U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–127 PDF 2010

CONTINUING PROBLEMS IN USDA’S ENFORCEMENT

OF THE HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 4, 2010

Serial No. 111–136

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

DIANE E. WATSON, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DAN BURTON, Indiana

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 4, 2010 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Painter, Stanley, chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection

Locals, American Federation of Government Employees; Bev Eggleston,

owner, Ecofriendly Foods LLC; and Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO,

Humane Society of the United States ......................................................... 62

Eggleston, Bev ........................................................................................... 72

Pacelle, Wayne ........................................................................................... 78

Painter, Stanley ......................................................................................... 62

Shames, Lisa, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Government Accountability Office; Jerold Mande, Deputy Under Secretary

for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Dean Wyatt,

Food Safety and Inspection Service Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian, Williston, VT .................................................................................... 10

Mande, Jerold ............................................................................................ 21

Shames, Lisa .............................................................................................. 10

Wyatt, Dean ............................................................................................... 38

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Eggleston, Bev, owner, Ecofriendly Foods LLC, prepared statement of ...... 75

Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 3

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 6

Mande, Jerold, Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, prepared statement of ......................................................... 24

Pacelle, Wayne, president and CEO, Humane Society of the United

States, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 81

Painter, Stanley, chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection

Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 64

Shames, Lisa, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of .................................... 12

Wyatt, Dean, Food Safety and Inspection Service Supervisory Public

Health Veterinarian, Williston, VT, prepared statement of ...................... 40

(1)

CONTINUING PROBLEMS IN USDA’S ENFORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE METHODS

OF SLAUGHTER ACT

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:47 p.m. in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, and Welch.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Jean Gosa, clerk;

Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Leneal Scott, IT specialist, full

committee; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight

and investigations; Marvin Kaplan, minority counsel; and Alex

Cooper, minority professional staff member.

Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order.

The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee now begins.

I want to thank the witnesses and the members of the audience

for their patience. The President had asked me to meet with him

on an urgent matter, and we were there for about an hour. I was

there for an hour, and then we had a series of votes. That is the

reason why we are starting so late. But I am grateful for the presence of the witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony.

Thanks to Mr. Cummings for being here.

Today’s hearing is the second Domestic Policy Subcommittee

hearing on the topic of humane slaughter, the first of which was

held on April 17, 2008.

Today the subcommittee will examine the findings of a new Government Accountability Office—that is the GAO—report on the

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of the Humane

Methods of Slaughter Act. I requested this report, along with the

support of Representative Issa, in 2008.

Now, without objection, I will have 5 minutes to make opening

statements. If the ranking minority member has the opportunity to

come, he will be granted the same, followed by opening statements

not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who seeks recognition.

Without objection, Members and witnesses may have five legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for

the record.

2

Mr. Jordan has an opening statement, which, without objection,

will be included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

3

4

Mr. KUCINICH. Good afternoon.

About 2 years ago an undercover video exposing extreme abuses

of downed cattle at a slaughter plant in California shocked the Nation. The video depicted scenes of employees at the plant ramming

cows with a forklift, poking at their eyes, and repeatedly applying

electrical shocks to make downed cattle regain their footing and

walk to the stun box. Those were apparent violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

While the USDA acted quickly, at the same time key Department

officials disclaimed the extent of the problem depicted. For example, Doctor Kenneth Peterson, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Field Operations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, which

is also known by its acronym FSIS, said, ‘‘FSIS believes this to be

an isolated incident.’’

Since that time, this subcommittee has examined the basis for

USDA’s espoused confidence. What we found was USDA’s belief

was not based on actual evidence. In fact, in November 2008 the

Inspector General found that FSIS had been in the slaughter plant

where those scenes of abuse were recorded and found no problems,

just months before the undercover video was shot.

The IG also found that, in a number of plants similar to the one

in California, severe gaps in oversight and enforcement existed. For

instance, FSIS inspectors ‘‘allowed establishment employees to control the required accountability process’’ at 5 of 10 facilities audited. At one establishment, ‘‘the inspector simply re-signed blank

pen cards and provided these to establishment personnel for later

use.’’

At 4 of 10 establishments, inspectors did not inspect the condition of individual animals; instead, ‘‘animals moved past the inspector in rows or groups of three to four animals deep, effectively

obscuring the observation of potential injuries and abnormalities of

each animal.’’

At 2 of 10 establishments, ‘‘suspect animals were not segregated

or slaughtered separately from healthy animals as required.’’

Then again last October undercover investigators of the Humane

Society caught employees at the Bushway Packing Slaughter Plant

in Vermont on tape committing extreme abuse of veal calves. We

are going to show some of that video. I have to advise you that it

is graphic.

[Videotape presentation.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Scenes like the ones we have just witnessed are

violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Shortly after

this subcommittee’s first hearing on this topic in 2008, I made a

request, along with Representative Issa, that GAO conduct an investigation of USDA’s oversight of the slaughter industry and update its previous report published in 2004. Today, GAO will publicly release its new findings.

What GAO has found is significant. Serious management problems at FSIS persist and compromise both the enforcement of the

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the ability of the Department to change course. Key mechanisms of management oversight

of inspection staff are missing. Key guidance to inspection staff

make clear to them what constitutes a violation. That is missing.

Consistency in the application of the law and assessing violations

5

is missing. Substantial differences exist among the reasons. Considerable disagreement exists among the enforcement staff about

what kinds of abuses constitute violations and what enforcement

actions need to be taken in response.

The truth of the matter is we do not know how prevalent are the

abuses documented by the Humane Society. Neither does the

USDA because of the significant deficiencies in the management of

FSIS identified by the Government Accountability Office. But there

is new leadership at the troubled agency, and they are talking

about a new commitment to enforce the law.

My hope is that today’s hearing will give us a clear picture of

what the new administration plans to do to reform FSIS and improve the agency’s track record in enforcing humane animal handling laws.

I want to say that as I watched that video I am not going to let

it influence the conduct of this hearing, but I have to tell you I just

have serious questions about whether there is such a thing as humane slaughter, about whether or not humane slaughter is just an

oxymoron. But be that at is may. We are going to proceed with this

hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

6

7

8

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Cummings, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you very much for holding this vitally important

hearing to examine USDA’s compliance with the humane slaughter

laws.

You know, Mr. Chairman, just the idea that we have the subject

matter that we do, whether a government agency, with employees

paid with the money, hard-earned money of taxpayers, and then

when I watch the USDA official watching that go on, it really does

concern me, and it should concern all of us. You have to wonder

whether we are paying people to be a part of the problem, as opposed to a part of the solution.

The American people, as they should, expect that the meat they

purchase at their local grocery stores and butcher shops is safe for

consumption. Therefore, it came as a shock to the American people

when they learned of horrific practices by the Hallmark-Westland

Meat Packing Co. in California.

On January 30, 2008, video footage of the plant released by the

Humane Society of the United States revealed handling of downed

cattle and raised serious concerns about tainted meat making its

way into our food supply. Public outcry following the incident led

to swift action by this committee and by the company, itself, including the voluntary recall of 143 million pounds of beef dating

back 2 years by Hallmark-Westland.

However, the problem did not stop with that incident. Most recently on October 30, 2009, the Humane Society released another

video recorded at Bushway Packing, Inc., depicting calves just days

old being shocked with electric prods.

While the Federal Safety and Inspection Service has closed this

veal slaughter plant in Vermont, the shocking findings at Bushway

Packing raised the larger question about whether there are more

meat packing companies in violation of the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act; therefore, at the request of this committee the GAO

re-investigated FSIS’ enforcement records, funding and staffing

data, and strategic planning documents to better regulate the meat

packing industry.

GAO’s original investigation in 2004 found that FSIS kept incomplete inspection records which caused inconsistent inspection and

enforcement actions.

Today, as we examine the new findings of the GAO report, we

must uncover the reasons underlying the failures of this program.

The time is long overdue for us to strengthen practices at the

USDA and to oversee their processes to ensure that the American

people can have absolute confidence, Mr. Chairman, in the safety

of the food they purchase and they eat.

Mr. Chairman, our response today must be just as aggressive as

it was back in 2004. The safety of the American people depends on

our steadfast efforts to investigate the standards of the meat packing industry and to enforce any improvements that we find must

be made.

I look forward to the testimony today and thank you again, Mr.

Chairman.

9

Mr. KUCINICH. I always appreciate your participation and we are

grateful for your presence here today.

We are now going to go to testimony from the witnesses. There

are no more additional opening statements.

I want to introduce our first panel. Ms. Lisa Shames is the Director of Natural Resources and the Environment at the Government

Accountability Office, where she oversees evaluations at the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

She has been in public service since 1978. She directs work assessing oversight of food imports, animal welfare, farm program payments, agricultural conservation, and other policy areas. Ms.

Shames managed the designation of the Federal oversight of food

safety on the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list.

Mr. Jerold Mande is Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In that position, Mr. Mande is

responsible for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the USDA

agency which protects public health through food safety and defense. Prior to being appointed Deputy Under Secretary, he was associate director for public policy at the Yale Cancer Center at Yale

University School of Medicine and was also a lecturer in public

health, helping train select groups of physicians for careers in public policy.

Dr. Dean Wyatt serves as Food Safety and Inspection Service’s

Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian for a six-plant slaughterhouse and food processing operation in Vermont, where he is responsible for supervising humane handling procedures and enforcing FDA regulations under the ‘‘in-plant performance system.’’ The

doctor has previously served as a supervisory public health veterinarian for FSIS in other parts of the country and has been in private practice as a veterinarian.

I want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing before this

subcommittee today.

