Inside Animal Ag Logo white
DONATE
Inside Animal Ag Logo white
DONATE

Poultry Welfare Regulations

Other than the small percentage of animals raised for organic certification, there are no federal laws or regulations that address the treatment of poultry or any other animals raised for food while they are on the farm.[1,2]

  1. Wagman, B.A. et al. (2019) Animal Law: Cases and Material, Sixth Ed., Carolina Academic Press, Chapter 6, Commercial Uses of Animals — Section 1, Animals Raised or Slaughtered for Food, p. 486.
  2. Animal Welfare Institute (2021) Legal Protections for Animals on Farms, p. 1. 
    [“No single federal law expressly governs the treatment of animals used for food while on farms in the United States. In fact, these animals do not have legal protections until they are transported off the farm. Even then, poultry, which account for 98 percent of animals raised for food, do not fall under the protection of the few federal laws that apply to livestock.”]

No. Poultry are not mentioned in the 28-Hour Law. They may have been excluded because at the time of passage in 1873, selling and transporting poultry products far from the family farm was uncommon. Even at the end of WWII, poultry production was still largely a farm sideline.[1,2]

Neither the 28-Hour Law nor its enacted regulations has been amended to reference any animals other than livestock, and the USDA has confirmed its position that the statute does not apply to birds. The only court addressing the issue stated in a decision issued nearly a hundred years ago, “Its provisions are confined to the transportation of animals in these words: ‘cattle, sheep, swine or other animals.’ It does not apply to poultry; birds are not animals.”[3]

Thousands of birds suffer during transport. A recent review of USDA inspection records by Animal Welfare Institute revealed cases that involved birds dead on arrival, either from extreme cold or heat.[4] Other organizations, as well as undercover investigations, have found similar incidents in which thousands of birds died on transport trucks that were left outside overnight in severe weather conditions.[5]

  1. National Chicken Council, Industry History. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/industry/history/
  2. Schurr, S. et al., (1990) Electricity in the American Economy: Agent of Technological Progress, Greenwood Press, New York, NY, p. 244.
  3. Wagman, B.A. et al., (2019) Animal Law: Cases and Material, Sixth Ed., Carolina Academic Press, p. 486, citing Clay v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 231 N.Y.S. 424, 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928).
  4. Dena Jones & Zack Strong (2023) The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation, Animal Welfare Institute, p. 12. [2021: 2,552 dead birds out of 6000 on a trailer left outside with temperature over 90 degrees Farenheit; >8,000 birds over 3 days arrived DOA (several trailers with ice accumulation and birds frozen to the crates). Note: The USDA FSIS inspection records are generated under the Poultry Products Inspections Act (PPIA), see question below.]
  5. Dena Jones & Zack Strong (2023), pp. 22-26.

No. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act specifies that it applies to “cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock.”[1] The USDA has confirmed poultry are not covered by HMSA.[2]

  1. Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 7 U.S.C. 48 § 1902. And see, Human Methods of Slaughter Act
  2. USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (2005) Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter. 70 Fed. Reg. 56624. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/09/28/05-19378/treatment-of-live-poultry-before-slaughter [“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.”]

The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) was enacted for the purpose of preventing adulterated or misbranded poultry from being sold,[1] and is enforced by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Pursuant to the law, the FSIS enacted a general rule that may offer some protection to poultry during the slaughter process. It requires that “poultry must be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices.”[2] The agency does not define good commercial practices other than stating, “In general, poultry should be handled in a manner that prevents needless injury and suffering in order to produce a commercially marketable product.”[3]

The only regulation set out by FSIS, however, is that poultry be slaughtered “in a manner that results in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensure that breathing has stopped prior to scalding.”[4]

  1. Poultry Products Inspection Act 21 U.S.C.A §§ 451 – 473
  2. 9 CFR § 381.65(b) Operations and procedures, generally
  3. USDA, Food Safety & Inspection Serv. (2018) Verification of Poultry Good
    Commercial Practices, FSIS Directive 6110.1 (2018) p. 1. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/6110.1.pdf
  4. 9 CFR § 381.65(b)

