You are here: UK Essays » Essays » General Studies » Horse Slaughter Consumption

Cookie Information

Privacy Information

Horse Slaughter Consumption

Horse slaughter for human consumption has recently become a popular topic in the news today. In reality the act of slaughtering horses for food has been around much longer then most people realize. The consumption of horsemeat became popular directly after World War II in European countries. Lower income people who could not afford beef began to slaughter old draft horses that were no longer useful due to lameness. Meat from equines eventually became popular among the upper class and soon transformed into a European delicacy (Stull, 2001).The United States of America, at the time, had more horses then the country knew what to do with. Naturally the U.S. became a provider of horsemeat to Europe (Whiting, 2007). No specific breed of equine was slaughtered. Most often the horses that were killed for meat were too old, too slow, too expensive to keep, or the owners simply lost interest in them (Bollinger, 2007). In 1979 the shipment of live horses over seas became illegal under federal law after the media began to draw the public's attention to high mortality rates and other distasteful transport conditions. As a direct result the number of horses slaughtered in the United States began to decrease since 1980. Later, in the early 1990's, more outcries were heard from the American public demanding the regulation of horses being transported by truck to USDA approved slaughter houses. In 1997 the USDA took action by awarding special contracts to scientists, to provide data about the effect of transport on horses meant for slaughter (Stull, 2001). More outcries began to rise from the public and more regulations were set down by individual state governments until finally the last slaughter plant was shut down on May 24, 2007, officially ending horse slaughter for human consumption in the United States (JAVMA, 2007).

One major question arises, is there any substantial scientific evidence on why horses for human consumption should not be slaughtered in the United States? In order to answer this question one must consider the health aspects of consuming horseflesh, whether or not slaughter is directly linked to the abuse of equines, what actions have been taken to end horse slaughter, the effect the actions of horse slaughter has had on the United States economy, and the opinions of professionals who base their livelihoods on the welfare of equines. Only after all of this information has been accessed, and a clear understanding is developed, can a person make a decision about the suitability of a ban on horse slaughter for human consumption.

Those that oppose horse slaughter for human consumption believe it is a negative concept. One argument states that meat from equines is not healthy for humans to eat. Horse has no dietary advantages over any other meat product. In fact meat from equines can cause serious problems. Horse meat has the potential to spread a serious infectious, parasitic disease called trichinella. The first outbreak of trichinella, associated with the consumption of horsemeat occurred in 1975. In the following twenty-five years the trichinella disease ripped its way through France and Italy. During its' destructive raid the disease was to blame for thirteen outbreaks and 3200 diagnosed victims. Biopsies were taken from victims as well as samples from horsemeat to indentify the infection. Doctor's, at the time of the epidemic, were able to diagnose patients by identifying four major symptoms. The clinical signs included fever, diffuse muscular pain, facial swelling, and eosinophilia, or an increase in the number of eosinophils in the blood. The outbreaks lasted three to seven weeks and occurred where horsemeat is available as a food item. In order to determine where the infected meat was coming from, food and health officials were required to sift through local commercial records. The countries importing the infected meat were located in Eastern Europe, Central America, and North America. As a result of a world-wide distribution range it has been discovered that the disease is able to develop anywhere and can occur naturally in horses whether they are raised and/or slaughtered in Italy, France, Mexico, or the United States. The two most recent infectious outbreaks in France provided solid information that the ingestion of infected horsemeat caused the human trichinellosis infection (Boireau, 2000). The only way to prevent the spread of trichinella through horsemeat is to stop the slaughter and shipment of horses intended for consumption.

The claim that horsemeat has no dietary advantages is a fallacy. Meat from equines contains less fat then beef, making it a leaner healthier choice (Koch, 2006). In addition, although the danger of becoming infected by the trichinella parasite by means of consuming horsemeat is a threat, it is not as serious as some would like to portray. Recent tests have proven that only one in every fifteen thousand horses slaughtered may contain the trichinella parasite. It is highly unlikely that a human being will consume meat from a horse infected by the parasite. It is more likely, that a person will be infected due to ingesting undercooked or poorly prepared meat. France and Italy are both known for eating meat that is aged and severely underprepared. Belgium, Spain, Germany, Greece and China, on the other hand have a higher rate of consumption per capita of horseflesh and has not been struck as hard by the trichinella parasite (Boireau, 2000). The main reason for Belgium, Spain, Germany, Greece and China's success is because their people do not ingest poorly prepared horsemeat. This fact is accurately reflected the following table.

