Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges Gao ID: GAO-04-247 January 30, 2004In 1978, the Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to ensure that cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals destined for human consumption are handled and slaughtered humanely. Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for enforcing the act. Recently, the Congress took additional actions to improve FSIS enforcement. GAO reviewed (1) the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter violations, (2) actions to enforce compliance, and (3) the adequacy of existing resources to enforce the act.
Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter violations. FSIS was unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection records that document violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and implementing regulations. Also, inspectors did not always document violations of the HMSA because they may not have been aware of regulatory requirements. Further, the records that FSIS provided did not consistently document the scope and severity of each incident. USDA is taking steps to address these issues. Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and regulations were also inconsistent. For example, we found that FSIS inspectors temporarily halted stunning operations in more than half of the cases involving ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in less than half of similar cases involving multiple animals. We also found that FSIS officials may not be using consistent criteria to suspend plant operations--the enforcement action used when serious or repeated violations of the HMSA occur. As a result, plants in different FSIS districts may not be subject to comparable enforcement actions. In November 2003, FSIS issued clearer guidance to its inspectors and field personnel that should help resolve some of these problems. FSIS lacks detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter activities making it difficult to determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. In general, FSIS officials believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary Medical Specialist at each of the agency's field offices, the current number of personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter compliance is adequate.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-247, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-247
entitled 'Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges' which was released on
January 30, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
January 2004:
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act:
USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement
Challenges:
GAO-04-247:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-247, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1978, the Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to
ensure that cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals destined for human
consumption are handled and slaughtered humanely. Within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is responsible for enforcing the act. Recently, the
Congress took additional actions to improve FSIS enforcement. GAO
reviewed (1) the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter
violations, (2) actions to enforce compliance, and (3) the adequacy of
existing resources to enforce the act.
What GAO Found:
Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to
determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter
violations. FSIS was unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection
records that document violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA) and implementing regulations. Also, inspectors did not
always document violations of the HMSA because they may not have been
aware of regulatory requirements. Further, the records that FSIS
provided did not consistently document the scope and severity of each
incident. USDA is taking steps to address these issues.
Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and
regulations were also inconsistent. For example, we found that FSIS
inspectors temporarily halted stunning operations in more than half of
the cases involving ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in
less than half of similar cases involving multiple animals. We also
found that FSIS officials may not be using consistent criteria to
suspend plant operations”the enforcement action used when serious or
repeated violations of the HMSA occur. As a result, plants in
different FSIS districts may not be subject to comparable enforcement
actions. In November 2003, FSIS issued clearer guidance to its
inspectors and field personnel that should help resolve some of these
problems.
FSIS lacks detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend
on humane handling and slaughter activities making it difficult to
determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. In general, FSIS
officials believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary
Medical Specialist at each of the agency‘s field offices, the current
number of personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter
compliance is adequate.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FSIS (1) record specific information on the type
and causes of violations; (2) establish additional clear, specific,
and consistent criteria for districts to use when considering
enforcement because of repetitive violations; (3) require that
districts and inspectors clearly document the basis for enforcement
that are due to repetitive violations; (4) develop a mechanism for
determining the level of effort inspectors devote to the HMSA; (5)
develop criteria for determining the appropriate level of inspection
resources needed; and (6) assess whether that level is sufficient to
effectively enforce the act. FSIS generally agreed with our findings
and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-247.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Lawrence J. Dyckman
at (202) 512-3841 or dyckmanl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Most Prevalent Violation Was Ineffective Stunning, but the Overall
Frequency and Scope of Humane Slaughter Violations Is Difficult to
Determine:
FSIS Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions to Address Noncompliance:
FSIS Data on Inspection Resources Devoted to Overseeing Humane Handling
and Slaughter Requirements Are Inadequate:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Responses:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Food Safety and Inspection Service:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Number of States and Slaughter Plants Covered by Each FSIS
District, as of October 2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Stunning of Animals:
Figure 2: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA, as of October 2002:
Figure 3: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA That Accounted for 80
Percent of U.S. Meat Production during Fiscal Year 2002:
Figure 4: Location of Inspectors Observing Compliance with the HMSA at
a Typical Mid-Size Plant:
Figure 5: Violations Documented in Noncompliance Records between
January 2001 and March 2003:
Abbreviations:
DVMS: District Veterinary Medical Specialist:
FSIS: Food Safety and Inspection Service:
HMSA: Humane Methods of Slaughter Act:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 30, 2004:
The Honorable Robert F. Bennett:
Chairman:
The Honorable Herb Kohl:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry Bonilla:
Chairman:
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
More than 125 million cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals ultimately
destined to provide meat for human consumption were slaughtered in
fiscal year 2002, at some 900 federally inspected facilities throughout
the United States. In response to public concerns about cruelty to
livestock in meatpacking plants, the Congress passed the Humane
Slaughter Act of 1958. The act established as the policy of the United
States that the slaughtering and handling of livestock be carried out
only by humane methods. The act's provisions applied only to plants
desiring to sell meat to the federal government.[Footnote 1] Twenty
years later, the Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(HMSA) of 1978 to ensure that at all federally inspected slaughter
establishments, not just those selling meat to the federal government,
adopt humane handling and slaughter practices.[Footnote 2] In
particular, the act specifies that animals must be quickly rendered
insensible to pain before they are slaughtered.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), within the U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), is responsible for enforcing the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS inspection personnel are
stationed at each federally inspected slaughter facility to examine
every carcass to ensure that it is safe for human consumption. Although
their responsibilities are primarily for food safety, these inspectors
are also responsible for monitoring compliance with the act and the
applicable regulations at slaughter facilities throughout the country.
FSIS guidance states that when inspectors observe noncompliance with
the act's provisions, they should document the incident in a
noncompliance record.[Footnote 3] Inspectors are also authorized to
take enforcement action by temporarily shutting down parts of the
plant's operations until management provides satisfactory assurances
that the situation will be promptly remedied. In more serious cases,
the agency may temporarily suspend plant operations by removing FSIS
inspectors from a part of the facility or from the entire facility
until the problem is corrected. Finally, the FSIS administrator can
file a complaint to withdraw the grants of inspection from a facility,
which prevents its products from entering interstate or foreign
commerce. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and process
animals for sale in commerce without federal inspectors
present.[Footnote 4]
In recent years, the Congress has taken various actions to strengthen
USDA's resources and to better ensure that the agency enforces the
humane handling and slaughter provisions of the act. In fiscal year
2001, the Congress earmarked funds for the agency to enhance humane
slaughter practices.[Footnote 5] In response, FSIS created the position
of District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) in each of its
districts. The DVMSs are the primary contacts for all humane handling
and slaughter issues in each FSIS district office, and they are the
liaisons between the district offices and headquarters on humane
handling and slaughter issues. They are responsible for on-site
coordination of nationally prescribed humane slaughter procedures and
verification of humane handling activities, as well as dissemination of
directives, notices, and other information related to the act. In
fiscal year 2002, the Congress further directed that the Secretary of
Agriculture should fully enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
and report annually to the Congress on the number of violations and
trends recorded by FSIS inspectors.[Footnote 6] Fiscal year 2003
appropriations legislation included $5 million for additional
inspection activities.[Footnote 7] Also, in a recent congressional
conference report for fiscal year 2003 appropriations, the conferees
directed us to review and report to the appropriations committees on
the scope and frequency of humane slaughter violations and to provide
recommendations on the extent to which additional resources for
inspection personnel, training, and other agency functions are needed
to properly regulate slaughter facilities.[Footnote 8]
In response to this congressional directive, and through subsequent
discussions with your staff, we (1) analyzed the frequency and scope of
humane handling and slaughter noncompliance incidents documented by
FSIS inspectors, (2) analyzed FSIS actions to enforce compliance with
humane handling and slaughter provisions, and (3) assessed the extent
to which additional resources may be needed to ensure that humane
handling and slaughter provisions are enforced. To perform our work, we
obtained and analyzed all available FSIS records of noncompliance with
humane handling and slaughter requirements between January 2001 and
March 2003. We reviewed enforcement actions that the FSIS inspectors
took between January 2001 and March 2003 and that FSIS district
managers took between October 2001 and July 2003. To obtain information
on resources dedicated to humane handling and slaughter oversight, we
interviewed FSIS program officials and reviewed available workforce
data. We also reviewed all of the completed DVMS summary reports that
outline the officials' overall observations after each plant visit. To
obtain their views on the adequacy of personnel and training resources,
we conducted structured interviews with district managers, deputy
district managers, and DVMSs in all 15 FSIS districts. Finally, we
obtained the views of humane slaughter experts, industry association
representatives, and animal welfare groups. We conducted our work
between April 2003 and November 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I describes our
methodology in more detail.
