Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
Weaknesses in USDA Enforcement Gao ID: GAO-10-487T March 4, 2010This testimony discusses our work on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) actions to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA), as amended, which prohibits the inhumane treatment of livestock in slaughter plants and generally requires that animals be rendered insensible--that is, unable to feel pain--before being slaughtered. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for enforcing HMSA. Concerns about the humane handling and slaughter of livestock have increased in recent years, particularly after possible HMSA violations were revealed at a slaughter plant in California in 2008 and one in Vermont in 2009. This statement summarizes our report being released today that (1) evaluates USDA's efforts to enforce HMSA, (2) identifies the extent to which FSIS tracks recent trends in FSIS inspection resources for enforcing HMSA, and (3) evaluates FSIS's efforts to develop a strategy to guide HMSA enforcement. To perform this work we, among other things, conducted a survey of inspectors-in-charge--those responsible for reporting on humane handling enforcement in the plants--from a random sample of inspectors-in-charge at 257 livestock slaughter plants from May 2009 through July 2009. Our sample allowed us to make estimates about the observations and opinions of all inspectors-in-charge at U.S. slaughter plants. We obtained responses from 235 inspectors-in-charge, for an overall survey response rate of 93 percent. We also examined a sample of FSIS noncompliance reports, suspension data, and district veterinary medical specialist reports in all 15 of FSIS's district offices for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
Our survey of inspectors at slaughter plants and analysis of FSIS data suggest that inspectors have not taken consistent actions to enforce HMSA. In responding to our survey, different inspectors indicated they would take different enforcement actions when faced with a violation of humane handling requirements. In addition, our review of noncompliance reports identified incidents in which inspectors did not suspend plant operations or take regulatory actions when they appeared warranted. The lack of consistency in enforcement may be due in part to the lack of clarity in current FSIS guidance and to inadequate training. Second, FSIS cannot fully identify trends in its inspection funding and staffing for HMSA, in part because it cannot track HMSA inspection funds separately from the inspection funds spent on food safety activities. FSIS also does not have a current workforce planning strategy for allocating limited staff to inspection activities, including HMSA enforcement. Last, while FSIS has strategic, operational, and performance plans for its inspection activities, they do not clearly outline goals, needed resources, time frames, or performance metrics. Nor do these plans provide a comprehensive strategy to guide HMSA enforcement. In our report, we recommend, among other things, that FSIS take actions to strengthen its oversight of humane handling and slaughter methods at federally inspected facilities. In commenting on a draft of the report, USDA did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our findings or recommendations, but it stated that it plans to use them in improving efforts to enforce HMSA.
GAO-10-487T, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Weaknesses in USDA Enforcement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-487T
entitled 'Humane Methods Of Slaughter Act: Weaknesses in USDA
Enforcement' which was released on March 4, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, March 4, 2010:
Humane Methods Of Slaughter Act:
Weaknesses in USDA Enforcement:
Statement of Lisa Shames, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-10-487T:
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) actions to enforce the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA), as amended, which prohibits
the inhumane treatment of livestock in slaughter plants and generally
requires that animals be rendered insensible--that is, unable to feel
pain--before being slaughtered. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is responsible for enforcing HMSA. Concerns about the
humane handling and slaughter of livestock have increased in recent
years, particularly after possible HMSA violations were revealed at a
slaughter plant in California in 2008 and one in Vermont in 2009.
