July 30, 2007
–Gregory McNamee
Gregory McNamee is a contributing editor for Encyclopædia Britannica, for which he writes regularly on world geography, culture, and other topics. McNamee is also the author of many articles and books, including Blue Mountains Far Away: Journeys into the American Wilderness (2000) and editor of The Desert Reader: A Literary Companion (2002). As a guest writer for Advocacy for Animals, he writes this week on the slaughter of American horses to provide meat for export to Europe and Japan.
Why can’t Congress pass a law that once and for all bans the slaughter of horses in the United States?
Horses do not figure in the nation’s diet, after all, and they make up less of the food we feed our carnivorous pets than in years past. Yet American horses have for generations been slaughtered, not only for pet food but also to satisfy the demands of an international market avid for horsemeat. In 2006, according to the Humane Society of the United States, more than 100,000 horses were slaughtered domestically for export to places such as France, Italy, and Japan, while another 30,000 horses were shipped to plants in Mexico, Japan, and Canada for slaughter there. The numbers are much the same thus far in 2007: as of mid-July, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 53,997 American horses had been slaughtered here and abroad.
An apparently healthy horse takes a last look back as it is being driven up the “kill alley” at a slaughterhouse.Horses slaughtered for their meat come from many sources, and horses of all types—wild horses, pet horses, racehorses, miniature horses—have been used for this purpose. The number of wild horses rounded up and killed has depended on the legal protection afforded them at a given time. Most of the horses going to slaughter are losing racehorses, horses from riding schools and camps, stolen horses, and surplus mares raised on farms for use by pharmaceutical companies that produce hormone replacement drugs for humans, notably Premarin (which uses the urine of pregnant mares).
Horses being driven up the kill alley toward the “knocking box” for slaughter.Livestock auctions and sales provide fodder for the slaughterhouse. The horses are transported and slaughtered under terrifying and painful circumstances. They are crowded into trucks and shipped over long distances—trips of up to several days—without access to food or water and with no ability to rest. Usually the vehicles are designed for transporting smaller animals, so the horses cannot raise their heads, and injuries from trampling or from slipping on the floor surfaces are not uncommon. Once at the slaughterhouse, the animals are subjected to frightening and stressful conditions; as with many other animals killed for food, they are supposedly protected by regulations that state they must be rendered unconscious before slaughter, but the stunning (done with a bolt-gun shot to the head) is often unsuccessful on the first try and even on subsequent tries. Sometimes horses remain conscious until their throats are cut.
In the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives considered six pieces of legislation to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption, along with the exportation of horses for slaughter elsewhere. The most comprehensive of those bills, HR 503, had numerous sponsors, foremost among them Janice Schakowsky (Dem., Ill.), Ed Whitfield (Rep., Ky.), John Spratt (Dem., S.C.), and Nick Rahall (Dem., W.Va.). It excited more public comment than any other bill pending at the time, and this when Hurricane Katrina dominated the news; no single issue had drawn so much constituent opinion since the time of the Vietnam War. It passed overwhelmingly, 263–146, and then went to the Senate—where it died.
What happened?
For one thing, the 109th Congress ended with a new majority in both chambers. Much of the legislation that had been pending was set aside during the transitional period. For another thing, industry lobbyists set to work mounting a vigorous opposition on the Senate side, one that centered on the argument that animals constitute private property and so banning the slaughter was an unconstitutional restraint of trade.
Outside Washington, several states with horse-slaughter industries have made the practice illegal, including California a decade ago and, more recently, Texas. The Illinois legislature outlawed horse slaughter this year, but on July 18, 2007, the 7th Circuit Court allowed the state’s one plant to remain open while its owner, Cavel International, appealed another federal court’s ruling in favor of the law. The horse-slaughter industry is also appealing the Texas ban.
The original sponsors of HR 503 reintroduced it in somewhat amended form in the opening days of the 110th Congress, while Mary Landrieu (Dem., La.) and John Ensign (Rep., Nev.) introduced it in the Senate as S 311, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. “The bill has grown in support,” says Chris Heyde of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. “But there are also some powerful politicians and lobbyists against it. It’s a surprise for some people to learn this, of course, but what the majority wants—and the vast majority of Americans oppose horse slaughter—is rarely what happens in Washington.”
Butcher prepares horsemeat at his shop in Paris.“Most of the people in this country want to see slaughter ended,” notes Karen Pomroy of Equine Voices, an Arizona-based organization that rescues horses abused by the pharmaceutical industry and slated for slaughter. “The newest polls say 85 percent. For years we’ve been trying to get laws through, but too many pockets are being lined in Washington while foreign companies are making millions of dollars by killing our horses.”
What can be done? Plenty. Says Cori Menkin, an attorney and program director with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, “You can get involved at many levels. You can join the ASPCA Advocacy Brigade and let your voice be heard. You can check to see if any of the pet food you’re buying contains horsemeat. And you can let your representatives and senators know that this issue is important to you—and keep letting them know.”
Such persistence is likely to be the key to success, Chris Heyde agrees. “I’m optimistic, if only because I get the sense on the Hill that people just want this issue to go away,” he says. “They’re tired of hearing from their constituents about it. I tell them there’s one thing they can do to make it go away, and that’s vote on it. When it comes to a vote, I’m confident that it will pass and we can end this slaughter.”
The opposition to the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act will almost certainly be fierce, assuming that the bill does in fact survive the many obstacles that lie in its path to coming to a vote. But Tom Durfee of Virginia’s Laughing Horse Sanctuary offers an elegant argument against those opponents. “One of our congressmen once asked what the difference was between a bald eagle and a turkey,” he says. “The answer is, they’re different because we say they’re different. We say horses aren’t the same as cows or goats or pigs, the things we eat; we say they’re pets, and we don’t eat our pets. I’m tired of foreign companies killing our horses, whether it’s on our soil or somewhere else. I can’t tell someone in another country what to eat, but I can say, ‘You can’t kill our horses.’ Why? Because horses are different, and we say so.”
Horses are different, to be sure. But in common with every other creature on Earth, they deserve our consideration, respect, and protection. The question remains: Why can’t Congress pass a law that once and for all bans their slaughter? An answer is long overdue.