This is debatable. Beyond the regulation that poultry be slaughtered to ensure thorough bleeding and that breathing has stopped prior to scalding,[1] the FSIS has issued directives to inspectors specifying some handling and slaughter practices that constitute noncompliance with the law. These include: employees breaking the legs of birds while shackling them, birds arriving frozen to their transport cages or dead from heat exhaustion, or entering the scalding tank still breathing.[2]

Enforcement mechanisms to prevent these extreme practices are limited. For one, the FSIS is careful to add that, “These examples do not necessarily describe prohibited activities and noncompliance, but can still warrant documentation through an MOI (Memorandum of Interview).”[3] Further, the agency states, “From a regulatory perspective, adherence to GCP (good commercial practices) is a process control issue and not a bird-by-bird performance standard issue,” which means that writing up a slaughter plant for noncompliance can only be done if it is demonstrated that the establishment has lost overall “process control” and there is an ongoing pattern of mistreatment.[4]

A report by the Animal Welfare Institute documents that there are few consequences for non-compliance with PPIA regulations which are essentially voluntary. Despite the slaughter of more than 9 billion birds annually, an average of about 360 records of inhumane handling were issued by the USDA per year. “This amounts to barely more than one record a year for each of the 347 federally inspected US poultry slaughter plants.”[5] And of these records, inspectors took action to stop the abuse of birds in only 12% of such incidents.[6]

Most notably, unlike the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act for livestock, the PPIA does not require stunning the birds prior to slaughter, although typically, birds are stunned.[7]

  1. 9 CFR § 381.65(b)
  2. USDA, Food Safety & Inspection Serv. (2018) Verification of Poultry Good
    Commercial Practices, FSIS Directive 6110.1 (2018) p. 1.
  3. FSIS Directive 6110.1 (2018) p. 2.
  4. FSIS Directive 6110.1 (2018) p. 3.
  5. Dena Jones & Zack Strong (2023) The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation, Animal Welfare Institute, p. 7 [Note: This report presents a comprehensive review of federal regulation (or the lack thereof) concerning poultry slaughter, a review of recent enforcements, a history of attempts to get the USDA to enact meaningful protections, and a listing of some of the recorded violations by the USDA and also by animal advocacy organizations.]
  6. Dena Jones & Zack Strong (2023), p. 1. [For incidents of poultry mistreatment (many of which are  egregious) at slaughter compiled from several advocacy organizations, see Appendix, Table 1]
  7. USDA, FSIS Directive 6110.1 (2018) 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.”]

The USDA’s APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) has federal authority to kill large numbers of animals in a short time frame to stop the spread of disease.[1-3] This authority extends specifically to efforts to “prevent, detect, control, or eradicate HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza).”[4]

  1. USDA APHIS Veterinary Services (May 2017) Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Response Plan: The Red Book, FAD Prep, p. 2-5. [“The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), 7 U.S. Code 8301 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or further movement in the United States or order the destruction or removal of animals and related conveyances and facilities to prevent the introduction or dissemination of livestock pests or diseases.”]
  2. Congressional Research Service (April 29, 2025) The Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Outbreak in Poultry, 2022-Present, R48518, Introduction. [“USDA APHIS is responsible for protecting and improving animal health in the United States. The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§8301 et seq.) provides APHIS authority to restrict animal movement, destroy animals, and take preventive controls to eradicate diseases that threaten animal and public health.”]
  3. USDA (2016) Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI): Depopulation and Disposal. p. 1. [“Federal law gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority to depopulate animals in these situations to stop disease spread.”]
  4. USDA Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Response Plan: The Red Book, p. 2-2 [“The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to cooperate with other Federal agencies, States, or political subdivisions of States, national or local governments of foreign governments, domestic or international organizations or associations, Tribal nations, and other persons to prevent, detect, control, or eradicate HPAI.”]

