Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

In My Humble Opinion
1

I heard a fragment of an interview on NPR today regarding the slaughter of (race)horses for human consumption. According to the people on the air, there are no horse slaughterhouses in the US, because the states they were in have made them illegal. Furthermore, the federal government is considering legislation to make the slaughter of horses and the sale of horse meat for human consumption illegal throughout the country. Obviously, if someone is against the killing of animals for meat, then this is a step in the right direction. However, I assume that there has not been a mass conversion to veganism in the state legislatures and Congress. Several questions come to mind:

  1. How could such a federal law be constitutional? The closest I can figure is the interstate commerce clause, but that’s a fairly weak argument.

  2. Would this be the first instance of a national ban of a food (not a medicine or dietary supplement) that is neither harmful to the consumer, nor comes from an endangered animal?

  3. What’s the rationale? If they are being treated in ways that are considered humane for other animals (cattle, pigs, etc.), is there something about horses that makes such treatment inhumane? If horse slaughter is currently being done inhumanely, then wouldn’t a more rational law be one that raises the standard of treatment?

Full disclosure: I eat animals, not every day, but often enough. I have eaten horse, once, but I have no burning desire to eat it again any time soon. I believe the US meat-producing system needs massive improvements in both the humane treatment of animals and the safety of the products delivered to consumers, I just don’t get the horse thing.

2

This is news to me, but here’s an interesting Canadian take on it:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2034431
What make this bizarre is that there are still “zombie” sites telling of the US government urging the consumptrion of horsemeat:

I don’t personally have a problem with it, and horsemeat is still big in Europe and Japan. Read the chapter on this in Harris’ book Good to Eat Eating horse has a long history, but was banned by the Vatican at one point, because Europe mneeded the horses. Nowadays, the banning seems to be by horse lovers

3

I thought about this, and even though I don’t object to the idea of eating horse meat on a purely intellectual level, there’s something about the idea that bothers me (not enough that I’d want to see a law to that effect, but still).

I imagine that what you’ll get from most non-vegetarians is the same type of objection Americans have to eating dog or cat meat. These are animals that are close companions to humans – animals that we put a lot of time and effort into caring for. Add to that the idea that some people object to the idea of killing “intelligent animals” for any reason, and I would guess that’s going to cover the vast majority of otherwise meat-eating people.

4

The problem is, it isn’t all that safe. As a former horse owner I have personally use dozens of legal, over the counter products clearly labeled “Do not use on animal intended for human consumption.” Furazone, a common topical antibacterial ointment, and wormer, administered every 6-8 weeks, are both so labeled. My horse died of natural causes, but let’s say I sold her and she was subsequently slaughtered. There is absolutely nothing to stop her meat from being sold in Europe to completely unsuspecting customers. The British Government is concerned about this too

I have no problem with eating horse that has been raised for consumption purposes in a manner that is safe for humans to eat and is slaughtered humanely.

5

In regard to Question 1, federal courts have found state horse slaughter bans in Illinois and Texas to be constitutional. It seems to me that the horse meat market is (was, since there are no domestic slaughterhousese left) textbook interstate commerce. Horses were shipped from around the country to Illinois or Texas for slaughter, and meat was shipped back out to markets across the country. There have certainly been laws that have passed muster under the commerce clause with a much more tenuous connection to interstate trade.

6

I had not considered the use of veterinary drugs, that would be a serious problem, I suppose. The California mandatory minimum sentence described in CalMeacham’s article does seem a bit harsh, though. While I can see that interstate commerce was involved in horse slaughter previously, the proposed federal legislation, would ban all slaughter, including that where the horses or their meat never leave a state. Wouldn’t a federal law only be able to ban transport across state lines and such?

7

No, all Congress does is insert a “finding” into the proposed legislation:

8

Even in states that, like Indiana, ban the butchering of horsemeat for sale for human consumption, anyone can buy a lame horse at auction and take it to a meat processing house. You take in your own animal, pay for processing, and take all the meat home. There is no sale of horsemeat, so no law is violated. I don’t mean the big packing houses that butcher lots of hogs a day. They’re not interested in small private contracts. This will be a small operation.

9

This is fascinating, I had no idea. The ‘finding’ indicates that selling, purchasing, moving, etc. horses for human consumption, entirely within a state, will adversely affect and burden interstate and foreign commerce. How? If I sell a horse to my neighbor, who then eats it, how are we adversely affecting and burdening interstate or foreign commerce? This is some strange stuff.

10

I appreciate Hello Again’s take on the subject. From the horse’s side, though, I don’t see how banning sale for consumption by humans will help. Unprofitable/broken race horses will still be killed and sold for pet food. If the profit for pet food is smaller, maybe a few more will end up as pet horses. Maybe. Good riding horses would, I imagine, be sold as riding horses. It’s the ones with health and/or behavior problems that end up as kibble.

