apply to “exotic species” (bison, deer, etc.), adding a new
subpart that applied to horses starting March 10, 2006. Under the rule, USDA used many of the
same FMIA guidelines for ante-mortem horse inspection. Also, post-mortem horse inspection ²
could continue under the FMIA, using appropriated funds. Congressional supporters of the
original Sweeney/Ensign amendment objected to the rule, declaring that it circumvented their
clear intent to halt horse slaughter.
The version of the FY2008 USDA appropriation (H.R. 3161, § 738) passed by the House in late
July 2007 continued the prohibition against using appropriated funds to inspect horses prior to
slaughter for human food. Furthermore, the measure prohibited the USDA-FSIS rule (see above)
that provided for the collection of user fees as well. The committee-reported Senate version (S.
1859) did not include the ban. In lieu of a freestanding FY2008 bill, Congress included USDA
funding as Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161). This
consolidated act (§ 741) included the House language to ban both appropriated funds and user
fees for horse inspection (although, as noted, slaughter at the three plants already had been halted
by the courts and by state law). The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329) appears to continue the FY2008 language. The President
was expected to sign H.R. 2638, which cleared Congress on September 27, 2008.
Companion bills to prohibit permanently the movement and slaughter of horses for human food ^th
were introduced into the 110 Congress by Representative Schakowsky and Senator Landrieu
(H.R. 503, S. 311). These measures would have amended the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C.
§1821 et seq.), which currently makes it a crime to exhibit or transport for the purpose of
exhibition any “sore” horse (i.e., one whose feet have been injured to alter its gait). The
Schakowsky and Landrieu bills would have prohibited the “shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse or other equine to
be slaughtered for human consumption.” The bills would have permitted USDA to detain for
examination and evidence any horse for which it has probable cause that the animal will be
slaughtered for food. Violators would have been subject to specified criminal and civil penalties
and prison terms. The bills would have increased authorized appropriations for administering the
act from $500,000 to $5 million annually. The Senate Commerce Committee ordered the bill to be
favorably reported (S.Rept. 110-229) on April 25, 2007; full Senate action did not occur.

²^U^S^D^A^’^s^r^u^le^e^s^ti^m^a^te^{d tha}^t^theⁿ^e^w^f^e^e^s^w^{ould a}^m^{ount t}^o^be^tw^e^eⁿ^$6^8,0⁰⁰^to^$¹⁰²^,0⁰⁰^d^u^rⁱ^ng^FY²⁰⁰⁶^{. T}^o^ta^{l s}^a^la^r^y
^co^st^{s f}^o^{r t}^h^{e si}^{x f}^e^d^e^ralⁱⁿ^sp^ect^o^r^{s w}^h^o^st^aff^t^h^{e t}^h^{ree h}^o^r^se^p^r^o^cessiⁿ^g^p^l^an^t^s^{are abo}^u^t^$4⁰⁰^,⁰⁰⁰^p^e^r^year;^t^hⁱ^s
^excl^u^d^e^{s so}^m^e^exp^eⁿ^s^{es su}^ch^{as l}^a^b^f^{ees an}^d^t^h^{e co}^st^{s o}^f^relⁱ^e^fⁱⁿ^spect^o^r^s.^S^o^u^r^ce:^M^a^y¹⁶^,²⁰⁰⁶^t^e^l^e^p^h^oⁿ^e
^c^o^m^m^unic^a^{tion w}^{ith FSI}^S^b^udg^e^t^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^.

H.R. 6598, introduced later in the 110^th Congress by House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Conyers, would have amended the criminal portion (Title 18) of the U.S. Code to make it illegal
to knowingly possess, ship, transport, purchase, sell, deliver, or receive any horse, horseflesh, or
carcass intended for human consumption. Violators would have been subject to fines or up to
three years in prison. (A separate measure, H.R. 6278 by Representative Kirk, would have
prohibited the transportation of horses in double-decker trailers.) The Judiciary Committee held a
hearing on H.R. 6598 on July 31, 2008, and ordered the bill to be favorably reported (H.Rept.

110-901) on September 23, 2008. Full House action did not occur.

