The United States’ prohibition of horsemeat for human consumption: Is this a good law?

On May 24, 2007, the last slaughterhouse in the USA producing horsemeat for human consumption was closed by State statute (1). Recently there have been several state and federal regulatory initiatives in the USA intended to prevent the slaughter of horses for human consumption (2,3). On January 27, 2007, simultaneous bills were introduced in the Senate and the House to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption and to ban the transport of live horses from the United States to countries where they could be slaughtered for human consumption (2). The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) are pursuing defeat of these amendments to the Horse Protection Act (2,4,5).

The veterinary concerns about the slaughter prohibition are motivated by the future welfare risk for horses that otherwise would be removed from the population by slaughter. Some authors have suggested that the horse slaughter industry functions to remove and, therefore, protect old (mean age 11.4 y) and unsound working and riding horses from neglect or abuse (6–9).

Low value animals have previously been identified as being at increased risk for neglect (10). Economic modeling suggests a horse slaughter ban would be equivalent to the immediate loss in value of $300.00 per horse in the USA at a cost of $50 million annually (11).

Background

A commercial market for horsemeat as food has never emerged in the USA. The slaughter of horses in the USA for overseas markets had been on the decline prior to the recent multistate regulatory successes of the anti-horse-slaughter movement. In the 1980s, more than 300 000 horses were processed annually in 16 federally inspected plants, while in 2006, 105 000 horses were slaughtered for human food in the remaining abattoirs, 2 in Texas and 1 in Illinois (2). On average, 60 000 horses (25 000 of US origin) are killed at Canadian slaughterhouses each year (10,12) and 11 000 United States’ (US) horses are sent to Mexican slaughterhouses annually (2).

The US horse population is estimated at 6.9 million, with an average age of 10.4 y (11). Assuming a 5% to 10% annual population replacement rate, at least 500 000 horses must leave the US horse population by death each year. Clearly, in recent years, slaughter for human consumption has not been the primary method of stabilizing the equine population in the USA.

The argument articulated by the horse slaughter ban apologists and reflected in the general media has been centered on the assertion that the slaughter of horses is de facto animal cruelty (13). However, the welfare of horses for slaughter in the abattoir has been protected in the USA by the same federal veterinary infrastructure and safeguards that assure the humane slaughter of beef cattle and swine. In addition, specific legislation to protect the transport of horses for slaughter has been in force in the USA since 1996 (14), and was expanded in 2001 (15); a provision not extended to other food producing animals.

Improved humane transportation of horses for slaughter had almost universal support (3). The proposal to prohibit the slaughter of horses has resulted in a polarization of opinion. The proban group supports a position that American horses are not bred for human consumption and to use horseflesh for this purpose is cruel, unnecessary, disrespectful, and immoral (13). Those opposing a ban argue that there is no substantive animal welfare difference between humane killing in an abattoir and humane killing on the farm. Also, the consequential expense of disposing of horses by methods other than slaughter in an abattoir (12) and the unintentional consequences of a ban would result in overall negative animal welfare from a utilitarian standpoint (5,12).

Context

Killing animals for food has been long identified as a moral question that affects food choice (16). Historically, food choice or specific food aversion has been motivated by religious, health, or moral concerns. Horsemeat is widely consumed in non-English speaking countries. In liberal democracies, entrepreneurs are generally free to sell any type of food product they wish, provided that a food product is not derived from an endangered species and is not harmful to human health, a market for it exists, and manufacturers comply with existing sanitation and food safety regulations. An example of a new product is crocodile meat (17).

If native born US horses had an assurance of a minimum length of life, regulation of slaughter (but not prohibition) would be expected. In the state and federal legislation passed thus far in the USA to prevent trade in horsemeat, the right to kill horses humanely has not been challenged, with the exception of those falling under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program (2). Under recent legislative changes, horses remain property and anyone in the USA can humanely kill his or her own horse without fear of sanction. It is the providing of horse tissue as meat for human consumption that has become the criminalized human act.

Food avoidances and taboos have historically been based on religion, or have functioned to demonstrate social status differences between individuals and social groupings (18). Although Leviticus is silent on the specific issue of horse (19), in 723, Pope Gregory III indicated that the eating of horses was a ‘filthy and abominable custom’ in his instructions to Boniface, Bishop to the Germans (20). In Ireland, the Canones hibernenses, which date from the 7th century, impose an unusually harsh penance of 4 y on bread and water for the consumption of horsemeat (20). The explanation of this nonbiblically based Canon Law is that the consumption of horsemeat was associated with pre-Christian Celtic and Teutonic religious sacrifice (20,21). The church condemnation of horsemeat consumption was directed to suppressing pagan practices and distinguishing the Christian from the heathen (20,21).

