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

The universe of inspection records that FSIS provided to us was  incomplete, making it difficult to assess the frequency of noncompliance  with the HMSA. At least 7 of the  16 DVMSs we spoke with believe that inspectors have not always  documented violations in noncompliance records when they should. As a result, it is  difficult for FSIS to quantify, interpret, and report the data related to the  scope and severity of documented instances of noncompliance. FSIS also released a new directive, “Humane Handling and Slaughter of  Livestock,” in November 2003. FSIS Took Inconsistent Enforcement Actions to Address Noncompliance

Our review of noncompliance records indicates that FSIS has taken  inconsistent enforcement actions in response to violations of the Humane  Methods of Slaughter Act and applicable regulations. Also, district managers were not using  consistent criteria to suspend plant operations when more serious  violations occurred. FSIS officials and guidance indicate that it is not appropriate to take an  enforcement action for all violations. For  example, our analysis of enforcement actions taken in the 167 instances of  ineffective stunning shows that inspectors used reject tags to temporarily  suspend stunning operations in more than half of the 86 cases involving  ineffective stunning of a single animal but in less than half of the 79 cases  that involved multiple animals. FSIS Data on Inspection Resources Devoted to Overseeing Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements Are Inadequate

Because FSIS does not have adequate data on the number of inspectors  responsible for enforcing the HMSA or the actual time they spend on  humane handling and slaughter requirements—nor other information,  such as criteria to determine the appropriate number of inspectors for  different sized plants—it is difficult to determine if the number of  inspectors is adequate to effectively enforce the HMSA. Recently, the Congress also  provided USDA with additional resources and directed the Secretary of  Agriculture to fully enforce the HMSA and implementing regulations. First, we  obtained the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s March 2003 Report to  Congress on Humane Handling and Slaughter Enforcement Activities, in  which USDA presents their findings on noncompliance with the Humane  Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) during fiscal year 2002. To determine FSIS actions to enforce compliance with the humane  handling and slaughter requirements, we obtained information on  enforcement actions taken at the plant and FSIS district level. GAO Comments

1. 2. 3.
Why GAO Did This Study

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

What GAO Found

Incomplete and inconsistent inspection records made it difficult to determine the frequency and scope of humane handling and slaughter violations. FSIS was unable to produce at least 44 of its inspection records that document violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) and implementing regulations. Also, inspectors did not always document violations of the HMSA because they may not have been aware of regulatory requirements. Further, the records that FSIS provided did not consistently document the scope and severity of each incident. USDA is taking steps to address these issues. Enforcement actions to address noncompliance with the act and regulations were also inconsistent. For example, we found that FSIS inspectors temporarily halted stunning operations in more than half of the cases involving ineffective stunning of a single animal, but in less than half of similar cases involving multiple animals. We also found that FSIS officials may not be using consistent criteria to suspend plant operations--the enforcement action used when serious or repeated violations of the HMSA occur. As a result, plants in different FSIS districts may not be subject to comparable enforcement actions. In November 2003, FSIS issued clearer guidance to its inspectors and field personnel that should help resolve some of these problems. FSIS lacks detailed information on how much time its inspectors spend on humane handling and slaughter activities making it difficult to determine if the number of inspectors is adequate. In general, FSIS officials believe that, with the introduction of a District Veterinary Medical Specialist at each of the agency's field offices, the current number of personnel devoted to humane handling and slaughter compliance is adequate.