This statement summarizes our report being released today that (1)
evaluates USDA's efforts to enforce HMSA, (2) identifies the extent to
which FSIS tracks recent trends in FSIS inspection resources for
enforcing HMSA, and (3) evaluates FSIS's efforts to develop a strategy
to guide HMSA enforcement.[Footnote 1] To perform this work we, among
other things, conducted a survey of inspectors-in-charge--those
responsible for reporting on humane handling enforcement in the plants-
-from a random sample of inspectors-in-charge at 257 livestock
slaughter plants from May 2009 through July 2009. Our sample allowed
us to make estimates about the observations and opinions of all
inspectors-in-charge at U.S. slaughter plants.[Footnote 2] We obtained
responses from 235 inspectors-in-charge, for an overall survey
response rate of 93 percent. We also examined a sample of FSIS
noncompliance reports, suspension data, and district veterinary
medical specialist reports in all 15 of FSIS's district offices for
fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
As detailed in our report, we found the following. First, our survey
of inspectors at slaughter plants and analysis of FSIS data suggest
that inspectors have not taken consistent actions to enforce HMSA. In
responding to our survey, different inspectors indicated they would
take different enforcement actions when faced with a violation of
humane handling requirements. In addition, our review of noncompliance
reports identified incidents in which inspectors did not suspend plant
operations or take regulatory actions when they appeared warranted.
The lack of consistency in enforcement may be due in part to the lack
of clarity in current FSIS guidance and to inadequate training.
Second, FSIS cannot fully identify trends in its inspection funding
and staffing for HMSA, in part because it cannot track HMSA inspection
funds separately from the inspection funds spent on food safety
activities. FSIS also does not have a current workforce planning
strategy for allocating limited staff to inspection activities,
including HMSA enforcement. Last, while FSIS has strategic,
operational, and performance plans for its inspection activities, they
do not clearly outline goals, needed resources, time frames, or
performance metrics. Nor do these plans provide a comprehensive
strategy to guide HMSA enforcement. In our report, we recommend, among
other things, that FSIS take actions to strengthen its oversight of
humane handling and slaughter methods at federally inspected
facilities. In commenting on a draft of the report, USDA did not state
whether it agreed or disagreed with our findings or recommendations,
but it stated that it plans to use them in improving efforts to
enforce HMSA.
In preparing this testimony, we relied on our work supporting the
accompanying report. That report contains a detailed overview of our
scope and methodology. All of our work for this report was performed
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
GAO Survey Results and FSIS Data Indicate Inconsistent FSIS
Enforcement of HMSA:
Our survey results indicate differences in the enforcement actions
that inspectors reported they would take when faced with a humane
handling violation. For example, in our survey we asked inspectors how
they would respond if they observed plant employees electrically
prodding more than 50 out of 100 animals--a threshold considered
excessive by an industry standard and a leading industry expert, Dr.
Temple Grandin. Figure 1 shows that inspectors had varying responses.
According to FSIS guidance, when FSIS inspectors observe a violation
of HMSA or its implementing regulations and determine that animals are
being injured or treated inhumanely, they are to take two actions: (1)
issue a noncompliance report, which documents the violations and
actions needed to correct the deficiency and (2) issue a regulatory
control action, which prohibits the use of a particular piece of
equipment or area of the facility until the equipment is made
acceptable to the inspector. They also may, but are not required to,
initiate an action to suspend plant operations. In addition, according
to an FSIS training scenario, electrical prods are never to be used on
the anus, eyes, or other sensitive parts of the animal.
Figure 1: Percentage of Inspectors Identifying Which Enforcement
Action They Would Take for Electrical Prodding:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Electrically prodding most animals:
Regulatory control action: 40%;
Noncompliance report only: 22%;
Suspension: 9%;
None of these: 23%;
Don‘t know: 6%.
Electrically prodding in the rectal area:
Regulatory control action: 35%;
Noncompliance report only: 23%;
Suspension: 32%;
None of these: 7%;
Don‘t know: 3%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Notes: This figure is based on the following survey question: "Do you
believe that each of the following factors alone generally indicates
that an establishment's action should result in a (1) suspension, (2)
regulatory control action, (3) noncompliance report, or (4) none of
these?" These factors included electrically prodding over 50 of 100
animals within acceptable voltage and electrically prodding one animal
deliberately in the rectal area.
[End of figure]
Similarly, our analysis of noncompliance reports shows inconsistency
in the actions inspectors took in response to excessive beating or
prodding. FSIS guidance also states that excessive beating or prodding
of ambulatory or nonambulatory disabled animals is egregious abuse--
and may therefore warrant suspension of plant operations. From
inspectors' noncompliance reports, we identified several specific
incidents in which inspectors did not either take a regulatory control
action or suspend plant operations.