In the 109^th Congress, the full House had approved H.R. 503 by a 263-146 vote on September 7,

2006, turning aside opposition, and major changes made earlier, by the House Agriculture ^th

Committee. Senate action on S. 1915 did not occur. In the 108 Congress, proposed bills (H.R.
857 and S. 2352) to halt horse slaughter differed in detail from the more recent measures. For
example, these earlier bills did not amend the Horse Protection Act. H.R. 857 and S. 2352 also
explicitly would have required officials to work with animal welfare societies and animal control
departments to place confiscated horses temporarily with a nonprofit animal rescue facility,
required the owner of a confiscated horse to post a bond sufficient to provide for 60 days of care,
and required the Secretary to make grants to specified rescue facilities willing to accept
confiscated horses.
A somewhat related issue revolves around provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.), which seeks to protect wild horses and burros on
federal lands. At issue has been whether, and under what conditions, such horses could be
acquired and eventually sold for slaughter. An explanation of this issue can be found in CRS
Report RL34690, Wild Horse and Burro Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.

Most U.S. and Canadian consumers view horses as performance and companion animals rather
than food. Horse protection and animal welfare groups contend that Americans overwhelmingly
favor an end to horse slaughter for human food, a practice such groups have called cruel and
unnecessary. According to these groups, horses are transported long distances often in deplorable
conditions in poorly equipped trucks and trailers, where they are exposed to bad weather and
often inadequate rest, food, and water.
However, a veterinary journal article counters: “Market demand for horsemeat for human
consumption is almost certain to continue and may grow in the foreseeable future. It is therefore
proper and necessary that we continue to work with national and international groups to provide
humane care for horses intended for slaughter and maintain as much consensus and practicality ³
on these issues as possible.”

³^{Reece an}^d^o^t^h^e^rs,^“E^q^uⁱⁿ^e^S^l^a^u^gh^t^e^{r T}^r^an^sp^o^r^t^—^Upd^a^t^e^on^Research^an^d^Regu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^”^J^ourⁿ^a^l^{of t}^h^e^Am^e^r^ic^an
^Ve^te^rinary^M^e^dic^a^{l Assoc}ⁱ^atioⁿ^{, A}^p^r^il^{15, 20}⁰⁰^.

One concern expressed by opponents of a ban on horse slaughter is that “rescued” horses are
more likely to become neglected and abused by owners who lack the knowledge, financial
resources, and/or interest to care for them. At the same time, the existing U.S. horse infrastructure
cannot absorb the large numbers of animals that would be confiscated or otherwise diverted from
slaughter as a result of a slaughter prohibition, opponents of such a ban believe. The American
Horse Protection Association (AHPA) is opposed to the slaughter of horses for food but did not ^th
endorse the slaughter ban bills in the 108 Congress. AHPA, which maintains a list of U.S. and
foreign horse sanctuaries, had observed that not all sanctuaries may have the means or business
skills to take in large numbers of horses, and that no nationwide standard-setting or oversight ⁴
system exists for them. A Texas rescue group stated: “Some equine rescues are large
organizations with a system of checks that keep everyone honest. Others may be small one or two
person operations. There are no national oversight organizations that can verify the honesty of a ⁵
nonprofit equine rescue.”
The National Horse Protection Coalition (NHPC) asserted that sanctuary associations have
accreditation programs and “strict guidelines,” and that state and local animal welfare laws exist
to ensure humane animal care. Others counter that such guidelines, if they exist, have not been
endorsed or overseen by any nationally recognized authority, and that most state and local laws
are anti-cruelty measures, not proactive care standards.
Some, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have observed that equine
shelters are less well-established than cat and dog shelters, which often are associated with local
governments and humane societies. Citing the “extreme costs” and staff time needed to shelter
horses, HSUS warned of needing to be aware of “distinctions between sheltering horses and ⁶
sheltering other companion animals.” The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP)
estimated that the cost of a horse’s basic care approximates $1,825 annually, exclusive of
veterinary and farrier care. A more recent study estimated the annual cost of caring for an ⁷
unwanted horse at $2,340.
NHPC has argued: “Not every horse currently going to slaughter will be rescued by one of these
non-profit organizations, but many horses will be kept longer, will be sold directly to a new
owner ... or will be humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian,” among other alternatives.
Euthanasia methods—primarily chemical injection and in some emergency situations, gunshots—
are considered by the NHPC and others to be more humane than slaughter, which generally
involves stunning with a captive bolt to make the animal unconscious before it is killed and bled.
Euthanasia averages from $50 to $150 per horse, a “tiny fraction of the cost of keeping a horse as
a companion or work animal,” NHPC has stated in response to arguments about the high expense ⁸
of dealing with a horse diverted from slaughter.

