DOCSLIB.ORG

Continuing Problems in Usda's Enforcement of the Humane

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Continuing Problems in Usda's Enforcement of the Humane CONTINUING PROBLEMS IN USDA’S ENFORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 4, 2010 Serial No. 111–136 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html http://www.oversight.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–127 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio DIANE E. WATSON, California LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina JIM COOPER, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah Columbia AARON SCHOCK, Illinois PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland HENRY CUELLAR, Texas PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL FOSTER, Illinois JACKIE SPEIER, California STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio JUDY CHU, California RON STROMAN, Staff Director MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DIANE E. WATSON, California DAN BURTON, Indiana JIM COOPER, Tennessee MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska PETER WELCH, Vermont AARON SCHOCK, Illinois BILL FOSTER, Illinois MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on March 4, 2010 .............................................................................. 1 Statement of: Painter, Stanley, chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, American Federation of Government Employees; Bev Eggleston, owner, Ecofriendly Foods LLC; and Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO, Humane Society of the United States ......................................................... 62 Eggleston, Bev ........................................................................................... 72 Pacelle, Wayne ........................................................................................... 78 Painter, Stanley ......................................................................................... 62 Shames, Lisa, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Govern- ment Accountability Office; Jerold Mande, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Dean Wyatt, Food Safety and Inspection Service Supervisory Public Health Veteri- narian, Williston, VT .................................................................................... 10 Mande, Jerold ............................................................................................ 21 Shames, Lisa .............................................................................................. 10 Wyatt, Dean ............................................................................................... 38 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Eggleston, Bev, owner, Ecofriendly Foods LLC, prepared statement of ...... 75 Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of ................................................................................... 3 Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 6 Mande, Jerold, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of ......................................................... 24 Pacelle, Wayne, president and CEO, Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 81 Painter, Stanley, chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, prepared state- ment of ........................................................................................................... 64 Shames, Lisa, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Govern- ment Accountability Office, prepared statement of .................................... 12 Wyatt, Dean, Food Safety and Inspection Service Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian, Williston, VT, prepared statement of ...................... 40 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE CONTINUING PROBLEMS IN USDA’S EN- FORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:47 p.m. in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, and Welch. Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Leneal Scott, IT specialist, full committee; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Marvin Kaplan, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member. Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order. The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Govern- ment Reform Committee now begins. I want to thank the witnesses and the members of the audience for their patience. The President had asked me to meet with him on an urgent matter, and we were there for about an hour. I was there for an hour, and then we had a series of votes. That is the reason why we are starting so late. But I am grateful for the pres- ence of the witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony. Thanks to Mr. Cummings for being here. Today’s hearing is the second Domestic Policy Subcommittee hearing on the topic of humane slaughter, the first of which was held on April 17, 2008. Today the subcommittee will examine the findings of a new Gov- ernment Accountability Office—that is the GAO—report on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. I requested this report, along with the support of Representative Issa, in 2008. Now, without objection, I will have 5 minutes to make opening statements. If the ranking minority member has the opportunity to come, he will be granted the same, followed by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who seeks recogni- tion. Without objection, Members and witnesses may have five legisla- tive days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record. (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE 2 Mr. Jordan has an opening statement, which, without objection, will be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:] VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE 3 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE 4 Mr. KUCINICH. Good afternoon. About 2 years ago an undercover video exposing extreme abuses of downed cattle at a slaughter plant in California shocked the Na- tion. The video depicted scenes of employees at the plant ramming cows with a forklift, poking at their eyes, and repeatedly applying electrical shocks to make downed cattle regain their footing and walk to the stun box. Those were apparent violations of the Hu- mane Methods of Slaughter Act. While the USDA acted quickly, at the same time key Department officials disclaimed the extent of the problem depicted. For exam- ple, Doctor Kenneth Peterson, Assistant Administrator for the Of- fice of Field Operations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is also known by its acronym FSIS, said, ‘‘FSIS believes this to be an isolated incident.’’ Since that time, this subcommittee has examined the basis for USDA’s espoused confidence. What we found was USDA’s belief was not based on actual evidence. In fact, in November 2008 the Inspector