Results in Brief:
Incomplete and inconsistent FSIS inspection records made it difficult
to determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter
violations. Available FSIS records show that during the 28 months
between January 2001 and March 2003, inspectors wrote 553 noncompliance
records to document violations of the HMSA and the implementing
regulations at 272 facilities across the United States. According to
these inspection records, ineffective stunning, which does not quickly
render animals insensible to pain as required by the act, was the most
prevalent type of noncompliance. To a lesser extent, the records
documented poor facility conditions that could lead to animal injury
and failure to provide water to animals awaiting slaughter as other
prevalent violations. However, in conducting this analysis, we found
internal control problems that call into question the reliability of
FSIS's records regarding compliance with the act. First, because the
agency had not stored its noncompliance records in electronic form, it
could not provide us with at least 44 additional records from the
period between January 2001 and March 2003. In addition, almost half of
the DVMSs with whom we spoke reported that inspectors did not always
document noncompliance when they should have because they were unsure
about regulatory requirements; for example, they were not sure if a
violation was too minor to be documented. Second, the noncompliance
records did not consistently document the scope and severity of
violations. Inspectors are required to document HMSA noncompliance
through narrative that includes the applicable statutory or regulatory
provision, a concise description of the violation, and any other
relevant evidence; but the records show that inspectors did not
describe violations in a consistent manner. For example, while some
noncompliance records provided detailed information on the causes of
observed ineffective stunning and the number of animals impacted, other
records only mentioned that ineffective stunning occurred but provided
no additional details. Incomplete and inconsistent data can make it
difficult for FSIS to accurately assess compliance with the act and to
report the results to the Congress. Despite these data limitations, in
its March 2003 report to the Congress, USDA indicated that during
fiscal year 2002 "very few infractions were for actual inhumane
treatment of the animals." Officials informed us that their analysis
was based on a sample of approximately half of the noncompliance
records available. In contrast, our analysis of all of the
noncompliance records FSIS provided for fiscal year 2002 shows that one
fourth of the 366 noncompliance incidents documented by inspectors,
were for incidents of ineffective stunning--a violation that USDA
characterized in its report to the Congress as "actual inhumane
treatment." FSIS has made recent efforts to improve documentation,
including better tracking of documentation and new guidance to
inspectors.
FSIS took inconsistent enforcement actions to address noncompliance
with the HMSA. For example, we found that plant inspectors temporarily
halted stunning operations in more than half of the cases involving
ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in less than half of
similar cases involving multiple animals. Half of the DVMSs we
interviewed attributed the inconsistent enforcement actions to
inspectors' inexperience, lack of clarity regarding their authority, or
the misperception that certain violations are minor. We found similar
inconsistencies at the district management level. District managers can
decide to take the more serious enforcement action of withdrawing
inspectors from the plant, thus suspending a plant's operations, when
they are notified of serious violations. However, they lack clear
criteria on when to do so, and this can lead to inconsistencies in
enforcement. We found, for example, one case in which a district
manager did not suspend plant operations after inspectors had issued 16
noncompliance records to a slaughter facility documenting the plant's
failure to properly stun animals. In contrast, another facility's
failure to provide access to water and to maintain acceptable pen
conditions led to a suspension of operations. As a result, FSIS cannot
ensure that humane slaughter requirements are consistently enforced
across districts, undermining FSIS efforts to effectively enforce the
act. In November 2003, FSIS issued guidance that should help inspectors
determine when it is appropriate for them to take enforcement actions.
However, the guidance is less explicit about when district actions are
warranted. For example, the guidance does not identify thresholds at
which repetitive instances of noncompliance at the same facility would
require action by district officials.
FSIS does not have data on the number of inspectors devoted to
compliance with the HMSA or on the amount of time that inspectors spend
on humane handling and slaughter requirements. Without such
information, FSIS cannot determine the appropriate number of inspectors
for different sized plants or the number of inspectors needed overall
to effectively enforce the act. FSIS headquarters and district
officials believe that, for the most part, the current number of
inspectors is sufficient to monitor and enforce humane handling and
slaughter requirements. In particular, district officials believe that
the present number of DVMSs is adequate to cover each district's HMSA
responsibilities. However, the officials said that despite improvements
made by the hands-on training provided by DVMSs, they remain concerned
about inspectors' overall level of knowledge regarding HMSA
requirements. When we discussed this matter with FSIS headquarters
officials, they said that, in addition to the new November 2003
directive that provides clearer guidance, the agency is currently
taking steps to improve inspectors' knowledge. For example, the agency
is developing scenarios for inspectors that will illustrate how to
implement the HMSA requirements.
To help ensure adequate enforcement of the HMSA, we are recommending
that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to (1) include in
noncompliance records specific information on the type and cause of
violations, (2) establish additional criteria for when districts are to
take enforcement actions in cases of repetitive violations, (3) require
that district offices and inspectors clearly document the basis for
enforcement actions that they take in response to repetitive
violations, (4) develop a mechanism for determining the level of
resources that the agency devotes to humane handling and slaughter
activities, (5) develop criteria for determining the appropriate level
of inspection resources, and (6) periodically assess whether that level
is sufficient to effectively enforce the act.
FSIS commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations. FSIS also provided a number of specific
comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
Background:
The Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act in 1958 in response to
intense and broad-based public concerns about cruelty and abuse of
livestock in meat-packing plants.[Footnote 9] At that time, the
Congress determined that using humane methods of slaughter prevented
the needless suffering of livestock, resulted in safer and better
working conditions for employees, and brought about improvements in
products and economies of slaughter operations, among other benefits.
The act established as U. S. policy that the handling and slaughtering
of livestock should be carried out using humane methods. However, the
act applied only to plants wishing to sell meat products to federal
government agencies. In 1978, the Congress passed the HMSA, which
amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and extended the policy
nationwide by requiring that all federally inspected slaughter
establishments adopt humane handling and slaughter methods. The HMSA
requires that animals be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow
or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and
effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or
cut."[Footnote 10] The act also provides for a ritual slaughter
exemption that allows the slaughter of animals in accordance with the
ritual requirements of any faith "that prescribes a method of slaughter
whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain
caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid
arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such
slaughtering."[Footnote 11]
FSIS has issued regulations and directives to enforce the act.
Important requirements of these regulations and guidance include the
following:
* All animals must be effectively stunned before they are slaughtered.
Stunning is effective when the animal feels no pain, is rendered
instantly unconscious, and remains unconscious until slaughtered;
* Dragging of disabled and other animals unable to move, while
conscious, is prohibited;
* All holding pens and driveways and ramps must be designed, built, and
maintained to prevent injury to livestock;
* Livestock should be provided with water in holding pens, and food if
held for more than 24 hours;
* The use of electrical prods and other devices to move livestock must
not be excessive and should be used as little as possible.
Figure 1 illustrates two separate stunning efforts---one of a cow being
stunned with a mechanical captive bolt and another of a sheep being
stunned with an electrical stunner.
Figure 1: Stunning of Animals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As of October 2002, 918 plants were covered by the HMSA in the United
States. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these plants.
Figure 2: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA, as of October 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While the plants are concentrated heavily in the Northeast, they tend
to be smaller plants. The 49 large producers, who account for
approximately 80 percent of total production of meat in the country
during fiscal year 2002, are mainly located in the Midwest, as figure 3
illustrates.
Figure 3: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA That Accounted for 80
Percent of U.S. Meat Production during Fiscal Year 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
FSIS is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act.[Footnote 12] The FSIS is organized into 15 district
offices that include: Alameda, Albany, Atlanta, Beltsville, Boulder,
Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, Jackson, Lawrence, Madison, Minneapolis,
Philadelphia, Raleigh, and Springdale. Table 1 shows the states, number
of plants, and type of plant, by size, for each FSIS district.[Footnote
13]
Table 1: Number of States and Slaughter Plants Covered by Each FSIS
District, as of October 2002:
FSIS District: Alameda;
States Covered: CA;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 4;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 25;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 3;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 32.
FSIS District: Albany;
States Covered: CT,ME,MA,NH,NY,RI,VT;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 71;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 4;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 0;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 75.
FSIS District: Atlanta;
States Covered: FL, GA, PR, VI;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 50;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 12;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 0;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 62.
FSIS District: Beltsville;
States Covered: DE, D.C., MD, VA, WV;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 26;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 13;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 2;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 41.
