The Case for Humane Slaughter Laws for Poultry

Originally published by Candess Zona-Mendola, Unsafe Foods Editor.

By: Kate Delany

According to the USDA, nearly 9 billion chickens were slaughtered for meat last year, along with 243 million turkeys, and 27 million ducks. Unlike cows, pigs, and other animals raised for meat, chickens, and other birds are not covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). This November, the non-profit organization Mercy for Animals (MFA) filed a formal petition with the USDA, asking them to close this gap in HMSA coverage. The organization’s detailed request, complete with comprehensive and disturbing details of inhumane slaughter, has garnered media attention. The group hopes it will also lead to a rethinking of how America’s most popular meat is processed.

Originally passed in 1958 and revised in 1978, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act is a federal regulation designed to decrease the suffering of livestock during slaughter. The requirements mandate that animals be rendered unconscious by electrical, chemical or other means before being killed. In 1978, the law was updated to allow the USDA to suspend operations on any slaughtering line engaging in observable cruelty. In 2002, an amendment to the Farm Bill emphasized the need for thorough enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Law.

Tom Super, National Chicken Council spokesperson, has alleged that HMSA regulations wouldn’t be effective in dealing with chickens, calling it a “square-peg-round-hole situation” but others disagree. Animal rights groups such as PETA, Compassion Over Killing and the Humane Society have long been critical of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act for its exclusion of chickens and other birds. Their undercover slaughterhouse exposés have documented cases of live chickens having legs and wings cut off by malfunctioning beheading machines or drowning in scalding water. Within their petition, MFA lists other inhumane practices in chicken slaughter, such as shackling birds upside down and slitting their throats while conscious, suffocating live birds with gloved hands and ripping feathers off conscious birds.

Violations of this sort would result in punitive action if they occurred in beef or pork processing. However, since the HMSA doesn’t apply to poultry, the industry is left to regulate itself. As Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) has publicly noted, “There is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry. However…regulations do require that live poultry be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices, and that they not die from causes other than slaughter.” Currently one profitable commercial practice in chicken slaughter is live shackling, which is illegal as a method of slaughter for all other food animals.

In addition to the clear ethical concerns, the lack of humane slaughter regulations for poultry poses safety problems. The current standard slaughter practices demand that workers slit the throats of live chickens at the speed of 25-35 chickens per minute. Many birds urinate and/or defecate during this process. Live chickens also frequent enter the electrical water bath, increasing the risk of fecal contamination. As MFA cited in their petition to the USDA, “97 percent of chicken breasts purchased at grocery stores across the nation contained bacteria, and over half were contaminated with fecal matter.” The CDC cautions that raw chicken is often contaminated with Campylobacter bacteria. The USDA’s own data has found that a quarter of all chicken parts sold in the US is contaminated with salmonella.

 The changes proposed by Mercy for Animals would aid in reducing the contamination that comes with live handling, overcrowding and extra animal stress during slaughter. The group has asked the USDA to mandate Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CSA) as the new standard in poultry slaughter. In this process, stunning gas renders birds unconscious and insensitive to pain before slaughter. If made universal practice, it could be beneficial to the animals as well as to workers who are frequently scratched and pecked by live birds. In replacing live hanging of chickens, it could also reduce the incident of occupational injury. As OSHA notes, “[t]he incidence rate of CTS in the poultry processing was more than seven times the national average in 2013.”

Perdue has begun implementing gas stunning in their factories, beginning first with one facility in Maryland to test the process. A spokesperson from Perdue told The Portland Press-Herald, “There are a lot of reasons for us to move forward on better care. It’s good for the chicken, farmer and the meat.” Perdue’s new animal welfare practices follow on the heels of sharp criticism by MFA and other organization. At present, five companies–Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Sanderson Farms, Perdue, and Koch Food, account of more than half of the U.S.’s chicken production and collectively earned over $28.1 billion in revenue in 2015. The top three companies alone – Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson – produce approximately half of the nation’s chicken. Getting these corporations overboard with humane methods of slaughter for poultry would be a major victory for MFA and all others concerns with ethics and safety in food production.

The post The Case for Humane Slaughter Laws for Poultry appeared first on Unsafe Foods.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2p0p8fX
via Abogado Aly Website