⁴^P^e^r^s^ona^{l c}^o^m^m^unic^a^{tion, Ma}^y^4,²⁰^04,^A^H^P^A^.
⁵^Ha^bita^{t f}^o^{r Horse}^s^{, Inc}^.^,^T^e^x^a^{s, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ha^b^ita^tf^orhorse^s.org^/^re^sc^ue^s/^re^sc^ue^link^s^.htm^l.
⁶^HS^US^,^Aⁿ^imal^S^h^e^lte^ring^,^M^a^y^-^J^uⁿ^e²⁰⁰⁰ⁱ^ssu^e.
⁷^“^T^he^Uⁿ^inte^nde^{d C}^o^ns^e^que^nc^e^s^of^a^B^a^{n on}^the^H^u^m^a^ne^Sla^u^g^h^te^r⁽^P^r^o^c^e^s^sⁱ^ng⁾^of^H^o^r^s^e^s^{in t}^h^e^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^,”^f^o^r
^the^Aⁿ^im^a^l^W^e^l^f^a^r^e^Counc^il,^Ma^y^{15, 20}^06.^T^h^e^s^t^udy^s^e^{t the}^tota^l^U^.^S.^hors^e^p^o^p^u^la^ti^{on a}^t^9.^{2 m}^illion.^Se^e
^http:^//w^w^w^.a^nim^a^l^w^e^l^f^a^r^e^c^ounc^il^.or^g^.
⁸^F^o^rm^{er NHP}^{C w}^e^b^sⁱ^t^e^acces^sed^M^a^y^{2004. I}ⁿ²⁰^08,^the^N^H^P^C^w^a^s^r^e^dir^e^c^ting^its^w^e^bs^ite^vⁱ^s^itor^s^{to the}^N^a^ti^ona^l
^H^o^r^s^e^P^r^ote^c^tio^{n L}^e^a^g^ue^a^t^http:/^/^w^w^w^.hor^s^e^-^p^r^o^te^c^tion.^or^g^/^a^bout/.

Opponents of a slaughter ban contend that disposing of many additional horses each year could
create environmental problems, such as soil and groundwater contamination. Ban supporters
counter that hundreds of thousands of U.S. horses die naturally or are euthanized each year, and
are now safely disposed of. Many are not buried but sent to rendering plants, where their remains
are used in industrial products and animal feeds. Renderers already handle millions of cattle and
hogs that die before slaughter; another 90,000 horses easily could be absorbed into the existing ⁹
system, ban supporters maintain.
In the 110^th Congress in 2008, one issue was whether the unwanted horses that had been sent to
U.S. packing plants were now simply moving into Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered there—
and if so, what if anything should be done to halt the practice. According to USDA, the United
States in 2006 exported nearly 26,000 live horses to Canada and more than 19,000 to Mexico. In
2007, the year all three U.S. slaughter plants closed, more than 46,000 U.S. horses went to
Canada and more than 46,000 to Mexico. In 2008 through September, Canada and Mexico
imported approximately 59,000 and 49,000 U.S. horses, respectively. The American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA), which opposed H.R. 503 and S. 311, asserted that these horses
otherwise would have been transported and slaughtered in the United States under close U.S.
regulatory oversight and humane conditions. Bill supporters argue that one of the intents of H.R.

503/S. 311 was to prevent such exports. (The measures would have prohibited “[t]he shipping,

transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any
horse or other equine to be slaughtered for human consumption.”) Bill critics countered that
enforcement and oversight would be problematic once horses leave the country.
^Geof^f^r^e^y^{S. B}^eck^er
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^A^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^u^r^{al P}^o^lic^y
^g^b^eck^er@^c^r^s^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7-}⁷²⁸⁷

⁹^On^{e exp}^e^rt^estⁱ^m^at^ed^t^h^at^al^m^o^st²⁰⁰^,⁰⁰^{0 d}^eceased^h^o^r^{ses m}^u^st^b^e^dⁱ^spo^s^ed^o^f^an^nu^al^l^y^;^a^{bout a}^thir^{d a}^r^e^pr^oc^e^s^s^e^d
^f^o^r^hum^aⁿ^f^{ood. S}^our^c^e^:^Me^s^s^e^r^,^N^a^{t T}^.^I^V^{, D}^V^{M. “}^T^he^P^lig^h^t^of^t^h^e^Uⁿ^w^a^nte^d^H^o^r^s^e^:^Sc^o^p^e^of^the^P^r^o^b^le^m^,^”^a^t^aⁿ
^A^p^r^{il 19,}²⁰⁰⁵^{, W}^a^s^h^ing^t^on^{, D}^.^C^.^{, w}^o^r^k^s^hop.