FSIS District: Boulder;
States Covered: AZ, CO, NM, NV, UT, AK, AS, GU, HI, ID, OR, WA;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 79;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 15;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 8;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 102.
FSIS District: Chicago;
States Covered: IL, IN, OH;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 25;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 28;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 6;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 59.
FSIS District: Dallas;
States Covered: TX;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 17;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 27;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 48.
FSIS District: Des Moines;
States Covered: IA, NE;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 23;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 18;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 18;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 59.
FSIS District: Jackson;
States Covered: AL, MS, TN;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 25;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 11;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 2;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 38.
FSIS District: Lawrence;
States Covered: KS, MO;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 52;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 8;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 9;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 69.
FSIS District: Madison;
States Covered: MI, WI;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 33;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 10;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 47.
FSIS District: Minneapolis;
States Covered: MN, MT, ND, SD, WY;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 26;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 32;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 7;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 65.
FSIS District: Philadelphia;
States Covered: PA, NJ;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 112;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 23;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 3;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 139.
FSIS District: Raleigh;
States Covered: NC, SC, KY;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 36;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 14;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 54.
FSIS District: Springdale;
States Covered: AR, LA, OK;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 20;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 7;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 1;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 28.
Total;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 247;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 71;
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 918.
Source: GAO presentation of FSIS data.
[A] FSIS did not provide size information for one plant, so the total
number of plants under the three size categories does not equal 918.
[End of table]
In 2002, FSIS employed about 7,600 inspectors at red-meat plants and
poultry facilities to inspect each carcass after it is slaughtered to
ensure that it is safe for human consumption.[Footnote 14] Inspectors
include at least one veterinarian assigned to each plant, who is
required to evaluate the general health of animals before they are
slaughtered, and Consumer Safety Inspectors, who are not veterinarians
and have varying inspection responsibilities throughout the
plant.[Footnote 15] FSIS officials maintain that as they carry out
their food safety and other activities, all inspectors are responsible
for monitoring compliance with humane handling and slaughter
requirements at plants that are covered by the HMSA from the time
livestock come into the custody of the plant to the time of slaughter.
According to the FSIS, while the HMSA requires inspectors to observe
the entire handling and slaughter process, inspectors do not have to
observe all animals all the time for HMSA compliance. In contrast, the
Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that each animal be examined prior
to slaughter and each carcass be individually inspected after slaughter
to ensure that the meat is safe for human consumption.[Footnote 16]
Typically, animals arrive on plant premises, are unloaded from trucks,
and then are held in the stockyard area where FSIS inspectors perform
the required antemortem inspection. During this inspection, disabled
animals are separated from the herd. Animals are then moved through
curved holding chutes and forcing pens onto the stunning platform,
where they are stunned before being slaughtered. Figure 4 illustrates
the areas in a typical, mid-size plant from which inspectors can
observe for HMSA compliance, although inspectors are not always present
in all areas.
Figure 4: Location of Inspectors Observing Compliance with the HMSA at
a Typical Mid-Size Plant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
When inspectors observe a violation of the HMSA or its implementing
regulations, they are required to notify plant management and document,
with a noncompliance record, the violation and the actions taken by
the:
plant to correct it. Inspectors can document more than one violation,
and different types of violations, in a single noncompliance record.
According to FSIS guidance, each noncompliance record should include
the following information:[Footnote 17]
* A unique record number,
* The date of the violation,
* The plant identification number,
* Humane handling regulations applicable to the incident reported,
* A written description of the violation,
* The name of plant personnel notified of the violation, and:
* The plant management's written response stating both the immediate
action to correct the violation and any subsequent action to prevent
its recurrence.
In response to HMSA noncompliance, FSIS can take a number of
enforcement actions--actions that impose restrictions on a facility's
ability to operate. These actions include the following:
* For less serious violations of the HMSA, inspectors at a facility can
issue a "reject tag" to quickly respond to violations that management
can readily address. Inspectors physically place these reject tags on a
piece of equipment or an area of the plant. This action temporarily
prohibits the use of a particular piece of equipment or area of the
facility until the violation is corrected.
* For more serious violations, the district manager can suspend
inspection until the violation or violations are addressed.[Footnote
18] This action, which removes FSIS inspectors from facility premises
(or part of the facility), suspends operations at the facility (or part
of the facility) because slaughter facilities may not operate without
federal inspectors present.
* In cases where a plant fails to respond to FSIS concerns about
repeated and/or serious violations, the administrator of FSIS can
withdraw inspection. This enforcement action removes the grant of
inspection from a facility, which prevents the facility's products from
entering interstate and foreign commerce. The facility must reapply for
and be awarded a grant of inspection before it may resume operations.
This action is rarely used.
Agency supplemental appropriations in 2001 included $3 million, of
which no less than $1 million was to be used to enhance the agency's
humane slaughter practices.[Footnote 19] USDA used $1.25 million of
these funds to hire 17 DVMSs to serve as program coordinators for all
humane handling issues. By March 2002, a DVMS was at work in each of
the FSIS district offices. The DVMSs, who received extensive training
on humane handling and slaughter techniques and related inspection
procedures, are the primary contacts for inspectors in each FSIS
district office and the liaisons between the district offices and
headquarters on humane handling and slaughter compliance. As of May
2003, the 17 DVMSs had visited 576, or about 63 percent, of 918 plants
covered by the HMSA. Thirteen of the 16 DVMSs we interviewed said that
they had visited all or almost all of their assigned plants at least
once. According to these 16 DVMSs, when they came on board, all of them
participated in a number of district activities that went beyond the
scope of humane handling and slaughter of animals, such as biosecurity
and food safety issues. For example, nine DVMSs reported that these
activities took 40 to 50 percent of their time. In March 2003, however,
an FSIS memorandum directed all but five of the DVMSs to only perform
humane handling activities.[Footnote 20] As a result, the activities of
12 DVMSs changed, and their current focus is solely the implementation
of the HMSA.
Despite these actions, concerns about the treatment of animals at U.S.
slaughterhouses persist. For example, two animal welfare groups, the
Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Farming Association,
believe that enforcement of the act could be improved. These groups
maintain that more continuous monitoring of compliance with the HMSA is
necessary. Also, according to the Humane Society, USDA oversight is
especially critical at facilities that specialize in disabled animals
and old dairy cattle, as well as those with slaughter production lines
that operate at high speeds.
Conversely, meat industry associations we contacted maintain that the
way animals are handled and slaughtered has improved in response to
pressure from customers of fast food restaurants and industry audits of
slaughter establishments. When Dr. Temple Grandin, a renowned animal
science authority, conducted a survey of 24 slaughterhouses in 1996 at
USDA's request, she found that only 36 percent were able to stun 95
percent of the cattle on the first try.[Footnote 21] When she repeated
the survey in 2002, this time visiting 80 different plants, she found
that 94 percent were able to do so.[Footnote 22] While Dr. Grandin's
second survey shows a significant improvement, it still indicates that
hundreds of thousands of animals were not stunned on the first try, as
required by the act. Thus, there may be undetected instances of
inhumane treatment. Dr. Grandin believes that effectively stunning
animals on the first try 100 percent of the time is unachievable--that
is why she proposed an objective scoring method as an alternative.
Objective scoring uses definite thresholds for various types of humane
handling and slaughter incidents and provides a means to promote
consistency within and across slaughter establishments. When we
discussed the objective scoring approach with FSIS officials, they
pointed out that the approach may have merit, particularly as a
monitoring tool. However, the officials pointed out that the HMSA
requires that animals be effectively stunned on the first try with one
single blow or gunshot. Therefore, objective scoring would not be an
appropriate regulatory tool because it allows for less than 100 percent
effectiveness in stunning. That is, under the objective scoring method,
a plant's humane slaughter procedures would be considered adequate if,
for example, 95 percent of the animals were stunned with one single
blow or gunshot on the first try.
The Most Prevalent Violation Was Ineffective Stunning, but the Overall
Frequency and Scope of Humane Slaughter Violations Is Difficult to
Determine:
Our ability to assess the frequency and scope of noncompliance with the
HMSA was limited because FSIS could not provide us with documentation
for all of the noncompliance incidents and because the documentation
provided was not always complete and consistent. The 553 noncompliance
records that the agency provided to us show that, between January 2001
and March 2003, there were 675 HMSA violations at 272 facilities--
approximately 30 percent of the more than 900 slaughter facilities in
the United States. The most prevalent noncompliance documented was the
ineffective stunning of animals, in many cases resulting in a conscious
animal reaching slaughter. FSIS has made recent efforts to improve
documentation--including steps to improve inspector awareness of
documentation requirements, better tracking of noncompliance
documents, and issuing new HMSA guidance in November 2003.