In determining methods of mass killings, generally referred to as “depopulations,” the agency explains that it collaborates with a wide range of groups and officials inside and outside of the USDA, including state officials and other federal agencies.[1-3]

The USDA also maintains a “cooperative agreement” with the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and claims to follow their guidelines “whenever possible.”[4] The AVMA guidelines are understood to be recommendations that should be followed “when practicable” as they are “one of many important considerations during an actual response to an emergency situation.”[5]

The USDA also considers the guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).[6] However, these are apparently less informative, since the OIE does not recognize induced heatstroke methods such as “ventilation shutdown” as an acceptable killing method.[7] This is the most common practice in the U.S.[8,9]

In almost all cases, the costs of mass killings and their aftermaths are paid for by the USDA, including indemnity payments to offset the loss of the economic value of the birds.[10,11]

  1. USDA APHIS Veterinary Services (2015) NAHEMS Guidelines: Mass Depopulation & Euthanasia, FAD PReP, p. 3. [“When the decision is made to depopulate, interaction and collaboration with several groups occur. The Euthanasia Group, with approval from the Epidemiology Group and State Animal Health Official, determines the method(s) of depopulation. The Epidemiology Group and the Vaccination Group also play a role in the decision to depopulate in determining the method and extent of depopulation.”]
  2. USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, Section B: Factors Influencing Method Selection. [“The premises State may influence the depopulation method choice since the outbreak response is managed at the State level, and outbreak response preparedness and resources may vary across States.”]
  3. USDA APHIS Veterinary Services (May 2017) Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Response Plan: The Red Book, FAD Prep, p. 2-5. [“The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to cooperate with other Federal agencies, States, or political subdivisions of States, national or local governments of foreign governments, domestic or international organizations or associations, Tribal nations, and other persons to prevent, detect, control, or eradicate HPAI.”]
  4. USDA (2015) NAHEMS Guidelines: Mass Depopulation & Euthanasia, p. 3. [“Whenever possible, APHIS will comply with recommendations regarding the methods and approaches used for depopulation detailed in the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Guidelines for Euthanasia as well as the recommendations outlined in Chapter 7.6 of the 2009 World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code.”]
  5. AVMA Guidelines for the Depopulation of Animals: 2019 Edition, p. 4. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/AVMA-Guidelines-for-the-Depopulation-of-Animals.pdf
  6. World Animal Health Organization (OIE) (2022) Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Section 7, Animal Welfare, Chapter 7.6 Killing of Animals for Disease Control Purposes.
  7. Animal Welfare Institute (2025) Depopulation (Mass Killing) of Farmed Animals. [“VSD+, or any other method that relies on heatstroke as the cause of death, is not recognized as an acceptable method of killing by the World Organisation for Animal Health—the leading international authority on the health and welfare of animals.”]
  8. AWI (2025) Depopulation (Mass Killing) of Farmed Animals. [“72% VSD+ alone or in combination with other methods… statistics are based on public records received by AWI for depopulation events involving approximately 171 million birds from February 2022 through June 2025.”]
  9. USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, Key Points, p. 1. [“During the 2022–2023 outbreak, VSD+ was used alone, or in combination with other methods, on 49 percent of commercial turkey, 85 percent of commercial table egg, 44 percent of commercial broiler…”]
  10. Congressional Research Service (April 29, 2025) The Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) Outbreak in Poultry, 2022-Present, R48518., Summary, p. 1. [“From February 2022 to February 2025, APHIS committed a total of $1.811 billion for HPAI response activities. APHIS uses HPAI response funding for indemnity payments, disease control and eradication, and disease surveillance, among other activities. This includes $1.195 billion for indemnity payments to producers as well as over $353 million for depopulation, disposal, and “virus elimination activities.”]
  11. Andrew Jacobs (April 2, 2024) A Cruel Way to Control Bird Flu? Poultry Giants Cull and Cash In. New York Times. [“Last year, the Department of Agriculture paid poultry producers more than half a billion dollars for the turkeys, chickens and egg-laying hens they were forced to kill after the flu strain, H5N1, was detected on their farms.”]

Animal welfare is a low priority for the USDA in dealing with avian flu outbreaks on factory farms. The agency states that its primary goals are a) to maximize speed, b) protect public health and the environment, and c) stabilize animal ag operations and the “continuity of business.”[1]

While pursuing these primary objectives, animal welfare is said to be prioritized “as much as possible.”[2] In practice, this appears to be an incidental consideration. It is widely acknowledged that poultry suffer deeply for prolonged periods under current practices.[3,4]

The most common method of killing is “ventilation shutdown plus” (VSD+).[5,6]  This process causes death by heatstroke over periods of hours and sometimes days.[7,8]

So-called “secondary depopulation methods” are used in more than half of all egg-laying hen premises, hours or even days after the first, because many animals survive the first procedure.[9] That the USDA sanctions and pays for these torturous killing methods has for years been challenged by animal welfare advocates and voices within the veterinary profession.[10,11]

  1. USDA APHIS (January 2022) HPAI Response: Response Goals & Depopulation Policy. [“APHIS goals for a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) response are to (1) detect, control, and contain HPAI in poultry as quickly as possible; (2) eradicate HPAI virus using strategies to protect public health and the environment, and stabilize animal agriculture, the food supply, and the economy; and (3) provide science- and risk-based approaches and systems to facilitate continuity of business for non-infected animals and non-contaminated animal products.”]
  2. USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, Section F. Animal Welfare. [“Given the extenuating circumstances during an emergency response, the welfare of animals is prioritized as much as possible…”]
  3. Reyes-Illg, G., et al., (2023) The Rise of Heatstroke as a Method of Depopulating Pigs and Poultry: Implications for the US Veterinary Profession. Animals, 13, 140, Abstract. [“While no research using validated measures of animal welfare assessment has been performed on these methods, their pathophysiology suggests that animals are likely to experience pain, anxiety, nausea, and heat distress prior to loss of consciousness. Heatstroke-based methods may result in prolonged suffering and often do not achieve 100% mortality.”]
  4. For further information, see, Mass Killing of Poultry
  5. Animal Welfare Institute (2025) Depopulation (Mass Killing) of Farmed Animals. [“72% VSD+ alone or in combination with other methods… statistics are based on public records received by AWI for depopulation events involving approximately 171 million birds from February 2022 through June 2025.”]
  6.  USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, p. 1. [“During the 2022–2023 outbreak, VSD+ was used alone, or in combination with other methods, on 49 percent of commercial turkey, 85 percent of commercial table egg, 44 percent of commercial broiler…”]
  7. AWI (2025) Depopulation (Mass Killing) of Farmed Animals. [“Ventilation shutdown plus is a method of depopulation that involves trapping animals inside a building, closing off airflow, and ratcheting up the temperature (the “plus” refers to the addition of heat and sometimes steam) until the animals die from hyperthermia/heatstroke over several agonizing hours. This method likely causes extreme, prolonged suffering and does not always result in 100% mortality.”]
  8. USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, Section F. Animal Welfare. [“The need for a secondary depopulation method indicates 100 percent of the birds did not succumb to the primary method. The time from the completion of primary depopulation to completion of secondary depopulation may reflect a period of increased stress for the birds that did not succumb to the primary depopulation method.”]
  9. USDA APHIS, 2022-2023 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak, Section E. Time to Complete House-level Depopulation. [None of the primary depopulation methods consistently achieved 100 percent mortality. “Secondary depopulation methods were used for 38 percent (273/724) of commercial turkey, 59 percent (168/281) of commercial table egg, 35 percent (12/34) of commercial broiler, 29 percent (19/66) of commercial duck, and 14 percent (3/21) of commercial gamebird houses.”]
  10. Animal Welfare Institute (June 15, 2023) Petition For Rulemaking to United States Department Of Agriculture Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service. Petition To Amend Regulations Pertaining to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
  11. Veterinarians Against Ventilation Shutdown. https://www.vavsd.org/

Laws & Regulations