11

The problem is, an extremely high percentage of unprofitable race horses fall into this category; while there’s a big push amongst the “OTTB” folks to rescue and rehome them, thoroughbreds are notorious for being high-strung, unpredictable, difficult horses to rehabilitate.

For some reason, I can’t get the links to open, but I’ll offer my .02 on the topic.

One, the closing of the slaughterhouses was one of the stupidest, most misinformed decisions ever. Coupled with the extreme problems country-wide with hay production and the overall economic situation, we now have people just dropping horses off in various grassy areas to fend for themselves. Hundreds more horses have died as a result of this that ever would have in the slaughterhouses.

Two, the rationale (to answer your question 3) is sound, but could have been addressed in any number of ways. Essentially, “they” claim that the process of slaughtering horses is not as humane as cows/pigs/etc. Well, this is partially true, because you can’t transport horses the way you can other animals; they don’t travel well in cramped confines, they can’t be “stacked” the way chickens and cows can, and they die of heat and stress more easily than other animals. Note that no animal should be transported the way food animals currently are, but horses suffer from it more due to their genetic predisposition.

Three, there is the not-insignificant concern about horses being stolen and sold for meat. This was a bigger issue before the recession set in, but I still get the occasional email about keeping an eye out for a missing horse. With rules/regulations in place, this could be significantly less of an issue.

The medication issue is an important one, but there are dewormers and other medications that can be used to get past it. I think it does come down to the “cute and fuzzy=inedible” thing, which has never made sense to me.

Incidentally, I work as an equine therapist and have eaten horse (though not any under my care). It’s not too bad. :smiley:

12

Plus, horses are still sent to slaughter houses. Only now they’re sent to the ones in Canada and Mexico rather than Illinois and Texas. Not only does this mean a longer ride for animals that, as you said, don’t do well in cramped, crowded, overheated conditions, it also means the methods used may not be as humane as the captive bolt procedure used in the U.S. (I believe some of the Mexican slaughter houses use a knife to the spine rather than the captive bolt.)

The medication issue is interesting. There was some concern among slaughter opponents that a helpful medication or supplement would be banned for horse use if it was dangerous for humans who may later eat the animal. However, I don’t know if that’s ever actually happened.

13

Pres. Bush signed a bill allowing the final erradication of wild horses out west - I think it was in Wyo. & Mont. The large ranchers who were contributors to the Republican party just could not tolerate some wild horses eating some grass on Fed land that may be leased by them for cattle. Since the U.S. govt is bought and sold by every corrupt new admin in office, that meant a death sentence for the few wild horses remaining. I do not live in the U.S., but this is just one reason that the environment and wild world cannot afford another Republican admin. But what happened then to all the murdered wild horses? In Canada, they have been regularly culled and the meat shipped to France for some human, but mainly pet consumption. So when you visit Paris & step into a pile of dog dung, it may be recycled Western Cdn. Horses.

14

Welcome to modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Since the New Deal, the Supremes have greatly expanded the sorts of activities that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, including growing wheat for your own consumption (Wickard v. Filburn), discrimination by a local business (Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, Katzenbach v. McClung), or possesing and consuming home grown medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).

15

I originally parsed this as “Do not use on animal: intended for human consumption.” I mean, I knew horses were more fragile than humans in a lot of ways but that’s going too far :smiley:

16

So, does this means that all congress needs to do to grant the federal government any extra-constitutional powers desired is to make a transparently specious assertion that such powers relate to interstate trade, without having to prove anything? My mind is blown.

17

While I believe that lease ranchers already have far too much influence on the politics of the American west and frequently abuse public land, I’m not sure that the removal of feral horses is necessarily a bad thing. Is there any non-partisan research on the effects of the reintroduction of horses on the ecosystem? I realize they weren’t missing for very long, but are they interfering with the suvival of threatened species? How similar are mustangs to the now extinct native horses?

18

Jeffrey Steingarten, in his book The Man Who Ate Everything, asserts, in a chapter about making the perfect French fry, that countries with a robust and well-regulated horsemeat industry generally treat their animals much more humanely than countries that don’t eat horsemeat (due either to custom or law) and that use horses primarily or exclusively for their hobby and sport value. It’s not a perfect cite, but the man is extremely well read and well traveled, and he knows food.

(For the record, horsemeat comes up in the chapter in question because a prominent European chef claims the perfect pommes frites are deep-fried in rendered horse fat, so Steingarten goes on a quest to procure some and test the method.)

Bottom line, it wouldn’t be the first time that an attempt to protect an animal about which we’re sentimental has the actual result of making its life worse.