In the past 30 y, there has been a general decrease in meat consumption in western culture and an increase in vegetarian practices (22,23). Specific food avoidance, especially meat avoidance, is commonly supported by ideological justification and the emergence of moral vegetarianism (24,25). Moral vegetarians view meat avoidance as a moral imperative and, in contrast to health vegetarians, are upset by others who participate in meat consumption (24). In some social circles, the act of eating has progressed from being a source of nutrition and sensory pleasure to being a social marker and, often, a declaration of moral entity or a manifestation of a philosophy of life (24–26), similar to the presumed intent of Pope Gregory III almost 1300 y ago.

More recently, a new concept has been introduced into the thinking on ethics of food choice, specifically “conscientious omnivory.” Conscientious omnivory is a consumer-based food choice and purchase pattern in which the individual consumes a broad range of meat and animal products; however, these individuals choose to consume products from animals in a production system that, the consumer believes, uses animals in ways that assure that the animal’s life has been worth living (27). For example, Matheny and Chan (27) argue that consumption of beef from cattle that spend a majority of their lives under pastoral conditions has fewer severe ethical concerns than the consumption of pork and poultry from animals that are raised in more intensive confinement. The ethical argument for horse-meat prohibition is clearly not consistent with the conscientious omnivory argument. Of possible farm animals available for human food, it could be argued that horses have, on average, the best quality of life and, therefore, should provide the fewest ethical issues for an individual that normally would prefer free range eggs, grass fed beef, and similar products.

Historically, specific food aversion and food as identity has been used as a symbolic tool to separate people by cultural identity. Both the Senate Bill (S. 311) and the House Bill (H.R. 503), introduced in the 1st session of the 110th Congress, contain the clauses “horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion” and “unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption.” Both statements reflect a perception or myth of the American experience of the horse. To have an alternate view of the horse would be, by comparison to this standard, “un-American.” The discourse in opposition to horse slaughter is more compatible with cultural intolerance or a resurgence of nativist convictions than by a claim of concern for unnecessary pain and suffering of animals.

Horsemeat consumption, seen as part of pagan sacrifices and celebration, understandably resulted in severe sanction under archaic Irish Canon Law (20). Under natural law, sanction is proportional to the severity of offence. In California, since 1998, a 2nd offence of offering horsemeat as human food is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence (MMS) of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 2 y (28). Interestingly, the California Penal Code stipulates that conviction for intentionally and maliciously committing an act of mutilation, maiming, torturing, or wounding a living animal may be punished by incarceration in a county jail for not more than 1 y — a misdemeanour, as is bestiality (29). In Canada, most Criminal Code MMS are related to violent crime. A minimum imprisonment of 4 y is stipulated for violent criminal behavior, such as sexual assault or hostage taking, where a firearm is utilized in the commission of the offence (30).

In California, eating horsemeat is restricted under the Criminal Code. Characterizing a human behavior as “criminal” communicates that an offence carries the most severe public moral sanction. This is rather incongruent, as other morally questionable commercial activities, such as the massive adult film industry estimated at between 9 and 13 billion dollars annually, is not subjected to state regulatory control (31).

The ethical argument posed by the antislaughter proponents is based on the belief that horses are different from other farm animals. The following quote is from a major apologist paper:

The continuation of horse slaughter is based on the demand for horseflesh dinner tables of Europe and Asia. … Logic and decency dictate that those who earn their living “on the backs” of horses; those who love and respect horses; and all those with humane values join together to end this unsupportable practice (13). This assertion is a forceful, direct, moralization, savored with a hint of natavist intolerance.

Discussion

In liberal democracies, governments are usually reluctant to limit personal freedom unless there is an objective, demonstrated public good. For example, some human nudity, specifically public nudity, is restricted by statute in Canada and the USA. Private nudity is uncontrolled and the commercialization of nudity in the entertainment industry is only somewhat regulated. Although under certain circumstances nudity is “offensive” to the general public, it is in no way prohibited. I would argue that good laws are written in a way to protect the innocent from injuries that they could not be protected from in the absence of a statute.