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues
    Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Tadlock Cowan Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development May 9, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21978 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Summary Animal welfare supporters in the United States have long sought legislation to modify or curtail some practices considered by U.S. agriculture to be acceptable or even necessary to animal health. Members of Congress over the years have offered various bills that would affect animal care on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter; several proposals were introduced in the 111th Congress, although no further action was taken on the bills. No bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress. Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees generally have expressed a preference for voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to humane care. Meanwhile, animal welfare supporters have won initiatives in several states to impose some care requirements on animal producers. Congressional Research Service Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Contents Background ................................................................................................................................1 Criticisms of Animal Agriculture Practices............................................................................1 Defense of Animal Agriculture Practices ...............................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues
    Order Code RS21978 Updated August 22, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Geoffrey Becker Specialist in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Summary Animal protection activists in the United States have long sought legislation to modify or curtail some practices considered by U.S. agriculture to be both acceptable and necessary to animal health. Some Members of Congress over the years have offered various bills that would affect animal care on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees from time to time have held hearings on farm animal welfare issues, but their members generally express a preference for voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to humane methods of care. This report will be updated if significant developments ensue. Background USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA; 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), which requires minimum standards of care for certain warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. However, the act excludes commercial farm animals (as well as birds, rats, and mice) from coverage. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), enforced by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), governs the humane slaughter and handling of livestock (but not poultry) at packing plants. Also, under the so-called Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. 80502, last amended in 1994), many types of carriers (but apparently not trucks) “may not confine animals in a vehicle or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest.” At the state level, laws that prevent deliberate animal cruelty often (but not always) apply to farm animals, but few state laws have prescribed on-farm treatment standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Ritual Slaughter
    Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter (2005 Third Year Paper) Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8852091 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Shehitah: Jewish Ritual Slaughter Ronit Gurtman Class of 2005 April 2005 Combined Course and Third-Year Work Abstract The laws pertaining to shehitah, Jewish ritual slaughter, are explored. The laws derive from the oral law, stemming from the prohibition to eat the flesh of live animals, in combination with the general Biblical obligation for humane treatment of animals. The first part of this paper is an exposition of the origins of shehitah, and the laws for correctly carrying out the process. The second part of this paper addresses the history of the practice of these laws in select European countries and the United States. This history includes a discussion of anti-shehitah campaigns and legislation through modern times. 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2 Part I: The Laws of Shehitah ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-04-247 Humane Methods of Slaughter
    United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO January 2004 HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges GAO-04-247 January 2004 HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT USDA Has Addressed Some Problems Highlights of GAO-04-247, a report to but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges Congressional Requesters In 1978, the Congress passed the Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to Humane Methods of Slaughter Act determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter to ensure that cattle, sheep, hogs, violations. FSIS was unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection records and other animals destined for that document violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) human consumption are handled and implementing regulations. Also, inspectors did not always document and slaughtered humanely. Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture violations of the HMSA because they may not have been aware of regulatory (USDA), the Food Safety and requirements. Further, the records that FSIS provided did not consistently Inspection Service (FSIS) is document the scope and severity of each incident. USDA is taking steps to responsible for enforcing the act. address these issues. Recently, the Congress took additional actions to improve FSIS Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and regulations enforcement. GAO reviewed (1) the were also inconsistent. For example, we found that FSIS inspectors frequency and scope of humane temporarily halted stunning operations in more than half of the cases handling and slaughter violations, involving ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in less than half of (2) actions to enforce compliance, similar cases involving multiple animals.
    [Show full text]
  • CRS Report for Congress
    CRS Report for Congress Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues Geoffrey S. Becker Specialist Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division December 6, 1995 h CRS, 1 Congressional Research Se~iceCne Libmy of Congress I Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues SUMMARY Animal protection activists in the United States are seeking modifications (or even curtailment) of many practices long considered acceptable and necessary to animal agriculture. Examples include rearing large numbers of livestock and poultry in close confinement; performing surgery such as tail-docking or beak- trimming; housing layer hens in cages; and isolating veal calves in crates. Currently, no Federal law prescribes standards for on-farm handling and care of animals, although two statutes do address the humane transport and slaughter of livestock. A11 States have anti-cruelty laws, which can--but do not always--cover farm animals, Many States regulate the transport and slaughter of farm animals, but few if any address on-farm activities. Recent surveys suggest that most people (and many animal protection groups) still support agricultural uses of animals -- but many also appear to support at least some Government regulation to insure humane treatment. Producers maintain that they understand their animals' welfare needs and address them. They express concern that efforts by poorly informed critics could lead to the imposition of mandatory regulations harmful to producers and animals alike. Support for science, education, and voluntary guidelines are more effective ways of assuring animal welfare, they believe. But many animal protection groups contend that producer efforts fall short, in part because today's intensive farming systems perpetuate standard practices that are harmful to animals' well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Still in the Jungle: Poultry Slaughter and the Usda
    STILL IN THE JUNGLE: POULTRY SLAUGHTER AND THE USDA BRUCE FRIEDRICH* Chickens and turkeys represent more than 98 percent of slaughtered land animals in the United States, and yet they have no legal protection from inhumane slaughter. This paper argues that the USDA must use its statutory authority to protect poultry from inhumane slaughter under both the Human Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 (HMSA) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1907 (FMIA). After an introduction to the central themes in this area of law, Part II discusses the treatment of poultry in slaughterhouses and the need for reform. Part III describes the current state of humane slaughter laws and regulations in the United States. Part IV offers a detailed analysis of Levine v. Vilsack, in which animal protection and workers’ rights organizations tried to force the USDA to regulate poultry under the HMSA. Finally, Part V suggests a new path to federal legal protection for poultry at slaughter, building on an understanding of the legal and factual arguments adduced by both sides in Levine. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 249 I. POULTRY SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES: FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 252 II. HUMANE SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES: LEGAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ..................................... 256 A. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 ............. 256 B. The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1907 ....................... 257 * Director of Advocacy and Policy for Farm Sanctuary, which works to protect farm animals through education, legislation, regulation, and litigation (farmsanctuary.org). I would like to thank the Humane Society of the United States for opening their legal files to me as I researched this article, and I would like to thank Peter Brandt, Lewis Bollard, and Professor Lisa Heinzerling for their excellent comments on early drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Protections for Farm Animals at Slaughter
    LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR FARM ANIMALS AT SLAUGHTER The meat-packing industry in the United States expanded tremendously during the first half of the 20th century. However, as packing houses expanded to take in more and more animals, they retained primitive methods of handling and stunning animals in preparation for slaughter. An editorial entitled “Still the Jungle” in the June 18, 1956 issue of the New Republic described the slaughtering procedure: Cattle, like horses, are slugged on the head with iron mallets. The first blow frequently fails to stun them – as they stumble, electric shocks force them to their knees so that they may be struck again and again. Calves, hogs, and lambs are strung up (conscious) by chains tied to their hind legs. When the chains slip or legs are disjointed and broken, they crash from high conveyor lines to slaughter house floors. The throats of the calves are severed by sawing motions; lambs are knifed behind an ear and slowly bleed to death; hogs with slit throats frequently pass still squealing into scalding vats. While cruel methods of slaughter were regularly used in meat-packing houses in the U.S., progress was being made with both the passage of humane legislation and the development of humane stunning equipment in other parts of the world. In 1955, Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota introduced the first humane slaughter bill in the U.S. Congress. The American Meat Institute called it “premature,” although its introduction was 82 years behind Switzerland and at least 20 years behind other countries adopting such legislation. History of the Federal Humane Slaughter Law The specific aim of the first humane slaughter bill was to outlaw the practices of shackling and hoisting conscious animals and the use of manually operated sledgehammers for stunning.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal-Handling-Guidelines
    JUNE 2017 Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines & Audit Guide: A Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare Published by Wri en by Temple Grandin, Ph.D. Professor of Animal Science Department of Animal Science Colorado State University With North American Meat Ins tute Animal Welfare Commi ee Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization Inc. Cer fi ed and Accredited by the Professional Animal Auditor Cer fi ca on Organiza on ACCREDITED PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Execu ve Summary and Historical Perspec ve ........................................................................................................... 1 Changes to this Edi on .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter One: Transporta on Prac ces ........................................................................................................................ 5 Sec on 1: Temperature Management......................................................................................... ..................... 8 Sec on 2: Pen Space and Facility Layout.................................................................................. ...................... 11 Chapter Two: Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines............................................................. ........................... 14 Sec on 1: Recommended Livestock Handling Principles......................................................... ..................... 14 Sec on 2: Livestock Driving Tools...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues
    Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues -name redacted- Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development May 9, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RS21978 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Summary Animal welfare supporters in the United States have long sought legislation to modify or curtail some practices considered by U.S. agriculture to be acceptable or even necessary to animal health. Members of Congress over the years have offered various bills that would affect animal care on the farm, during transport, or at slaughter; several proposals were introduced in the 111th Congress, although no further action was taken on the bills. No bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress. Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees generally have expressed a preference for voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to humane care. Meanwhile, animal welfare supporters have won initiatives in several states to impose some care requirements on animal producers. Congressional Research Service Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues Contents Background ................................................................................................................................1 Criticisms of Animal Agriculture Practices............................................................................1 Defense of Animal Agriculture Practices ...............................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Ritual Slaughter and the Freedom of Religion: Some Reflections on a Stunning Matter
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Ritual Slaughter and the Freedom of Religion: Some Reflections on a Stunning Matter Zoethout, C.M. DOI 10.1353/hrq.2013.0040 Publication date 2013 Document Version Final published version Published in Human Rights Quarterly Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Zoethout, C. M. (2013). Ritual Slaughter and the Freedom of Religion: Some Reflections on a Stunning Matter. Human Rights Quarterly, 35(3), 651-672. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2013.0040 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 Ritual Slaughter and the Freedom of Religion: Some Reflections on a Stunning Matter Carla M. Zoethout Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 3, August 2013, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Shechita(Kosher Slaughtering)
    Shechita (Kosher slaughtering) and European legislation Paolo S. Pozzi1* and Trevor Waner2 1 Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, POB 12, 5025001 Beit Dagan, Israel. 2 The Biological Institute, Ness Zyiona, Israel. * Corresponding author at: Veterinary Services and Animal Health, Ministry of Agriculture, POB 12, 5025001 Beit Dagan, Israel. Tel.: +972 50 6243951, e-mail: [email protected]. Veterinaria Italiana 2017, 53 (1), 5-19. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.910.4625.2 Accepted: 21.05.2016 | Available on line: 31.03.2017 Keywords Summary Animal welfare, Shechita is the procedure of killing or slaughtering animals for food production, according to EU legislation, Jewish tradition and it is performed without prior stunning. USA and European legislations Pain, conditionally allow slaughter without prior stunning in the frame of religion freedom Shechita, (USA) or religious/cultural traditions (EU); nevertheless some traditional events in Europe Stunning, definitely represent a concern for animal welfare. It is possible to identify animal welfare Unconsciousness. issues in the rules for shechita: correct restrain of the animal; adequacy of the instrument (knife); technical ability of the operator. Animals restrain techniques evolved along the time in order to accomplish to less stressful immobilization of animals in course of shechita. When performed in the right way, shechita cannot be framed as negligent or intentionally painful, distressing or inducing suffering to animals. Today’s stunning techniques raise concerns relative to adequacy and effectiveness of stunning on animals, with welfare implications due to automatism of next dressing procedures. Shechita needs in Europe are in line with average meat demand by non Jewish population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over Regulation of Ritual Slaughter in the Western World
    Rovinsky: The Cutting Edge: The Debate Over Regulation of Ritual Slaughter +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 45 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 79 2014 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 10 14:22:02 2015 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0886-3210 Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 2014 1 California Western International Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1 [2014], Art. 3 THE CUTTING EDGE: THE DEBATE OVER REGULATION OF RITUAL SLAUGHTER IN THE WESTERN WORLD JEREMY A. ROVINSKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................. ........80 II. BACKGROUND OF RITUAL SLAUGHTER ..................... 82 A. Religious Origins and Requirements of Ritual Slaughter .................................. 82 B. Underlying Philosophical Justifications for Kosher Slaughter .................................. 84 1. The Rationalefor Eating Meat in Jewish Thought........84 2. Human Responsibilities to Animals.................. 86 3. Judaism and Vegetarianism...................87 C. Arguments againstRitual Slaughter................ 88 III. LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WESTERN WORLD RELATING TO RITUAL SLAUGHTER REGULATION ...................... 91 A. Early CulturalHostility toward Ritual Slaughter...........91 1. Switzerland ....................... 91 2. Norway and Sweden ................... 91 B. General Acceptance ofRitual Slaughter.............92 1. Germany and Poland .......................... 92 2. The United States ..................... ..... 94 * Dean, National Juris University & General Counsel, National Paralegal College. BA, American University, JD, The George Washington University.
    [Show full text]