The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) was enacted to ensure that “the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods.”[1] The Act applies only to federally inspected slaughter plants.[2]
Humane methods as defined by the statute require that “all 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.”[3] Thus, the humane methods in the title of HMSA refer to the approved methods of stunning the animals. Actual death is usually caused by exsanguination (bleeding out) after severing of the major blood vessels by cutting into the chest or the neck, depending on the animal.[4]
Ritual slaughter based on religious faith is exempted from these requirements. Humane handling “in conjunction with preparation for ritual slaughter” is also exempt.[5] “Currently, the USDA interprets the ritual slaughter exemption as allowing religious authorities complete autonomy in determining the humaneness of actions taken to prepare animals for ritual slaughter (such as cleaning, positioning, and restraining the animal), as well as the humaneness of the slaughter process itself.”[6]
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. 48 §§ 1901-1907
Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (1978) [amendment to original HMSA]
HMSA, 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1902(a)
Terlouw, C. et al., (2016). Consciousness, unconsciousness and death in the context of slaughter. Part I. Neurobiological mechanisms underlying stunning and killing. Meat Science, 118, 133. p. 134.
HMSA, 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1906
Animal Welfare Institute (2020) Humane Slaughter Update: Federal and State Oversight of the Welfare of Farm Animals at Slaughter, p. 4. https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/publication/digital_download/20HumaneSlaughterUpdate.pdf
The law specifies that it applies to “cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock.”[1]
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1902
Poultry are not covered by the HMSA.[1] And the USDA explicitly notes in a directive to inspection personnel that stunning birds prior to slaughter is not a requirement for poultry.[2]
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service (2005) Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter. 70 Fed. Reg. 56624, 56625. [“The HMSA of 1978 (7 U.S.C.1901 et seq.) requires that humane methods be used for handling and slaughtering livestock but does not include comparable provisions concerning the handling and slaughter of poultry.”]
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service (2018) Verification of Poultry Good Commercial Practices, FSIS Directive 6110.1, p. 3. [“Stunning is not a requirement in poultry slaughter, but if stunning system malfunction contributes to other process control concerns then this should be noted by IPP.”]
Humane methods as defined by the statute require that “all animals be rendered insensible to pain,” commonly referred to as stunning.[1] Federal regulations enacted pursuant to the HMSA specify four methods of stunning livestock to obtain unconsciousness:[2]
Chemical – via the use of carbon dioxide gas in an anesthesia chamber to produce a state of “surgical anesthesia.” [9 CFR § 313.5]
Mechanical by use of a captive bolt – shot into the animal’s skull by gunpowder or compressed air to produce a state of unconsciousness. A captive bolt may be either skull penetrating or nonpenetrating. [9 CFR § 313.15]
Mechanical by way of gunshot – to produce a state of unconsciousness. [9 CFR § 313.16]
Electrical – stunning via electric current to produce a state of “surgical anesthesia.” [9 CFR § 313.30]
These methods are not always effective. For captive bolt and electrical stunning, supervision and training of employees along with daily maintenance of the tools are essential. And use of carbon dioxide gas is controversial. “Some pigs have a violent reaction and may attempt to escape from the containers that lower them into high concentrations of carbon dioxide.”[3]
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1906
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service, Humane Slaughter of Livestock. 9 CFR §§ 313.5-313.30
Temple Grandin (2023) Answers to Patient, Student, and Clinician Questions About How Animals Are Slaughtered and Used for Food, AMA Journal of Ethics, 25(4): E299-304. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/answers-patient-student-and-clinician-questions-about-how-animals-are-slaughtered-and-used-food/2023-04
The regulations on the handling of livestock require that the driving of livestock at the slaughterhouse “be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals.” For example, livestock ramps should be maintained in good repair, and if animals are held more than 24 hours they should have access to water, feed, and space to lie down. “Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury,” and “pipes, sharp or pointed objects, and other items which, in the opinion of the inspector, would cause injury or unnecessary pain to the animal shall not be used to drive livestock.”[1]
Disabled animals must be separated and placed in a covered pen. And conscious disabled animals should not be dragged, although this is permissible if the animals are stunned.[2]
The handling of poultry is not covered in the HMSA.
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service (updated 2022) Handling of Livestock. 9 CFR § 313.2
9 CFR § 313.2
Religious ritual slaughter is exempted from any stunning requirements. According to the statute, slaughter methods are deemed humane when “slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious 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.”[1]
Because the animal must be fully conscious and a single cut is generally required, restraint is critical. A device called a rotary pen is “frequently used in religious slaughter causing considerable physical and mental distress to animals.” The device turns the animal on his back or side to expose the neck to the cut.[2]
Prior to 2018, livestock were typically hung upside down by one leg and transported to the slaughter area for the cut, a method referred to as shackle and hoist. Seen as particularly cruel, the Orthodox Union – the largest kosher certifying agency in the U.S. – announced it would no longer accept meat from animals killed by this method.[3] “For veal calves, however, only about half are slaughtered using humane restraining equipment, and nearly all kosher-killed sheep and lambs are still shackled and hoisted prior to ritual slaughter in the United States.”[4]
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1902
Bozzo, G., et al., (2021). Animal Welfare Policies and Human Rights in the Context of Slaughter Procedures. Agriculture (Basel), 11(5), 442, p. 3.