In application of this principle of liberal democracy to the horsemeat discussion; the USA is a major exporter of poultry, pork, and beef products, so the export of other meat is not offensive. Provided horses born in the USA are raised, transported, and slaughtered under conditions similar to those for beef cattle or pigs, in what way is an American injured by Canadians or Europeans and Asians consuming horsemeat? If a claim of injury is made, what is the nature and severity of that injury? There is agreement that horse slaughter is offensive to some; however, when is personal offence sufficient cause in a liberal democracy for state enforced prohibition or the use of force to deny personal choice to other citizens? Critics of government typically argue that government should refrain from doing that which individuals are capable of doing for themselves. It is an immense expansion of government powers to extend into the regulation of the average citizen’s diet or, apparently, to attempt to alter the diet patterns of other nations.

In review of the documents cited in this paper, it appears that there are at least 3 different types on the horse discussed in relation to horsemeat production. The 1st type, Equus pecunia, is dispassionately described by North et al (11) as an economic unit, producing and consuming products and interacting with other economic units in a commercial ecosystem. The 2nd type, Equus caballus, is the horse we normally think of as a horse. Equus caballus exists as many individuals in the real world, which can suffer physical pain and hardship. Concern for E. caballus is passionately described by Beaver (5), and reflects the position of the AVMA and the AAEP in opposition to the horse slaughter ban. The 3rd type (for descriptive purposes I have named it Equus americanus) is singular and does not exist in the real world. It is an icon in the mind of American E. caballus owners and enthusiasts. This icon of the American horse is a very resonant cymbal and is beautifully articulated by professional lobbyists (13). Equus americanus can be credited with the policy that maintains over 30 000 previously free ranging, now unadoptable, horses and burros (2) in perpetual confinement and custody of the BLM. Equus americanus, as an ideological construct, can only be injured by word or deeds that deny its importance. Occam’s razor (Lex parsimoniae) would explain recent US national legislation by the continued slaughter of American horses in the USA being a threat to E. americanus.

The opinion of scientists that the real world can be measured objectively has lost resonance with the public. Western democracies have increasingly incorporated public consultation into regulatory renewal and some authors argue that “factors other than science,” such as local knowledge and wisdom (nonexpert opinion) can result in a more acceptable public food policy (32). In the provision of public goods, such as access to reproductive healthcare, there is a risk to the public when “scientific” expert committees advising government are appointed in such a way as to reflect political convictions of the current government and not scientific fact (33). The suggestion that the Horse Slaughter Prevention movement was primarily concerned with the protection of E. caballus from avoidable pain and suffering is a particular type of falsehood recently described (34).

The campaign for American Horse Slaughter Prevention is a political expression of a cultural fetish. In this campaign, the misuse and cooption of the term “animal cruelty” to refer to personal disgust in the lobbying of politicians may prove to be a strategic injury to the animal welfare movement. The prohibition of horse slaughter is consistent with the myth of the place of the horse in American history; however, this prohibition includes a risk of an overall decrease in the welfare of horses that exist in the real world. This is an example of the dangerous replacement of the ideal that new public policy should result in an objective measurable increase in public good with the ideal that public policy should reflect sincerity or strongly held righteous opinion (35). It is possible that support of the American myth will be paid for by an increase in real animal suffering. Also, perpetuating the myth may be more important to some individuals than avoiding the suffering of horses that exist in the real world.

To improve the welfare of livestock, lobbyists and animal welfare proponents must remain competent and credible to maintain the support of society as they slowly improve the regulatory oversight of animals in production systems. If horse slaughter prohibition results in documented increased animal abandonment and a decrease in the overall welfare of horses, it will provide evidence that the animal welfare movement is incompetent, especially when it strays into providing governments with policy advice in the area of farmed animals. In a true field trial, impartial scientific observers attempt to quantify and, thereby, more clearly understand and describe the nature of reality. Merton (35) referred to instances in which an individual wants the intended consequence of an action so much that he purposefully chooses to ignore any unintended effects as the “imperious immediacy of interest.” In this sham field experiment, testing the hypothesis that horse slaughter prohibition will improve the welfare of horses, the quantity of animal suffering will have to be extreme to evade suppression by the current ideological vestment of the observers. Regardless of the outcome, the field trial has been initiated.