This guidance defines egregious as any act  that is cruel to animals or a condition that is ignored and leads to the  harming of animals. These inconsistencies may be due, in part, to weaknesses in  FSIS’s guidance and training for key inspection staff. GAO Survey Results and FSIS Data Indicate Inconsistent Enforcement

According to FSIS officials, inspectors are to use their judgment in  deciding whether to suspend a plant’s operations or take the less stringent  enforcement action (that is, issue a noncompliance report and a regulatory  control action) when a humane handling violation occurs. In addition, the expert we  consulted testified in April 2008 that FSIS inspectors need better training  and clear directives to improve consistency of HMSA enforcement. Our survey results indicate differences in the enforcement actions that  inspectors reported they would take when faced with a humane handling  violation. As figure 5 shows, 23 percent of inspectors  reported they would suspend operations, while 38 percent would issue a  regulatory control action for multiple unsuccessful captive bolt gun stuns. We also identified several incidents in FSIS’s noncompliance reports in  which inspectors did not suspend plant operations or take a regulatory  control action. Two of the  suspensions were for dragging nonambulatory conscious veal calves that  were about 1-week old. FSIS Cannot Fully Identify and Plan Resource Needs for HMSA Enforcement

FSIS cannot fully identify trends in its inspection resources—specifically,  funding and staffing—for HMSA enforcement, in part because it cannot  track humane handling inspection funds separately from the inspection  funds spent on other food safety activities. Furthermore, FSIS does not  have a current workforce planning strategy to guide its efforts to allocate  staff to inspection activities, including humane handling. Although FSIS has strategic, operational, and performance plans for its  inspection activities, these plans do not specifically address HMSA  enforcement. That is, they do not clearly outline the agency’s goals for  enforcing HMSA, identify expected resource needs, specify time frames, or  lay out performance metrics. To ensure that FSIS strengthens its enforcement of the Humane Methods  of Slaughter Act of 1978, as amended, we recommend that the Secretary of  Agriculture direct the Administrator of FSIS to take the following three  actions:    establish clear and specific criteria for when inspectors-in-charge should  suspend plant operations for an egregious HMSA violation and when they  should take enforcement actions because of repeat violations; identify some type of objective tool, such as a numerical scoring  mechanism, and instruct all inspectors-in-charge at plants to use this  measure to assist them in evaluating the plants’ HMSA performance and  determining what, if any, enforcement actions are warranted; and   strengthen the analysis of humane handling data by analyzing the narrative  in noncompliance reports to identify areas that need improvement. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and  Inspection Service’s (FSIS) efforts to enforce the Humane Methods of  Slaughter Act of 1978, as amended (HMSA); (2) the extent to which FSIS  tracks recent trends in FSIS inspection resources for enforcing HMSA; and  (3) FSIS’s efforts to develop a strategy to guide HMSA enforcement. Although we did not state that numerical scoring is not regulatory in  nature, we did state that using it to measure compliance would be  inconsistent with the HMSA requirement that animals be rendered  insensible to pain on the first blow.
Why GAO Did This Study

Concerns about the humane handling and slaughter of livestock have grown; for example, a 2009 video showed employees at a Vermont slaughter plant skinning and decapitating conscious 1-week old veal calves. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978, as amended (HMSA) prohibits the inhumane treatment of livestock in connection with slaughter and requires that animals be rendered insensible to pain before being slaughtered. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for HMSA. GAO was asked to (1) evaluate FSIS's efforts to enforce HMSA, (2) identify the extent to which FSIS tracks recent trends in resources for HMSA enforcement, and (3) evaluate FSIS's efforts to develop a strategy to guide HMSA enforcement. Among other things, GAO received survey responses from inspectors at 235 plants and examined a sample of FSIS noncompliance reports and suspension data for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

What GAO Found

GAO's survey results and analysis of FSIS data suggest that inspectors have not taken consistent actions to enforce HMSA. Survey results indicate differences in the enforcement actions that inspectors would take when faced with a humane handling violation, such as when an animal was not rendered insensible through an acceptable stunning procedure by forcefully striking the animal on the forehead with a bolt gun or properly placing electrical shocks. Specifically, 23 percent of inspectors reported they would suspend operations for multiple unsuccessful stuns with a captive bolt gun whereas 27 percent reported that they would submit a noncompliance report. GAO's review of noncompliance reports also identified incidents in which inspectors did not suspend plant operations or take regulatory actions when they appeared warranted. The lack of consistency in enforcement may be due in part to the lack of clarity in current FSIS guidance and inadequate training. The guidance does not clearly indicate when certain enforcement actions should be taken for an egregious act--one that is cruel to animals or a condition that is ignored and leads to the harming of animals. A noted humane handling expert has stated that FSIS inspectors need clear directives to improve consistency of HMSA enforcement. According to GAO's survey, FSIS's training may be insufficient. For example, inspectors at half of the plants did not correctly answer basic facts about signs of sensibility. Some private sector companies use additional tools to assess humane handling and improve performance. FSIS cannot fully identify trends in its inspection funding and staffing for HMSA, in part because it cannot track HMSA inspection funds separately from the inspection funds spent on food safety activities. FSIS also does not have a current workforce planning strategy for allocating limited staff to inspection activities, including HMSA enforcement. FSIS has strategic, operational, and performance plans for its inspection activities but does not clearly outline goals, needed resources, time frames, or performance metrics and does not have a comprehensive strategy to guide HMSA enforcement.