This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-247 
entitled 'Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some 
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges' which was released on 
January 30, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

January 2004:

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act:

USDA Has Addressed Some Problems but Still Faces Enforcement 
Challenges:

GAO-04-247:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-247, a report to Congressional Requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

In 1978, the Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to 
ensure that cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals destined for human 
consumption are handled and slaughtered humanely. Within the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS) is responsible for enforcing the act. Recently, the 
Congress took additional actions to improve FSIS enforcement. GAO 
reviewed (1) the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter 
violations, (2) actions to enforce compliance, and (3) the adequacy of 
existing resources to enforce the act. 

What GAO Found:

Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to 
determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter 
violations. FSIS was unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection 
records that document violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter 
Act (HMSA) and implementing regulations. Also, inspectors did not 
always document violations of the HMSA because they may not have been 
aware of regulatory requirements. Further, the records that FSIS 
provided did not consistently document the scope and severity of each 
incident. USDA is taking steps to address these issues.

Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and 
regulations were also inconsistent. For example, we found that FSIS 
inspectors temporarily halted stunning operations in more than half of 
the cases involving ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in 
less than half of similar cases involving multiple animals. We also 
found that FSIS officials may not be using consistent criteria to 
suspend plant operationsthe enforcement action used when serious or 
repeated violations of the HMSA occur. As a result, plants in 
different FSIS districts may not be subject to comparable enforcement 
actions. In November 2003, FSIS issued clearer guidance to its 
inspectors and field personnel that should help resolve some of these 
problems. 

FSIS lacks detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend 
on humane handling and slaughter activities making it difficult to 
determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. In general, FSIS 
officials believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary 
Medical Specialist at each of the agencys field offices, the current 
number of personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter 
compliance is adequate. 

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that FSIS (1) record specific information on the type 
and causes of violations; (2) establish additional clear, specific, 
and consistent criteria for districts to use when considering 
enforcement because of repetitive violations; (3) require that 
districts and inspectors clearly document the basis for enforcement 
that are due to repetitive violations; (4) develop a mechanism for 
determining the level of effort inspectors devote to the HMSA; (5) 
develop criteria for determining the appropriate level of inspection 
resources needed; and (6) assess whether that level is sufficient to 
effectively enforce the act. FSIS generally agreed with our findings 
and recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-247.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Lawrence J. Dyckman 
at (202) 512-3841 or dyckmanl@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

The Most Prevalent Violation Was Ineffective Stunning, but the Overall 
Frequency and Scope of Humane Slaughter Violations Is Difficult to 
Determine:

FSIS Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions to Address Noncompliance:

FSIS Data on Inspection Resources Devoted to Overseeing Humane Handling 
and Slaughter Requirements Are Inadequate:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Responses:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the Food Safety and Inspection Service:

GAO Comments:

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Acknowledgments:

Table:

Table 1: Number of States and Slaughter Plants Covered by Each FSIS 
District, as of October 2002:

Figures:

Figure 1: Stunning of Animals:

Figure 2: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA, as of October 2002:

Figure 3: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA That Accounted for 80 
Percent of U.S. Meat Production during Fiscal Year 2002:

Figure 4: Location of Inspectors Observing Compliance with the HMSA at 
a Typical Mid-Size Plant:

Figure 5: Violations Documented in Noncompliance Records between 
January 2001 and March 2003:

Abbreviations:

DVMS: District Veterinary Medical Specialist: 
FSIS: Food Safety and Inspection Service: 
HMSA: Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: 
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

January 30, 2004:

The Honorable Robert F. Bennett: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Herb Kohl: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Henry Bonilla: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

More than 125 million cattle, sheep, hogs, and other animals ultimately 
destined to provide meat for human consumption were slaughtered in 
fiscal year 2002, at some 900 federally inspected facilities throughout 
the United States. In response to public concerns about cruelty to 
livestock in meatpacking plants, the Congress passed the Humane 
Slaughter Act of 1958. The act established as the policy of the United 
States that the slaughtering and handling of livestock be carried out 
only by humane methods. The act's provisions applied only to plants 
desiring to sell meat to the federal government.[Footnote 1] Twenty 
years later, the Congress passed the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 
(HMSA) of 1978 to ensure that at all federally inspected slaughter 
establishments, not just those selling meat to the federal government, 
adopt humane handling and slaughter practices.[Footnote 2] In 
particular, the act specifies that animals must be quickly rendered 
insensible to pain before they are slaughtered.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), within the U. S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), is responsible for enforcing the 
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS inspection personnel are 
stationed at each federally inspected slaughter facility to examine 
every carcass to ensure that it is safe for human consumption. Although 
their responsibilities are primarily for food safety, these inspectors 
are also responsible for monitoring compliance with the act and the 
applicable regulations at slaughter facilities throughout the country. 
FSIS guidance states that when inspectors observe noncompliance with 
the act's provisions, they should document the incident in a 
noncompliance record.[Footnote 3] Inspectors are also authorized to 
take enforcement action by temporarily shutting down parts of the 
plant's operations until management provides satisfactory assurances 
that the situation will be promptly remedied. In more serious cases, 
the agency may temporarily suspend plant operations by removing FSIS 
inspectors from a part of the facility or from the entire facility 
until the problem is corrected. Finally, the FSIS administrator can 
file a complaint to withdraw the grants of inspection from a facility, 
which prevents its products from entering interstate or foreign 
commerce. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and process 
animals for sale in commerce without federal inspectors 
present.[Footnote 4]

In recent years, the Congress has taken various actions to strengthen 
USDA's resources and to better ensure that the agency enforces the 
humane handling and slaughter provisions of the act. In fiscal year 
2001, the Congress earmarked funds for the agency to enhance humane 
slaughter practices.[Footnote 5] In response, FSIS created the position 
of District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) in each of its 
districts. The DVMSs are the primary contacts for all humane handling 
and slaughter issues in each FSIS district office, and they are the 
liaisons between the district offices and headquarters on humane 
handling and slaughter issues. They are responsible for on-site 
coordination of nationally prescribed humane slaughter procedures and 
verification of humane handling activities, as well as dissemination of 
directives, notices, and other information related to the act. In 
fiscal year 2002, the Congress further directed that the Secretary of 
Agriculture should fully enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 
and report annually to the Congress on the number of violations and 
trends recorded by FSIS inspectors.[Footnote 6] Fiscal year 2003 
appropriations legislation included $5 million for additional 
inspection activities.[Footnote 7] Also, in a recent congressional 
conference report for fiscal year 2003 appropriations, the conferees 
directed us to review and report to the appropriations committees on 
the scope and frequency of humane slaughter violations and to provide 
recommendations on the extent to which additional resources for 
inspection personnel, training, and other agency functions are needed 
to properly regulate slaughter facilities.[Footnote 8]

In response to this congressional directive, and through subsequent 
discussions with your staff, we (1) analyzed the frequency and scope of 
humane handling and slaughter noncompliance incidents documented by 
FSIS inspectors, (2) analyzed FSIS actions to enforce compliance with 
humane handling and slaughter provisions, and (3) assessed the extent 
to which additional resources may be needed to ensure that humane 
handling and slaughter provisions are enforced. To perform our work, we 
obtained and analyzed all available FSIS records of noncompliance with 
humane handling and slaughter requirements between January 2001 and 
March 2003. We reviewed enforcement actions that the FSIS inspectors 
took between January 2001 and March 2003 and that FSIS district 
managers took between October 2001 and July 2003. To obtain information 
on resources dedicated to humane handling and slaughter oversight, we 
interviewed FSIS program officials and reviewed available workforce 
data. We also reviewed all of the completed DVMS summary reports that 
outline the officials' overall observations after each plant visit. To 
obtain their views on the adequacy of personnel and training resources, 
we conducted structured interviews with district managers, deputy 
district managers, and DVMSs in all 15 FSIS districts. Finally, we 
obtained the views of humane slaughter experts, industry association 
representatives, and animal welfare groups. We conducted our work 
between April 2003 and November 2003 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I describes our 
methodology in more detail.