It is the policy of our Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses

has answered in the affirmative.

I ask that each witness give a brief summary of your testimony.

Keep the summary, if you would, under 5 minutes in duration.

Your complete written statement will be in the record. I’m sure

during the Q & A period we will have plenty of opportunities to

learn more.

Ms. Shames, you are the first witness on the panel. I ask that

you proceed. Thank you.

10

STATEMENTS OF LISA SHAMES, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; JEROLD MANDE, DEPUTY UNDER

SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND DEAN WYATT, FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SUPERVISORY PUBLIC HEALTH VETERINARIAN, WILLISTON, VT

STATEMENT OF LISA SHAMES

Ms. SHAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today as part of your ongoing

oversight of humane handling issues. This afternoon I will summarize the report we conducted at your request on USDA’s implementation of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act [HMSA].

As detailed in our report being released today, we made the following key findings: first, USDA’s enforcement of humane handling

has been inconsistent; second, USDA faces difficulties in planning

for the resources necessary to enforce humane handling, and; third,

USDA does not have a comprehensive strategy for its overall enforcement.

Let me first discuss USDA’s inconsistent enforcement.

Inspectors are to exercise their professional discretion when deciding what enforcement action to take in response to a violation;

however, our survey and analysis of records suggest that inspectors

are not consistently applying this discretion. This is because inspectors have unclear guidance and inadequate training.

Let me give you some examples of the inconsistent enforcement.

When witnessing a specific humane handling violation, including

excessive prodding or not rendering the animal insensible to pain

in a single blow, inspectors told us they would take different enforcement actions, such as submitting a noncompliance report or

suspending plant operations.

Our survey suggests inconsistent enforcement across plants. For

example, inspectors at large plants had more stringent views than

those at very small plants.

Also, records show inconsistent enforcement across districts. For

example, we found that 10 out of the 15 districts took all of the

suspension actions. The other five districts took none. Yet, these

five districts oversee over half of the livestock slaughtered nationwide.

Unclear guidance and inadequate training contribute to USDA’s

inconsistent oversight. Inspectors from over half of the plants surveyed reported that additional guidance and training are needed.

In particular, when asked about seven areas of enforcement, such

as animal sensibility, inspectors’ responses ranged from over 40 to

nearly 60 percent that they need more guidance and training. Others have called for more training, including USDA’s Inspector General, major industry associations, and the Humane Society.

Positively, to help its humane handling performance, USDA has

begun to consider using a numerical scoring system developed by

Dr. Temple Grandin. This system seeks to reduce the subjective nature of inspections and identify areas in need of improvement.

USDA’s own Agricultural Marketing Service uses this system to

rate the performance of a slaughter plant. This helps determine

11

whether the plant can provide meat to the National School Lunch

Program.

USDA officials also told us that they are exploring the potential

use of video surveillance. Over half of the inspectors at large plants

told us that video would be useful.

Our second key finding is that USDA faces difficulties in planning for the resources to enforce humane handling. For example,

in terms of staffing, USDA told us it plans to hire 24 inspectors to

help its humane handling enforcement. While a positive step, we

found that this hiring is being done without the benefit of an updated work force plan. The current 2007 plan does not address specific work force needs to address HMSA.

GAO reiterates a recommendation we made in 2004, that USDA

periodically reassess whether its estimates accurately reflect the

resources needed to enforce humane handling.

Our third key finding is that, while USDA has various planning

documents for humane handling activities, they do not clearly outline goals, resources, timeframes, or metrics, nor do these plans

provide a comprehensive strategy to guide humane handling enforcement. Without these key planning elements, USDA is not well

positioned to demonstrate any progress in improving its enforcement of HMSA to the public or to the Congress.

GAO recommends that USDA establish criteria for when inspectors should suspend plant operations; identify some type of objective tool, such as the numerical scoring system I just described, to

help evaluate plants’ humane handling performance; analyze the

narrative from non-compliance reports; and develop a comprehensive strategy to enforce HMSA.

In its formal response to our report, USDA did not indicate

whether it agreed or disagreed with our findings or recommendations. USDA did state that it plans to use them in improving its

enforcement efforts.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shames follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. Mande, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JEROLD MANDE

Mr. MANDE. Chairman Kucinich, Mr. Cummings, thank you for

inviting me to appear before you today.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service, FSIS, is deeply committed to ensuring humane handling of livestock at federally-inspected

slaughter establishments. We welcome today’s hearing and the

GAO report as steps that will help us improve on this mission.

FSIS is the public health regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We enforce the Nation’s food safety laws

and we enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

Slaughter is a critical stage in the life cycle of farm animals and

demands the highest level of care and compassion. To achieve those

levels, FSIS has a rigorous program to train our inspection personnel in verifying humane handling at slaughter establishments. All

entry level inspectors receive both classroom instruction and 1 to

2 weeks of field training on humane handling.

In February 2009, in response to concerns raised by this subcommittee and as part of our commitment to improve our enforcement of humane slaughter, all FSIS personnel assigned to antemortem inspection at livestock slaughter establishments were required to complete refresher training on the agency’s humane handling policies. This training included determining insensibility to

pain, documenting noncompliance, and suspending inspection for

egregious situations.

FSIS is planning further humane handling training this year.

In addition, each of FSIS’ 15 district offices has a district veterinary medical specialist who serves as the district expert on humane handling issues and helps ensure humane slaughter practices.

Whenever a violation of the humane slaughter requirements is

observed, USDA acts immediately to address it. Our inspectors are

told that they must take immediate action so an animal does not

continue to be harmed and that their first duty is to ensure the

harm does not continue. Inspectors can place a U.S. retain rejected

tag at the appropriate place to stop slaughter until the violation is

addressed by the establishment and the inspector removes the tag.

This is also known as a regulatory control action.

The next step is for the inspector to determine whether the violation is egregious. Egregious violations are any act or condition that

is cruel to an animal and warrants an immediate suspension of inspection. A suspension effectively shuts down all or part of a

plant’s operation. Examples of egregious violations include excessive prodding or beating of animals, dragging conscious animals,

and causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.

Humane handling violations are one of the few violations where

inspectors are able to suspend without prior notification, a sign of

how serious we believe these violations are.

FSIS also has management controls and accountability mechanisms for ensuring that its personnel are properly enforcing the

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. For example, supervisory personnel at slaughter establishments conduct performance reviews at

22

least twice annually in inspectors’ performance, and these reviews

address humane handling inspection.

As requested by you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the

industry’s compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

Only 800, or less than 20 percent, of our federally inspected establishments slaughter livestock and thus are subject to the act. In

calendar year 2009, FSIS in-plant personnel spent the equivalent

of 140 staff years, or 291,000 person hours, verifying humane handling activities, and conducted more than 128,000 humane handling verification procedures at livestock slaughter establishments.

We found humane handling violations in less than half of 1 percent

of these procedures.

In 2008, FSIS issued a total of 178 suspensions to federally inspected establishments. Ninety-seven suspensions, or more than

half, were for humane handling violations.

Last year, 2009, FSIS issued a total of 164 suspensions to federally inspected facilities. Eighty-seven suspensions, or, again, more

than half, were for humane handling violations.

As GAO finds in its report, both of these figures show a significant increase in humane handling enforcement since the events of

Hallmark-Westland.

FSIS continually reviews industry compliance with Humane

Methods of Slaughter Act and takes appropriate measures to prevent humane handling violations at establishments we regulate.

For example, with the help of Congress, we are in the process of

filling a newly created position at headquarters for a humane handling enforcement coordinator. This person will have line responsibility for overseeing our humane handling program.

Also, we recently added 23 additional inspectors to boost humane

handling oversight and verification inspection activities. These additional inspectors were placed at establishments determined to be

at higher risk of violating humane handling regulations, such as

cull and dairy cattle and veal plants.

In addition, in December we added a new scoring verification tool

for our district veterinarians based on the work of humane handling expert, Dr. Temple Grandin, that will help us identify problems with establishments’ humane handling and slaughter systems.

In the near future FSIS intends to issue compliance guidelines

to industry for use of video or other electronic monitoring recording

equipment. All of these and other measures are discussed at length

in my written testimony.

However, despite our best efforts, there are areas where FSIS

must and will do more. With that in mind, I would like to discuss

GAO’s review of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforcement by FSIS. While we were not given a final copy of the report

to review before this hearing, we were able to review a draft. On

behalf of the agency, I would like to thank GAO for its efforts to

work with us during its investigation and for giving us the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report.

FSIS is committed to constantly improving upon its efforts to ensure that establishments comply with humane handling laws and

regulations. Thus, the agency will consider carefully GAO’s findings

and recommendations as we strive to improve and evolve.

23

FSIS recognizes the need to improve our inspectors’ ability to

identify trends in humane handling violations and will work to

identify practices that will achieve more consistent enforcement of

the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. That being said, FSIS does

disagree with some items in the draft GAO report, and these items

could result in a misleading portrayal of FSIS’ enforcement of Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and are described in my written

testimony and in comments that we have provided GAO.

Before I close, I would like to briefly comment on the abuse that

we saw here today in the videotape of veal calves at Bushway

Packing that were captured by the Humane Society last October.

Secretary Vilsack expressed well the views of all of us at FSIS

when he said, ‘‘The deplorable scenes recorded in the video are unequivocally unacceptable,’’ as he called on USDA’s Inspector General to conduct a criminal investigation of the Bushway animal

abuse, which remains underway. FSIS immediately suspended operations at Bushway. FSIS also initiated investigation into the alleged misconduct by agency personnel and has to date terminated

one employee.

If I can make one final point, Mr. Chairman, whistleblowers play

an honored role in our democracy. It takes great courage to speak

out about potential mismanagement or waste by something as big

and as powerful as the U.S. Government. We take these charges

very seriously, even if the actions occurred under a previous administration. I promise we will investigate any charges, we will identify steps we can take to improve humane handling of livestock,

and we will implement those steps.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before

you today. I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mande follows:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Mande.

Dr. Wyatt, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DEAN WYATT

Dr. WYATT. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for having me here today.

I am speaking on behalf of myself, and I am not speaking on behalf of the agency.

People ask me, Dean, why in the world would you risk ruining

your career by going to Washington and testifying before Congress.

I would tell them a favorite quote of mine Abraham Lincoln once

said: to sin by silence when one must protest makes cowards of

men. When we turn our back on the helpless, when we fail to

speak on behalf of the voiceless, when we tolerate animal abuse

and animal suffering, then the moral compass of a just and compassionate society is gone.

I do feel like Don Quixote here a little bit because I have been

in the battle. I have been in the trenches. I have the dents in my

armor. But the dents in my armor have not come from plant management; the dents in my armor have come from FSIS management. They should have been my shield. They should have been my

protector.

I am a law enforcement officer. I am a public servant. I have

dedicated my life to the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act

and in food safety. And I like to think that I am not here only

speaking on behalf of myself, but I also like to think that I am also

speaking on behalf of hundreds of very committed, dedicated, courageous food inspectors and veterinarians who are frustrated, demoralized because they don’t receive the support that they need

from their supervisors.

If I had more time I would tell you about how I observed a pig

slipping and falling—several pigs, actually—slipping and falling because they were being driven too fast, too hard on a slippery surface. District office called me. They chewed me out. They said they

would not support my NR. I was going to be demoted to a non-supervisory position for 2 weeks.

I would tell you about an angry animal handler who was bludgeoning a pig over the head and nose several times with a paddle

simply because it was down and could not get up. It couldn’t get

up. It couldn’t get out the door. Myself and the other veterinarian

on duty were given a letter of reprimand for trying to enforce the

law.

I would tell you how the district office called me, told me to drastically reduce the amount of time I spent on humane handling enforcement because I was finding too many problems.

I called my supervisor 1 day because I had a humane handling

issue and I wanted to talk to him about it, and he said that I needed to document that on an NR, which I did, draft NR. As the draft

NR reached the district office, then they had a fit. They berated me

on the phone for half an hour. The whole management staff of the

district office, they said there was no way I could have seen what

I actually did see. In the end, they told me I either had to transfer,

I would be terminated. I was told to immediately leave the plant,

39

to never come back. I was supposed to report for duty the next day

at a graveyard shift at a poultry plant in Arkansas.

I cover calf slaughter operations. I covered Bushway’s. On three

separate occasions I suspended inspection operations for egregious

humane handling events only to have that plant reopen, operations

continue.

You have to realize, these are baby calves. They are typically 1

to 7 days old, and they are trucked for long distances away, and

they come injured. They are weak. They are dehydrated. They

haven’t been fed in who knows how long. They have been at a sale

barn. They have been trucked maybe a day. Who knows how long?

And so they are weak and they are down and they are injured and

they can’t get up.

I have seen an angry animal handler swear at these cows, pick

up a downed calf. He would throw it like a football off the second

tier of a trailer. I have seen them drag them by the hind leg down

an unloading ramp. I have seen them drag them across holding

pens.

Not only are they trucked long distances, but sometimes they are

held overnight, and it always broke my heart. I would have to come

to work the next day. Plant employees would be carrying in the

dead bodies of these baby calves because they died of dehydration

and starvation.

I had a district office official come to my plant and he told the

plant manager they had to reduce the size of the stunning area because they were chasing the calves around with the stunner and

it is easy to mis-stun these calves. The plant manager, the owner

of Bushways, got very angry. He yelled at the district veterinary

medical specialist. He was doing the review. He said no, I’m not

going to do it. You can’t make me do it. I won’t do it. DVMS told

inspection personnel to disregard that regulation. Nothing was

done.

We do need an ombudsman’s office where we can go that people

will actually listen and care. We need whistleblower enhancement

laws. We need more field inspectors. But most of all, we need the

support of upper level management so we can fulfill our mission.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wyatt follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Mande, is there a connection, in your professional opinion, between humane handling and the safety of the food

which the people consume?

Mr. MANDE. I think the humane handling statute, one of the four

that we carry out, along with our other food safety statutes, plays

an important part in helping us not only ensure the humane treatment of animals, but ensuring food safety for the following reason:

all——

Mr. KUCINICH. I’m not asking for a bureaucratic answer. Would

you eat meat where the calves were treated like that? Would you

consume those products?

Mr. MANDE. I don’t think calves should ever be treated like that.

It is against the law.

Mr. KUCINICH. But would you consume meat that was treated

that way? Is the public health put in jeopardy if FSIS does not adequately enforce the Humane Slaughter Act?

Mr. MANDE. I think when companies violate the Humane Slaughter Act it is a demonstration that they don’t have control of their

processes, and if they don’t have control of the humane handling

processes it raises into question how they can have control of their

food safety processes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you say, Dr. Wyatt, that there are food

safety elements that are directly related to inhumane handling?

Dr. WYATT. Yes, for sure.

Mr. KUCINICH. Tell me.

Dr. WYATT. I would agree with Mr. Mande. If they are not following the humane handling practices, they are probably not following

their food safety program. We had some serious issues in food safety at Bushway, let alone the humane handling thing. We had some

very serious food safety issues there.

Mr. KUCINICH. I just think that people who are watching this

should have some understanding that it does matter how the animals are handled; that if they are not handled correctly there are

health issues that become attendant; is that true?

Dr. WYATT. Very true, Mr. Chairman. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, in the video clip we saw, Dr. Wyatt, there

is a scene where an FSIS inspector is speaking to Bushway employees who are skinning a calf while it is still alive, and he says, ‘‘If

Doc knew about this, he would shut you down.’’ Dr. Wyatt, isn’t it

true that you are the doc they are talking about?

Dr. WYATT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. And ultimately you did find out about such

abuses and your actions led to the suspension of operations at

Bushway; is that correct?

Dr. WYATT. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. And it wasn’t until the Humane Society sent an

undercover investigator in to film the horrible abuses you had tried

to stop that upper management at USDA ordered a criminal investigation and shut down the plant; is that correct?

Dr. WYATT. That is correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, Mr. Mande, in 2008 the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Field Operations at FSIS wrote to me to respond to the questions I had posed concerning FSIS’ treatment of

Dr. Wyatt at his previous posting in Oklahoma. At that time, Dr.

52

Wyatt had chosen to become a whistleblower after his concern

about slaughterhouse practices there, practices that were upheld by

the previous administration. In that response, FSIS made a number of disparaging comments about Dr. Wyatt and disparaged his

competency. It is very clear that the unfounded comments were intended for no other reason than to discredit him because he made

the courageous decision to be a whistleblower.

When I look at that slander, I look at the smear tactics, I look

at the bullying, it is very offensive.

As chairman of this investigative subcommittee, I am committed

to correcting the abuse of power by a high-ranking official. I want

everyone inside FSIS to understand that this is not acceptable.

Mr. Mande, Dr. Wyatt should be recognized as a principled man,

an exemplar of the highest standards that FSIS should be cultivating in all of its staff and supervisors.

Now, I understand that you didn’t oversee the agency when this

abuse of power took place, but you do now. There is no better way

for you to signal to all of the inspection staff, supervisors, and district management and to prove to Dr. Wyatt, himself, that you are

committed to leading FSIS in a new direction, no better way to do

that than if you would now take this opportunity to publicly commit to embrace individuals like Dr. Wyatt who, at great risk, report

abuses by the industry and even government. Will you do that?

What will you do? What do you think about what happened to Dr.

Wyatt, how he was smeared?

Mr. MANDE. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to commit to

making sure that when someone comes forward that witnesses violations of the law, and at great personal risk to themselves, sees

abuses of power, and brings that forward at their risk to us, that

we get to the bottom of those. We would not tolerate that type of

behavior, and make sure that we do everything in our camp, particularly in this case, as we saw today, the need to make sure that

we properly enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act is just

paramount. And when people come forward to help us do that, they

should be embraced, and that is what I commit to do in this administration.

Mr. KUCINICH. Was he smeared, Dr. Wyatt smeared, or was that

OK? I want to know. I want to know how you view this, as someone who manages the program, because you are setting the tone for

other inspectors. Come on, now. Be direct. Was he smeared?

Mr. MANDE. Mr. Chairman, I met Mr. Wyatt first before this

hearing for the first time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with the record of what was said

about him by an FSIS official?

Mr. MANDE. Dr. Wyatt came in and met with some other highlevel people in the agency and brought these things to our attention in terms of what he presented in his testimony, some of the

actions that he had witnessed and how he had done that, and because of that, because of his status as a whistleblower on those

things, we have begun an investigation. We are going to look into

his charges and make sure that, if there is information that we can

use to improve how we do humane slaughter, we are going to do

that.

53

Mr. KUCINICH. Why won’t you address how he was disparaged?

Why won’t you do that?

Mr. MANDE. Again, I don’t know. I met him today, and I found

his——

Mr. KUCINICH. No, this is professional. This isn’t whether he’s a

nice guy or what. This is about his professional work.

Now, I’m not going to let you off here. Why won’t you address

that? That concerns me. You are sending mixed signals here, Mr.

Mande.

Mr. MANDE. In this administration, under this Secretary, under

this role that I have the opportunity to play here, we would not tolerate inspectors who bring forward humane handling complaints

being in any way discouraged from that or mistreated for that or

retaliated against for that because of bringing those charges. I find

that unacceptable and we would not allow that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Cummings, you can proceed. I will come back

to you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How long have you been in the job, Mr. Mande?

Mr. MANDE. Since July.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Since July. And were you familiar with Dr.

Wyatt’s case at all before today?

Mr. MANDE. [No response.]

Mr. CUMMINGS. The chairman just asked you a series of questions, and I was just wondering were you familiar with the subject

matter that he just talked about before today.

Mr. MANDE. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how did you come to learn about that?

Mr. MANDE. After I saw the Humane Society videotape, I first

became aware of it, and I also became more aware of it when Dr.

Wyatt came and met with some other officials at the Department

and brought some of his concerns to us, and became aware of his

concerns and made sure that they are going to be looked into thoroughly and that we get to the bottom of it and take the correct

steps.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And when was that, that he came to you all?

Mr. MANDE. It was last fall. I wasn’t in that meeting so I don’t

know the exact date, but I would guess——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last fall? And tell me what you have done so far

in response to what you learned.

Mr. MANDE. Mr. Cummings, there are two events that need to

move forward together here. The first thing we learned was that

Bushway was behaving in a way that we just found completely unacceptable. Secretary Vilsack asked our Inspector General to begin

a criminal investigation of them, and that criminal investigation is

ongoing and Dr. Wyatt is part of it.

So initially there was a period of time——

Mr. CUMMINGS. That was referred to the Justice Department?

Mr. MANDE. It is through our Inspector General.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The Inspector General. All right.

Mr. MANDE. OK?

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right.

Mr. MANDE. At the same time then, of course, Dr. Wyatt came

to us with charges about how he had been treated that we also felt

needed to be investigated right away. But as part of the criminal

54

investigation we weren’t able to begin our separate investigation

until we reached a point in the criminal investigation where the

IG’s office enabled us to begin work on the charges that he raised.

So that only happened in the last month, and so we have begun

that investigation as well and we want to complete it as soon as

possible.

And, as I was talking to Dr. Wyatt before that, I think his experience, the examples he has brought forward, are extremely important to us in trying to design the humane handling program that

we need.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. I take it that this administration, I hope,

you just said a few minutes ago has a policy of dealing with things

a little different than before?

Mr. MANDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And can you tell us what the difference is, generally?

Mr. MANDE. I’m not the last administration, but I am seeing the

types of things that we wouldn’t stand for.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Mr. MANDE. First of all, in humane handling, we need to do a

better job.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Mr. MANDE. I think the reports that GAO has provided us will

help us do that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Speaking of that, you know, in the GAO report

it finds that the inspectors in charge want more training on whether incidents require enforcement action. And I am just wondering,

is the Department responsible for the training of individuals in the

various districts?

Mr. MANDE. Yes. We train everyone who comes in.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You gave some testimony that you sound like

you felt rather proud of the training that is taking place now. Are

you?

Mr. MANDE. I went through it, myself, and I found it enormously

helpful, and I found it enabled me to understand exactly the types

of things that we should be making sure don’t happen. I was talking to Dr. Wyatt before. I would enormously appreciate his experience in terms of being in the field and having witnessed the training and how it ends up in terms of the individual inspectors and

the work they do, and if there are ways we can improve that training I am open to that, as well.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Dr. Wyatt, did you have a comment? You look

like you want to say something.

Dr. WYATT. No. I would just prefer to wait. I’m fine now.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What training do FSIS inspectors receive to ensure that they are prepared to enforce the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act? What is the training?

Mr. MANDE. Every inspector comes in and gets, as part of their

initial training, classroom training in the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act, which goes over, for example, just every—there are

categories from unloading an animal off the truck, as they are

being moved toward slaughter, the stunning that must take place

to make them insensible before slaughter. So it falls into sort of

three broad areas in terms of the environment that the animal is

55

in, how the animal is treated in that environment, and the stunning procedure, which is so critical because to carry out the law the

animal must be insensible, not able to feel pain at the time of

slaughter. So they receive classroom training in all three of those

areas. They receive classroom training on the enforcement actions

they are to take, that whenever they witness a violation of the act

they need to write a noncompliance record, and whenever they see

an egregious violation, the cruel treatment of animals, for example

dragging an animal, what we witnessed in that videotape, that

they must in that situation suspend. They receive that.

Then they go, after they finish their classroom training, they

have a week to 2-week in-field training, as well, to take those lessons learned in the classroom and learn how to apply them in the

field.

And then we do refresher and updating training, as I described

we did last year and we will do again this year.

Mr. CUMMINGS. One last question. You know, one of the things

that is sort of shocking to the conscience, Mr. Mande, is what I said

in my opening statement. When you have an inspector standing

there observing certain things that he is supposed to be stopping,

and he is almost a cheering squad for wrongdoing. I mean, that,

to me, then that would make me wonder how deep does this go.

Is there money being paid? In other words, to allow those kinds of

things to happen?

I know we have an investigation going on with a lot of things,

probably, but we want inspectors to be inspectors. We want people

to do their jobs, and if they don’t want to do their jobs then they

shouldn’t be there, because the problem is when they fail to do

their jobs they fail the American people. I refuse to pay people to

kill me. That makes no sense. Or not to do their job. Is that getting

through to Secretary Vilsack and all the others?

Mr. MANDE. I share your outrage myself. And, as I said in my

testimony, I think Secretary Vilsack said it for all of us at USDA

and FSIS when he said that the deplorable scenes recorded in the

video are unequivocally unacceptable. And as I mentioned in my

testimony, as well, that is part of not only the criminal investigation we have done, that we have terminated one employee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Welch?

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Wyatt, thanks for your good work on this. I’m sorry that I

got here late, but what are the specific steps going forward you

think should be taken in order to try to avert this happening

again?

Dr. WYATT. There are several things. I mentioned several of

them, I think, in my written testimony. I think it is extremely critical that we get an ombudsman’s office in place, not only for humane handling but food safety, some place where the inspectors

can go that—if they have a weak supervisor that always grants appeals, you can’t go above your supervisor. You are stuck. So we

need that office where they have the freedom to go and somebody

will listen to them, care about what they are telling them, and actually go to somebody in authority that will also take care of that

problem. That is critical.

56

We need whistleblower law enforcement and enhancement. I

think it is important. The inspectors, it depends. A lot of small, medium, and large plants have a staffing shortage, and the fact that

the inspectors have a lot of work to do. They have a lot of work

to do. Most of their time is spent on carcass inspection duties, so

they don’t have time to do the humane slaughter enforcement. And

when they do have the time, as I explained in my testimony, they

shut off the line, they go do their humane slaughter. Well, plant

managers know where they are at. They are not going to do anything. So that is a problem.

I think we need for these chronic plants, rather than keep them

in suspension and abeyance time after time after time, take the

courage to suspend. Take away their grant of inspection. They

shouldn’t be operating. It takes courage to do that, and we do need

that.

We need fines in place. I think I mentioned that subpoena specifically actions sometimes can cause more inhumane handling of

animals.

Mr. WELCH. I noted your concern about suspension sometimes resulting in more harm to the animals than if you allowed it to continue under close supervision.

Mr. Mande, do you agree with that?

Mr. MANDE. Well, the point that sometimes, in order to be humane to the animals, it may make sense to allow a plant to continue in operation, of course under close supervision, rather than

impose a suspension where the animals are then put in further

jeopardy in very inhumane conditions.

Mr. WELCH. I do think that when it reaches a point where there

is an egregious action and there is a suspension, that suspension

is necessary until we can get the commitment from the company

to correct that. But I also agree with you, sir, that there are situations. The animals are there, and the length of that suspension

could be resulting in further harm to the animal while that suspension is ongoing.

Mr. WELCH. Dr. Wyatt, I understand the Vermont Department of

Agriculture was vigilant on this and cooperative?

Dr. WYATT. Yes. They were involved in the whole closure of the

plant, suspension of the plant.

Mr. WELCH. Yes. Mr. Alby was good to work with on this.

Dr. WYATT. Yes. Well, I didn’t have any personal contact with

him, so yes, as far as I know from what I have been told, yes.

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Shames, the Inspectors Union and consumer

groups have criticized FSIS for not filling vacancies in plants and

moving offline inspectors to fill gaps on the slaughter processing

lines. That shift has come at the expense of humane slaughter and

handling inspections. Are those criticisms substantiated?

Ms. SHAMES. We found that FSIS is working without a current

work force plan to——

Mr. KUCINICH. What does that mean?

Ms. SHAMES. It means that it really at this point has not identified the work force level and skills that it needs to ensure that it

is performing the humane handling activities that it should.

57

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Explain the implications of that for the consuming public.

Ms. SHAMES. What this means and what we found in an earlier

report is that there are districts that are short-staffed, and to

FSIS——

Mr. KUCINICH. What does that mean? What happens, though?

Ms. SHAMES. It means that food safety activities, humane handling activities may not be getting the due attention that they

ought to. In fact, in our survey, when we asked what the challenges

were for following humane handling, an overwhelming majority of

the inspectors at the large plants said that they are hard-pressed

to backfill. When there are vacancies, when people are taking their

leave, it means that humane handling oversight is shortchanged.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. So you found inconsistent enforcement across

the districts. You found that five districts overseeing 56 percent of

all livestock slaughtered nationwide did not suspend any plants

during the study period. What does that suggest about the adequacy of enforcement?

Ms. SHAMES. Well, it shows that there are inconsistencies. For

example, those five that did not conduct any suspensions were in

Des Moines and Chicago, and those happen to be the first- and second-highest volume slaughter districts that FSIS has.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you saw the tape. You saw the violations at

Bushway. Was that just an isolated incident and it could never

happen anywhere else?

Ms. SHAMES. What we know from our survey is that there are

inconsistencies across the board. We see it within plants in terms

of the various responses that we got, in terms of the enforcement

actions that would be taken. We saw that across districts. We saw

that over time.

Mr. KUCINICH. When there are inconsistencies, what happens?

Ms. SHAMES. Well, the inconsistency is deciding what action

ought to be taken when an inspector witnesses a humane violation.

Mr. KUCINICH. I mean, but at some point isn’t this a health

issue?

Ms. SHAMES. Yes. The downer animals roll around in feces, and

that can encourage or bring about E. coli. We know from the

Westland-Hallmark incident that there was a recall of the beef.

Over time, while there have been fewer recalls of beef, the quantities of the meat that has been recalled has actually grown. So

there is a connection there.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Now, Mr. Mande, what does USDA inspected

mean, then? You know, should the public have confidence in that

if you have so many deficiencies that are being pointed out by

GAO? You know, there is a stamp, USDA inspected. What does

that mean?

Mr. MANDE. It means something quite important for the public.

It is something they can have confidence in, and something we are

enormously grateful to the Congress in providing it to us. I had the

privilege before I came to FSIS to do food safety at the Food and

Drug Administration. What that mark of inspection provides is it

does not go on the food until our inspector can assure the food is

safe. You don’t have that in other food. Now, we did do——

58

Mr. KUCINICH. What if you don’t have enough inspectors? What

happens? What if you have deficiencies that GAO is pointing out?

What does USDA——

Mr. MANDE. I am listening and very interested in——

Mr. KUCINICH. What does it mean.

Mr. MANDE. Sorry. I am very interested in their findings and

looking into that, but, again, you know, Congress has provided us

extraordinary opportunity and tools at FSIS in how we do food

safety. We are required to do inspection of every animal livestock

before it is slaughtered. We are required to do carcass-by-carcass

inspection, every animal. We are required to be in every slaughter

plant every day.

Those are great tools that Congress has provided us to do that.

If we don’t——

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Shames——

Mr. MANDE [continuing]. Have enough inspectors to do it, then

the plant shuts down.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does that mean there is a public health issue

here?

Mr. MANDE. No. The plant shuts down, so I hear what she is saying and——

Mr. KUCINICH. How many plants have you shut down?

Mr. MANDE. If we don’t have someone who can——

Mr. KUCINICH. No, no. Name the plants that you have shut

down. Just name a number of plants that you have shut down.

Give me a list.

Mr. MANDE. We don’t, and it is because we do have enough inspectors.

Mr. KUCINICH. Pardon?

Mr. MANDE. If we don’t have adequate inspectors, if they are not

there to be able to examine every animal antemortem, if they are

not there to be able to do carcass-by-carcass inspection, that plant

can’t run, and we are very thankful to the Congress that it has provided us both that law and the resources each year to make sure

that we can do that.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying you don’t have inspectors then

they can’t run, but you do have inspectors and they do run?

Mr. MANDE. Say that again, sir? Sorry.

Mr. KUCINICH. That if you don’t have inspectors, the plants can’t

run.

Mr. MANDE. That is right.

Mr. KUCINICH. And so how many plants have been shut down?

Mr. MANDE. For that reason, none that I am aware of.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. You are short of inspectors——

Mr. MANDE. No, I didn’t say that, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. You have enough inspectors. Then why do you

have deficiencies?

Mr. MANDE. I am looking. I want to read the report carefully,

and because——

Mr. KUCINICH. You haven’t——

Mr. MANDE. Well, we didn’t see the final, but from the draft I

thought there was a lot of good information there that will help us

do a better job, and, you know, the President, with the Food Safety

Working Group that Secretary Vilsack, and the instruction he gave

59

me, when I came to the Department the reason I came back to

Government again to do this work is because of their commitment

to make sure that we provide safe food and humane handled animals. And so if there are lessons to be learned—but I do know, sir,

that one thing that we have is, having worked at FDA and others

where they have to go about food safety in a very different way,

but the way we are able to do it where Congress has, in the law,

required that we have inspectors in those plants continuously each

day and has provided us the resources to provide the inspectors is

an enormously powerful tool, and we have a commitment to the

public then to make sure that we are doing an outstanding job.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Shames, you have reviewed numerous noncompliance reports, other FSIS data. You have interviewed hundreds of inspectors. Based on your findings, do you think a slaughter plant owner faces a reasonable chance of suffering severe consequences for repeated abuses of animals and violations of the Humane Slaughter Act?

Ms. SHAMES. That is actually a recommendation that we made

in 2004, that FSIS’ guidance needs to be clearer in terms of when

an enforcement action should be taken. I think the Bushway example illustrates what we mean by this. There were three successive

suspensions at Bushway before more drastic action was taken. And

this is what we are getting at when we are saying that the guidance needs to be clearer in terms of when an action should be

taken.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me followup with that. Do you think FSIS has

in place the oversight and tracking capabilities necessary to know

whether or not the kind of violations we have seen at HallmarkWestland or at Bushway are isolated incidents?

Ms. SHAMES. Inspectors do keep track of the time that they

spend on humane handling activities. They do that in 15-minute

increments, and FSIS can report that. But what we are finding is—

and I think this is a rich source of information that FSIS has not

taken advantage of—is reading through the noncompliance reports,

themselves. This is a responsibility that has been delegated down

to the district level. We feel that if it were looked at from a departmental level that the anomalies, the inconsistencies that we just

described could help FSIS target the resources, target the training,

take those actions that would help better its performance in terms

of humane handling.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

I just have a few more questions here.

Dr. Wyatt, in your experience, what actions taken by your supervisors in management at FSIS have been the most counterproductive to the mission of enforcing the Humane Slaughter Act?

Dr. WYATT. The most counterproductive is they actually encourage the plant to obstruct the inspector’s work.

Mr. KUCINICH. They encourage the plant to do what? Would

you——

Dr. WYATT. They actually encourage, by not supporting the inspector when he takes an enforcement action, they are encouraging

60

the establishment for that action and further actions just to push

the line in terms of egregious humane handling or any humane

handling event or food safety. In my case, I was always shot down,

so to speak, by my supervisors. I would walk by a plant foreman;

they would laugh at me. I would go up to trim—I would give a rail

inspector his break. Plant foreman would come up and tell my

trimmer: This guy doesn’t know anything. Don’t trim what he tells

you. Just trim what you see. I mean, that is an example of the

most egregious action a supervisor can take, because when you

don’t support your inspectors you are just as guilty of breaking the

law as the establishment, in my view.

Mr. KUCINICH. With what you have gone through as a whistleblower, what did that USDA inspected label come to mean to you

when you looked at it after your experience? Tell us about that.

Dr. WYATT. That is a very good question. The vast majority of

our inspectors are terrific. The inspector at Bushway——

Mr. KUCINICH. They want to enforce the law.

Dr. WYATT. They do. They work very hard. They work very hard

under extreme difficult situations, circumstances: angry plant managers, the gamut. So they work very hard, so I am very confident

in that stamp of inspection. I disagree in the comment about the

staffing. When I was at Seaboard, we had to pull our offline inspection people online all the time. We were short-staffed all the time

at Seaboard. So there is a staffing problem.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. So what are the implications of short staffing? Why should the public be concerned about this?

Dr. WYATT. Because when you pull an inspector, an offline inspector online to fill an online vacancy, that offline task is not

being done. Most tasks are being put into the computer, not performed.

Mr. KUCINICH. What are those tasks?

Dr. WYATT. Humane handling, sanitation, operational sanitation,

check labeling, all kinds of things, HACCP, fecal contamination

checks, all kinds of tasks are not being done because that inspector

is filling another spot. The plant is operating, as he said. Sure,

they are operating, but they are short staffed. They don’t have the

staff to perform all the tasks that they are supposed to be doing.

Mr. KUCINICH. So what does FSIS need to do at the upper management level to do a better job? What do they need?

Dr. WYATT. You know, in my 18 years of experience I have never

seen a district manager, deputy district manager, ever visit a plant

in the field. We need to have those district managers, deputy district managers, out of the office visiting the plant, talking to the

inspectors. They don’t even know the names of most of their inspectors. They need to be out in the field talking to people rather than

sitting in the office. That is what they need to do, in my view.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the witnesses for being here now.

A number of things have been said. I have been watching Mr.

Mande try to get into the response here. Is there anything you

want to say to respond to anything that has been said?

Mr. MANDE. No, thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Given the seriousness of the FSIS’ role in assuring the safety of the food consumed by the American people, this

61

subcommittee will maintain an active role of oversight of your division.

I want to thank Ms. Shames for the report, which I think will

provide some guidance.

I know you will get a chance to get into in depth, Mr. Mande.

I hope you will look at it carefully.

And Dr. Wyatt, the country really owes you a debt of gratitude.

You put your career on the line just to do the right thing. It is not

easy for whistleblowers to take on a bureaucracy, a Federal establishment. You knew the risks, and you took the risks. Because of

you, there are going to be established metrics to assure that the

public’s consumption of certain types of food is going to be more

rigorously inspected and that there will be a little bit better assurance, a little more public confidence in the process. So it is people

like you who are in a very proud tradition of individuals, good

Americans who came forward and did the right thing, even when

it was against their own personal interest. So this committee is

quite appreciative of your actions. I think that the Department of

Agriculture owes you a public apology. I want to thank you for

being here.

I want to thank the witnesses. This first panel is dismissed, and

we are now going to go immediately to the second panel.

Dr. WYATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. As they are moving toward the table, I am going

to make some introductions so we can get right into this.

Mr. Stanley Painter is the chairman of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions of the American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL–CIO. Prior to this he served for 24

years as a USDA inspector, working in both poultry and red meat.

He has held other positions in the Joint Council of Food Inspection

Local Unions, including serving as the local president and vice

president for Alabama and the Southern Council president.

Mr. Bev Eggleston is the owner and founder of Ecofriendly Foods

LLC in Moneta, VA, a small slaughter operation serving family

farms in Virginia and the mid-Atlantic region. Mr. Eggleston is an

advocate for and a practitioner of small, ethical family farming and

raising pasture-fed animals. He raises, processes, markets, and distributes grass-fed beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and eggs at farmers’

markets, home buying clubs, and many restaurants in New York

City, Washington, DC, and elsewhere.

Mr. Wayne Pacelle is president and chief executive officer of the

Humane Society of the United States, which is the Nation’s largest

animal protection organization, with 11 million members and constituents. He is our final witness. He served the organization in a

variety of positions since 1994, and in his time as president and

CEO he has overseen several successful mergers of the Humane

Society with other animal protection organizations. In the last decade, Mr. Pacelle and the Humane Society have worked for the passage of more than 500 new State laws and 25 Federal statutes to

protect animals.

To the witnesses, it is the policy of our subcommittee and the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all

witnesses before they testify.

[Witnesses sworn.]

62

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that

each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Painter, you are our first witness on the panel. As I indicated on the other panel, keep your testimony under 5 minutes in

length. Your entire written statement will be included in the record

of this hearing. I ask that you proceed right now. Thank you.

STATEMENTS OF STANLEY PAINTER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL

JOINT COUNCIL OF FOOD INSPECTION LOCALS, AMERICAN

FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; BEV EGGLESTON, OWNER, ECOFRIENDLY FOODS LLC; AND WAYNE

PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE

UNITED STATES

STATEMENT OF STANLEY PAINTER

Mr. PAINTER. Yes, sir. I would like to start out by saying that

I am here, although as an FSIS employee, I am here representing

my union and the food inspectors.

Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member Jordan, and members of

the subcommittee, my name is Stan Painter and I am the chairman

of the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, which is

affiliated with American Federation of Government Employees. I

would like to thank you for inviting us to participate in today’s important hearing on the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

The National Joint Council represents some 6,500 non-supervisory meat, poultry, and egg products inspectors who work for

FSIS. We provide continuous inspection to some 6,300 domestic

food establishments and 130 import establishments to ensure the

safety and wholesomeness of products covered by the Federal Meat

Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg

Products Inspection Act.

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: our responsibilities also include enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. As

you know, the HMSA requires that livestock, before being slaughtered, are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot

or electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective.

My union strongly supports enforcement of this act, and we take

our responsibilities under this act very seriously.

There are problems enforcing the act. Unfortunately, these problems with enforcing the act lie in what I have determined to be

three categories: FSIS does not make enforcement of the act the

priority; there are just not enough FSIS inspectors to keep up with

the volume of livestock going to slaughter in the enforcement of the

act and all of the other food should laws and regulations; there is

confusion as to what latitude FSIS inspectors have to enforce the

act.

Now, with regard to the first area, that is, No. 1, FSIS does not

make enforcement of the act a priority. A good example of this is

the basic training of the inspectors to receive and carry out their

responsibilities. This basic training just does not make the enforcement of the act a priority. I can speak from direct experience, since

this past July I took a basic food safety regulatory essentials FSRE

training that the agency offers to the inspectors. The instructor at

63

the training spent only a few minutes out of the 13 days explaining

the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

Another example, when the Westland-Hallmark scandal broke in

2008, the agency promised Congress that FSIS inspectors would receive additional training to enforce the provisions of the act; however, all we received is a little online training module that we could

access through the internet to refresh our knowledge about the responsibilities of the act, and there was no followup by the agency

management to emphasize the importance in the enforcement of

the act.

Second, there is just not enough inspectors to keep up with the

large volume of livestock going through slaughter to enforce the act

and all food safety laws and regulations. We are still experiencing

serious staffing shortages in various parts of the country. I do not

have access to the staffing numbers for 2009, but through a Freedom of Information Act request I have obtained the 2008 staffing

numbers and have attached them with my written testimony. You

will note that some FSIS regions are experiencing double digit vacancy rates, especially the Albany district. The agency has worked

in recent years to close the vacancy gap, but they are experiencing

problems with, one, replacing the large number of retiring FSIS inspectors, and, two, closing the chronic staffing shortages which that

region has suffered for years.

No. 3, third and finally, there is confusion as to what latitude

FSIS inspectors have to enforce the act. As a result of congressional concerns about the act’s enforcement, the agency a few years

ago began hiring district veterinary medical specialists. They are

responsible for acting as a resource to inspectors on the act in each

of the 15 districts. Unfortunately, we rarely see the veterinary specialists visiting the plant. They are rarely in the field. We are hamstrung by our supervisors, who are either not qualified to do their

jobs, unwilling to let us do our jobs, or are not committed to making animal welfare a priority, either in FSIS-regulated facilities or

in the private lives.

In closing, I want to thank you again for inviting us to participate in this important hearing. I will be happy to answer any of

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Painter follows:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Eggleston, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF BEV EGGLESTON

Mr. EGGLESTON. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking

Member Jordan, and members of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my testimony

in this hearing regarding the enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act.

I am Bev Eggleston, founder and president of Ecofriendly Foods,

located in Moneta, VA. For 7 years our company has operated a

USDA-inspected, small-scale, multi-species certified humane

slaughter plant serving dozens of livestock producers, and it is in

this capacity that I appear before you and the committee today.

In April 2008 I appeared before this subcommittee as the only

person doing what I do. The ability for my business to survive was

in question, but today I am here to tell you that the business has

not only survived, but it has thrived, despite many economic challenges. With the support of this subcommittee and the agriculture

economies of many communities throughout the United States, we

could benefit from the expansion of a safe, humane, and transparent model.

The trend in the meat packing industry is that big guys are getting bigger and the small guys are disappearing. This trend toward

consolidation raises several important issues for this oversight committee and should serve as a basis for the congressional action

going forward.

First, there are significant concerns in the safety of our meat

supply. The largest beef, pork, and poultry processors operate at

high volume and high speed to present many concerns. When hundreds of animals per hour are being processed, it is extremely challenging for inspectors to do their job and ensure the safety of our

Nation’s food.

Furthermore, when the meat of thousands of cows are mixed into

single batches of ground beef, consumers are put at risk. The industry’s only answer is to cook everything until it is well done, and

not everybody will. This only puts a band-aid over the real problem.

At Ecofriendly Foods’ processing facility we only use one cow to

make a single batch of ground beef. By not mixing our animals, we

inherently minimize the potential for spreading any bacteria and

contamination. Plus, because our ground beef comes from just one

cow, and if there was a batch of contaminated meat—which there

never has been—it would be a small quantity and thus small exposure to consumers, and it would be also easily traceable.

The size and frequency and the public health impact of numerous

product recalls and food-borne illness outbreaks trace the products

from the Nation’s largest packing operations, are testimonial to

these problems.

Second, animal welfare. Not only does the high volume and speed

of large processing plants affect Federal inspectors’ ability to ensure the safety of our Nation’s food, but also inhibits their ability

to comply with the Humane Slaughter Act. Furthermore, we beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65127.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
73

lieve that there are serious animal welfare issues not being addressed in the Humane Slaughter Act.

American consumers are increasingly sensitive and insistent

upon higher standards of welfare for the Nation’s food animals. At

Ecofriendly Foods, we respect the animals at all stages of its life,

not just the antemortem stage addressed in the Humane Slaughter

Act. Our animals are always treated humanely and are never subjected to any painful or stressful treatment. This attention to the

welfare of our animals is reflected not just on our farms, but also

on our loading, hauling, and off-loading techniques, all the way

through our very thoughtful method of harvesting and slaughtering.

Without the availability of regional and local packing plants, too

many animals must travel thousands of miles to be processed, and

the problem endemic to the large plants are thus exacerbated.

At Ecofriendly Foods we purchase livestock from over 40 small

family diversified farms. Few, if any, of them would be able to continue in their livestock business if they did not have access to our

plant and the premium prices we offer.

There is a solution that not only mitigates food safety problems

inherent in our high-volume industrial meat packing system, but

that also addresses the humane handling challenges mentioned.

This solution is to widely replicate a model of small, regional,

USDA-inspected, multi-species slaughter plants. What Ecofriendly

has accomplished in the southwestern part of Virginia has brought

many benefits to our family farms and the communities in which

they live.

Here is what I believe Congress can do to address the concerns

related to the consolidation of meat packing systems. First, there

should be financial assistance in the form of low-cost loans and

grants for small-scale processing facilities that serve local communities.

Second, in the interest of this wise allocation of the potential

funding, we believe Congress should immediately authorize a rural

economic impact study.

Third, we need Congress to direct USDA to provide technical assistance to small-scale producers and processing facilities and to

educate the inspectors on the unique aspects to these small-scale

processing plants’ needs.

Finally, the USDA has a one-size-fits-all to meat processing regulations that does not make sense. We need Congress to authorize

an examination of current USDA regulations as they apply to

small-scale processing facilities and to implement a new and distinct set of standards where appropriate.

Ideally, there should be several, if not dozens, of these small,

local-operating slaughter facilities available to farmers in every

State and region. This would sustain the current growth of smallscale livestock raising and encourage a new generation of farmers

to become producing members of our agricultural sector. The economic benefits to rural America in such investment would be substantial.

Our total gross sales during the implementation of our model

thus far is $3.1 million; $1.5 million has gone straight into the

74

pockets of our producers. This directly stimulates their economies

and jobs.

In summary, Ecofriendly Foods’ growth of 326 percent since 2006

strengthens my belief that the impacts and replication of such successful small-scale meat processing facilities across our country

could be huge. Impacts could include the decrease of the cost of our

Nation’s health care system and the carbon footprint, as well as increase our homeland security, our environmental protection, our

rural economic stimulus, and humane treatment of animals. Growing American concerns of these issues are clear indicators that consumers desire to know what is on the end of their fork.

I am fully prepared to discuss further my experience in these

topics, and I kindly thank you for your time and attention.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eggleston follows:]

75

76

77

78

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Eggleston.

Mr. Pacelle, you may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE

Mr. PACELLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting

me to testify. I want to thank you for your commitment to animal

welfare. I want to thank you also for continuing on with the examination of this important issue, this being the second hearing that

you as chairman have instructed proceed.

I will tell you that this is a very distressing issue for me personally. We have been really trying to work on this issue at the Humane Society of the United States from a variety of perspectives.

We want to see USDA and FSIS succeed, and we have been working hard in Congress to see that the Agriculture Appropriations

Committee and, of course, the entire Congress provide sufficient

funding for enforcement.

We have been distressed at the job that has been done through

the years, and I do want to thank all of the witnesses here today

for their testimony. I have learned a lot from it. And I do want to

thank in particular Dr. Wyatt for stepping up, and I concur with

your view that he acted courageously in stepping up and highlighting problems that, unfortunately, from our vantage point appear to

be chronic. These are not just bad apples; they are systemic problems.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we are not a law enforcement

agency. We are lucky to have so many millions of Americans support us. But we work on all animal issues and we can’t investigate

every problem of animal cruelty and all of the harmful human/animal interactions in this country, but we have looked a few times

at slaughter plants and we have looked at intermediate transport

points for animals like stockyards and auctions and, Mr. Chairman,

every time we have looked we have found problems, not just the

Hallmark-Westland plant where the abuses were egregious and

where FSIS had a full complement of inspectors present, but also

at Bushway. And in between we looked at five auctions and stockyards in four different States. At every turn we found problems.

We found mishandling of animals. We found downer animals being

tormented. We found widespread use of electric shock, misuse of

heavy machinery such as fork lifts. So many different problems

that we have come to see. We desperately want to see progress in

these areas.

We worked with Senator Byrd and other Members of Congress

to push for the district veterinary medical specialists to be hired,

and we saw that this was an opportunity to layer over the inspectors and to really put more attention on this problem. But we have

seen in too many cases it has been more bureaucracy and that

their attention has been diverted to other matters, not to humane

handling issues, but to some of their other important responsibilities.

But we believe that humane handling should be core to what the

agency does. It shouldn’t be an adjunct. It shouldn’t be an occasional attention grabber. It should be part of the daily responsibility.

79

We are very distressed in the past about high-level officials suppressing proper enforcement, because that is essentially what Dr.

Wyatt testified about today is that his inspections—he’s the thin

blue line, if you will, at the plants, and when he tried to enforce

the law that information was suppressed and he was penalized.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I have had the pleasure of

speaking with a number of senior USDA officials in this new administration. I am encouraged by Secretary Vilsack’s commitment

to these issues. I was pleased to hear about Mr. Mande’s comments, and we look forward to working with them. I want to thank

them for immediately shutting down the plant once we provided

the investigative footage.

But now we have an opportunity for real reform, and just shutting down the plant is insufficient. We have a moment now to really address these issues in a fundamental way.

I am pleased to hear about the humane handling enforcement coordinator that Mr. Mande mentioned. That is important.

I want to associate the Humane Society with Dr. Wyatt’s comment about the importance of an ombudsman to provide inspectors

with an avenue to take their concerns and grievances and to help

ensure that they are able to carry out their responsibilities for both

food safety and humane enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I really do believe that we need a mobile review

team. Humane Society undercover investigators served that function by going undercover and getting behind the scenes and figuring out what’s going on and documenting. USDA and FSIS should

have its own mobile investigations unit. They should be transparent at times, but even undercover, as necessary, to sniff out

problems that exist.

Of course, inspectors who aren’t doing their jobs should be fired.

They should not be allowed to continue in this important role, because we are not just talking about billions of animals, we are talking about hundreds of millions of American consumers. What is

greater, in terms of the animal welfare suffering quotients and the

human suffering quotient, than our food supply? It is a staggering

responsibility, and there should be a zero tolerance policy for failures in terms of the performance of the inspectors and the agency.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to wrap up, but I just want to mention

a few things briefly in terms of other policy reforms, not just enforcement but policy reforms.

One is there is still a loophole in the Federal downer law. These

calves are legally held in some ways for these purposes, so there

is a loophole that allows downer calves to be set aside and reevaluated for——

Mr. KUCINICH. What do you mean by downer?

Mr. PACELLE. Downer animals are non-ambulatory livestock.

They are animals who are unable to stand and to walk, and in

March the Obama administration closed the loophole on the downer issues and some of that came to light through our HallmarkWestland investigation. But there is still a problem in enforcement,

because these young male calves that are literally born just a few

days before are sent to these plants, and if they are under a certain

size they can be set aside and reevaluated for possible slaughter.

80

We think that is a problem. We have petitioned the USDA. We

want the USDA to close that additional loophole.

We also want to end the transport of baby calves to slaughter.

As Dr. Wyatt said, these animals are just coming from the womb.

They are not getting fed. They are babies. They are weak. And they

are in long-distance transport, and then they are being occasionally, as we saw, mishandled at these facilities.

I think, Mr. Chairman, finally, the biggest problem is that 95

percent of all animals slaughtered for food in the United States are

not covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. All poultry

are entirely excluded. Nine billion animals raised for food in the

United States are not covered under the Humane Methods of

Slaughter Act because they have been carved out. It is time for the

Congress to close that loophole. We do believe that the Agriculture

Secretary can designate poultry an amenable species and include

them under the protections, but the Congress can act, as well.

Those are critical reforms.

We thank you for the opportunity of testifying here today and

thank you for your commitment to this issue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Pacelle.

Mr. Painter, in your testimony you said that in 2009 you oversaw

the slaughter or we oversaw the slaughter and processing of 112

million domestic head of livestock and 6.7 billion domestic poultry

animals. Are there enough inspectors to be able to ensure that the

food which the American people are consuming is adequately inspected, and so fit for consumption, so they can have confidence

that what they eat they are going to be safe?

Mr. PAINTER. No, sir. Not only is there not enough inspectors,

there is not the ability to do the job.

We actually have a provision in our contract, our national contract. Article 5, section 15, states that it is conflicting orders. We

actually had to put that provision in the contract because we were

getting so many different orders in the field. You know, you are to

follow the last instructions given. So it changes from day to day.

Mr. KUCINICH. In your prepared testimony, you said that enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act is not a priority of the agency

to enforce. What are the implications of that, in your mind as

someone who has worked as an inspector? What happens if the Humane Slaughter act is not enforced?

Mr. PAINTER. You know, from what we are seeing in the field,

it is just not a big issue. And it was said earlier——

Mr. KUCINICH. It is not what?

Mr. PAINTER. It is not a big issue. I mean, it is a routine thing.

Let’s go out. Let’s do antemortem and let’s run back in the plant.

That is——

Mr. KUCINICH. You are saying that management hasn’t made it

a big deal?

Mr. PAINTER. Management has not made it——

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you think it is a serious thing?

Mr. PAINTER. I do. I do.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why?

Mr. PAINTER. A number of things have brought out. Other than

the cruelty to the animals, it certainly has a food safety aspect, as

well, which has been brought out before, you know. Our concerns

are——

Mr. KUCINICH. If you knew for sure that beef or poultry that was

presented to you for consumption was not properly inspected and

the Humane Slaughter Act was not enforced, would you have any

misgivings about consuming such beef or poultry?

Mr. PAINTER. Certainly.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why?

Mr. PAINTER. Well, No. 1, there is an ethical portion that I think

that we are missing as agency employees. We should have a high

ethical standard. I am not saying that the inspectors don’t have a

high ethical standard; they do. But we get so much going on from

our management. And let me give an example of what is going on.

Mr. KUCINICH. What about the second thing? Tell me about the

health issues.

Mr. PAINTER. Well, you know, as mentioned earlier, you have

downer animals that are laying in their own feces, and in the process you can get E. coli contamination from animals that have been

lying in their own feces. An animal that——

91

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Mande, who was up here earlier—is Mr.

Mande still here? He seemed to imply that this is just an isolated

case. Even the way the Department handled it, they condemned it

quickly, as they should. Is it an isolated case as far as you are concerned?

Mr. PAINTER. I will take a quote from a former Governor of Alabama: it is not the first time it happened; it is just the first time

they got caught. So I have no reason to believe it is an isolated case

because, as mentioned earlier, part of the time it is a staffing issue.

Mr. Mande mentioned that the slaughter lines, according to the

Meat Inspection Act, they are supposed to be manned. You are supposed to have bird-by-bird and carcass-by-carcass inspection. But

when you meet that, part of the time you don’t meet the guidelines

for other provisions.

Mr. KUCINICH. I noted with interest the figures that you produced for this committee about the in-plant inspection vacancy

rate; in other words, how many inspectors you are short, right?

Mr. PAINTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. Am I correct in saying that Des Moines and Chicago are two of the largest processing areas?

Mr. PAINTER. They are.

Mr. KUCINICH. And what percentage of the livestock that is being

processed goes through those areas?

Mr. PAINTER. I am going to estimate probably about a half that

go through the Nation.

Mr. KUCINICH. So if you have in Des Moines from February 2008

to September 2008, if you have consistent double digit deficiencies,

what does that mean?

Mr. PAINTER. That means the slaughter line is going to be staffed

and the offline duties are going to go by the wayside, such as the

antemortem and humane slaughter.

Mr. KUCINICH. And if you have in Chicago, which is the other

major packing and slaughter and processing, double digit in-plant

inspection vacancy rates from April 2008 through September 2008,

that means the same thing, I take it, right?

Mr. PAINTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. And what about in Albany? Albany, for some reason, is very high, 17.6 percent. It started in February 2008 to 16.3

percent September 2008. What do they process in Albany? Do you

remember offhand?

Mr. PAINTER. Mainly Albany is processing areas. You have, of

course, the Albany district covers the plant in Vermont that has

been a focus of this meeting, but——

Mr. KUCINICH. So would you say there could be a connection between then the adverse impact on the animals with respect to enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act on one hand, questions of

food safety on another, connected directly to not having enough inspectors?

Mr. PAINTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Now, Mr. Pacelle, you have testified that everywhere you have sent your inspectors they found animal abuses

and legal violations. So you would dispute then the implication that

when we saw quick action against, let’s say, Bushway, that was

just an isolated incident?

92

Mr. PACELLE. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, not only if you are

seven for seven—if you have seven investigations at facilities,

stockyards or slaughter plants, and you find problems in every one,

it doesn’t really take a person with a lot of insight to come to the

conclusion that there is probably a systemic problem.

I think compounding that, at Hallmark, going back to that investigation of 2008 in Chino, CA, USDA had named Hallmark the supplier of the year as recently as 2005, and they had just touched—

there were a couple of citations for——

Mr. KUCINICH. Weren’t they supplying beef for the school lunch

program?

Mr. PACELLE. Yes. They were the No. 2 supplier to the National

School Lunch Program.

Mr. KUCINICH. And isn’t that why a recall was established once

it was revealed what the poor sanitation practices that existed?

Mr. PACELLE. I think the concern was that these were downer

calves. This was a cull calf slaughter plant. These were spent dairy

cows. Many of them were incapable of walking. And the data from

Europe where people have died as a consequence of Mad Cow Disease showed that non-ambulatory cattle are 48 times more likely

to have Mad Cow Disease, or BSE, than ambulatory cattle.

And then Mr. Painter mentioned the issue of fecal contamination. These animals are on the ground and they are wallowing in

manure, and that can contaminate the machinery.

Mr. KUCINICH. You send all these inspectors out. I mean, were

your inspectors acting on tips? Were they just lucky to find this,

or do you think that the size of the problem of poor enforcement

of animal handling laws is a much bigger problem than we might

really want to face?

Mr. PACELLE. Let me just say that at Hallmark-Westland there

were five workers for FSIS, and that plant got consistently high

ratings, and I believe there were 17 third-party audits that the

company had paid for and always got the highest ratings. We had

one guy who was an animal handler, so he was helping to offload

the animals and then he would move them toward the slaughter

area, and he was there for 6 weeks and documented case after case

of terrible abuses.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the issue is that—I mean, there are

a couple of problems. Historically speaking, USDA has been too

close to the meat industry. They have been a promoter of the industry. They haven’t been a regulator. It has just become too incestuous, and this is what we are hoping that Secretary Vilsack continues in his efforts to really have a proper regulatory function.

I also want to mention that we have problems with the law,

itself. The tool that the inspectors have is to shut down the plant.

Under the Federal law, there are no criminal penalties for serious

abuses. That is why we had to go to the local authorities, to the

district attorney. And then we also think there should be fines. I

mean, these companies are treating these animals like meat machines.

Mr. KUCINICH. Right. And I would say that our subcommittee

looks forward to working with you in drafting legislation that can

make for more effective enforcement.

93

I just want to ask a question that I keep hammering away at

here. The connection between non-compliance of humane animal

handling laws and food safety, comment on that, please.

Mr. PACELLE. Well, I think the issue of downers, you know, was

debated for 20 years in this Congress, and the meat industry

fought it every step of the way. We warned that a downer cow was

going to be found with Mad Cow Disease, and that is exactly what

happened in 2003 at a slaughter plant in Washington State. What

resulted was not only a food safety crisis, but more than 50 nations

closed their markets to U.S.-produced beef, and that had a multibillion-dollar impact. There was a study done that said it was a $12

billion impact. So the industry was penny wise and pound foolish.

They are trying to extract every dime from the most hapless and

suffering animals by pushing them ahead into the process to kill

them, and they are potentially sacrificing—I mean, they are certainly sacrificing the well-being of those animals, but also the public. I quoted that information. We know E. coli, Mad Cow Disease,

other problems are associated with the mistreatment and mishandling of animals.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think it is really important that message gets

out to the public, because if they think this is just a matter of people who have sympathy for animals that somebody is going to eat

anyway, and so who cares, there is a direct connection between the

enforcement of animal handling laws and food safety. If people understand that, they should take an interest in how those animals

are treated.

Mr. PACELLE. And it is more than just at the slaughter plants.

We are dosing animals on factory farms with antibiotics for nontherapeutic reasons. They are in over-crowded environments. Because the farms are so crowded, they know the animals are going

to get sick, so they try to dose them with antibiotics which leads

to antibiotic resistant bacteria. These are the same classes of antibiotics that we use when children are sick or adults are sick.

Mr. KUCINICH. I think you have made another appearance as the

confined animal feeding operations, a serious issue for public safety, as well as the humane treatment of the animals.

Mr. PACELLE. And those are the animals coming to the slaughter

houses.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me do this. We are going to wrap this up in

a minute, but I have just a few questions of Mr. Eggleston.

As you note in your testimony, the slaughterhouse industry is

getting more and more concentrated into larger and larger companies. Is there a connection between the way we regulate the industry and increasing concentration of it? And are bigger companies

more adept in thriving under the specific regulations we have?

Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think that in general

the scale in which the industry has built itself stands directly in

the way, as my testimony stated, for inspectors to do their job. I

just think there is too many animals, too high a pace for them to

actually get their eyes wrapped around each animal to make sure

that animal is conducive for harvest or slaughter.

The consolidation of the industry is why I felt like we had to do

something different. If I felt like the industry was sound and appropriate in their oversight as well as their production, I wouldn’t

94

have had to go out and prove an almost unimaginable task of starting a small alternative parallel food system. So from farm to plate

we are in control of every single step. That is a model that I think

brings an alternative to the huge consolidation. That consolidation

is a threat to every American consumer because of the inability to

make sure that every single animal is fit.

Much like we have heard today in these testimonies, it is an incredibly uncomfortable environment to be put in a position as an

inspector to have to oversee the wholesome and humane status

that comes with that legend.

Mr. KUCINICH. Finally, what do your consumers tell you about

the pre-slaughter handling of the animals they are consuming, and

does it matter to them?

Mr. EGGLESTON. It definitely does matter. I know my customers

on an individual basis. I speak to hundreds of them every week.

We have been doing this for a decade. We also took some video

clips of our customers to let them express to you—I will make that

available to your committee.

Mr. KUCINICH. We would appreciate that. And I want to thank

the witnesses and just make some closing remarks here.

I want to go back to the previous panel and tell Dr. Wyatt how

much we appreciate the fact that your courage resulted in us being

able to bring this forward.

I want to let Mr. Painter know that we know there are a lot of

good people working for the USDA, and this subcommittee just

wants to make sure that those people who really want to do their

job can do it and aren’t taking the wrong cues from upper-line

management, just so you know. We appreciate the work that you

are doing.

Mr. Eggleston, you are testimony that there are producers who

are doing the right thing and they want to do the right thing. They

want to set high standards.

And Mr. Pacelle, the public owes you and the Humane Society

a debt of gratitude for taking the risks and sending inspectors undercover to be able to show what is really happening so we break

this myth of everything is just fine and no one has to worry about

the food they consume. It is OK because it has that stamp on there.

You have really performed a public service, and as chairman of this

subcommittee I really appreciate it.

We are going to maintain an ongoing interest in this issue, so as

you get information, the Humane Society does any investigations,

you can come forward and we will look at it. And the same thing,

Mr. Painter. If you get information, if there are whistleblowers,

people trying to do the right thing, they are getting hammered, if

that still happens—and it may not under the new administration—

you can bring that forward to this subcommittee.

I just want to make a final personal comment, and that is, as

chairman of this subcommittee, I have conducted this hearing in a

way that has been impartial, but, you know, I don’t eat meat. I

don’t eat chicken. I don’t eat fish. Now, I don’t feel that I have a

right to tell people what to eat, but I don’t do that. The Humane

Slaughter Act, Mr. Pacelle, I think is an oxymoron, a contradiction

in terms. However, one thing I will guarantee you, that for those

Americans who do consume those food products and who rely on

95

the Government to make sure that those products are safe, this

subcommittee will relentlessly pursue the food safety issues, and

the industry can count on that.

This is the Domestic Policy Subcommittee. I am Congressman

Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the subcommittee.

Today’s hearing has been ‘‘Continuing Problems in USDA’s Enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.’’

I want to thank all the witnesses in both panels. I want to thank

those in attendance and those who are watching.

This committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

Æ