Inspection Records Were Incomplete and Inconsistent, Making It
Difficult to Determine the Frequency and Scope of Noncompliance:
The universe of inspection records that FSIS provided to us was
incomplete, making it difficult to assess the frequency of
noncompliance with the HMSA. FSIS provided us with 553 documented
records of noncompliance with the act and the implementing regulations
covering the 28-month period from January 2001 through March 2003.
However, we found internal control problems that call into question the
reliability of the information in the FSIS records regarding HMSA
compliance. Our analysis indicates that the extent of noncompliance
with the HMSA and the implementing regulations is likely to be greater
than what is reflected in the 553 records for several reasons. First,
according to FSIS officials, inspectors wrote at least 44 additional
noncompliance records during this period--January 2001 to March 2003.
However, while their recordkeeping system indicates that these
noncompliance records exist, the agency could not locate the actual
noncompliance documents for our review. The officials said that the
records were not electronically stored and that they would rather
improve tracking of such documentation in the future than attempt to
locate the missing records. This internal control problem is being
addressed, according to FSIS officials, because the agency has
transitioned to a system that stores all noncompliance records
electronically. Second, according to several DVMSs' observations during
their in-plant evaluations of humane slaughter activities, the
frequency of noncompliance with the act is likely to be underreported.
At least 7 of the 16 DVMSs we spoke with believe that inspectors have
not always documented violations in noncompliance records when they
should. The DVMSs said that some inspectors were not always aware of
regulatory requirements and may have felt documentation was unnecessary
because they either determined the offense was not serious or that it
could be easily remedied. The principal guidance provided to
inspectors--known as the "Rules of Practice"--does not specifically
instruct inspectors on whether to document a violation if that
violation does not result in an enforcement action and leaves it to the
discretion of the inspector when an enforcement action is called
for.[Footnote 23] However, recently, FSIS issued a directive that
requires inspectors to document all violations in noncompliance
records. Third, because inspectors do not engage in continuous animal
by animal observation for humane handling and slaughter compliance
purposes, violations may occur that are not recorded by inspectors.
Our ability to determine the overall scope and severity of humane
slaughter violations was further limited by the inconsistent way
inspectors document violations in noncompliance records. Inspectors
describe noncompliances by narrative--for example, by specifying
whether the violation involved ineffective stunning or lack of access
to water. Our analysis of noncompliance records related to HMSA showed
that inspectors do not describe violations in a consistent manner and
their narratives can vary substantially. For example, while some
noncompliance records provide detailed information on the observed
causes of ineffective stunning and the exact number of animals
impacted, other records only mention that ineffective stunning
occurred. Additionally, because narrative is the only way an inspector
can describe the HMSA noncompliance, the agency cannot easily extract
and analyze information. Inspectors do include a code so that
violations related to HMSA can be distinguished from violations related
to food safety, but it is a universal code for all HMSA violations; and
it does not provide any additional information about the type or
severity of the violation.[Footnote 24] As a result, it is difficult
for FSIS to quantify, interpret, and report the data related to the
scope and severity of documented instances of noncompliance.
Incomplete and inconsistent data can make it difficult for FSIS to
adequately assess how well HMSA standards are being enforced and to
report those results to the Congress and other interested parties. In
2002 legislation, the Congress stated that USDA should track violations
of the HMSA and report the results and relevant trends annually to the
Congress. In its March 2003 report to the Congress,[Footnote 25] USDA
reported that during fiscal year 2002 it documented 379 noncompliance
incidents out of 70,403 times when inspectors made observations for
compliance with the HMSA. This averages to approximately six
observations for HMSA compliance per month, or less than two
observations per week, for each the 918 plants that are covered by the
act. By analyzing approximately half of the noncompliance records
available for fiscal year 2002, FSIS concluded in the report that the
majority of these violations were related to facility conditions (e.g.,
slippery flooring, large gap between pen bars, etc.) and animals
provisions (failure to provide water or food). It then concluded that
"very few infractions were for actual inhumane treatment of the animals
(e.g. dragging or ineffective stunning).":
However, our evaluation of USDA's data showed otherwise. We analyzed
all the available noncompliance records for fiscal year 2002 and
identified 366 noncompliance incidents, of which 92 (one-fourth) were
for ineffective stunning--a violation that USDA characterizes as
"actual inhumane treatment." Likely reasons for the discrepancy between
our analysis and USDA's report are that we analyzed all available
records, while FSIS officials told us that USDA's analysis was based on
a subjectively selected sample of approximately half of the available
records. Additionally, FSIS's violation documentation system--
specifically its sole reliance on narrative to document HMSA
violations--required both FSIS officials and us to interpret the
inspectors' narratives to identify the number and types of violations
identified in the documentation. The FSIS official who conducted the
analysis told us that upon close examination of these narratives, some
instances that appear to be cases of direct animal injury in fact were
not and would therefore not be considered by the agency to be actual
inhumane treatment of animals.[Footnote 26]
We found similar results when we analyzed noncompliance records over a
longer period--January 2001 to March 2003. During this period, FSIS
produced 553 noncompliance records indicating some type of
noncompliance with the HMSA. These noncompliance records were written
for 272 plants, or about 30 percent, of the 918 plants that were
covered by the act. Our analysis of these noncompliance records
identified 675 violations. Of these violations, 167 were for
ineffective stunning, meaning animals were not quickly rendered
insensible to pain as required by the HMSA and the implementing
regulations. We found that over 67 percent of the 167 ineffective
stunning violations resulted in conscious animals being slaughtered.
Other less prevalent violations included facility conditions that could
lead to animal injury and lack of access to water. Our interviews with
the DVMSs support these data. Among the 16 DVMSs we spoke with, the
most prevalent violations they reported observing when they visited
plants to evaluate humane handling and slaughter practices were
ineffective stunning, poor facility conditions, and lack of access to
water. Figure 5 summarizes the types of violations we identified, using
FSIS documentation.
Figure 5: Violations Documented in Noncompliance Records between
January 2001 and March 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Our analysis of the 553 noncompliance records identified 675
violations. A noncompliance record can include more than one violation.
[A] The ineffective stunning and conscious animals columns in the
figure are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, in 112 cases,
ineffective stunning resulted in one or more conscious animals moving
to slaughter. In 55 cases, ineffective stunning was documented but not
that a conscious animal was slaughtered. This could happen if, for
example, multiple stunning efforts were required to render the animal
unconscious. In 21 cases, inspectors noted that an animal was observed
to be conscious at slaughter, without indicating ineffective stunning.
This could happen if an animal regained consciousness after being
effectively stunned.
[End of figure]
FSIS Is Taking Steps to Improve Inspector Awareness of Documentation
Requirements and Introduced Changes in Its Documentation Process:
FSIS has recently taken steps to improve inspector awareness of
documentation requirements and to correct the limitations in its
inspection documentation process. According to DVMSs and other FSIS
district officials with whom we spoke, as the DVMSs began playing an
active role in working with inspectors at plants covered by the HMSA,
the inspectors' level of knowledge regarding interpreting and
documenting noncompliance has improved. In particular, DVMSs told us
that inspectors are becoming more aware of the need to document
noncompliance incidents that previously may have been considered to be
too minor to document or may not have been considered a violation at
all. As a result, the number of documented records for noncompliance
incidents increased from January 2001 through March 2003. For example,
in the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, FSIS inspectors issued 56
noncompliance records documenting HMSA violations. This number
increased to 134 in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. Similarly,
the number of noncompliance incidents documenting relatively minor
violations increased as well. For example, during the same time frames,
documented incidents for facility conditions that could cause injury to
animals prior to slaughter increased from 5 to 40, and documented
incidents of lack of access to water increased from 9 to 37. The DVMSs
attributed the increase in part to the enhanced awareness of humane
handling and noncompliance documentation requirements on the part of
the inspectors.
Additionally, FSIS officials told us that the introduction of a humane
handling procedure code in its Performance Based Inspection System (the
computer-based system it uses to track compliance with all FSIS
regulations), which took effect in October 2001, should help FSIS
better track noncompliance records that document HMSA violations. While
this change may address the agency's internal control problems
regarding record maintenance, it will not, as we discussed earlier,
provide sufficient data on the type of HMSA violations or make it
easier for the agency to quantify, interpret, and report the data
related to the scope and severity of the documented noncompliances.