Results in Brief:

Incomplete and inconsistent FSIS inspection records made it difficult 
to determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter 
violations. Available FSIS records show that during the 28 months 
between January 2001 and March 2003, inspectors wrote 553 noncompliance 
records to document violations of the HMSA and the implementing 
regulations at 272 facilities across the United States. According to 
these inspection records, ineffective stunning, which does not quickly 
render animals insensible to pain as required by the act, was the most 
prevalent type of noncompliance. To a lesser extent, the records 
documented poor facility conditions that could lead to animal injury 
and failure to provide water to animals awaiting slaughter as other 
prevalent violations. However, in conducting this analysis, we found 
internal control problems that call into question the reliability of 
FSIS's records regarding compliance with the act. First, because the 
agency had not stored its noncompliance records in electronic form, it 
could not provide us with at least 44 additional records from the 
period between January 2001 and March 2003. In addition, almost half of 
the DVMSs with whom we spoke reported that inspectors did not always 
document noncompliance when they should have because they were unsure 
about regulatory requirements; for example, they were not sure if a 
violation was too minor to be documented. Second, the noncompliance 
records did not consistently document the scope and severity of 
violations. Inspectors are required to document HMSA noncompliance 
through narrative that includes the applicable statutory or regulatory 
provision, a concise description of the violation, and any other 
relevant evidence; but the records show that inspectors did not 
describe violations in a consistent manner. For example, while some 
noncompliance records provided detailed information on the causes of 
observed ineffective stunning and the number of animals impacted, other 
records only mentioned that ineffective stunning occurred but provided 
no additional details. Incomplete and inconsistent data can make it 
difficult for FSIS to accurately assess compliance with the act and to 
report the results to the Congress. Despite these data limitations, in 
its March 2003 report to the Congress, USDA indicated that during 
fiscal year 2002 "very few infractions were for actual inhumane 
treatment of the animals." Officials informed us that their analysis 
was based on a sample of approximately half of the noncompliance 
records available. In contrast, our analysis of all of the 
noncompliance records FSIS provided for fiscal year 2002 shows that one 
fourth of the 366 noncompliance incidents documented by inspectors, 
were for incidents of ineffective stunning--a violation that USDA 
characterized in its report to the Congress as "actual inhumane 
treatment." FSIS has made recent efforts to improve documentation, 
including better tracking of documentation and new guidance to 
inspectors.

FSIS took inconsistent enforcement actions to address noncompliance 
with the HMSA. For example, we found that plant inspectors temporarily 
halted stunning operations in more than half of the cases involving 
ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in less than half of 
similar cases involving multiple animals. Half of the DVMSs we 
interviewed attributed the inconsistent enforcement actions to 
inspectors' inexperience, lack of clarity regarding their authority, or 
the misperception that certain violations are minor. We found similar 
inconsistencies at the district management level. District managers can 
decide to take the more serious enforcement action of withdrawing 
inspectors from the plant, thus suspending a plant's operations, when 
they are notified of serious violations. However, they lack clear 
criteria on when to do so, and this can lead to inconsistencies in 
enforcement. We found, for example, one case in which a district 
manager did not suspend plant operations after inspectors had issued 16 
noncompliance records to a slaughter facility documenting the plant's 
failure to properly stun animals. In contrast, another facility's 
failure to provide access to water and to maintain acceptable pen 
conditions led to a suspension of operations. As a result, FSIS cannot 
ensure that humane slaughter requirements are consistently enforced 
across districts, undermining FSIS efforts to effectively enforce the 
act. In November 2003, FSIS issued guidance that should help inspectors 
determine when it is appropriate for them to take enforcement actions. 
However, the guidance is less explicit about when district actions are 
warranted. For example, the guidance does not identify thresholds at 
which repetitive instances of noncompliance at the same facility would 
require action by district officials.

FSIS does not have data on the number of inspectors devoted to 
compliance with the HMSA or on the amount of time that inspectors spend 
on humane handling and slaughter requirements. Without such 
information, FSIS cannot determine the appropriate number of inspectors 
for different sized plants or the number of inspectors needed overall 
to effectively enforce the act. FSIS headquarters and district 
officials believe that, for the most part, the current number of 
inspectors is sufficient to monitor and enforce humane handling and 
slaughter requirements. In particular, district officials believe that 
the present number of DVMSs is adequate to cover each district's HMSA 
responsibilities. However, the officials said that despite improvements 
made by the hands-on training provided by DVMSs, they remain concerned 
about inspectors' overall level of knowledge regarding HMSA 
requirements. When we discussed this matter with FSIS headquarters 
officials, they said that, in addition to the new November 2003 
directive that provides clearer guidance, the agency is currently 
taking steps to improve inspectors' knowledge. For example, the agency 
is developing scenarios for inspectors that will illustrate how to 
implement the HMSA requirements.

To help ensure adequate enforcement of the HMSA, we are recommending 
that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to (1) include in 
noncompliance records specific information on the type and cause of 
violations, (2) establish additional criteria for when districts are to 
take enforcement actions in cases of repetitive violations, (3) require 
that district offices and inspectors clearly document the basis for 
enforcement actions that they take in response to repetitive 
violations, (4) develop a mechanism for determining the level of 
resources that the agency devotes to humane handling and slaughter 
activities, (5) develop criteria for determining the appropriate level 
of inspection resources, and (6) periodically assess whether that level 
is sufficient to effectively enforce the act.

FSIS commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed with our 
findings and recommendations. FSIS also provided a number of specific 
comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

Background:

The Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act in 1958 in response to 
intense and broad-based public concerns about cruelty and abuse of 
livestock in meat-packing plants.[Footnote 9] At that time, the 
Congress determined that using humane methods of slaughter prevented 
the needless suffering of livestock, resulted in safer and better 
working conditions for employees, and brought about improvements in 
products and economies of slaughter operations, among other benefits. 
The act established as U. S. policy that the handling and slaughtering 
of livestock should be carried out using humane methods. However, the 
act applied only to plants wishing to sell meat products to federal 
government agencies. In 1978, the Congress passed the HMSA, which 
amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and extended the policy 
nationwide by requiring that all federally inspected slaughter 
establishments adopt humane handling and slaughter methods. The HMSA 
requires that 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."[Footnote 10] The act also provides for a ritual slaughter 
exemption that allows the slaughter of animals in accordance with the 
ritual requirements of any 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."[Footnote 11]

FSIS has issued regulations and directives to enforce the act. 
Important requirements of these regulations and guidance include the 
following:

* All animals must be effectively stunned before they are slaughtered. 
Stunning is effective when the animal feels no pain, is rendered 
instantly unconscious, and remains unconscious until slaughtered;

* Dragging of disabled and other animals unable to move, while 
conscious, is prohibited;

* All holding pens and driveways and ramps must be designed, built, and 
maintained to prevent injury to livestock;

* Livestock should be provided with water in holding pens, and food if 
held for more than 24 hours;

* The use of electrical prods and other devices to move livestock must 
not be excessive and should be used as little as possible.

Figure 1 illustrates two separate stunning efforts---one of a cow being 
stunned with a mechanical captive bolt and another of a sheep being 
stunned with an electrical stunner.

Figure 1: Stunning of Animals:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As of October 2002, 918 plants were covered by the HMSA in the United 
States. Figure 2 shows the distribution of these plants.

Figure 2: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA, as of October 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

While the plants are concentrated heavily in the Northeast, they tend 
to be smaller plants. The 49 large producers, who account for 
approximately 80 percent of total production of meat in the country 
during fiscal year 2002, are mainly located in the Midwest, as figure 3 
illustrates.

Figure 3: Location of Plants Covered by the HMSA That Accounted for 80 
Percent of U.S. Meat Production during Fiscal Year 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

FSIS is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Humane Methods of 
Slaughter Act.[Footnote 12] The FSIS is organized into 15 district 
offices that include: Alameda, Albany, Atlanta, Beltsville, Boulder, 
Chicago, Dallas, Des Moines, Jackson, Lawrence, Madison, Minneapolis, 
Philadelphia, Raleigh, and Springdale. Table 1 shows the states, number 
of plants, and type of plant, by size, for each FSIS district.[Footnote 
13]

Table 1: Number of States and Slaughter Plants Covered by Each FSIS 
District, as of October 2002:

FSIS District: Alameda; 
States Covered: CA; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 4; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 25; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 3; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 32.

FSIS District: Albany; 
States Covered: CT,ME,MA,NH,NY,RI,VT; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 71; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 4; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 0; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 75.

FSIS District: Atlanta; 
States Covered: FL, GA, PR, VI; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 50; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 12; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 0; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 62.

FSIS District: Beltsville; 
States Covered: DE, D.C., MD, VA, WV; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 26; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 13; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 2; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 41.

FSIS District: Boulder; 
States Covered: AZ, CO, NM, NV, UT, AK, AS, GU, HI, ID, OR, WA; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 79; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 15; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 8; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 102.

FSIS District: Chicago; 
States Covered: IL, IN, OH; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 25; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 28; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 6; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 59.

FSIS District: Dallas; 
States Covered: TX; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 17; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 27; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 48.

FSIS District: Des Moines; 
States Covered: IA, NE; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 23; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 18; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 18; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 59.

FSIS District: Jackson; 
States Covered: AL, MS, TN; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 25; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 11; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 2; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 38.

FSIS District: Lawrence; 
States Covered: KS, MO; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 52; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 8; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 9; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 69.

FSIS District: Madison; 
States Covered: MI, WI; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 33; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 10; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 47.

FSIS District: Minneapolis; 
States Covered: MN, MT, ND, SD, WY; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 26; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 32; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 7; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 65.