Incomplete guidance and inadequate training may contribute to the
inconsistent enforcement of HMSA. Specifically, according to our
survey results, inspectors at the plants we surveyed would like more
guidance and training in seven key areas, as figure 2 shows.
Figure 2: Inspectors Identified the Need for Additional Guidance
and/or Training in Seven Key Areas of Humane Handling Enforcement:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Animal sensibility: 45%;
Sensible animal on bleed rail: 44%;
Double stunning: 53%;
Beating: 50%;
Electrical prodding: 58%;
Electrical stunning failure: 51%;
Slip and falls: 51%.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
Note: This figure is based on survey question 12: "Would additional
guidance and/or training be helpful in the following areas? (1)
determining when an animal is sensible or returning to sensibility;
(2) determining what, if any, action to take for a sensible animal on
the rail; (3) determining what, if any, action to take for double
stunning; (4) determining when the use of a driving instrument or tool
becomes beating; (5) determining whether a specific incidence of
electric prodding requires a suspension, regulatory control action, or
noncompliance report; (6) determining whether electrical stunning of
an animal fails to render and maintain insensibility; and (7)
assessing situations involving slipping and falling."
[End of figure]
Furthermore, inspectors-in-charge at more than half the plants
surveyed reported that additional FSIS guidance or training is needed
on whether a specific incident of electrical prodding requires an
enforcement action. In addition, of the 80 inspectors who provided
detailed responses to our survey, 15 noted the need for additional
guidance, including clarification on what actions constitute egregious
actions. Similarly, 25 of the 80 inspectors who provided written
comments identified a need for additional training in several key
areas.
In 2004, we recommended that FSIS establish additional clear,
specific, and consistent criteria for district offices to use when
considering whether to take enforcement actions because of repeat
violations.[Footnote 3] FSIS agreed with this recommendation and
delegated to the districts the responsibility for determining how many
repeat violations should result in a suspension. However, incidents
such as those at the slaughter plants in California and in Vermont
suggest that this delegation was not successful. To date, FSIS has not
issued additional guidance.
FSIS Cannot Fully Identify Trends in Inspection Resources and Plan
Resource Needs for HMSA Enforcement:
FSIS cannot fully identify trends in its inspection resources--
specifically, funding and staffing--for HMSA enforcement, in part
because it cannot track humane handling inspection funds separately
from the inspection funds spent on food safety activities.
Furthermore, FSIS does not have a current workforce planning strategy
to guide its efforts to allocate staff to inspection activities,
including humane handling.
According to FSIS officials, funds for humane handling come primarily
from two sources: (1) FSIS's general inspection account and (2) the
account used to support the Humane Activities Tracking System. The
general inspection account supports all FSIS inspection activities,
both food safety and other activities, including humane handling
enforcement. Because the same inspectors may carry out these tasks
concurrently, FSIS cannot track humane handling funds separately,
according to FSIS officials.
According to FSIS officials, for the most part, inspectors are to
devote 80 percent of their time to food safety inspection activities
and 20 percent of their time to humane handling inspection and other
activities. However, our analysis of resources shows that this is not
the case. We estimated that the percentage of funds dedicated to HMSA
enforcement has been about 1 percent of FSIS's total annual inspection
appropriation, although it rose slightly in 2008, when FSIS directed
the inspectors to increase the amount of time they devoted to humane
handling, following the 2008 incident in California.
For fiscal year 2010, FSIS officials told us, they planned to use $2
million of their inspection funds to enhance oversight of humane
handling enforcement by hiring 24 inspectors, including both public
health veterinarians and inspectors. FSIS officials planned to
strategically place these additional inspectors at locations where
they are most needed to support humane handling enforcement in
addition to their other food safety responsibilities.