FSIS also released a new directive, "Humane Handling and Slaughter of
Livestock," in November 2003.[Footnote 27] This directive also provides
additional guidance and informs inspectors on many aspects of HMSA
compliance. Importantly, the directive specifically instructs
inspectors to document all violations of the HMSA and implementing
regulations, regardless of the severity of the violation or whether an
enforcement action is called for.
FSIS Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions to Address Noncompliance:
Our review of noncompliance records indicates that FSIS has taken
inconsistent enforcement actions in response to violations of the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and applicable regulations. Inspectors
stationed in slaughter plants have not consistently issued "reject
tags"--the enforcement action used for less serious violations--to
temporarily stop a plant from using a piece of equipment or an area of
the plant until the violation is corrected or appropriate actions are
taken to prevent recurrence of the incident. Also, district managers
were not using consistent criteria to suspend plant operations when
more serious violations occurred.
Records Show Inspectors Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions in
Response to Noncompliance:
FSIS inspectors took enforcement actions in almost 40 percent of the
documented noncompliance cases between January 2001 and March 2003.
FSIS officials and guidance indicate that it is not appropriate to take
an enforcement action for all violations. For example, while stunning
an animal more than once is clearly an instance of noncompliance with
humane handling and slaughter requirements, an inspector may not feel
that an enforcement action is necessary if a plant employee stuns an
animal more than once because of certain unavoidable conditions, such
as an animal moving its head just prior to being stunned.
Nevertheless, our analysis of the noncompliance records indicates that
inspectors are not consistently taking enforcement actions.
Specifically, they are not consistently using reject tags.[Footnote 28]
The records show that serious violations appear to have taken place--
violations that involved multiple instances of ineffective stunning or
several animals being conscious during slaughter--but that inspectors
did not take any enforcement action. For example, our analysis of
enforcement actions taken in the 167 instances of ineffective stunning
shows that inspectors used reject tags to temporarily suspend stunning
operations in more than half of the 86 cases involving ineffective
stunning of a single animal but in less than half of the 79 cases that
involved multiple animals.[Footnote 29] In one particular incident, the
inspector who prepared the noncompliance record wrote that he observed
six conscious animals being slaughtered during a period of 5 minutes,
and he considered the incident unacceptable; however, he did not take
enforcement action. This inaction was in sharp contrast to many other
cases where inspectors took enforcement actions, for relatively less
serious violations, such as lack of access to water.
According to half of the 16 DVMSs we interviewed, inspectors often do
not take enforcement action when they should. DVMSs attribute this
inconsistent use of enforcement action to several factors. For example,
some inspectors are hesitant to issue reject tags for ineffectively
stunned animals because they are not veterinarians and are unsure about
what signs indicate that an animal is still conscious after it has been
stunned. They also noted that some inspectors lack the experience or
knowledge regarding their authority to issue reject tags or simply
misinterpret routine incidents--even though they are violations--as not
warranting enforcement actions. FSIS did not provide data for the level
of experience of inspectors. However, as part of the inspectors' new
hire program, FSIS includes a module on humane handling issues;
inspectors have no other formal training on the HMSA and its
enforcement. Most of the deputy district managers and half of the DVMSs
noted that an overall lack of knowledge among inspectors about how they
should respond to an observed noncompliance has been a problem in
enforcing the HMSA.
FSIS has begun to address the problem of unclear guidance by issuing a
new humane handling and slaughter directive on November 25, 2003. This
directive, for the first time, clearly states that inspectors are
obligated to take enforcement actions when they observe inhumane
treatment whether or not animal injury has resulted. Specifically, the
directive states that inspectors must take action if either (1) a
violation of humane handling and slaughter requirements has occurred
that is not immediately causing injury or inhumane treatment of animals
and the establishment has not taken appropriate preventative actions or
(2) a violation of HMSA requirements has occurred and animals are being
injured or treated inhumanely. Also, FSIS officials said that they have
recently held meetings with the DVMSs and district officials that
focused on making enforcement more consistent.
District Managers Have Also Taken Inconsistent Enforcement Actions:
In addition to the enforcement actions available to inspectors
stationed at slaughter facilities, district managers may suspend the
operations of an entire facility, or part of the facility, by removing
the inspectors from the plant. Since FSIS inspectors must be present
during slaughter operations, this effectively shuts down a facility.
This enforcement action is more serious than the reject tags that
inspectors can use and may be taken by district managers in the event
of serious or repetitive violations. Between October 2001 and July
2003, district managers issued eight suspensions at seven slaughter
plants that directly involved HMSA violations. According to FSIS, seven
of the suspensions were issued in response to incidents involving the
physical treatment of animals--four in response to inappropriate
stunning or conscious animals observed at slaughter, two in response to
the mistreatment of disabled animals, and one in response to excessive
use of electric prods and force. One suspension was issued in response
to facility conditions (a protruding fence board that was pointing
toward the animals and could cause injury) and lack of access to water.
In addition, during the same period, FSIS districts issued four letters
to plants to inform them that if corrective actions were not taken to
prevent recurrence of noncompliance incidents, the districts would
proceed with suspension action.
Our analysis of the 553 noncompliance records indicated that the
severity and repetitiveness of the violations does not necessarily
result in consistent enforcement actions by district managers. For
example, in one case, inspectors had prepared 16 noncompliance records,
all related to the ineffective stunning of animals. However, the
district manager did not take enforcement action because, as he
explained, the 16 incidents were not triggered by the same factor; if
they had been, he said he would have suspended the plant. This
contrasts with the opinion of another district manager who, commenting
on this same situation, said that a case of so many related and
relatively serious incidents is a definite candidate for a suspension.
District managers said that they identify facilities for suspension by
reviewing the noncompliance records and looking for "red-flags"--
specifically, cases of serious and/or repetitive incidents of inhumane
treatment of animals. While FSIS guidance stipulates that district
level enforcement actions, such as suspensions, are appropriate when
facilities have been unable to implement corrective and preventive
actions in response to previously identified violations, the guidance
does not contain suggested thresholds or criteria on when district
actions are appropriate. More specifically, the guidance does not
address how many repetitive instances of noncompliance should warrant
district level enforcement actions. In the absence of uniform criteria,
these enforcement decisions are likely to be inconsistent across FSIS
districts, undermining FSIS' efforts to effectively enforce the act.
While the November 2003 directive provides some additional guidance on
when suspensions are an appropriate response to multiple violations
with the same or related cause, it does not provide any information on
the number of related violations that would warrant a suspension. For
example, in deciding whether a suspension is warranted, the directive
states that district officials should consider the amount of time
between violations--not the number of repeat violations--taken by the
plant. FSIS officials noted that they have recently held meetings to
emphasize consistent enforcement and discussed the issue at the October
2003 National Supervisory Conference attended by over 200 agency field
supervisors.
FSIS Data on Inspection Resources Devoted to Overseeing Humane Handling
and Slaughter Requirements Are Inadequate:
Because FSIS does not have adequate data on the number of inspectors
responsible for enforcing the HMSA or the actual time they spend on
humane handling and slaughter requirements--nor other information, such
as criteria to determine the appropriate number of inspectors for
different sized plants--it is difficult to determine if the number of
inspectors is adequate to effectively enforce the HMSA. However, FSIS
headquarters and district officials believe that, for the most part,
personnel resources dedicated to monitoring and enforcing humane
handling and slaughter requirements are adequate. District officials
believe that the present number of DVMSs is adequate to cover each
district's HMSA responsibilities. The DVMSs are the primary contacts
for inspectors in each FSIS district office and the liaisons between
the district offices and headquarters on humane handling and slaughter
issues. They are responsible for on-site coordination of nationally
prescribed humane slaughter procedures and verification of humane
handling activities, as well as dissemination of directives, notices,
and other information related to the act. Fifteen districts have one
DVMS and two districts, Boulder and Chicago, have two DVMSs
each.[Footnote 30] According to FSIS district officials, the 17 DVMSs
are sufficient to oversee humane handling and slaughter activities in
each district.
FSIS officials could not, however, provide us with quantitative data on
the actual time in-plant inspectors spend enforcing HMSA or other
quantitative data from which we could assess the adequacy of in-plant
inspection resources dedicated to humane handling and slaughter.
Without this basic information, it is difficult to determine with any
degree of certainty or precision if the number of inspectors is
adequate to effectively enforce the HMSA. Also, without this data, FSIS
cannot determine the appropriate number of inspectors for different
sized plants or the adequate number of inspectors overall to
effectively enforce the act. FSIS recently conducted an analysis
showing that inspectors spent an estimated 132,405 hours, or 63 full-
time equivalents, on humane handling and slaughter activities in fiscal
year 2003. To come up with this estimate, the agency asked the DVMSs to
estimate the number of hours that inspectors spent observing humane
handling, per shift per plant in their districts. The DVMSs aggregated
this information to determine how many total hours, per plant per year,
were spent on humane handing and slaughter. Additionally, FSIS
officials said they have a pilot program in place to track hours spent
enforcing the HMSA. However, without additional information, such as
criteria to determine the appropriate number of inspectors for
different sized plants, the agency has insufficient information to make
good decisions regarding how to allocate inspectors, and we could not
conclusively determine whether additional in-plant inspectors are
needed to ensure compliance with the HMSA.
Nevertheless, discussions with district officials suggest that
additional resources devoted solely to enforcing the HMSA are not
needed, but that additional inspectors who could conduct both food
safety and humane handling activities would be beneficial. District
managers and their deputies were in general agreement that there is no
need for additional inspectors whose sole responsibility would be to
observe for compliance with the HMSA. Five of the 29 district officials
we spoke with who disagreed with this position told us that dedicated
HMSA inspectors would be beneficial, primarily at larger plants only,
or to supplement and follow up on the DVMSs' work when DVMSs are not
present at a plant. However, almost 40 percent of the district managers
and their deputies reported a general need for additional inspectors--
inspectors responsible for both humane handling and food safety. They
noted that filling current vacancies and/or hiring more relief
inspectors to cover for vacations and other expected and unexpected
leave would benefit HMSA enforcement. Several officials said this would
be true particularly in larger plants where the size and configuration
of the facility make it difficult for inspectors to effectively monitor
humane handling and food safety compliance at the same time.
While stating that personnel resources for overseeing handling and
slaughter requirements appear overall adequate, district officials
expressed some dissatisfaction with the inspectors' overall level of
knowledge about humane handling and slaughter requirements. According
to 17 of the 29 district officials and at least 9 of the 16 DVMSs we
interviewed, despite improvements made by the hands-on training that
DVMSs provided inspectors, additional training of inspectors would
improve the agency's ability to properly enforce the HMSA.
Additionally, 14 DVMSs said that not all inspectors are fully
knowledgeable about the requirements of the HMSA or the implementing
regulations--including not being aware that certain actions are
violations of the HMSA, or what their authority and obligations are
when a violation has been observed. FSIS officials also believe that
inspector knowledge needs to be improved, and they said that they are
committed to doing this through additional training and other efforts.
We agree that this is a reasonable first step--improving existing
personnel's knowledge--before making decisions about the need for
additional resources. Accordingly, we are not making a recommendation
that FSIS provide additional training.
When we discussed this matter with senior FSIS officials, they said
that they are currently taking steps to improve inspectors' knowledge.
As a first step, with the assistance of the DVMSs, FSIS is developing a
survey of veterinarians' and other supervisory inspectors' overall
training needs, including needs in the area of humane handling and
slaughter.[Footnote 31] Additionally, the agency's November 2003
directive consolidates many HMSA requirements into a single directive,
making it easier for inspectors to understand and interpret the
requirements. DVMSs are also developing scenarios that will illustrate
to inspectors how to implement the HMSA requirements and help them
better understand their job function as it relates to the act. These
scenarios are distributed in the form of a monthly report (Humane
Interactive Knowledge Exchange--HIKE) that FSIS employees will be able
to access through the Internet.[Footnote 32] FSIS officials believe
that this will be a successful way of sharing knowledge throughout the
agency on key policy issues.
Conclusions:
The Congress first passed legislation in 1958 and subsequently in 1978
to address humane treatment of livestock. Recently, the Congress also
provided USDA with additional resources and directed the Secretary of
Agriculture to fully enforce the HMSA and implementing regulations. In
response, FSIS created the DVMS position. According to many district
officials, this step has enhanced knowledge among slaughter plant
inspectors about their duties to ensure the humane handling and
slaughter of animals. Additionally, very recent efforts, such as the
new directive for inspectors, demonstrate a commitment to improving
enforcement of the act. However, FSIS still faces challenges. The
agency needs to address shortcomings related to adequately recording
and analyzing documented instances of noncompliance with the HMSA and
ensure consistent application of enforcement actions before it can
assure the Congress and the pubic that animals are treated humanely and
the act is being fully enforced. Finally, the lack of information on
the level of effort FSIS dedicates to humane handling and slaughter
activities prevents it from evaluating its own performance and making
informed decisions on whether additional inspectors are needed.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making six recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to
further strengthen the agency's oversight of humane handling and
slaughter methods at federally inspected facilities.
To provide more quantifiable and informative data on violations of the
HMSA, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to:
* supplement the narrative found in noncompliance records with more
specific codes that classify the types and causes of humane handling
and slaughter violations.
To ensure that district officials use uniform and consistent criteria
when taking enforcement actions, we recommend that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct FSIS to:
* establish additional clear, specific, and consistent criteria for
district offices to use when considering whether to take enforcement
actions because of repetitive violations;
* require that district offices and inspectors clearly document the
basis for their decisions regarding enforcement actions that are based
on repetitive violations.
To ensure that FSIS can make well-informed estimates about the
resources it needs to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, we
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to:
* develop a mechanism for identifying the level of effort that
inspectors currently devote to monitoring humane handling and slaughter
activities;
* develop criteria for determining the level of inspection resources
that are appropriate on the basis of plant size, configuration, or
history of compliance, once the mechanism is developed and in
operation; and:
* periodically, assess whether that level is sufficient to effectively
enforce the act.
Agency Comments and Our Responses:
We provided FSIS with a draft of this report for their review and
comment. FSIS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
In addition, FSIS provided a number of specific comments and
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. FSIS's comments
and our responses to them appear in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture
and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to
others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Lawrence J. Dyckman:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To assess the scope and frequency of humane handling and slaughter
violations, we obtained and analyzed data from several sources. First,
we obtained the U.S. Department of Agriculture's March 2003 Report to
Congress on Humane Handling and Slaughter Enforcement Activities, in
which USDA presents their findings on noncompliance with the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) during fiscal year 2002. We reviewed
that information and followed up with the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) officials who wrote the report to discuss the
methodology they used when they conducted their analysis. Second, in
structured interviews with 16 of the 17 District Veterinary Medical
Specialists (DVMS), we discussed what they thought were the most common
types of noncompliance with the HMSA, based on their visits to plants
covered by the act in their districts. In addition, we also reviewed
the written summaries that they prepared to document these
observations. Third, we obtained from FSIS all available documentation
of observed violations to the HMSA for the period January 2001 through
March 2003, the period for which FSIS could provide us with the most
complete documentation. This information was provided in the form of
553 records of noncompliance. To analyze this information provided in
these forms and determine the frequency of violations, by type of
violation, as well as their scope, we classified them as follows:
* Ineffective stunning (i.e., one or more animals had to be stunned
more than once);
* One or more conscious animals showed signs of consciousness past the
stun box, i.e, when they were hoisted, cut, or bled;
* Facility conditions that either caused injury to an animal or could
cause injury to an animal, such as broken fences, protruding nails,
slippery floors, and overcrowded pens;
* Excessive use of electric prods or other devices;
* Mishandling of ambulatory animals, such as hitting, kicking, or
dragging a conscious animal;
* Mishandling of disabled animals, such as keeping such animals among
ambulatory animals, increasing the risk of further injury;
* Lack of access to water;
* Lack of access to food; and:
* Other instances of noncompliance with the HMSA or applicable
regulations.
Using these categories, we aggregated the information to determine the
frequency of the various types of violations. In addition, to obtain a
further indication of the "scope" of the violation for cases where
animals were ineffectively stunned or where conscious animals were
observed past the stun box, we created a code indicating whether a
single animal or multiple animals were impacted. A GAO analyst
knowledgeable of the subject matter conducted all the classifications.
A second GAO analyst reviewed all forms and codes determined by the
first analyst for accuracy. Any discrepancies were resolved through
discussion between the two analysts. We also discussed our methodology
with FSIS officials who did not have any objections with our approach.
To further evaluate the information presented in the 553 reports, we
reviewed FSIS regulations and guidance to inspectors regarding when
they are required to write a noncompliance record and what they are
supposed to include in it. In addition, in our structured interviews
with 16 of 17 DVMSs, we obtained their views on inspectors'
documentation of noncompliance and factors, if any, which may impact
it.