Shamayim, Jewish Animal Advocacy (n.d.) Shackle & Hoist. https://shamayim.us/shackle-hoist/
Animal Welfare Institute (2022) Legal Protections for Farm Animals at Slaughter, p. 12. https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/22-Legal-Protections-Slaughter.pdf
It is enforced by inspectors with the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).[1]
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service, Agency Mission and Organization. 9 CFR § 300.2
The Act gives the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) the authority for criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement action when establishments and individuals violate the statute and/or regulations.[1] Steps taken by the FSIS inspectors when a violation is observed are generally laid out in 9 CFR § 313.50.[2]
When there is an imminent threat to public health or safety such as the shipment of adulterated product, the FSIS takes immediate enforcement action. In other situations, such as inhumane slaughter or handling, the agency gives the establishment prior notification of intended enforcement action and the opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance.[3] Generally, the proposed enforcement action is to withhold federal marks of inspection which would, in essence, stop production.[4] However, a review of inhumane handling incidents in 2024 reveal that in almost all cases, a response by the slaughter plant that it will institute corrective measures results in a suspension being held in abeyance or deferred.[5] Records of official enforcement actions for inhumane handling incidents are published on the FSIS site.[6]
There is no regulatory requirement for a slaughterhouse to create a written systematic approach to humane handling. However, slaughter plants are encouraged by the FSIS to implement such a program.[7]
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service (2021) FSIS Directive 8010.5 Rev 6.
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service, Tagging of Equipment. 9 CFR § 313.50
USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service, Quarterly Enforcement Reports, Administrative Actions.
For typical notice of intended enforcement, see “Notice of Suspension to Northwood Locker LLC, November 9, 2024. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/34687-NOS-11092024.pdf
See, for example, “Notice of Suspension Held in Abeyance, Northwood Locker LLC, November 15, 2024. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/34687-NOSHA-11152024.pdf
USDA FSIS (last date action posted 12/13/24) Humane Handling Enforcement. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/inspection/regulatory-enforcement/humane-handling-enforcement
USDA FSIS (2013) FSIS Compliance Guidelines for a Systematic Approach to the Humane Handling of Livestock, p. 5. [“The directive (on humane handling and slaughter of livestock) included instructions for inspectors to determine whether livestock slaughter establishments have a robust systematic approach to humane handling. Establishments may choose to adopt a robust approach, although it is not required.”]
Enforcement is uneven. In 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter violations. In addition, the GAO determined that inspectors didn’t always document violations because they may not have been aware of the regulatory requirements. The USDA was tasked with addressing these issues.[1]
In 2010, the GAO found that inspectors had not taken consistent actions to enforce HMSA when warranted. The report specifically referenced inconsistent enforcement with regard to use of electrical prods, and excessive beating or prodding of animals (including those who were disabled). Finally, the report concluded that the FSIS had not clearly outlined goals, or operational and performance plans to guide HMSA enforcement.[2]
A follow-up conducted seven years later by the FSIS’ Office of Inspector General found that “FSIS did not always follow corrective actions it designed to prevent reported conditions from recurring. FSIS officials were either not effectively monitoring or did not hold its staff accountable when these actions did not correct the problems identified.”[3]
In addition, the non-profit Animal Welfare Institute issued a humane slaughter enforcement report researching the period 2016-2018. Among its main findings:[4]
Federal humane slaughter enforcement remains relatively stable, while state enforcement continues to rise, particularly in terms of the number of plant suspensions, and threatened suspensions, for egregious violations of the humane slaughter law.
Although state enforcement is up overall, the level of enforcement varies dramatically by state.
Although the USDA has declined to pursue criminal prosecution for humane slaughter violations, it is taking stronger administrative actions, including filing for permanent withdrawal of inspection and entering into consent orders with some repeat violators.
Resources devoted to humane handling at the federal level continue to constitute less than 3% of total funding for food safety inspection.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2004) Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges, GAO-04-247, pp. 1-2.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010) Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: Weaknesses in USDA Enforcement, Statement of Lisa Shames, Director Natural Resources and Environment, GAO 10-487T, pp. 1-3.
USDA Office of Inspector General (2017) Food Safety and Inspection Service Followup on the 2007 and 2008 Audit Initiatives, Audit Rpt. 24016-0001-23, What OIG Found. [“Based on our sample, we estimate that FSIS inspectors at 198 establishments (19 percent) may not be ensuring that humane slaughter requirements are consistently enforced.” at p. 23]
Animal Welfare Institute (2020) Humane Slaughter Update: Federal and State Oversight of the Welfare of Farm Animals at Slaughter, p. 1. [Note: Enforcement actions at the state level are geared toward small plants that are limited to selling products intrastate. These plants generally are meeting local or special demands, e.g., organic or pasture-raised meat.]