Table 1. International trade of horsemeat (source FAO) and culinary habits in those countries with the highest consumption of horsemeat

P. Boireau et al.? Veterinary Parasitology 93 (2000)

The table accurately portrays the number of horses consumed by each country, the number of horses imported, the number of trichinella cases from 1975-1999, and the culinary habits of each country. The countries that eat meat that is raw have the highest infection rates as opposed to countries that eat meat well done have a low number of infections.

Horsemeat is not the only way a person can contract the trichinella parasite. Humans can also be infected through the consumption of pork and wild boar meat (Boireau, 2000). Since 1993 trichinella has spread across Eastern Europe by means of infected domestic swine (Pozio, 2003). Countries such as Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Croatia, Georgia, and Latavia, countries that consume more pork products then France and Italy, have been struck the hardest by the parasitic disease. Between 1993 to 2003 .16 percent of Eastern Europes' population has been infected by trichinella and some villages have suffered infection rates of up to fifty percent of their populations as a result of consuming contaminated swine products (Pozio, 2003). One such swine product is sausage which contains twenty-one larvae per square gram (Pozio, 2003). Because pork contains more larvae per square gram it is more likely for a person to become infected by products from swine rather then products from horses. The only reason a person is in danger of infection is because he or she has ingested undercooked meat or meat that is not fresh. In addition horse meat is not the sole source of the trichinella parasite, swine products can become infected as well. Horse slaughter for human consumption therefore should not be banned because of the risk of contracting the trichinella parasite

Another argument stated by people against horse slaughter, is that slaughter for human consumption causes abuse of equines. One form of abuse is the manner in which the horses are transported. Since the 1980's animal protection agencies have focused their energy on the poor transportation methods. Before 1980 horses were shipped alive on ocean barges to be killed in Europe. Because of unsuitable transport condition and high mortality rates, federal laws were put into place that would prohibit transporting of live horses from the United States for the purpose of consumption. Years later in the 1990's organizations began to demand that transport by truck to USDA-approved slaughter houses be regulated. The outcry gained the attention of news broadcastings on television, on the radio, and in the newspaper. They reported that horses were being transported in terrible conditions using pot belly semi trailers that were overcrowded that allowed for little or no head room. In addition horses were being transported over twenty-four hours without water causing dehydration (Stull, 2001). Some people who are in favor of slaughter argue that horses do not drink water while in transport. That fact is false. A series of experiments were conducted to discover whether or not horses drink while in transport and if the number of horses in the semi-trailer had an effect on whether or not the horses drank. The horses were split into groups of nineteen, twenty, and twenty-four. The animals were not allowed water for four hours before transport and for eight hours after transport. The horses were shipped in a single-deck, open topped, sixteen meter long trailer for eight hundred hours. The horses in each experiment were divided into separate groups in separate compartments in the trailer. Each compartment had two water troughs. In experiments one and two, horses had limited maneuverability, and had difficulty reaching the water trough. In experiment number three, all horses in the compartment were able to gain access to the water. All horses that had access to water initiated the first drink fifteen minutes after being loaded onto the trailer. In experiments one and two not all animals had access to water and suffered severe dehydration. In experiment three all horses had access to water and did not suffer dehydration. The series of experiments have effectively proven that horses do drink during transport (Gibbs, 2006) . Not allowing access to water under the pretense that the animals do not drink is false and can be interpreted as a form of abuse and neglect.

Although transportation issues have arisen there is no reason to shut down the whole process of horse slaughter. Careful considerate regulation is necessary. In 1998 various people involved in the equine industry met to discuss possible solutions to the problem of transporting horses meant for slaughter. These people included representatives from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, scientists who conducted research on the conditions of horses being transported, representatives for animal protection organizations, representatives from animal protection organizations, representatives from the veterinary community, and slaughter facility managers. Some of the questions addressed at the meeting included how long should horses be allowed to travel, what is the acceptable amount of time a horse should go without food or water, when is a horse unfit to travel, and what is the appropriate number of horses allowed to be transported at one time? Some of the ideas presented at the meeting were originally regulations adopted by other countries. Canada recently applied a voluntary regulative code that states a double deck, pot-belly trailer, is a suitable form of transportation as long as there is head clearance of 2.5 centimeter's for every 10.16 centimeter's height at the withers (Whiting, 1999). In the European Union, the European Commission Directive of 1995 was put in action in 1998 to protect horses during transport. The directive stated that the maximum journey a horse could undergo is eight hours, after which the horses must be unloaded, fed and watered for twenty-four hours before continuing the trip. A series of rest stops is in the process of being developed in the European Union for horses being transported to slaughter facilities (Stull, 2001). Slaughter house managers will be willing to adhere to the new laws because the regulations will allow facilities to reach their goal of providing quality meat by receiving healthy horses which are not dehydrated or malnourished.