To determine FSIS actions to enforce compliance with the humane
handling and slaughter requirements, we obtained information on
enforcement actions taken at the plant and FSIS district level. To
determine how many times inspectors took enforcement actions, and under
what circumstances, we analyzed the 553 noncompliance records we
obtained from FSIS for the period between January 2001 and March 2003.
We analyzed the narrative information in these records to determine
when inspectors temporarily stopped use of equipment or part of the
plant in response to a violation and for what type of violation. To
determine how many times district managers took enforcement actions, we
obtained and analyzed documentation for all plant suspensions and
notices of intended enforcement actions by a district, for the period
between October 2001 and July 2003. In addition, we reviewed FSIS
guidance on when inspectors and districts should take enforcement
action, and we talked with 16 of the 17 DVMSs about their views on
inspectors' enforcement of the act and regulations; and we also talked
with all district managers about how they determine when to take
enforcement action against a plant.
To assess the extent to which additional resources may be needed to
ensure that humane handling and slaughter provisions are enforced, we
contacted FSIS headquarters officials, district managers and deputy
district managers at the 15 FSIS district offices, and 16 of the 17
DVMSs. First, from FSIS headquarters, we obtained information officials
put together on the estimated number of hours that inspectors devoted
to implementation of the HMSA during fiscal year 2003. We also obtained
documentation on the training available to inspectors regarding the
HMSA and information on the agency's upcoming plans to further address
inspectors' training needs and knowledge regarding the HMSA. Second, we
conducted structured interviews with district managers and deputy
district managers at all 15 FSIS districts to identify additional
resource needs, such as additional inspectors, training, and guidance
that would be necessary to ensure adequate implementation of the HMSA
in their district. Third, we conducted structured interviews with 16 of
the 17 DVMSs to obtain their observations on how knowledgeable
inspectors are regarding the HMSA and their training needs. We
supplemented our analysis of the results of this work with interviews
with Dr. Temple Grandin, a renowned animal-handling expert; industry
association representatives from the American Meat Institute and the
National Meat Association; and animal welfare group representatives
from the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Farming
Association, and Humane Farm Animal Care, which provided us with their
views on improving HMSA enforcement.
To assess the reliability of the FSIS data cited in the background
section regarding plants covered by the HMSA, plant production, size of
plants, plants covered by each district, and DVMS visits to plants, we
(1) performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and
completeness and (2) had discussions with agency officials
knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We conducted our review from April 2003 through November 2003, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department of Agriculture:
Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Washington, D.C. 20250
Mr. Lawrence J. Dyckman:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team:
Food and Agricultural Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW, Room 2T23
Washington, DC 20548:
JAN 14 2004:
Dear Mr. Dyckman:
In your letter dated December 11, 2003, you requested the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) written comments on the Draft report
GAO 04-247 "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges." Thank you for the
opportunity to provide comments on the draft report.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
We are in general agreement with the findings and recommendations in
the report, and believe the report supports the Food Safety and
Inspection Service's (FSIS) enforcement of the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act. We are providing the following specific comments to help
refine the characterization of the Agency's efforts to date. The FSIS
is taking steps to address the issues identified in the report, and has
already completed and fully implemented several significant measures to
address these issues.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
1. Highlights Page. Final Sentence, 3RDParagraph. The report states "In
general, FSIS officials believe that, with the introduction of a
District Veterinary Medical Officer at each of the agency's field
offices, the current number of personnel devoted to humane handling and
slaughter compliance is adequate.":
We ask that the sentence be changed to read "In general, FSIS officials
believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary Medical
Specialist at each of the agency's field offices, the current number of
personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter compliance is
adequate.":
2. Page 3. Last 2 Sentences, 1st Paragraph. The report states "Finally,
the FSIS administrator can remove the grant of inspection from a
facility, which prevents its products from entering interstate or
foreign commerce. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and
process animals without federal inspectors present."
We ask that the sentences be changed to read "Finally, the FSIS
Administrator can file a complaint to withdraw the grants of inspection
from a facility. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and
process animals for sale in commerce without Federal inspectors
present.":
3. Page 5. 6th Sentence, 1st paragraph. The report indicates FSIS was
unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection records that document
violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and
implementing regulations.
GAO should include the fact that they were provided with 553 non-
compliance records (NRs), and many of these records were retrieved from
the field. The 44 records FSIS did not provide to GAO represent less
than ten percent of all the NRs documented by FSIS during this time
period. Some of the hardcopy NRs provided to GAO date from FY 2001.
Hardcopy records were difficult to obtain because they were not stored
electronically, and needed to be retrieved from the field. As indicated
on page 18 of the report, the Agency decided it would rather improve
its systems for tracking documentation than retrieve hardcopies of
documents from the field.
4. Page 5. 5th Sentence, 1st Paragraph. The report indicates GAO found
internal control problems that call into question the reliability of
FSIS' records during the period between January 2001 and March 2003
regarding compliance with the Act.
Since GAO analyzed the humane handling data covering a 28 month period,
FSIS has fully addressed the records reliability and consistency issues
identified in the report. First, the Performance Based Inspection
System (PBIS) had been updated during that time. Inspectors now enter
and store NRs electronically, and NRs can be easily accessed and
analyzed. The information systems infrastructure to facilitate
entering, storing, and accessing NR data has been in place since FY
2002. Second, FSIS established the District Veterinary Medical
Specialist (DVMS) positions. DVMSs began plant visits in FY 2002 to
coordinate with inspection personnel on nationally prescribed humane
slaughter procedures and verification of humane handling activities.
Although some of the records management and consistency issues raised
in the report may have been issues for concern in January 2001, they
are not currently. The Agency has taken steps to address these issues.
5. Page 5. Final sentence on the page, continued on to page 6, 1st
sentence on the page. The report indicates GAO conducted its own
analysis of all the non-compliance records provided to them, and that
FSIS performed its analysis on a sample of records.
The GAO narrative should note that FSIS performed its analysis on a
sample of approximately half of the NRs available. Also, the report
should indicate all known differences in the approach GAO used for its
analysis versus FSIS. For example, the categories used to group the
violations, or whether or not the noncompliance records were reviewed
by experienced veterinarians.
6. Page 13. 1st and 2nd full sentences on the page. The report indicates
that HMSA does not specifically require inspectors to continuously
observe all animal handling and slaughter procedures, but that the
Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that each carcass be individually
inspected after slaughter to ensure that the meat is safe for human
consumption.
GAO should clarify this statement with the following information. HMSA
requires continuous inspection of humane handling at every livestock
slaughter plant. This is done throughout the day by inspection
personnel at the establishment. While it is a continuous inspection of
the process, it is not an animal by animal process. Consequently,
isolated events of non-compliance could be unobserved by inspection
personnel. However, given the on-going nature of the inspection,
endemic establishment problems will be identified by inspection
personnel within a relatively short period of time.
7. Page 16. 1st paragraph, 3rd to the last sentence. The report
indicates that a number of DVMSs participated in a number of district
activities that went beyond the scope of humane handling and slaughter
of animals, and that these activities took as much as seventy-five
percent of the DVMS's time.
GAO should describe how it determined that some DVMSs spent seventy-
five percent of their time on activities beyond the scope of humane
handling and slaughter of animals. In some cases, the activities of
some DVMSs are solely related to humane handling and slaughter. These
DVMSs never changed their current focus from the implementation of the
HMSA because they were already spending one hundred percent of their
time on it. As the report states, currently twelve DVMSs are devoted
solely to the implementation of HMSA.
8. Page 21. 1st full sentence on the page. The report indicates that FSIS
officials did not provide any information to suggest that the incidents
of ineffective stunning GAO had identified were not incidents of actual
inhumane treatment or that the number of incidents of ineffective
stunning GAO identified were inaccurate.
A thorough analysis of the NRs requires careful reading and
interpretation of the narratives provided in the NRs, and, as the
following examples show, several instances of noncompliance that appear
to be direct animal injury would not have been considered so in a real-
world assessment. For example, an inspector observed multiple stun
holes on a head, but when the inspector observed the stunning process
it was being conducted correctly.
Other examples include:
* An NR documenting a bullet found in a pig without evidence that the
animal was shot on the establishment premises, and the clinical signs
observed at postmortem were not consistent with a new wound.
* An NR for excessive prodding with an electric prod, and upon
investigation by the plant there was no power source and therefore, the
prods were not electric.
* An NR for downer calves in pens where they might have been trampled,
but in fact at the time of the NR no additional animals had been
admitted to the pen and no animals were injured.
