In a perfect world there would be no horse slaughter.
We don’t live in a perfect world.
In a perfect world, if there were too many horses for the supply/demand equation, there would be an immediate cessation of production to bring the supply level back into line with demand.
We don’t live in perfect world.
In a perfect world only perfect horses would be produced.
We don’t live in a perfect world.
So obviously there is a problem with an excess number of unsuitable horses relative to the demand. Ironically, when this occurs and some producers stop or reduce production, it is usually the more responsible producers that cease that production – those that are producing better quality horses – so the actual overall quality of horses typically declines – leading to a greater “excess” with increased slaughter.
Various “humane” groups like the HSUS cry out against horse slaughter – but to me, unless they have a practical viable alternative already operational, they have no grounds to try to ban the slaughter. There are fates worse than death.
“Shelters” for abused and abandoned horses are becoming not havens of security for those horses, but neglect and rescue cases themselves as funding runs out. Another “shelter” in Ohio this week had over 100 animals, 23 of them equines, seized. If funds from major “humane” organizations such as the HSUS were filtered down to help this situation rather than being spent on political lobbying and excessive management wages, the animals would benefit more.
If a horse is shot correctly, it is more humane than euthanizing by injection – I have seen some horrific disasters with euthanizing injections responses – so the physical issue of slaughter death is really a non-issue even though it is an unsavoury one to consider. Gunshot death is more rapid than injection. The issues lie in the management of the horses at the slaughter plant – something that has been worked on to good effect by Temple Grandin – and more significantly the transport to the slaughter plant. While bad handling at the slaughter plant is never to be condoned – and if overseen with items such as CCTV video monitoring, will be significantly reduced or eliminated – even if it occurs, it is only for a very brief period, and we are back to the “there are fates worse than death” situation. Requiring horses to travel long distances to be slaughtered is however a stress factor that should be, but often cannot be, avoided. Why can’t it be avoided? Because we currently have no slaughter plants in the USA, so horses to be slaughtered end up being transported vast distances to Canada and Mexico… Good job HSUS!! Again, an example of “don’t put the cart before the horse” – don’t work to ban something unless you have a solution already in place!!
Realistically, any honest and practical horse owner is going to acknowledge that there is no way that over-production is going to be cut effectively enough to prevent a significant number of “surplus” horses; they are going to admit that there is no practical way to arrange a “happy” end for all these horses – there are the financial issues of many owners to consider, as well as local regulations relating to carcass disposal; and if you talk to the majority of realistic horse owners, they are going to say the same as I do – that although nobody wants horse slaughter, there is no alternative solution currently available or projected for the approximately 120,000 horses that go to slaughter from the USA each year. The important thing then is to make the travel to slaughter and slaughter itself as humane as possible. In the respect of the travel, besides the actual control of the travel process itself, another solution would be to have more slaughterhouses rather than fewer, thereby reducing the distances needed to travel.
The “smokescreen” currently being blown by some groups to agitate the general public about there being an increased risk of horsemeat finding its way into the domestic foodchain if slaughter is reintroduced is simply being used to be inflammatory. The major issue in Europe with the discovery that horsemeat has been marketed as beef is really the labelling issue and lack of control over the supply chain. Many cultures eat horsemeat, but it is their choice to do so – and therein lies the rub. Most people in England and Ireland (and the USA) choose not to eat horsemeat, so the mislabelling of the product was really the issue, not the presence of the horsemeat itself. Effective controls on the food chain will take care of that, not the prevention of slaughter in the first place. And a question that I have as yet not seen answered anywhere, is “just how much Phenylbutazone (“‘Bute”) does one truly consume if there is a horse in the food chain that was slaughtered with systemic levels, and how much poses a threat?”. I don’t have an answer to that, but my suspicion is that the level consumed is very low, and the required level for it to become an issue, significantly higher.*
So my thoughts on re-opening US slaughterhouses to horses and allowing USDA inspection for the meat to go for human consumption? Unless you have a viable alternative in place, then make sure that the transport and slaughter is performed in a humane manner, and save your funds and political screaming on the issue to work on developing a viable and practical alternative – and once that’s in place, feel free to ban slaughter.
* Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention that the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies on 14th February, 2013 observed: “At the levels of ‘bute that have been found, a person would have to eat 500 to 600 burgers a day that are 100% horse meat to get close to consuming a human’s daily dose. And it passes through the system fairly quickly, so it is unlikely to build up in our bodies”. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bute-in-horsemeat-statement-from-chief-medical-officer
Additionally, the European Food Safety Authority and EMA on 15th April, 2013 issued the following statement: “On a given day, the probability of a consumer being both susceptible to developing aplastic anaemia and being exposed to phenylbutazone was estimated to range approximately from 2 in a trillion to 1 in 100 million. The risk of carcinogenicity to humans from exposure was considered very low based on the available experimental data on organ toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as on the low exposure levels and the infrequent exposure to phenylbutazone from horse meat or adulterated beef-based products”. Source: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3190