While FSIS has increased its hiring, it has not done so in the context
of an updated strategic workforce plan. Such a plan would help FSIS
align its workforce with its mission and ensure that the agency has
the right people in the right place performing the right work to
achieve the agency's goals. In February 2009, we reported that the
FSIS veterinarian workforce had decreased by nearly 10 percent since
fiscal year 2003 and that the agency had not been fully staffed over
the past decade.[Footnote 4] We reported that, as of fiscal year 2008,
FSIS had a 15 percent shortage of veterinarians. The majority of these
veterinarians work in slaughter plants, and these plants ranged from
no vacancy to 35 percent of their veterinarian positions vacant. The
FSIS 2007 strategic workforce plan--the most recently available--
identifies specific actions to help the agency address some of the
gaps in recruiting and retaining these mission-critical occupations
over time. However, it does not address specific workforce needs for
HMSA enforcement activities.
FSIS officials stated that workforce planning occurs at the district
level. According to district officials, they have discretion in
deciding where to deploy additional inspectors. Therefore, they can
deploy these inspectors at plants that they believe may require more
HMSA oversight. However, more than one-third of the inspectors who
provided written comments in our survey noted the need for additional
staff or the lack of time to perform humane handling activities.
FSIS Does Not Have a Comprehensive Strategy for Enforcing HMSA:
Although FSIS has strategic, operational, and performance plans for
its inspection activities, these plans do not specifically address
HMSA enforcement. That is, they do not clearly outline the agency's
goals for enforcing HMSA, identify expected resource needs, specify
time frames, or lay out performance metrics. Specifically, FSIS
Strategic Plan FY 2008 through FY 2013 provides an overview of the
agency's major strategic goals and the means to achieve those goals.
However, this plan does not clearly articulate or list goals related
to HMSA enforcement. Instead, the plan generally addresses agency
goals, such as improving data collection and analysis, maintaining
information technology infrastructure to support agency programs, and
enhancing inspection and enforcement systems overall to protect public
health. FSIS Office of Field Operations officials agreed that the plan
does not specifically address humane handling, but, they explained,
the operational plans and policy performance plans contain the details
concerning humane handling performance. However, we did not find that
these two plans provide a comprehensive strategy for HMSA enforcement.
In our report, we recommend that FSIS take actions to strengthen its
oversight of humane handling and slaughter methods at federally
inspected facilities and develop an integrated strategy that clearly
defines goals, identifies resources needed, and establishes time
frames and performance metrics specifically for enforcing HMSA. We
provided USDA with a draft of our report for review and comment. USDA
did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our findings or
recommendations. However, it stated that it plans to use them in
improving efforts to enforce HMSA. USDA recognized the need to improve
the inspectors' ability to identify trends in humane handling
violations and work with academia, industry, and others to identify
practices that will achieve more consistent HMSA enforcement. USDA
also questioned whether the results of our survey of FSIS inspectors
provide evidence of systemic inconsistencies in enforcement. We
believe they do and would encourage USDA to consider the views of
inspectors at the plants who are responsible for daily HMSA
enforcement. USDA also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated into our report, as appropriate.
Mr. Chairman this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
For questions or further information regarding this statement, please
contact Lisa Shames, Director, Natural Resources and Environment at
(202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Thomas M. Cook, Assistant Director;
Nanette J. Barton; Beverly A. Peterson; Benjamin N. Shouse; and Tyra
J. Thompson also made key contributions to this statement. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this testimony.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Actions Are Needed to
Strengthen Enforcement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-203] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19,
2010). See also GAO, Humane Methods of Handling and Slaughter: Public
Reporting on Violations Can Identify Enforcement Challenges and
Enhance Transparency, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-686T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17,
2008).
[2] Full sample percentage estimates from the survey have margins of
error at the 95 percent confidence level of plus or minus 7 percentage
points or less, unless otherwise noted.
[3] GAO, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-247] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,
2004).
[4] GAO, Veterinarian Workforce: Actions Are Needed to Ensure
Sufficient Capacity for Protecting Public and Animal Health,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-178] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 4, 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
