States willing to take on Feds to sell horse meat abroad

The original intention of the law suspending funding of USDA inspections at horse slaughter plants was clear: to put an end to horse slaughter on American soil. Notwithstanding this fact, it would behoove the USDA to hold fast to this regulation and resist the urge to find wiggle room around it.

Why? How about the fact that EU has instigated a quarantine on U.S. slaughter horses intended for human consumption because of potentially carcinogenic and lethal drug residues. And no, agriculture ministers in France, there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that these toxic substances “cook out.”

The following excerpt from The Horse clarifies the main talking points regarding this legislative enigma.


Written by MILT TOBY under the title “The Economics of Slaughter”

A comment on a recent blog raised an interesting question regarding on-going state attempts to re-introduce horse slaughter to the United States. The writer wondered how the Missouri legislature could try and pass a law authorizing horse processing facilities in the state when there is no federal funding for inspectors at the plants. The answer depends on the often confusing interplay between federal and state law.

There currently is no federal law prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption in the United States. The Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2009 would do that, but the legislation is stalled in committee in both the Senate and House of Representatives, has been for a year. With Congress a partisan quagmire these days, the future of these bills is not promising.

Congress has another option, however, that may be just as effective in the short term—cutting the purse strings.

The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires federal inspectors at all facilities that process meat for human consumption. In 2005, Congress amended the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2005-06 to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for inspectors at the three horse processing plants then in operation. This had no impact on the underlying legality of horse slaughter for human consumption, but the intent of Congress was clear:

No money means no federal inspectors;

no inspectors means no interstate or international sales;

no sales means no profits;

no profits means no reason to stay in business;

no reason to stay in business means no horse slaughter.

Everyone got the message except the United States Department of Agriculture. Before the new spending bill could take effect, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service adopted a new inspection scheme proposed by the owners of the slaughter plants, the very people Congress was trying to indirectly regulate. Under the new plan, the processors would pony up $350,000 annually to pay the salaries of the federal inspectors. The USDA’s official position was that the proposal would satisfy the letter of the law—no taxpayer funds would be used to fund the inspections—while allowing the horse slaughter to proceed as before.

A lawsuit initiated by the Humane Society of the United States and other welfare organizations was filed in February 2006, and a year later the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the USDA’s “fee-for-service” program stopped. Funding for federal inspectors became a non-issue by the end of 2007 with the closing of all three U.S. horse slaughter plants. Read full report >>


5 thoughts on “States willing to take on Feds to sell horse meat abroad”

  1. I think this one is a no brainer; and it’s a matter of continual, consistent effort on the part of horse advocacy in this country to end it. Keep going. No one really wants to kill and eat the horse. Even if they think they do it’s largely bravado, and that’s never sustainable for long.


  2. Wouldn’t the slaughter plants or any other private corporations or individuals paying the salaries of federal employees be a conflict of interest and invite corruption? The USDA inspectors would be beholding to the very industry they are supposed to impartially inspect for their livelyhoods. This impartiality is vital not only to protect the U.S. food supply, but also (Am I wrong about this?) the safety and quality of our agricultural exports to the rest of the world.


    1. You are absolutely right, Linda. States paying the federal government to do a job they have decided not to pay for themselves is an attempt to sidestep the law and its intention, which is to give horse slaughter plants no market for their horse meat because they could not sell it overseas.

      The fact that there would no federal oversight of federal employees conducting federal business in a state maintained facility is rife with potential conflict of interest and a corrupt product. It is also unworkable. It has already been documented through private testing that banned drug residues exist. This testing was not done in a facility atmosphere where tonnes of horse meat would be produced. The cost of testing at that level would not just make it unprofitable, but would not keep adulterated horse meat out of the human food chain. If it was all about inspections, the EU would not have mandated a 6 month quarantine of slaughter bound horses from America.

      So what about marketing adulterated horse meat within their own states? Did you see that Wyoming wants to sell horse meat to state maintained facilities, putting these people at risk? Charming.


    2. I totally agree Linda.

      But that said, when did the USDA inspectors ever follow the rules and regulations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act when it came to the slaughter of horses or any animals for that matter??? (

      Obviously these people just turn a blind eye to the atrocities that happen at these facilities, so it would be no surprise to me if they would accept these terms of payment and betray the very people who fund their regular salaries – the taxpayers. They probably don’t have the capacity to think as far as this.

      Given the known toxicity of horse meat, the industry still thrives. That to me is a glaring contradiction to the law in itself.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s