In its analysis FSIS would not consider these cases direct animal
injury NRs.
9. Page 23. The report indicates that the introduction of a humane
handling procedure code in the PBIS should help FSIS more effectively
track NRs that document HMSA violations.
GAO should note that a humane handling Inspection System Procedure
(ISP) code in the PBIS was established, and took effect in October
2001. The information systems infrastructure to facilitate entering,
storing, and accessing NR data has been in place since FY 2002.
Inspectors now enter and store NRs electronically, and NRs can be
easily accessed and analyzed.
We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any
questions, please contact Ronald F. Hicks, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review at (202) 720-8609.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Garry L. McKee, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Administrator:
The following are GAO comments on the Food Safety and Inspection
Service letter, dated January 14, 2004.
GAO Comments:
1. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.
2. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.
3. We already include the fact that FSIS provided us with 553
noncompliance records. Additionally, we acknowledge that the 44 records
that FSIS did not provide to us represent less than 10 percent of all
the documented noncompliance records for the period.
4. We acknowledge that the internal control problem we identified is
being addressed. However, we cite the internal control problem because
it affected the humane handling data for the period of our analysis--
January 2001 to March 2003.
5. The report clarifies that FSIS sampled approximately half of the
available noncompliance records. We believe that we sufficiently
indicate the differences in the approaches used by FSIS and us in
analyzing those records. We acknowledge that the official who conducted
the FSIS analysis is a trained veterinarian. However, our analysis
relied directly on information provided by FSIS inspectors in
noncompliance records.
6. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.
7. The final report clarifies that the 16 DVMSs we interviewed (out of
17 DVMSs) told us that they originally participated in activities
beyond the scope of humane handling and slaughter of animals.
8. We have made a slight modification in the report language, but
overall, we disagree with this comment. In our analysis, we did not
attempt to reinterpret the narratives contained in FSIS noncompliance
records that inspectors prepared after observing each violation. We
categorized each record according to the type of violation to the HMSA
and appropriate regulations. Regarding the first example in FSIS's
comments, if a noncompliance record indicated that it was issued
because of ineffective stunning, that is the way we categorized the
incident. Further, we did not attempt to impose a standard of whether
or not documented noncompliance incidents resulted in animal injury for
two reasons. First, FSIS did not provide us with any additional
documentation, beyond the noncompliance records, indicating whether
direct animal injury resulted from the incident. Second, whether or not
an animal injury occurred is not a standard for writing noncompliance
records, according to FSIS's own directives. Finally, FSIS did not
provide us with any additional examples or other information that, in
their view, indicate that ineffective stunning violations reported in
noncompliance records did not cause direct injury to animals, and
therefore, did not result in actual "inhumane treatment." The next
three examples in FSIS's comments do not pertain to ineffective
stunning, but we used the same approach to categorizing these type of
noncompliance records.
9. We acknowledge that FSIS instituted a humane handling inspections
system procedure code, effective October 2001, which should help FSIS
better track noncompliance records that document HMSA violations.
However, we note that this is a universal code for all HMSA violations
and does not provide any additional information about the type or
severity of the violation.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Lawrence J. Dyckman (202) 512-3841 Maria Cristina Gobin (202) 512-8418:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Pauline Seretakis, Heather
A. Holsinger, Katheryn E. Summers, Charles T. Egan, John W. Delicath,
and Jennifer R. Popovic made key contributions. Other contributors
include Aldo A. Benejam, Michele C. Fejfar, Karen K. Keegan, Julian P.
Klazkin, and Katherine M. Raheb.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 85-765, 72 Stat. 862 (1958).
[2] Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (1978). Among other things, the
act amended sections 3 and 10 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21
U.S.C. sections 603 and 610.
[3] Throughout this report, we use the terms "noncompliance" and
"violation" interchangeably. This is consistent with FSIS regulations
and directives.
[4] 7 U.S.C. sections 603, 604.
[5] Pub. L. No. 107-20, 115 Stat. 155, 164 (2001).
[6] Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-171,
Section 10305 116 Stat. 134.
[7] Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 22 (2003).
[8] H. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10 (2003).
[9] Pub. L. No. 85-765, 72 Stat. 862 (1958).
[10] 7 U.S.C. Section 1902 (a). The act applies to those establishments
processing cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, goats, pigs, and other
equines. It does not apply to poultry, bison, reindeer, and catalo.
[11] 7 U.S.C. Section 1902 (b).
[12] The FSIS is also responsible for ensuring the safety of most meat,
poultry, and processed egg products.
[13] FSIS classifies plants according to their size: large plants--
those with 500 or more employees, small plants--those with 10 to 499
employees, and very small plants--those with fewer than 10 employees,
or annual sales of less than $2.5 million.
[14] FSIS did not provide us with the specific number of inspectors
that are assigned to meat slaughter facilities.
[15] Throughout this report, we refer to veterinarians and Consumer
Safety Inspectors as "inspectors."
[16] 7 U.S.C. sections 603, 604.
[17] FSIS Directive 5001.1, Revision 1: Verifying an Establishment's
Food Safety System, May 21, 2003.
[18] If there is an egregious situation of inhumane handling and
slaughter, the inspector in charge may also immediately suspend
inspection and immediately notify USDA's district office for prompt
documentation of the suspension action.
[19] Pub. L. No. 107-20 (2001).
[20] FSIS determined the DVMSs who would only perform humane handling
and slaughter related work after sending a survey to all DVMSs asking
them if they would be interested in performing only HMSA work or if
they would like to perform other duties. The other five DVMSs still
have humane handling responsibilities, but can also assist with food
safety and food security.
[21] Survey of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef, Veal,
Pork, and Sheep Slaughter Plants; Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
3602-20-00, January 7, 1997.
[22] 2002 Restaurant Audits of Stunning and Handling in Federally
Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants; http://www.grandin.com/
survey/2002.restaurant.audits.html.
[23] FSIS issued its "Rules of Practice" in September 5, 2001, in FSIS
Notice 36-01 to ensure that all inspection program personnel are
knowledgeable about the enforcement actions that the agency may take,
the circumstances under which the various types of enforcement actions
are appropriate and can be taken, and the procedures that the agency
will follow in doing so. According to FSIS, the rules of practice
provide a key link between inspection and enforcement activities. The
guidance elaborates on the regulatory enforcement actions described at
9 C.F.R. pt. 500. In November 2003, FSIS issued a new directive to its
inspection personnel that provides clearer direction regarding
enforcement.
[24] This contrasts with the dozens of ways that inspectors can
classify different types of food safety violations ranging from
sanitation procedures to labeling accuracy.
[25] See Food Safety and Inspection Service, Humane Handling and
Slaughter Enforcement Activities, Report to Congress, March 2003.
[26] USDA only provided us with four examples of cases where they did
not consider the reported violation to have caused direct injury to
animals, therefore resulting in actual inhumane treatment of animals.
[27] FSIS Directive 6900.2, "Humane Handling and Slaughter of
Livestock," November 25, 2003. This directive informs inspectors of the
requirements, verification activities, and enforcement actions for
ensuring that the handling and slaughter of livestock, including the
slaughter of livestock by religious ritual methods, is humane. The
directive also explains how inspectors should approach these
activities. Specifically, the directive leads the reader through the
existing regulatory requirements and explains in simple, easy to read
and understand language how inspection program personnel should verify
compliance with each of these regulations and what actions they should
take if there is noncompliance.
[28] From January 2001 through March 2003, inspectors issued reject
tags to temporarily interrupt the use of equipment or facilities or to
slow down or stop production lines 214 times. The most prevalent
reasons for these reject tags were ineffective stunning and conscious
animals observed being slaughtered.
[29] While our analysis included 167 instances of ineffective stunning,
we could not determine from the documentation provided how many animals
were impacted in two of these cases. Therefore, this analysis is based
on 165 incidents.
[30] This was the result of an FSIS realignment of its district
offices. When USDA introduced the DVMS position, it assigned one DVMS
to each of its 17 districts. In May 2002, an organizational realignment
consolidated FSIS's 17 district offices into 15. In the realignment,
the Pickerington, Ohio, office became a satellite office in the Chicago
district, and the Salem, Oregon, office became a satellite office in
the Boulder, Colorado, district. As a result, the Chicago and Boulder
districts now have two DVMSs each.
[31] FSIS senior officials said that the reason they are sending this
survey primarily to veterinarians at this point is because Consumer
Safety Inspectors are unionized, which makes implementation of a survey
instrument to them a cumbersome and lengthy process.
[32] The first HIKE was issued in the fall of 2003.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