What is being done to stop equine slaughter for human consumption? A number of laws have been passed to regulate the slaughter of horses in the United States. Federal laws are currently in place to set standards of care for equines such as anti-cruelty measures. Slaughter plants, in addition, are subject to Federal Meat Inspection Act which requires all swine, horses, sheep, goats, and cattle meant for human food to be inspected Federal laws do not ban the use of horses as food. It is solely up to the state governments to decide whether or not, slaughter horses for consumption, is a lawful act. Many states have begun to develop laws that will ban equine slaughter for human consumption (Becker, 2007). In 2004, Illinois State Representative Robert Molaro introduced a new law that would ban slaughtering horses for human food. The legislation passed soon after a slaughter plant in Dekalb County called Cavel International announced plans to reopen. Cavel International was one of three plants still able to operate legally in the United States (Rourke, 2005). In May 2007, Rod Blagojevich, governor of Illinois, signed a legislation stating that the slaughter of equines for human consumption is illegal. In doing so Blagojevich effectively shut down Cavel International slaughter facility. Violators of the new law can be punished with up to thirty days in jail and a fine of $1500.00. Blagojevich (2007) announced in that, “It's past time to stop slaughtering horses in Illinois and sending their meat overseas. I'm proud to sign this law, that finally puts an end to this practice” (p. 1787).

Laws against horse slaughter have been put into place in the attempt to help horses for human consumption that are being mistreated. Unfortunately lawmakers did pause to think about how these new regulations might negatively affect the economy. In 2005, prior to the closing of all United States slaughter houses, a total of 18,000 tons of horse meat was shipped over seas. The meat was valued at sixty-one million dollars total (Nolan, 2006). As a result of the ban horse slaughter no longer brings that large amount of money into an already suffering economy. In fact the closing the closing off all United States slaughter houses will prove to be even more detrimental because of the expense of saving the lives of horses that were destined for slaughter. The most recent legislation amended the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, buying, selling, and donation of horses to be slaughtered for human consumption. The legislation, does not however, take into consideration the finances required to provide care for so many unwanted or neglected equines (Ahern, 2006). The American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) estimated that the cost, to fulfill one horse's most basic needs, was $2340.00 a year. This amount includes feed, water, bedding, farrier, and veterinary care. An estimated 90,000 neglected or unwanted horses could potentially be absorbed by the system and placed in foster homes that are governmentally funded (Becker, 2007). This writer estimates that, in order to provide basic care for 90,000 horses for one year it could cost around $210,600,000. One might wonder where the government obtains such a large amount of money to support 90,000 horses. One also wonders how eager the tax payers, that voted to have horse slaughter in the United States banned, will be to foot the bill.

Although each author cited in this paper is considered an expert, what do the veterinarians who base their livings on the welfare of horses have to say about horse slaughter for human consumption? Gerald M. Ward, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine has been a veterinary practitioner for fourteen years and was also employed by the USDA in a horse slaughter facility. Ward (2007) stated:

I believe it is less inhumane to perform euthanasia on horses in a well-supervised and controlled method and market the meat. Euthanasia in horse slaughter plants is well supervised, and it is painless and immediate. Too often are horses put out to pasture and neglected. As a result they are exposed to parasites, insects, rain, and snow. Also pastured horses are too often deprived of sufficient food and water needed for good health. (p. 187)

Belinda S. Thompson (2007), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine believes that, “there are not enough equine veterinarians to serve every horse. In some areas the density of horses is too low to support the livelihood of a strictly equine veterinarian”(p.187). Thompson cites a major problem with the low number of veterinarians in an area. There is no one nearby available or properly licensed to humanely euthanize a horse. As a result the owner often allows the animal in need of euthanizing to continue suffering. Thompson believes that the continuation of horse slaughter for human consumption is a good way to encourage horse owners, who do not have access to a veterinarian, to humanely end their animals suffering.

Although there are flaws in the overall system for slaughtering horses they are not major problems. With the proper time and effort the system can be improved and become stronger. After analyzing the information consisting or the health aspects of consuming horseflesh, slaughter is not directly linked to the abuse of equines, actions that have been taken to end horse slaughter although meant well, have had a negative effect on the American economy, and the in opinions of professionals, horse slaughter should continue. Only one possible conclusion can be drawn, the prohibition of horse slaughter for human consumption is a bad concept with negative consequences.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: