USDA 

iiiiii United States Department of Agriculture 

Electronically Submitted on March 13, 2024 

FedEx Tracking: 7755 2921 6656 

March 13, 2024 

Mr. Thomas Gilbe1t III, Vice President 

Herring Brothers, Inc. (Est. M9760/P-9760) 

350 Water Street 

Guilford, Maine 04443 

heningbros@hotmail.com 

Ph: (207) 876-2631 

NOTICE OF SUSPENSION 

Attention: Thomas Gilbe1t III, Vice President 

This letter se1ves as official notification by the Food Safety and Inspection Se1vice (PSIS) 

of our decision to withhold the federal marks of inspection and suspend the assignment of 

Inspection Program Personnel (IPP) at Herring Brothers, Inc., establishment M-9760/P9760, located at 350 Water Street, Guilford, Maine 04443. This letter follows verbal 

notification of the suspension action, provided by Dr. Chelsea Buckley, Deputy District 

Manager (DDM) to Thomas Gilbert III, Vice President, at approximately 1212 hours on 

March 13, 2024. This action includes the Pork (swine) Slaughter Hazard Analysis Critical 

Control Point (HACCP) process employed at your establishment. 

The decision to institute this enforcement action is in accordance with Title 9 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CPR), Rules of Practice 500.3(b), based on the detennination that 

your establishment did not handle or slaughter animals humanely. The evidence 

demonstrates failure to comply with the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 

603), the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), and the 

regulat01y requirements (9 CPR Pait 313). 

Background/ Authority 

The FMIA (21 USC 601 et seq.) provides it is essential to the public interest that the health 

and welfare of consumers be protected, by assuring meat products distributed to them are 

wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, and labeled. The Act gives PSIS the 

authority, as designated by the Secretaiy of Agriculture, to prescribe mies and regulations 

describing sanitation requirements for inspected establishments and provide FSIS program 

personnel the authority to refuse to allow meat/meat food products to be marked, labeled, 

stamped, or tagged as inspected and passed, to prevent the entiy of adulterated products 

into commerce. Furthe1more, the FMIA provides FSIS the authority to appoint inspectors 

to examine ai1d inspect the method by which livestock ai-e slaughtered and handled at 

slaughtering establishments. 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 1 of 6 
The HMSA provides that Congress finds that the use of humane methods in the slaughter 

of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for 

persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and 

economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, 

processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and 

livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce. It is therefore declared to be the 

policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock 

in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods. 

Under the authority of the Acts, FSIS has prescribed rules and regulations required for 

establishments slaughtering and handling livestock, as required by 9 CFR Part 313. FSIS 

has also developed the Rules of Practice regarding administrative enforcement, 9 CFR Part 

500. The Rules of Practice describe the types of enforcement actions that FSIS may take 

and include procedures for taking a withholding action and/or suspension, with or without 

prior notification, and for filing a complaint to withdraw a grant of inspection. Specifically, 

9 CFR 500.3(b) states that FSIS may impose a suspension without providing prior 

notification due to handling or slaughtering of animals inhumanely. 

Findings/Basis for Action 

On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, at approximately 0740 hours during hog slaughter 

operations at Herring Brothers, Inc., establishment M9760, IPP observed the following 

non-compliance. 

A slaughter employee drove a market swine into the kill box, secured the box, and applied 

water to the back of the animal's neck per protocol. The operator acquired, applied, then 

deployed the (electric) hog stunner to the animal, activating the apparatus until the timed 

trigger stopped the flow of current, while the animal concurrently collapsed to the floor of 

the box. The operator returned the stunner wand and opened the box door to remove the 

unconscious hog from the box. During this time, as the operator retrieved the captive bolt, 

the animal began audibly breathing louder than might typically be observed. In these 

moments, the operator approached with the captive bolt device and applied a stun from the 

bolt. As the operator returned the captive bolt, and proceeded to attempt to shackle the 

animal, the hog steadily and rapidly increased leg movements as a marked increase of 

audible, loud, rhythmic gasping was heard. The operator attempted to apply the shackle; 

however, the increasing leg thrashing of the animal caused the shackle chain to fly off, and 

the animal scrambled to right itself, attempting to walk. The ever-increasing ambulatory 

efforts (of the animal) led to it scrambling in a walk-stumble manner approximately twenty 

(20) feet across the kill floor, with eyes wide and alert and breathing heavily. The operator 

hurried to capture the animal as other employees joined and assisted in moving the 

conscious animal across the floor back to the stunning area. The team of employees 

manually restrained the animal and applied an effective captive bolt stun to render the 

animal unconscious. The animal was then shackled, hoisted, and bled until dead. 

By this time, the owner/vice president, was present and the event was discussed. He was 

notified that a regulatory control action was to be taken, and the kill box was rejected with 

U.S. Reject Tag No. B23796665. 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 2 of 6 
Postmortem analysis of the carcass evidenced the first captive bolt application was 

anatomically and physically ineffective. It was poorly placed off midline and did not enter 

the cranial vault, which allowed the animal to regain consciousness. 

IPP reviewed the establishment’s Robust Humane Handling plan which states, in part: “ 

Training material included in the plan is from the stunner manufacturer. It depicts 

brain stunning and alludes to secondary heart stunning; however, training reference 

(b) (4)

materials are not definitively prescriptive. The establishment owner/vice president stated 

the actual training of employees occurs per written statement above where only “back of 

the head” electrical stunning is applied. Other training material states, in part: “ 

(b) (4)

While the establishment has a robust systematic approach to humane handling, it was not 

implemented properly as the establishment employee did not effectively follow, nor 

properly implement the knowledge from training material supplied (in the plan). 

Additionally, the establishment employee displayed an inability to recognize signs of 

consciousness. 

Summary and Conclusion 

Provisions of the FMIA outline FSIS’ ability to refuse to render inspection and indefinitely 

withdraw inspection from an establishment, provided the establishment is afforded the 

right to an administrative hearing, when conditions exist where the slaughter and/or 

handling of livestock was not by a method in accordance with the Act(s). Evidence 

demonstrates your failure to meet regulatory requirements in accordance with 9 CFR 

313.2(f), 313.30(a)(4), and 313.15(a)(3), constituting a violation of the humane slaughter 

requirements, and supporting the conclusion that your handling of livestock violated the 

provisions of the FMIA and HMSA. 

Please provide a written response, inclusive of written corrective action and preventative 

measures, by addressing the following: 

• Evaluate and identify the nature, cause of the incident. 

• Describe the specific actions taken to eliminate the cause of the incident and 

prevent future recurrences. 

• Describe specific monitoring activities planned to ensure future compliance. 

• Provide any supporting documentation and records maintained and/or associated 

with the proposed corrective actions and preventative measures. 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 3 of 6 
A determination of further administrative action will be made upon receipt and review of 

your submitted corrective actions and preventative measures. You are reminded that, as 

an operator of a federally inspected establishment, you are expected to comply with FSIS 

regulations and to take appropriate corrective actions to prevent the production of or 

adulterated products at your establishment. Please be advised that your failure to respond 

adequately to these issues may result in our initiating action to withdraw inspection from 

your establishment. 

Appeal and Hearing Rights 

You have the right to appeal this matter and can do so by contacting: 

Melissa Moore 

Executive Associate for Regulatory Operations 

Office of Field Operations 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

SB, Room1222 

Washington, DC 20250 

Email: melissa.moore1@usda.gov 

Phone: (202) 450-0330 

Pursuant to 9 CFR 500.5(d), you may also request a hearing regarding this determination. 

Should you request a hearing, FSIS will file a complaint that will include a request for an 

expedited hearing. If you wish to request a hearing regarding this determination, please 

contact: 

Scott C. Safian, Director 

Enforcement Operations Staff (EOS) 

Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit (OIEA) 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Stop Code 3753, SB - Room 2148 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Telephone: (202) 418-8872 

Facsimile: (202) 245-5097 

E-mail: AEBCorrespondence@usda.gov 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 4 of 6 
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Dr. Chelsea 

Buckley, DDM, via electronic mail at chelsea.buckley@usda.gov or by telephone at (267) 

807-7615. Additionally, you can contact the Philadelphia District Office at (800) 637-

668 1. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE Digitally signed by GEORGE 

SLOBODJIAN 

SLOBODJIAN Date: 2024.03.13 16:35:16 -04'00' 

Mr. George Slobodjian 

Deputy District Manager/ Acting District Manager 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 5 of 6 
CC: 

FSIS - FO/Quarterly Enforcement Repo1i 

Ms. Melissa Moore, EARO, FSIS, OFO, Washington D.C. 

Mr. Joseph Priore, RD, FSIS, OIEA, N01iheast Region 

Mr. Jason Orlando, DM, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

Mr. Joseph Schein, DDM, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

Mr. George Slobodjian, DDM, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

Dr. Chelsea Buckley, DDM, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

DCS, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

SEIAO, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District Office 

FLS, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District 

, SPHV, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District 

, CSI, FSIS, OFO, Philadelphia District 

Official Files Establishment Folder - Est. 9760 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Page 6 of 6