FSIS District: Philadelphia; 
States Covered: PA, NJ; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 112; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 23; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 3; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 139.

FSIS District: Raleigh; 
States Covered: NC, SC, KY; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 36; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 14; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 4; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 54.

FSIS District: Springdale; 
States Covered: AR, LA, OK; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Very small plants: 20; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 7; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 1; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 28.

Total; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Small plants: 247; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Large plants: 71; 
Plants covered by the HMSA: Total plants[A]: 918. 

Source: GAO presentation of FSIS data.

[A] FSIS did not provide size information for one plant, so the total 
number of plants under the three size categories does not equal 918.

[End of table]

In 2002, FSIS employed about 7,600 inspectors at red-meat plants and 
poultry facilities to inspect each carcass after it is slaughtered to 
ensure that it is safe for human consumption.[Footnote 14] Inspectors 
include at least one veterinarian assigned to each plant, who is 
required to evaluate the general health of animals before they are 
slaughtered, and Consumer Safety Inspectors, who are not veterinarians 
and have varying inspection responsibilities throughout the 
plant.[Footnote 15] FSIS officials maintain that as they carry out 
their food safety and other activities, all inspectors are responsible 
for monitoring compliance with humane handling and slaughter 
requirements at plants that are covered by the HMSA from the time 
livestock come into the custody of the plant to the time of slaughter. 
According to the FSIS, while the HMSA requires inspectors to observe 
the entire handling and slaughter process, inspectors do not have to 
observe all animals all the time for HMSA compliance. In contrast, the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that each animal be examined prior 
to slaughter and each carcass be individually inspected after slaughter 
to ensure that the meat is safe for human consumption.[Footnote 16]

Typically, animals arrive on plant premises, are unloaded from trucks, 
and then are held in the stockyard area where FSIS inspectors perform 
the required antemortem inspection. During this inspection, disabled 
animals are separated from the herd. Animals are then moved through 
curved holding chutes and forcing pens onto the stunning platform, 
where they are stunned before being slaughtered. Figure 4 illustrates 
the areas in a typical, mid-size plant from which inspectors can 
observe for HMSA compliance, although inspectors are not always present 
in all areas.

Figure 4: Location of Inspectors Observing Compliance with the HMSA at 
a Typical Mid-Size Plant:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

When inspectors observe a violation of the HMSA or its implementing 
regulations, they are required to notify plant management and document, 
with a noncompliance record, the violation and the actions taken by 
the:

plant to correct it. Inspectors can document more than one violation, 
and different types of violations, in a single noncompliance record. 
According to FSIS guidance, each noncompliance record should include 
the following information:[Footnote 17]

* A unique record number,

* The date of the violation,

* The plant identification number,

* Humane handling regulations applicable to the incident reported,

* A written description of the violation,

* The name of plant personnel notified of the violation, and:

* The plant management's written response stating both the immediate 
action to correct the violation and any subsequent action to prevent 
its recurrence.

In response to HMSA noncompliance, FSIS can take a number of 
enforcement actions--actions that impose restrictions on a facility's 
ability to operate. These actions include the following:

* For less serious violations of the HMSA, inspectors at a facility can 
issue a "reject tag" to quickly respond to violations that management 
can readily address. Inspectors physically place these reject tags on a 
piece of equipment or an area of the plant. This action temporarily 
prohibits the use of a particular piece of equipment or area of the 
facility until the violation is corrected.

* For more serious violations, the district manager can suspend 
inspection until the violation or violations are addressed.[Footnote 
18] This action, which removes FSIS inspectors from facility premises 
(or part of the facility), suspends operations at the facility (or part 
of the facility) because slaughter facilities may not operate without 
federal inspectors present.

* In cases where a plant fails to respond to FSIS concerns about 
repeated and/or serious violations, the administrator of FSIS can 
withdraw inspection. This enforcement action removes the grant of 
inspection from a facility, which prevents the facility's products from 
entering interstate and foreign commerce. The facility must reapply for 
and be awarded a grant of inspection before it may resume operations. 
This action is rarely used.

Agency supplemental appropriations in 2001 included $3 million, of 
which no less than $1 million was to be used to enhance the agency's 
humane slaughter practices.[Footnote 19] USDA used $1.25 million of 
these funds to hire 17 DVMSs to serve as program coordinators for all 
humane handling issues. By March 2002, a DVMS was at work in each of 
the FSIS district offices. The DVMSs, who received extensive training 
on humane handling and slaughter techniques and related inspection 
procedures, are the primary contacts for inspectors in each FSIS 
district office and the liaisons between the district offices and 
headquarters on humane handling and slaughter compliance. As of May 
2003, the 17 DVMSs had visited 576, or about 63 percent, of 918 plants 
covered by the HMSA. Thirteen of the 16 DVMSs we interviewed said that 
they had visited all or almost all of their assigned plants at least 
once. According to these 16 DVMSs, when they came on board, all of them 
participated in a number of district activities that went beyond the 
scope of humane handling and slaughter of animals, such as biosecurity 
and food safety issues. For example, nine DVMSs reported that these 
activities took 40 to 50 percent of their time. In March 2003, however, 
an FSIS memorandum directed all but five of the DVMSs to only perform 
humane handling activities.[Footnote 20] As a result, the activities of 
12 DVMSs changed, and their current focus is solely the implementation 
of the HMSA.

Despite these actions, concerns about the treatment of animals at U.S. 
slaughterhouses persist. For example, two animal welfare groups, the 
Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Farming Association, 
believe that enforcement of the act could be improved. These groups 
maintain that more continuous monitoring of compliance with the HMSA is 
necessary. Also, according to the Humane Society, USDA oversight is 
especially critical at facilities that specialize in disabled animals 
and old dairy cattle, as well as those with slaughter production lines 
that operate at high speeds.

Conversely, meat industry associations we contacted maintain that the 
way animals are handled and slaughtered has improved in response to 
pressure from customers of fast food restaurants and industry audits of 
slaughter establishments. When Dr. Temple Grandin, a renowned animal 
science authority, conducted a survey of 24 slaughterhouses in 1996 at 
USDA's request, she found that only 36 percent were able to stun 95 
percent of the cattle on the first try.[Footnote 21] When she repeated 
the survey in 2002, this time visiting 80 different plants, she found 
that 94 percent were able to do so.[Footnote 22] While Dr. Grandin's 
second survey shows a significant improvement, it still indicates that 
hundreds of thousands of animals were not stunned on the first try, as 
required by the act. Thus, there may be undetected instances of 
inhumane treatment. Dr. Grandin believes that effectively stunning 
animals on the first try 100 percent of the time is unachievable--that 
is why she proposed an objective scoring method as an alternative. 
Objective scoring uses definite thresholds for various types of humane 
handling and slaughter incidents and provides a means to promote 
consistency within and across slaughter establishments. When we 
discussed the objective scoring approach with FSIS officials, they 
pointed out that the approach may have merit, particularly as a 
monitoring tool. However, the officials pointed out that the HMSA 
requires that animals be effectively stunned on the first try with one 
single blow or gunshot. Therefore, objective scoring would not be an 
appropriate regulatory tool because it allows for less than 100 percent 
effectiveness in stunning. That is, under the objective scoring method, 
a plant's humane slaughter procedures would be considered adequate if, 
for example, 95 percent of the animals were stunned with one single 
blow or gunshot on the first try.

The Most Prevalent Violation Was Ineffective Stunning, but the Overall 
Frequency and Scope of Humane Slaughter Violations Is Difficult to 
Determine:

Our ability to assess the frequency and scope of noncompliance with the 
HMSA was limited because FSIS could not provide us with documentation 
for all of the noncompliance incidents and because the documentation 
provided was not always complete and consistent. The 553 noncompliance 
records that the agency provided to us show that, between January 2001 
and March 2003, there were 675 HMSA violations at 272 facilities--
approximately 30 percent of the more than 900 slaughter facilities in 
the United States. The most prevalent noncompliance documented was the 
ineffective stunning of animals, in many cases resulting in a conscious 
animal reaching slaughter. FSIS has made recent efforts to improve 
documentation--including steps to improve inspector awareness of 
documentation requirements, better tracking of noncompliance 
documents, and issuing new HMSA guidance in November 2003.

Inspection Records Were Incomplete and Inconsistent, Making It 
Difficult to Determine the Frequency and Scope of Noncompliance:

The universe of inspection records that FSIS provided to us was 
incomplete, making it difficult to assess the frequency of 
noncompliance with the HMSA. FSIS provided us with 553 documented 
records of noncompliance with the act and the implementing regulations 
covering the 28-month period from January 2001 through March 2003. 
However, we found internal control problems that call into question the 
reliability of the information in the FSIS records regarding HMSA 
compliance. Our analysis indicates that the extent of noncompliance 
with the HMSA and the implementing regulations is likely to be greater 
than what is reflected in the 553 records for several reasons. First, 
according to FSIS officials, inspectors wrote at least 44 additional 
noncompliance records during this period--January 2001 to March 2003. 
However, while their recordkeeping system indicates that these 
noncompliance records exist, the agency could not locate the actual 
noncompliance documents for our review. The officials said that the 
records were not electronically stored and that they would rather 
improve tracking of such documentation in the future than attempt to 
locate the missing records. This internal control problem is being 
addressed, according to FSIS officials, because the agency has 
transitioned to a system that stores all noncompliance records 
electronically. Second, according to several DVMSs' observations during 
their in-plant evaluations of humane slaughter activities, the 
frequency of noncompliance with the act is likely to be underreported. 
At least 7 of the 16 DVMSs we spoke with believe that inspectors have 
not always documented violations in noncompliance records when they 
should. The DVMSs said that some inspectors were not always aware of 
regulatory requirements and may have felt documentation was unnecessary 
because they either determined the offense was not serious or that it 
could be easily remedied. The principal guidance provided to 
inspectors--known as the "Rules of Practice"--does not specifically 
instruct inspectors on whether to document a violation if that 
violation does not result in an enforcement action and leaves it to the 
discretion of the inspector when an enforcement action is called 
for.[Footnote 23] However, recently, FSIS issued a directive that 
requires inspectors to document all violations in noncompliance 
records. Third, because inspectors do not engage in continuous animal 
by animal observation for humane handling and slaughter compliance 
purposes, violations may occur that are not recorded by inspectors.

Our ability to determine the overall scope and severity of humane 
slaughter violations was further limited by the inconsistent way 
inspectors document violations in noncompliance records. Inspectors 
describe noncompliances by narrative--for example, by specifying 
whether the violation involved ineffective stunning or lack of access 
to water. Our analysis of noncompliance records related to HMSA showed 
that inspectors do not describe violations in a consistent manner and 
their narratives can vary substantially. For example, while some 
noncompliance records provide detailed information on the observed 
causes of ineffective stunning and the exact number of animals 
impacted, other records only mention that ineffective stunning 
occurred. Additionally, because narrative is the only way an inspector 
can describe the HMSA noncompliance, the agency cannot easily extract 
and analyze information. Inspectors do include a code so that 
violations related to HMSA can be distinguished from violations related 
to food safety, but it is a universal code for all HMSA violations; and 
it does not provide any additional information about the type or 
severity of the violation.[Footnote 24] As a result, it is difficult 
for FSIS to quantify, interpret, and report the data related to the 
scope and severity of documented instances of noncompliance.

Incomplete and inconsistent data can make it difficult for FSIS to 
adequately assess how well HMSA standards are being enforced and to 
report those results to the Congress and other interested parties. In 
2002 legislation, the Congress stated that USDA should track violations 
of the HMSA and report the results and relevant trends annually to the 
Congress. In its March 2003 report to the Congress,[Footnote 25] USDA 
reported that during fiscal year 2002 it documented 379 noncompliance 
incidents out of 70,403 times when inspectors made observations for 
compliance with the HMSA. This averages to approximately six 
observations for HMSA compliance per month, or less than two 
observations per week, for each the 918 plants that are covered by the 
act. By analyzing approximately half of the noncompliance records 
available for fiscal year 2002, FSIS concluded in the report that the 
majority of these violations were related to facility conditions (e.g., 
slippery flooring, large gap between pen bars, etc.) and animals 
provisions (failure to provide water or food). It then concluded that 
"very few infractions were for actual inhumane treatment of the animals 
(e.g. dragging or ineffective stunning).":

However, our evaluation of USDA's data showed otherwise. We analyzed 
all the available noncompliance records for fiscal year 2002 and 
identified 366 noncompliance incidents, of which 92 (one-fourth) were 
for ineffective stunning--a violation that USDA characterizes as 
"actual inhumane treatment." Likely reasons for the discrepancy between 
our analysis and USDA's report are that we analyzed all available 
records, while FSIS officials told us that USDA's analysis was based on 
a subjectively selected sample of approximately half of the available 
records. Additionally, FSIS's violation documentation system--
specifically its sole reliance on narrative to document HMSA 
violations--required both FSIS officials and us to interpret the 
inspectors' narratives to identify the number and types of violations 
identified in the documentation. The FSIS official who conducted the 
analysis told us that upon close examination of these narratives, some 
instances that appear to be cases of direct animal injury in fact were 
not and would therefore not be considered by the agency to be actual 
inhumane treatment of animals.[Footnote 26]

We found similar results when we analyzed noncompliance records over a 
longer period--January 2001 to March 2003. During this period, FSIS 
produced 553 noncompliance records indicating some type of 
noncompliance with the HMSA. These noncompliance records were written 
for 272 plants, or about 30 percent, of the 918 plants that were 
covered by the act. Our analysis of these noncompliance records 
identified 675 violations. Of these violations, 167 were for 
ineffective stunning, meaning animals were not quickly rendered 
insensible to pain as required by the HMSA and the implementing 
regulations. We found that over 67 percent of the 167 ineffective 
stunning violations resulted in conscious animals being slaughtered. 
Other less prevalent violations included facility conditions that could 
lead to animal injury and lack of access to water. Our interviews with 
the DVMSs support these data. Among the 16 DVMSs we spoke with, the 
most prevalent violations they reported observing when they visited 
plants to evaluate humane handling and slaughter practices were 
ineffective stunning, poor facility conditions, and lack of access to 
water. Figure 5 summarizes the types of violations we identified, using 
FSIS documentation.

Figure 5: Violations Documented in Noncompliance Records between 
January 2001 and March 2003:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Our analysis of the 553 noncompliance records identified 675 
violations. A noncompliance record can include more than one violation.

[A] The ineffective stunning and conscious animals columns in the 
figure are not mutually exclusive. Specifically, in 112 cases, 
ineffective stunning resulted in one or more conscious animals moving 
to slaughter. In 55 cases, ineffective stunning was documented but not 
that a conscious animal was slaughtered. This could happen if, for 
example, multiple stunning efforts were required to render the animal 
unconscious. In 21 cases, inspectors noted that an animal was observed 
to be conscious at slaughter, without indicating ineffective stunning. 
This could happen if an animal regained consciousness after being 
effectively stunned.

[End of figure]

FSIS Is Taking Steps to Improve Inspector Awareness of Documentation 
Requirements and Introduced Changes in Its Documentation Process:

FSIS has recently taken steps to improve inspector awareness of 
documentation requirements and to correct the limitations in its 
inspection documentation process. According to DVMSs and other FSIS 
district officials with whom we spoke, as the DVMSs began playing an 
active role in working with inspectors at plants covered by the HMSA, 
the inspectors' level of knowledge regarding interpreting and 
documenting noncompliance has improved. In particular, DVMSs told us 
that inspectors are becoming more aware of the need to document 
noncompliance incidents that previously may have been considered to be 
too minor to document or may not have been considered a violation at 
all. As a result, the number of documented records for noncompliance 
incidents increased from January 2001 through March 2003. For example, 
in the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, FSIS inspectors issued 56 
noncompliance records documenting HMSA violations. This number 
increased to 134 in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. Similarly, 
the number of noncompliance incidents documenting relatively minor 
violations increased as well. For example, during the same time frames, 
documented incidents for facility conditions that could cause injury to 
animals prior to slaughter increased from 5 to 40, and documented 
incidents of lack of access to water increased from 9 to 37. The DVMSs 
attributed the increase in part to the enhanced awareness of humane 
handling and noncompliance documentation requirements on the part of 
the inspectors.

Additionally, FSIS officials told us that the introduction of a humane 
handling procedure code in its Performance Based Inspection System (the 
computer-based system it uses to track compliance with all FSIS 
regulations), which took effect in October 2001, should help FSIS 
better track noncompliance records that document HMSA violations. While 
this change may address the agency's internal control problems 
regarding record maintenance, it will not, as we discussed earlier, 
provide sufficient data on the type of HMSA violations or make it 
easier for the agency to quantify, interpret, and report the data 
related to the scope and severity of the documented noncompliances.

FSIS also released a new directive, "Humane Handling and Slaughter of 
Livestock," in November 2003.[Footnote 27] This directive also provides 
additional guidance and informs inspectors on many aspects of HMSA 
compliance. Importantly, the directive specifically instructs 
inspectors to document all violations of the HMSA and implementing 
regulations, regardless of the severity of the violation or whether an 
enforcement action is called for.

FSIS Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions to Address Noncompliance:

Our review of noncompliance records indicates that FSIS has taken 
inconsistent enforcement actions in response to violations of the 
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and applicable regulations. Inspectors 
stationed in slaughter plants have not consistently issued "reject 
tags"--the enforcement action used for less serious violations--to 
temporarily stop a plant from using a piece of equipment or an area of 
the plant until the violation is corrected or appropriate actions are 
taken to prevent recurrence of the incident. Also, district managers 
were not using consistent criteria to suspend plant operations when 
more serious violations occurred.

Records Show Inspectors Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions in 
Response to Noncompliance:

FSIS inspectors took enforcement actions in almost 40 percent of the 
documented noncompliance cases between January 2001 and March 2003. 
FSIS officials and guidance indicate that it is not appropriate to take 
an enforcement action for all violations. For example, while stunning 
an animal more than once is clearly an instance of noncompliance with 
humane handling and slaughter requirements, an inspector may not feel 
that an enforcement action is necessary if a plant employee stuns an 
animal more than once because of certain unavoidable conditions, such 
as an animal moving its head just prior to being stunned.

Nevertheless, our analysis of the noncompliance records indicates that 
inspectors are not consistently taking enforcement actions. 
Specifically, they are not consistently using reject tags.[Footnote 28] 
The records show that serious violations appear to have taken place--
violations that involved multiple instances of ineffective stunning or 
several animals being conscious during slaughter--but that inspectors 
did not take any enforcement action. For example, our analysis of 
enforcement actions taken in the 167 instances of ineffective stunning 
shows that inspectors used reject tags to temporarily suspend stunning 
operations in more than half of the 86 cases involving ineffective 
stunning of a single animal but in less than half of the 79 cases that 
involved multiple animals.[Footnote 29] In one particular incident, the 
inspector who prepared the noncompliance record wrote that he observed 
six conscious animals being slaughtered during a period of 5 minutes, 
and he considered the incident unacceptable; however, he did not take 
enforcement action. This inaction was in sharp contrast to many other 
cases where inspectors took enforcement actions, for relatively less 
serious violations, such as lack of access to water.

According to half of the 16 DVMSs we interviewed, inspectors often do 
not take enforcement action when they should. DVMSs attribute this 
inconsistent use of enforcement action to several factors. For example, 
some inspectors are hesitant to issue reject tags for ineffectively 
stunned animals because they are not veterinarians and are unsure about 
what signs indicate that an animal is still conscious after it has been 
stunned. They also noted that some inspectors lack the experience or 
knowledge regarding their authority to issue reject tags or simply 
misinterpret routine incidents--even though they are violations--as not 
warranting enforcement actions. FSIS did not provide data for the level 
of experience of inspectors. However, as part of the inspectors' new 
hire program, FSIS includes a module on humane handling issues; 
inspectors have no other formal training on the HMSA and its 
enforcement. Most of the deputy district managers and half of the DVMSs 
noted that an overall lack of knowledge among inspectors about how they 
should respond to an observed noncompliance has been a problem in 
enforcing the HMSA.

FSIS has begun to address the problem of unclear guidance by issuing a 
new humane handling and slaughter directive on November 25, 2003. This 
directive, for the first time, clearly states that inspectors are 
obligated to take enforcement actions when they observe inhumane 
treatment whether or not animal injury has resulted. Specifically, the 
directive states that inspectors must take action if either (1) a 
violation of humane handling and slaughter requirements has occurred 
that is not immediately causing injury or inhumane treatment of animals 
and the establishment has not taken appropriate preventative actions or 
(2) a violation of HMSA requirements has occurred and animals are being 
injured or treated inhumanely. Also, FSIS officials said that they have 
recently held meetings with the DVMSs and district officials that 
focused on making enforcement more consistent.

District Managers Have Also Taken Inconsistent Enforcement Actions:

In addition to the enforcement actions available to inspectors 
stationed at slaughter facilities, district managers may suspend the 
operations of an entire facility, or part of the facility, by removing 
the inspectors from the plant. Since FSIS inspectors must be present 
during slaughter operations, this effectively shuts down a facility. 
This enforcement action is more serious than the reject tags that 
inspectors can use and may be taken by district managers in the event 
of serious or repetitive violations. Between October 2001 and July 
2003, district managers issued eight suspensions at seven slaughter 
plants that directly involved HMSA violations. According to FSIS, seven 
of the suspensions were issued in response to incidents involving the 
physical treatment of animals--four in response to inappropriate 
stunning or conscious animals observed at slaughter, two in response to 
the mistreatment of disabled animals, and one in response to excessive 
use of electric prods and force. One suspension was issued in response 
to facility conditions (a protruding fence board that was pointing 
toward the animals and could cause injury) and lack of access to water. 
In addition, during the same period, FSIS districts issued four letters 
to plants to inform them that if corrective actions were not taken to 
prevent recurrence of noncompliance incidents, the districts would 
proceed with suspension action.

Our analysis of the 553 noncompliance records indicated that the 
severity and repetitiveness of the violations does not necessarily 
result in consistent enforcement actions by district managers. For 
example, in one case, inspectors had prepared 16 noncompliance records, 
all related to the ineffective stunning of animals. However, the 
district manager did not take enforcement action because, as he 
explained, the 16 incidents were not triggered by the same factor; if 
they had been, he said he would have suspended the plant. This 
contrasts with the opinion of another district manager who, commenting 
on this same situation, said that a case of so many related and 
relatively serious incidents is a definite candidate for a suspension.

District managers said that they identify facilities for suspension by 
reviewing the noncompliance records and looking for "red-flags"--
specifically, cases of serious and/or repetitive incidents of inhumane 
treatment of animals. While FSIS guidance stipulates that district 
level enforcement actions, such as suspensions, are appropriate when 
facilities have been unable to implement corrective and preventive 
actions in response to previously identified violations, the guidance 
does not contain suggested thresholds or criteria on when district 
actions are appropriate. More specifically, the guidance does not 
address how many repetitive instances of noncompliance should warrant 
district level enforcement actions. In the absence of uniform criteria, 
these enforcement decisions are likely to be inconsistent across FSIS 
districts, undermining FSIS' efforts to effectively enforce the act.

While the November 2003 directive provides some additional guidance on 
when suspensions are an appropriate response to multiple violations 
with the same or related cause, it does not provide any information on 
the number of related violations that would warrant a suspension. For 
example, in deciding whether a suspension is warranted, the directive 
states that district officials should consider the amount of time 
between violations--not the number of repeat violations--taken by the 
plant. FSIS officials noted that they have recently held meetings to 
emphasize consistent enforcement and discussed the issue at the October 
2003 National Supervisory Conference attended by over 200 agency field 
supervisors.

FSIS Data on Inspection Resources Devoted to Overseeing Humane Handling 
and Slaughter Requirements Are Inadequate:

Because FSIS does not have adequate data on the number of inspectors 
responsible for enforcing the HMSA or the actual time they spend on 
humane handling and slaughter requirements--nor other information, such 
as criteria to determine the appropriate number of inspectors for 
different sized plants--it is difficult to determine if the number of 
inspectors is adequate to effectively enforce the HMSA. However, FSIS 
headquarters and district officials believe that, for the most part, 
personnel resources dedicated to monitoring and enforcing humane 
handling and slaughter requirements are adequate. District officials 
believe that the present number of DVMSs is adequate to cover each 
district's HMSA responsibilities. The DVMSs are the primary contacts 
for inspectors in each FSIS district office and the liaisons between 
the district offices and headquarters on humane handling and slaughter 
issues. They are responsible for on-site coordination of nationally 
prescribed humane slaughter procedures and verification of humane 
handling activities, as well as dissemination of directives, notices, 
and other information related to the act. Fifteen districts have one 
DVMS and two districts, Boulder and Chicago, have two DVMSs 
each.[Footnote 30] According to FSIS district officials, the 17 DVMSs 
are sufficient to oversee humane handling and slaughter activities in 
each district.

FSIS officials could not, however, provide us with quantitative data on 
the actual time in-plant inspectors spend enforcing HMSA or other 
quantitative data from which we could assess the adequacy of in-plant 
inspection resources dedicated to humane handling and slaughter. 
Without this basic information, it is difficult to determine with any 
degree of certainty or precision if the number of inspectors is 
adequate to effectively enforce the HMSA. Also, without this data, FSIS 
cannot determine the appropriate number of inspectors for different 
sized plants or the adequate number of inspectors overall to 
effectively enforce the act. FSIS recently conducted an analysis 
showing that inspectors spent an estimated 132,405 hours, or 63 full-
time equivalents, on humane handling and slaughter activities in fiscal 
year 2003. To come up with this estimate, the agency asked the DVMSs to 
estimate the number of hours that inspectors spent observing humane 
handling, per shift per plant in their districts. The DVMSs aggregated 
this information to determine how many total hours, per plant per year, 
were spent on humane handing and slaughter. Additionally, FSIS 
officials said they have a pilot program in place to track hours spent 
enforcing the HMSA. However, without additional information, such as 
criteria to determine the appropriate number of inspectors for 
different sized plants, the agency has insufficient information to make 
good decisions regarding how to allocate inspectors, and we could not 
conclusively determine whether additional in-plant inspectors are 
needed to ensure compliance with the HMSA.

Nevertheless, discussions with district officials suggest that 
additional resources devoted solely to enforcing the HMSA are not 
needed, but that additional inspectors who could conduct both food 
safety and humane handling activities would be beneficial. District 
managers and their deputies were in general agreement that there is no 
need for additional inspectors whose sole responsibility would be to 
observe for compliance with the HMSA. Five of the 29 district officials 
we spoke with who disagreed with this position told us that dedicated 
HMSA inspectors would be beneficial, primarily at larger plants only, 
or to supplement and follow up on the DVMSs' work when DVMSs are not 
present at a plant. However, almost 40 percent of the district managers 
and their deputies reported a general need for additional inspectors--
inspectors responsible for both humane handling and food safety. They 
noted that filling current vacancies and/or hiring more relief 
inspectors to cover for vacations and other expected and unexpected 
leave would benefit HMSA enforcement. Several officials said this would 
be true particularly in larger plants where the size and configuration 
of the facility make it difficult for inspectors to effectively monitor 
humane handling and food safety compliance at the same time.

While stating that personnel resources for overseeing handling and 
slaughter requirements appear overall adequate, district officials 
expressed some dissatisfaction with the inspectors' overall level of 
knowledge about humane handling and slaughter requirements. According 
to 17 of the 29 district officials and at least 9 of the 16 DVMSs we 
interviewed, despite improvements made by the hands-on training that 
DVMSs provided inspectors, additional training of inspectors would 
improve the agency's ability to properly enforce the HMSA. 
Additionally, 14 DVMSs said that not all inspectors are fully 
knowledgeable about the requirements of the HMSA or the implementing 
regulations--including not being aware that certain actions are 
violations of the HMSA, or what their authority and obligations are 
when a violation has been observed. FSIS officials also believe that 
inspector knowledge needs to be improved, and they said that they are 
committed to doing this through additional training and other efforts. 
We agree that this is a reasonable first step--improving existing 
personnel's knowledge--before making decisions about the need for 
additional resources. Accordingly, we are not making a recommendation 
that FSIS provide additional training.

When we discussed this matter with senior FSIS officials, they said 
that they are currently taking steps to improve inspectors' knowledge. 
As a first step, with the assistance of the DVMSs, FSIS is developing a 
survey of veterinarians' and other supervisory inspectors' overall 
training needs, including needs in the area of humane handling and 
slaughter.[Footnote 31] Additionally, the agency's November 2003 
directive consolidates many HMSA requirements into a single directive, 
making it easier for inspectors to understand and interpret the 
requirements. DVMSs are also developing scenarios that will illustrate 
to inspectors how to implement the HMSA requirements and help them 
better understand their job function as it relates to the act. These 
scenarios are distributed in the form of a monthly report (Humane 
Interactive Knowledge Exchange--HIKE) that FSIS employees will be able 
to access through the Internet.[Footnote 32] FSIS officials believe 
that this will be a successful way of sharing knowledge throughout the 
agency on key policy issues.

Conclusions:

The Congress first passed legislation in 1958 and subsequently in 1978 
to address humane treatment of livestock. Recently, the Congress also 
provided USDA with additional resources and directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to fully enforce the HMSA and implementing regulations. In 
response, FSIS created the DVMS position. According to many district 
officials, this step has enhanced knowledge among slaughter plant 
inspectors about their duties to ensure the humane handling and 
slaughter of animals. Additionally, very recent efforts, such as the 
new directive for inspectors, demonstrate a commitment to improving 
enforcement of the act. However, FSIS still faces challenges. The 
agency needs to address shortcomings related to adequately recording 
and analyzing documented instances of noncompliance with the HMSA and 
ensure consistent application of enforcement actions before it can 
assure the Congress and the pubic that animals are treated humanely and 
the act is being fully enforced. Finally, the lack of information on 
the level of effort FSIS dedicates to humane handling and slaughter 
activities prevents it from evaluating its own performance and making 
informed decisions on whether additional inspectors are needed.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

We are making six recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
further strengthen the agency's oversight of humane handling and 
slaughter methods at federally inspected facilities.

To provide more quantifiable and informative data on violations of the 
HMSA, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to:

* supplement the narrative found in noncompliance records with more 
specific codes that classify the types and causes of humane handling 
and slaughter violations.

To ensure that district officials use uniform and consistent criteria 
when taking enforcement actions, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Agriculture direct FSIS to:

* establish additional clear, specific, and consistent criteria for 
district offices to use when considering whether to take enforcement 
actions because of repetitive violations;

* require that district offices and inspectors clearly document the 
basis for their decisions regarding enforcement actions that are based 
on repetitive violations.

To ensure that FSIS can make well-informed estimates about the 
resources it needs to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to:

* develop a mechanism for identifying the level of effort that 
inspectors currently devote to monitoring humane handling and slaughter 
activities;

* develop criteria for determining the level of inspection resources 
that are appropriate on the basis of plant size, configuration, or 
history of compliance, once the mechanism is developed and in 
operation; and:

* periodically, assess whether that level is sufficient to effectively 
enforce the act.

Agency Comments and Our Responses:

We provided FSIS with a draft of this report for their review and 
comment. FSIS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. 
In addition, FSIS provided a number of specific comments and 
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. FSIS's comments 
and our responses to them appear in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture 
and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to 
others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Lawrence J. Dyckman 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Signed by Lawrence J. Dyckman: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To assess the scope and frequency of humane handling and slaughter 
violations, we obtained and analyzed data from several sources. First, 
we obtained the U.S. Department of Agriculture's March 2003 Report to 
Congress on Humane Handling and Slaughter Enforcement Activities, in 
which USDA presents their findings on noncompliance with the Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) during fiscal year 2002. We reviewed 
that information and followed up with the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS) officials who wrote the report to discuss the 
methodology they used when they conducted their analysis. Second, in 
structured interviews with 16 of the 17 District Veterinary Medical 
Specialists (DVMS), we discussed what they thought were the most common 
types of noncompliance with the HMSA, based on their visits to plants 
covered by the act in their districts. In addition, we also reviewed 
the written summaries that they prepared to document these 
observations. Third, we obtained from FSIS all available documentation 
of observed violations to the HMSA for the period January 2001 through 
March 2003, the period for which FSIS could provide us with the most 
complete documentation. This information was provided in the form of 
553 records of noncompliance. To analyze this information provided in 
these forms and determine the frequency of violations, by type of 
violation, as well as their scope, we classified them as follows:

* Ineffective stunning (i.e., one or more animals had to be stunned 
more than once);

* One or more conscious animals showed signs of consciousness past the 
stun box, i.e, when they were hoisted, cut, or bled;

* Facility conditions that either caused injury to an animal or could 
cause injury to an animal, such as broken fences, protruding nails, 
slippery floors, and overcrowded pens;

* Excessive use of electric prods or other devices;

* Mishandling of ambulatory animals, such as hitting, kicking, or 
dragging a conscious animal;

* Mishandling of disabled animals, such as keeping such animals among 
ambulatory animals, increasing the risk of further injury;

* Lack of access to water;

* Lack of access to food; and:

* Other instances of noncompliance with the HMSA or applicable 
regulations.

Using these categories, we aggregated the information to determine the 
frequency of the various types of violations. In addition, to obtain a 
further indication of the "scope" of the violation for cases where 
animals were ineffectively stunned or where conscious animals were 
observed past the stun box, we created a code indicating whether a 
single animal or multiple animals were impacted. A GAO analyst 
knowledgeable of the subject matter conducted all the classifications. 
A second GAO analyst reviewed all forms and codes determined by the 
first analyst for accuracy. Any discrepancies were resolved through 
discussion between the two analysts. We also discussed our methodology 
with FSIS officials who did not have any objections with our approach.

To further evaluate the information presented in the 553 reports, we 
reviewed FSIS regulations and guidance to inspectors regarding when 
they are required to write a noncompliance record and what they are 
supposed to include in it. In addition, in our structured interviews 
with 16 of 17 DVMSs, we obtained their views on inspectors' 
documentation of noncompliance and factors, if any, which may impact 
it.

To determine FSIS actions to enforce compliance with the humane 
handling and slaughter requirements, we obtained information on 
enforcement actions taken at the plant and FSIS district level. To 
determine how many times inspectors took enforcement actions, and under 
what circumstances, we analyzed the 553 noncompliance records we 
obtained from FSIS for the period between January 2001 and March 2003. 
We analyzed the narrative information in these records to determine 
when inspectors temporarily stopped use of equipment or part of the 
plant in response to a violation and for what type of violation. To 
determine how many times district managers took enforcement actions, we 
obtained and analyzed documentation for all plant suspensions and 
notices of intended enforcement actions by a district, for the period 
between October 2001 and July 2003. In addition, we reviewed FSIS 
guidance on when inspectors and districts should take enforcement 
action, and we talked with 16 of the 17 DVMSs about their views on 
inspectors' enforcement of the act and regulations; and we also talked 
with all district managers about how they determine when to take 
enforcement action against a plant.

To assess the extent to which additional resources may be needed to 
ensure that humane handling and slaughter provisions are enforced, we 
contacted FSIS headquarters officials, district managers and deputy 
district managers at the 15 FSIS district offices, and 16 of the 17 
DVMSs. First, from FSIS headquarters, we obtained information officials 
put together on the estimated number of hours that inspectors devoted 
to implementation of the HMSA during fiscal year 2003. We also obtained 
documentation on the training available to inspectors regarding the 
HMSA and information on the agency's upcoming plans to further address 
inspectors' training needs and knowledge regarding the HMSA. Second, we 
conducted structured interviews with district managers and deputy 
district managers at all 15 FSIS districts to identify additional 
resource needs, such as additional inspectors, training, and guidance 
that would be necessary to ensure adequate implementation of the HMSA 
in their district. Third, we conducted structured interviews with 16 of 
the 17 DVMSs to obtain their observations on how knowledgeable 
inspectors are regarding the HMSA and their training needs. We 
supplemented our analysis of the results of this work with interviews 
with Dr. Temple Grandin, a renowned animal-handling expert; industry 
association representatives from the American Meat Institute and the 
National Meat Association; and animal welfare group representatives 
from the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Farming 
Association, and Humane Farm Animal Care, which provided us with their 
views on improving HMSA enforcement.

To assess the reliability of the FSIS data cited in the background 
section regarding plants covered by the HMSA, plant production, size of 
plants, plants covered by each district, and DVMS visits to plants, we 
(1) performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and 
completeness and (2) had discussions with agency officials 
knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

We conducted our review from April 2003 through November 2003, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Food Safety and Inspection Service:

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix.

United States Department of Agriculture: 
Food Safety and Inspection Service: 
Washington, D.C. 20250

Mr. Lawrence J. Dyckman:

Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team: 
Food and Agricultural Issues:

United States General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, NW, Room 2T23 
Washington, DC 20548:

JAN 14 2004:

Dear Mr. Dyckman:

In your letter dated December 11, 2003, you requested the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) written comments on the Draft report 
GAO 04-247 "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: USDA Has Addressed Some 
Problems but Still Faces Enforcement Challenges." Thank you for the 
opportunity to provide comments on the draft report.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

We are in general agreement with the findings and recommendations in 
the report, and believe the report supports the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service's (FSIS) enforcement of the Humane Methods of 
Slaughter Act. We are providing the following specific comments to help 
refine the characterization of the Agency's efforts to date. The FSIS 
is taking steps to address the issues identified in the report, and has 
already completed and fully implemented several significant measures to 
address these issues.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

1. Highlights Page. Final Sentence, 3RDParagraph. The report states "In 
general, FSIS officials believe that, with the introduction of a 
District Veterinary Medical Officer at each of the agency's field 
offices, the current number of personnel devoted to humane handling and 
slaughter compliance is adequate.":

We ask that the sentence be changed to read "In general, FSIS officials 
believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary Medical 
Specialist at each of the agency's field offices, the current number of 
personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter compliance is 
adequate.":

2. Page 3. Last 2 Sentences, 1st Paragraph. The report states "Finally, 
the FSIS administrator can remove the grant of inspection from a 
facility, which prevents its products from entering interstate or 
foreign commerce. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and 
process animals without federal inspectors present."

We ask that the sentences be changed to read "Finally, the FSIS 
Administrator can file a complaint to withdraw the grants of inspection 
from a facility. By law, slaughter facilities cannot slaughter and 
process animals for sale in commerce without Federal inspectors 
present.":

3. Page 5. 6th Sentence, 1st paragraph. The report indicates FSIS was 
unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection records that document 
violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and 
implementing regulations.

GAO should include the fact that they were provided with 553 non-
compliance records (NRs), and many of these records were retrieved from 
the field. The 44 records FSIS did not provide to GAO represent less 
than ten percent of all the NRs documented by FSIS during this time 
period. Some of the hardcopy NRs provided to GAO date from FY 2001. 
Hardcopy records were difficult to obtain because they were not stored 
electronically, and needed to be retrieved from the field. As indicated 
on page 18 of the report, the Agency decided it would rather improve 
its systems for tracking documentation than retrieve hardcopies of 
documents from the field.

4. Page 5. 5th Sentence, 1st Paragraph. The report indicates GAO found 
internal control problems that call into question the reliability of 
FSIS' records during the period between January 2001 and March 2003 
regarding compliance with the Act.

Since GAO analyzed the humane handling data covering a 28 month period, 
FSIS has fully addressed the records reliability and consistency issues 
identified in the report. First, the Performance Based Inspection 
System (PBIS) had been updated during that time. Inspectors now enter 
and store NRs electronically, and NRs can be easily accessed and 
analyzed. The information systems infrastructure to facilitate 
entering, storing, and accessing NR data has been in place since FY 
2002. Second, FSIS established the District Veterinary Medical 
Specialist (DVMS) positions. DVMSs began plant visits in FY 2002 to 
coordinate with inspection personnel on nationally prescribed humane 
slaughter procedures and verification of humane handling activities. 
Although some of the records management and consistency issues raised 
in the report may have been issues for concern in January 2001, they 
are not currently. The Agency has taken steps to address these issues.

5. Page 5. Final sentence on the page, continued on to page 6, 1st 
sentence on the page. The report indicates GAO conducted its own 
analysis of all the non-compliance records provided to them, and that 
FSIS performed its analysis on a sample of records.

The GAO narrative should note that FSIS performed its analysis on a 
sample of approximately half of the NRs available. Also, the report 
should indicate all known differences in the approach GAO used for its 
analysis versus FSIS. For example, the categories used to group the 
violations, or whether or not the noncompliance records were reviewed 
by experienced veterinarians.

6. Page 13. 1st and 2nd full sentences on the page. The report indicates 
that HMSA does not specifically require inspectors to continuously 
observe all animal handling and slaughter procedures, but that the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that each carcass be individually 
inspected after slaughter to ensure that the meat is safe for human 
consumption.

GAO should clarify this statement with the following information. HMSA 
requires continuous inspection of humane handling at every livestock 
slaughter plant. This is done throughout the day by inspection 
personnel at the establishment. While it is a continuous inspection of 
the process, it is not an animal by animal process. Consequently, 
isolated events of non-compliance could be unobserved by inspection 
personnel. However, given the on-going nature of the inspection, 
endemic establishment problems will be identified by inspection 
personnel within a relatively short period of time.

7. Page 16. 1st paragraph, 3rd to the last sentence. The report 
indicates that a number of DVMSs participated in a number of district 
activities that went beyond the scope of humane handling and slaughter 
of animals, and that these activities took as much as seventy-five 
percent of the DVMS's time.

GAO should describe how it determined that some DVMSs spent seventy-
five percent of their time on activities beyond the scope of humane 
handling and slaughter of animals. In some cases, the activities of 
some DVMSs are solely related to humane handling and slaughter. These 
DVMSs never changed their current focus from the implementation of the 
HMSA because they were already spending one hundred percent of their 
time on it. As the report states, currently twelve DVMSs are devoted 
solely to the implementation of HMSA.

8. Page 21. 1st full sentence on the page. The report indicates that FSIS 
officials did not provide any information to suggest that the incidents 
of ineffective stunning GAO had identified were not incidents of actual 
inhumane treatment or that the number of incidents of ineffective 
stunning GAO identified were inaccurate.

A thorough analysis of the NRs requires careful reading and 
interpretation of the narratives provided in the NRs, and, as the 
following examples show, several instances of noncompliance that appear 
to be direct animal injury would not have been considered so in a real-
world assessment. For example, an inspector observed multiple stun 
holes on a head, but when the inspector observed the stunning process 
it was being conducted correctly.

Other examples include:

* An NR documenting a bullet found in a pig without evidence that the 
animal was shot on the establishment premises, and the clinical signs 
observed at postmortem were not consistent with a new wound.

* An NR for excessive prodding with an electric prod, and upon 
investigation by the plant there was no power source and therefore, the 
prods were not electric.

* An NR for downer calves in pens where they might have been trampled, 
but in fact at the time of the NR no additional animals had been 
admitted to the pen and no animals were injured.

In its analysis FSIS would not consider these cases direct animal 
injury NRs.

9. Page 23. The report indicates that the introduction of a humane 
handling procedure code in the PBIS should help FSIS more effectively 
track NRs that document HMSA violations.

GAO should note that a humane handling Inspection System Procedure 
(ISP) code in the PBIS was established, and took effect in October 
2001. The information systems infrastructure to facilitate entering, 
storing, and accessing NR data has been in place since FY 2002. 
Inspectors now enter and store NRs electronically, and NRs can be 
easily accessed and analyzed.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments. If you have any 
questions, please contact Ronald F. Hicks, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Program Evaluation, Enforcement and Review at (202) 720-8609.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Garry L. McKee, Ph.D., M.P.H. 
Administrator:

The following are GAO comments on the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service letter, dated January 14, 2004.

GAO Comments:

1. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.

2. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.

3. We already include the fact that FSIS provided us with 553 
noncompliance records. Additionally, we acknowledge that the 44 records 
that FSIS did not provide to us represent less than 10 percent of all 
the documented noncompliance records for the period.

4. We acknowledge that the internal control problem we identified is 
being addressed. However, we cite the internal control problem because 
it affected the humane handling data for the period of our analysis--
January 2001 to March 2003.

5. The report clarifies that FSIS sampled approximately half of the 
available noncompliance records. We believe that we sufficiently 
indicate the differences in the approaches used by FSIS and us in 
analyzing those records. We acknowledge that the official who conducted 
the FSIS analysis is a trained veterinarian. However, our analysis 
relied directly on information provided by FSIS inspectors in 
noncompliance records.

6. We clarified our report to reflect this comment.

7. The final report clarifies that the 16 DVMSs we interviewed (out of 
17 DVMSs) told us that they originally participated in activities 
beyond the scope of humane handling and slaughter of animals.

8. We have made a slight modification in the report language, but 
overall, we disagree with this comment. In our analysis, we did not 
attempt to reinterpret the narratives contained in FSIS noncompliance 
records that inspectors prepared after observing each violation. We 
categorized each record according to the type of violation to the HMSA 
and appropriate regulations. Regarding the first example in FSIS's 
comments, if a noncompliance record indicated that it was issued 
because of ineffective stunning, that is the way we categorized the 
incident. Further, we did not attempt to impose a standard of whether 
or not documented noncompliance incidents resulted in animal injury for 
two reasons. First, FSIS did not provide us with any additional 
documentation, beyond the noncompliance records, indicating whether 
direct animal injury resulted from the incident. Second, whether or not 
an animal injury occurred is not a standard for writing noncompliance 
records, according to FSIS's own directives. Finally, FSIS did not 
provide us with any additional examples or other information that, in 
their view, indicate that ineffective stunning violations reported in 
noncompliance records did not cause direct injury to animals, and 
therefore, did not result in actual "inhumane treatment." The next 
three examples in FSIS's comments do not pertain to ineffective 
stunning, but we used the same approach to categorizing these type of 
noncompliance records.

9. We acknowledge that FSIS instituted a humane handling inspections 
system procedure code, effective October 2001, which should help FSIS 
better track noncompliance records that document HMSA violations. 
However, we note that this is a universal code for all HMSA violations 
and does not provide any additional information about the type or 
severity of the violation.

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Lawrence J. Dyckman (202) 512-3841 Maria Cristina Gobin (202) 512-8418:

Acknowledgments:

In addition to the individuals named above, Pauline Seretakis, Heather 
A. Holsinger, Katheryn E. Summers, Charles T. Egan, John W. Delicath, 
and Jennifer R. Popovic made key contributions. Other contributors 
include Aldo A. Benejam, Michele C. Fejfar, Karen K. Keegan, Julian P. 
Klazkin, and Katherine M. Raheb.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Pub. L. No. 85-765, 72 Stat. 862 (1958). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 95-445, 92 Stat. 1069 (1978). Among other things, the 
act amended sections 3 and 10 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 
U.S.C. sections 603 and 610.

[3] Throughout this report, we use the terms "noncompliance" and 
"violation" interchangeably. This is consistent with FSIS regulations 
and directives.

[4] 7 U.S.C. sections 603, 604. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 107-20, 115 Stat. 155, 164 (2001).

[6] Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-171, 
Section 10305 116 Stat. 134.

[7] Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 22 (2003).

[8] H. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10 (2003).

[9] Pub. L. No. 85-765, 72 Stat. 862 (1958).

[10] 7 U.S.C. Section 1902 (a). The act applies to those establishments 
processing cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, goats, pigs, and other 
equines. It does not apply to poultry, bison, reindeer, and catalo. 

[11] 7 U.S.C. Section 1902 (b).

[12] The FSIS is also responsible for ensuring the safety of most meat, 
poultry, and processed egg products. 

[13] FSIS classifies plants according to their size: large plants--
those with 500 or more employees, small plants--those with 10 to 499 
employees, and very small plants--those with fewer than 10 employees, 
or annual sales of less than $2.5 million.

[14] FSIS did not provide us with the specific number of inspectors 
that are assigned to meat slaughter facilities.

[15] Throughout this report, we refer to veterinarians and Consumer 
Safety Inspectors as "inspectors."

[16] 7 U.S.C. sections 603, 604. 

[17] FSIS Directive 5001.1, Revision 1: Verifying an Establishment's 
Food Safety System, May 21, 2003. 

[18] If there is an egregious situation of inhumane handling and 
slaughter, the inspector in charge may also immediately suspend 
inspection and immediately notify USDA's district office for prompt 
documentation of the suspension action.

[19] Pub. L. No. 107-20 (2001).

[20] FSIS determined the DVMSs who would only perform humane handling 
and slaughter related work after sending a survey to all DVMSs asking 
them if they would be interested in performing only HMSA work or if 
they would like to perform other duties. The other five DVMSs still 
have humane handling responsibilities, but can also assist with food 
safety and food security. 

[21] Survey of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef, Veal, 
Pork, and Sheep Slaughter Plants; Agricultural Research Service, USDA. 
3602-20-00, January 7, 1997.

[22] 2002 Restaurant Audits of Stunning and Handling in Federally 
Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants; http://www.grandin.com/
survey/2002.restaurant.audits.html. 

[23] FSIS issued its "Rules of Practice" in September 5, 2001, in FSIS 
Notice 36-01 to ensure that all inspection program personnel are 
knowledgeable about the enforcement actions that the agency may take, 
the circumstances under which the various types of enforcement actions 
are appropriate and can be taken, and the procedures that the agency 
will follow in doing so. According to FSIS, the rules of practice 
provide a key link between inspection and enforcement activities. The 
guidance elaborates on the regulatory enforcement actions described at 
9 C.F.R. pt. 500. In November 2003, FSIS issued a new directive to its 
inspection personnel that provides clearer direction regarding 
enforcement.

[24] This contrasts with the dozens of ways that inspectors can 
classify different types of food safety violations ranging from 
sanitation procedures to labeling accuracy. 

[25] See Food Safety and Inspection Service, Humane Handling and 
Slaughter Enforcement Activities, Report to Congress, March 2003. 

[26] USDA only provided us with four examples of cases where they did 
not consider the reported violation to have caused direct injury to 
animals, therefore resulting in actual inhumane treatment of animals. 

[27] FSIS Directive 6900.2, "Humane Handling and Slaughter of 
Livestock," November 25, 2003. This directive informs inspectors of the 
requirements, verification activities, and enforcement actions for 
ensuring that the handling and slaughter of livestock, including the 
slaughter of livestock by religious ritual methods, is humane. The 
directive also explains how inspectors should approach these 
activities. Specifically, the directive leads the reader through the 
existing regulatory requirements and explains in simple, easy to read 
and understand language how inspection program personnel should verify 
compliance with each of these regulations and what actions they should 
take if there is noncompliance. 

[28] From January 2001 through March 2003, inspectors issued reject 
tags to temporarily interrupt the use of equipment or facilities or to 
slow down or stop production lines 214 times. The most prevalent 
reasons for these reject tags were ineffective stunning and conscious 
animals observed being slaughtered.

[29] While our analysis included 167 instances of ineffective stunning, 
we could not determine from the documentation provided how many animals 
were impacted in two of these cases. Therefore, this analysis is based 
on 165 incidents.

[30] This was the result of an FSIS realignment of its district 
offices. When USDA introduced the DVMS position, it assigned one DVMS 
to each of its 17 districts. In May 2002, an organizational realignment 
consolidated FSIS's 17 district offices into 15. In the realignment, 
the Pickerington, Ohio, office became a satellite office in the Chicago 
district, and the Salem, Oregon, office became a satellite office in 
the Boulder, Colorado, district. As a result, the Chicago and Boulder 
districts now have two DVMSs each.

[31] FSIS senior officials said that the reason they are sending this 
survey primarily to veterinarians at this point is because Consumer 
Safety Inspectors are unionized, which makes implementation of a survey 
instrument to them a cumbersome and lengthy process. 

[32] The first HIKE was issued in the fall of 2003. 

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: