THE WELFARE
OF BIRDS AT
SLAUGHTER IN THE
UNITED STATES

The Need for Government Regulation

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

 THE WELFARE
OF BIRDS AT
SLAUGHTER IN THE
UNITED STATES
The Need for Government Regulation
ABOUT THE RESEARCH

IN THIS REPORT

This report presents the findings of
an extensive review of federal food
inspection documents produced by
the USDA between the years 2006
and 2014. The records were obtained
from the USDA through numerous
requests made by the nonprofit
animal protection organization Farm
Sanctuary under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). This is the firstever survey conducted with the goal of
determining the nature and extent of
government oversight of the manner
in which birds raised for meat and eggs
are treated at the time of slaughter in
the United States.

2  Overview of Poultry Slaughter in
the US

April 2016

4 

Attempts to Regulate the
Humaneness of Slaughter

6 

USDA Response to Abuse of Birds
Has Been Inadequate

9 

USDA Records Indicate a Need for
Regulation

14  Undercover Investigations
Document a Need for Regulation
16  USDA Records Demonstrate
Ineffective Oversight
18  Poultry Industry Misrepresents
USDA Oversight
20 Recommendations

ABOUT THE ANIMAL W ELFARE
INSTITUTE
Since its founding in 1951, the
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has
been alleviating suffering inflicted
on animals by people. AWI works to
improve conditions for the billions
of animals raised and slaughtered
each year for food in the United
States. Major goals of the organization
include eliminating factory farms,
supporting high-welfare family farms,
and achieving humane transport and
slaughter of all farm animals.
This report was prepared by Dena
Jones of AWI, who wishes to thank
Bruce Friedrich and Kathleen Wood,
as well as the animal protection
organizations Farm Sanctuary and
Mercy For Animals, for their assistance
in the preparation of the report. All
photos by Mercy For Animals.

 Executive Summary
Regulation of the Handling of Birds at Slaughter Is
Needed to Prevent Animal Suffering
In the early-to-mid 2000s, undercover investigations by
animal protection organizations exposed mistreatment
of chickens and turkeys in some of the nation’s largest
poultry slaughter establishments. The response of the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) was to issue
a Notice in September 2005, reminding the poultry
industry that birds must be handled in a manner that
is consistent with good commercial practices (GCP),
which means they should be treated humanely. Shortly
thereafter, the USDA began issuing reports to plants
observed violating GCP. No formal regulations were
written, however and, as a result, compliance with
GCP remains merely voluntary; in most cases, USDA
inspection personnel may not take enforcement action
for violations, even when intentional abuse is involved.
The research described in this report reviewed USDA
records related to industry GCP for poultry handling.
Findings of the research include:
↘↘ The USDA’s response to the mistreatment of
birds has been inadequate. Between 2011 and
2014, nearly 40% of federal poultry plants were
issued no enforcement records whatsoever by
the USDA documenting their compliance with
industry animal handling guidelines. Moreover,
over two-thirds of plants received no veterinary
specialist audits of bird handling during this fouryear period. Given these facts, AWI has concluded
that the USDA is not serious about preventing
mistreatment of birds at slaughter, and it created
the GCP oversight program to dampen public and
congressional concerns.

↘↘ Undercover investigations by animal protection
organizations document the need for regulation.
Animal protection groups have recently resumed
undercover investigations that document the
same type of abuse uncovered a decade before,
demonstrating that the USDA strategy of allowing
the poultry industry to police itself has failed. Video
captured during the investigations suggests that
intentional abuse of birds is common practice, at
least at some slaughter establishments.
↘↘ USDA records demonstrate that its strategy of
voluntary compliance has been ineffective. USDA
records reveal that some poultry plants have been
cited repeatedly for the same or similar violations
of good animal handling practices. This is not
surprising, given that USDA inspection personnel
are not able to take any enforcement action for
most of the violations.
↘↘ The poultry industry misrepresents USDA
oversight to avoid regulation. The US poultry
industry promotes the view that the USDA actively
enforces humane slaughter practices for poultry,
while simultaneously arguing that the USDA lacks
the authority to regulate humane slaughter of
birds. Leaders of the industry have issued a number
of inaccurate and, in some cases, contradictory
statements regarding the USDA’s authority to stop
the mistreatment of birds at slaughter.

↘↘ The USDA’s own records document the need for
regulation. A review of USDA records has revealed
incidents where hundreds, and even thousands,
of birds have suffered greatly due to violations of
industry GCP. Included in these records are many
examples of intentional cruelty to birds by plant
employees. Slaughter plant workers have been
observed throwing, kicking and punching birds on
numerous occasions.

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

1

 Overview of Poultry Slaughter in
the United States
How many birds are killed for food each year?
According to the USDA, in 2014, 8.9 billion chickens,
turkeys and ducks were slaughtered in the United States
under federal inspection. This number excludes birds
of these species killed under state or custom-exempt
inspection, and it also excludes other species of birds
killed for meat, such as geese, guineas, ostriches, emus,
rheas and squab (young pigeons).
How many poultry slaughter plants operate in the
United States?
Approximately 300 poultry slaughter plants operate
under federal inspection, and these establishments
slaughter a vast majority of the 9 billion total birds killed
every year for meat.
What are the largest US poultry companies?
According to WATT Poultry USA, in 2014, the largest US
meat chicken (“broiler”) companies were Tyson Foods,
Pilgrim’s, Sanderson Farms, Perdue Farms and Koch
Foods. The largest turkey companies that year were
Butterball LLC, Jennie-O Turkey Store, Cargill Turkey,
Farbest Foods and Tyson Foods.
What methods are used to kill birds?
Birds are typically slaughtered by throat-cutting
to induce blood loss. To keep birds immobile for
cutting, most poultry slaughter plants in the United
States employ electrified water baths (see Figure 1).
Alternatives to electric stunning include stunning with
gas or low atmospheric pressure, which are generally
considered more humane because the birds are
rendered unconscious (or dead) before being shackled
and inverted for bleeding purposes. All but a handful
of US chicken slaughter plants use electric stunning,
but gas stunning has become more common at turkey
plants over the past two decades.
What are the differences between poultry slaughter
in the United States and in the European Union?
A greater proportion of birds are slaughtered at small
and mid-sized establishments in the European Union,

2

while in the United States the poultry industry is more
consolidated and integrated, meaning that fewer
companies control the raising and slaughter of poultry.
In the European Union, a greater proportion of birds
are slaughtered by methods that use gas stunning,
because stunning is viewed as a means of rendering
birds insensible to pain, not just of restraining them
for cutting. Although electric stunning systems are still
common in the European Union, electric current levels
there are set significantly higher than in the United
States. This means that in the United States, there is a
greater risk that a bird will not be rendered unconscious
before slaughter.
How does the US government regulate poultry
slaughter?
Poultry slaughter is regulated by the federal Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA). Birds are killed for
human consumption at slaughter plants inspected by
the USDA or state departments of agriculture. Birds
may also be killed at custom-exempt plants, which are
inspected only once or twice each year. In addition,
there are several exemptions from inspection, one of
which allows a licensed establishment to slaughter
up to 20,000 birds per year for sale to any consumer,
restaurant, institution or retail outlet.

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 Figure 1. How Most Poultry Is Killed in the US

1

2

3

4

Arriving at Slaughter Plant
Birds arrive crammed inside
crates loaded onto large
trucks. There are no legal
limits on the duration of
transport, or how long birds
wait at the plant before
slaughter. There are also no
requirements that birds be
protected from extreme heat
or cold, or provided with
adequate ventilation.

Dumping onto
Conveyor Belt
Workers toss or dump birds
out of their cages onto
conveyor belts. Injuries to
the birds, including bruising
and broken bones, may occur
during this step.

Sorting Dead and Live Birds
Workers separate living
and dead birds. Workers
sometimes toss live birds
onto the floor where they
may be stepped on, or into
garbage bins where they
may become buried under
dead birds and eventually
suffocate.

Shackling on the Line
Workers hang live birds by
their legs from the slaughter
line. Sick and previously
injured birds may be
shackled and hung. Workers
struggle to keep pace with
the rapidly moving line, and
if they use excessive force,
injuries to the birds such as
broken or dislocated legs and
wings may result.

5

6

7

Stunning in Electrified Bath
The birds’ heads are dragged
through an electrified water
bath. There are no legal
minimum current levels, and
it is unknown whether birds
are rendered unconscious
and insensible to pain or are
merely immobilized. Birds
who raise their heads to avoid
the bath fail to get stunned.

Bleeding after Cutting
The birds’ necks are cut by an
automated blade. Birds who
were not properly stunned
in the last step may raise
their heads to avoid the
knife. Workers assigned to
manually cut birds that miss
the blade may not be able to
catch all uncut birds due to
the rapid speed of the line.

Entering the Scald Tank
Birds who are not adequately
bled in the last step will be
alive and conscious when
they are dunked into a tank
of scalding water (designed
to loosen feathers from the
carcass). Birds drowning in the
scald tank are referred to as
“red birds” or “cadaver birds.”

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

3

 Attempts to Regulate the
Humaneness of Poultry Slaughter
The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) was
enacted by Congress in 1958, and the language was
amended 20 years later to provide an enforcement
mechanism and to incorporate the law into the Federal
Meat Inspection Act. The explicit language of the law
refers to “livestock” and neither includes nor excludes
birds. The position of animal protection organizations
is that the USDA has the authority to cover birds under
the law, while the USDA’s view is that including birds
would require an act of Congress. A legal discussion of
the subject is beyond the scope of this report; instead,
this section will briefly describe attempts by animal
protection advocates over the past 20 years to influence
both Congress and the USDA to protect the welfare of
birds at slaughter.
Animal protection advocates worked with members
of Congress to introduce legislation to require
humane slaughter of poultry in 1992, 1993 and
1995. The 1992 bill would have amended the PPIA
to require that poultry be slaughtered according to
the methods detailed in the HMSA. This would have
had the effect of requiring that birds be rendered
insensible to pain before being shackled. The 1993
and 1995 bills differed in that they allowed birds to be
rendered insensible either before or immediately after
shackling. None of the bills addressed the entirety of
handling birds at slaughter, only the stunning of birds
during this process. The 1993 bill received a hearing
in the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition,
at which the president of AWI testified. In 1996, the
House Agriculture Committee requested an executive
comment from the USDA on the 1995 legislation.
No further attempts were made in Congress to address
poultry welfare at slaughter until 2013, when Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Safe Meat and
Poultry Act of 2013. This comprehensive meat safety
bill included a section on “good commercial practices in
receiving and processing live poultry” that would have
created new standards for handling birds at slaughter.
Specifically, the bill required that poultry establishments

4

use reasonable care and other GCP during the handling
and slaughter of poultry, including prompt euthanasia
of severely injured or ill birds, employee training and
competency requirements, and the implementation
of live poultry slaughter plans that include routine
veterinary oversight. It also contained provisions for
escalating penalties for serious violations, civil penalties,
and whistleblower protection. Congress took no action
on the bill, however.
Animal protection advocates have filed two lawsuits
to include birds in the coverage of humane slaughter
laws. In 2005, The Humane Society of the United
States and others sued the USDA in hopes of forcing
the department to include chickens, turkeys and other
poultry species within the definition of “livestock” in
the HMSA. This would ensure that birds are rendered
insensible to pain before being shackled and killed,
consistent with the language of the 1992 federal
legislation. Including poultry in the HMSA would also
provide humane handling of birds in connection with
slaughter. However, in 2008 the district court ruled
that while the definition of livestock in the HMSA is
ambiguous, Congress did not intend for poultry to be
covered under the law. On appeal, the circuit court
found that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and
sent the case back to the district court for dismissal.
Approximately 10 years later, in June 2015, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued
California, charging that the state was failing to enforce
its own humane slaughter law in poultry plants. The
suit is based on a 1991 amendment to the state
humane slaughter law that specifically covers poultry.
It challenges the state’s determination that the law
pertains only to establishments that sell live birds and
slaughters them for customers; these establishments
are monitored by the state food and agriculture
department. In its suit, which is pending at press time,
PETA asked that the court direct the state to apply the
law to the slaughter of birds under federal inspection.
In addition to these lawsuits, the USDA has been
formally petitioned on two occasions to issue
regulations addressing the humaneness of poultry

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 In the US, birds are still conscious when they are shackled by their legs and hung upside down.

slaughter. In 1995, AWI and the Animal Legal Defense
Fund submitted a rulemaking petition to the USDA,
requesting that the agency promulgate regulations
under the PPIA to ensure adequate stunning of birds
prior to slaughter. That petition argued that effective
stunning was necessary to prevent animal suffering and
to ensure the wholesomeness of poultry products.
In denying the petition, the USDA explained that “the
promulgation of humane handling and slaughter
regulations would not serve to prevent the movement
or sale of adulterated or misbranded poultry products
in interstate or foreign commerce,” despite the petition
having provided considerable evidence demonstrating
the causal relationship between inhumane handling
and slaughter of birds and adulterated poultry products.
The USDA denial also expressed the opinion that “the
PPIA does not grant FSIS [Food Safety and Inspection
Service] authority to promulgate regulations concerning
the humane handling or slaughter of poultry.”

rationale in denying the 1995 petition. (The 2005
Notice is described further in the following section.)
In 2013, AWI and Farm Sanctuary utilized the 2005
Notice as the basis of a second rulemaking petition
to the USDA on poultry slaughter. Similar to the 1995
petition, this petition argued that the USDA has the
authority to promulgate regulations concerning
practices that have the potential to result in product
adulteration. Unlike the previous attempt, however, this
petition focused on live animal handling and not the
method of stunning. As of April 2016, AWI and Farm
Sanctuary have received no response from the USDA
on the latest petition.

However, in 2005, the USDA issued a Notice to
slaughter establishments that acknowledged the link
between inhumane treatment of birds and adulterated
poultry products, in direct contradiction to its stated

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

5

 USDA Response to Abuse of Birds
Has Been Inadequate
Between 2003 and 2006, animal protection
organizations conducted several undercover
investigations at US chicken and turkey slaughter plants.
These investigations revealed egregious and intentional
abuse of birds by workers at the plants that outraged
the public and public officials alike. According to the
USDA, in the aftermath of these investigations, several
members of Congress expressed concerns regarding the
inhumane treatment of poultry at slaughter. The USDA
also confirmed receiving over 20,000 letters from the
public expressing concerns about the inhumaneness of
slaughter practices, as well as 13,000 e-mail messages
supporting the inclusion of poultry in the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act.
The USDA response to the documentation of animal
abuse at slaughter was to issue a Notice in September
2005 that reminded poultry slaughter establishments
that “under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA)
and Agency regulations, live poultry must be handled
in a manner that is consistent with good commercial
practices, which means they should be treated
humanely.” The Notice stated that although there is no
specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute
that covers birds, “under the PPIA, poultry products are
more likely to be adulterated if … they are produced
from birds that have not been treated humanely,
because such birds are more likely to be bruised or to
die other than by slaughter.”
A careful reading of the Notice makes clear that,
although the USDA acknowledges it has the authority
to require that birds be handled humanely, it is not
doing so. Neither of the two regulations cited in the
Notice prohibit behavior that results in mistreatment
of individual birds. Regulation 381.65(b), which
cites the term “good commercial practices,” only
addresses birds drowning in the scald tank and does
not refer to any other aspects of live bird handling.
Regulation 9 CFR 381.90 requires that “carcasses of
poultry showing evidence of having died from causes
other than slaughter” be condemned, but it does not

6

prohibit behavior that can result in death other than
slaughter. Moreover, the Notice fails to define “good
commercial practices” other than to identify the weak
National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines
as one example.
Unknown to animal protection groups and others at the
time, following publication of the 2005 Notice, USDA
inspection personnel began conducting verification
procedures for GCP. It also began issuing official
Noncompliance Records for observed instances of
noncompliance with GCP standards, despite the fact
that GCP standards had not been codified in regulation
and compliance with the standards was (and remains)
strictly voluntary. In December 2007, assessment of
GCP was added to the USDA Directive (6100.3) on
antemortem and postmortem inspection of poultry.
In 2011 AWI became aware that the USDA was citing
violations of poultry good handling practices, and in
2012 the animal protection group Farm Sanctuary
started submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests for USDA records related to the humane
handling of poultry. To date, Farm Sanctuary and AWI
have requested all records dating from the initiation
of GCP oversight in January 2006 through December
2015. This report summarizes the content of the
records received in response to those requests.
Figure 2 shows the number of GCP records issued by
the USDA to individual poultry slaughter plants each
year from 2006 through 2014, according to documents
received through FOIA.
The average number of records issued per year
for the nine-year period was 237, or less than one
record for each of the 300 federally inspected US
poultry slaughter plants. The number of records is
extremely low, particularly given the high volume of
poultry slaughter in the United States. Consequently,
AWI views GCP records as a completely unreliable
measure of the humaneness of poultry slaughter.
This position is supported by the finding that nearly
40% of US poultry slaughter plants were issued no
records related to the humane treatment of birds

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 Figure 2. Number of GCP Poultry Slaughter Records
Generated by USDA 2006–2014
500

400

300

200

100

0

2006

2007

2008

2009

from 2011 through 2014 (Figure 3), during which
time some of these plants slaughtered millions of
birds. On the other hand, six plants were issued more
than 25 records each, illustrating the inconsistency in
which the USDA is monitoring the humane handling
of birds at slaughter. The haphazard manner in which
the USDA administers GCP is not surprising, given that
the standards for inspection are intended merely as
guidance, meaning that compliance on the part of the
industry is merely voluntary.
In the summer of 2008, the USDA’s District Veterinary
Medical Specialists (DVMS) underwent training on
poultry handling, and in 2009 they began conducting
periodic GCP correlation visits at federal poultry plants.
The USDA Directive (6910.1, rev. 1) on DVMS work
methods was revised in December 2009 to include
activities related to poultry GCP. The Directive explains
that, as a general rule, a DVMS is to conduct a GCP
correlation visit every 12 to 18 months at each slaughter
plant that handles live birds.

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 3. GCP Records per Poultry
Slaughter Plant 2011–2014
Number of
Enforcement
Records

Number of
Plants

Percentage of
Plants

0

115

38.3

1

40

13.3

2

34

11.3

3–5

49

16.4

6–10

37

12.3

11–15

10

3.3

16–25

9

3.0

25+

6

2.0

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

7

 Figure 4. Good Commercial
Practice Audits by DVMS at
Poultry Slaughter Plants
2011–2014
Number of
Audits

Number of
Plants

Percentage of
Plants

0

199

66.3

1

79

26.3

2

20

6.7

3

2

0.7

The USDA is far from meeting that modest goal,
however. AWI has researched the number of DVMS
poultry handling audits between 2011 and 2014, during
which time, according to the USDA Directive, each
plant should have been audited two or three times.
AWI found that only 7% of federal poultry plants were
audited that often, and two-thirds of plants were not
audited at all during the time period (see Figure 4).
On the basis that 1) a majority of poultry plants
received no audits on bird handling by a veterinary
specialist during a recent four-year period, and 2)
a large percentage of plants were not issued any
records related to bird handling during that time, AWI
has concluded that the USDA is not serious about
preventing mistreatment of birds at slaughter, and it
created the GCP oversight program merely to dampen
public and congressional concerns.
Moreover, the USDA has for years misrepresented
its oversight of animal handling at poultry slaughter
plants. For example, in a 2009 letter to members of
Congress, the USDA stated that poultry should be
treated humanely in accordance with GCP, and that
its inspection personnel “are authorized and expected
to stop production if they witness any violations.”
However, AWI’s review of GCP records failed to uncover
instances of USDA personnel stopping production

8

due to the mistreatment of an individual bird. In
another example, a USDA spokesperson told the Los
Angeles Times in June 2015 that agency personnel
enforce “good commercial practices,” which includes
ensuring that birds are rendered senseless to pain
before slaughter. However, of the more than 2,000
enforcement records reviewed by AWI, less than a half
dozen mentioned bird insensibility.
In 2013, AWI requested that the USDA post GCP
records on its website, and the agency agreed. At
that time, the USDA recognized that it needed to
address inconsistencies in the creation of the records,
in particular the use of Noncompliance Records to
document nonregulatory issues. In January 2015, the
USDA issued a Notice to inspection personnel, providing
instructions for writing poultry GCP Noncompliance
Records (regulatory GCP violations) and Memorandums
of Interview letters (nonregulatory GCP violations) for
poultry mistreatment.
The 2015 Notice clarifies that Noncompliance Records
are to be issued only for situations where the poultry
plant has lost control of its process for handling
birds, illustrating the USDA view of poultry handling
as a process control issue, and not an individual bird
handling issue. In other words, mistreatment of
single birds or small numbers of birds—whether
it be workers intentionally punching and kicking
birds or birds drowning in the scalding tank—is
not a regulatory violation, and therefore cannot be
documented on Noncompliance Records. In order
for a regulatory noncompliance to be documented, it
must involve “numerous or repeated instances of the
problem,” according to the Notice.
The 2015 Notice expired on February 1, 2016. As of
press time, the content of the Notice has not been
incorporated into any USDA Directive, and GCP records
are not being posted on the USDA website.

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 USDA Records Indicate a Need
for Regulation
AWI has organized the GCP records received from the
USDA by type of violation. The most common violations
are birds drowning in the scald tank and improper
disposal of live birds (see Figure 5). Many of the GCP
incidents reported by the USDA involved more than
one bird; in some cases hundreds, or even thousands,
were affected. The types of violations typically involving
the largest numbers of birds are high dead-on-arrival
(DOA) rates and mechanical problems resulting in
injury or death.

Figure 5. Types of Good
Commercial Practice Violations
at Federal Plants 2011–2014
Type of GCP Violation

Number
of Reports

%

Birds Drowning in the
Scald Tank

433

32.0

Inadequate Shackling/
Stunning/Cutting,
Not Resulting in Birds
Drowning in Scald Tank

187

13.9

Improper Sorting of
DOAs and Live Birds

307

22.6

Below are examples of the different types of GCP
violations. Each of the incidents described in the
examples resulted in serious animal suffering. Yet,
under current USDA regulations, no enforcement
actions are possible in any of these situations, except
for birds drowning in the scald tank, and only when
large groups of birds are involved.

Excessive Number
of DOAs/Inhumane
Holding Conditions

67

5.0

Cages in Disrepair/Cage
Unloading Problems

128

9.5

Examples of Violations

Improper Handling/
Excessive Use of Force

112

8.3

Mechanical Problems
Resulting in Injury/
Death

117

8.7

1351

100

Birds Drowning in the Scald Tank
↘↘ 37 birds drowned in the scald tank within 25
minutes due to improper functioning of the kill
blade (Foster Farms [P157], 6/30/2011)

Total

↘↘ 12 birds were removed just prior to entering the
scald tank; at least 47 birds drowned in the scald
tank before USDA intervention (House of Raeford
Farms [P737], 7/25/2013)
↘↘ 15 cadaver birds per minute were observed on one
line (OK Foods [P165S], 5/8/2014)
↘↘ 63 cadaver birds were observed, most likely from
inadequate neck cutting (Pilgrim’s Pride [P17500],
8/4/2014)
↘↘ Large number of birds drowned in the scald tank
as a result of the increased speed of the line to
compensate for another line being down (Pilgrim’s
Pride [P383], 4/8/2011)

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

9

 ↘↘ 101 cadaver birds were observed with no cut or
insufficient cut (Pilgrim’s Pride [P584], 8/18/2014)
↘↘ 183 cadaver birds entered the scald tank alive
(Tyson Foods [P7478], 12/3/2012)
↘↘ 33 cadaver birds were observed in 17 minutes
due to the lack of a back-up cutter (Tyson Foods
[P7089], 3/8/2012)

↘↘ Truck transporting turkeys crashed and most of the
turkeys died; live birds were being thrown with dead
birds into dumpsters (Norbest [P1049], 1/9/2012)
↘↘ 10-12 live birds were found with the DOAs (OK
Foods [P165S], 3/8/2012)
↘↘ 15 live birds were buried in a pile of 30 carcasses
(Perdue Farms [P19112], 11/15/2011)

↘↘ 54 cadaver birds were observed in 15-20 minutes
(Pilgrim’s Pride [P5787], 11/1/2012)

↘↘ Over 100 live and dead birds were found mixed in a
6’ x 10’ pile (Pilgrim’s Pride [P218], 6/18/2014)

Inadequate Shackling/Stunning/Cutting

Excessive Number of DOAs/Inhumane
Holding Conditions

↘↘ Within five minutes, 115 birds had to be manually
cut because the birds had been improperly
shackled by only one leg (Case Farms of Ohio
[P15724], 7/31/2013)
↘↘ Live birds were removed just before entering
the scald tank; one bird had a cut across her
face, slicing the lower beak (Case Farms of Ohio
[P15724], 11/21/2014)
↘↘ 42 live birds were removed just before entering the
scald tank; most had insufficient cuts (Case Farms
Processing [P44826], 11/27/2013)
↘↘ 17 live birds with insufficient cuts were removed
from the line before entering the scald tank
(Norman W Fries [P6505], 8/23/2013)

↘↘ Truck transporting cages had no side panels in 10°F
weather; at least 90 birds were DOA (Amick Farms
[P7927], 1/7/2014)
↘↘ Over the course of one night, 20 live birds were
frozen to their cages, resulting in 26% DOAs (Case
Farms Processing [P44826], 1/7/2014)
↘↘ Excessive piles of DOAs were observed throughout
the live hang area; employees were forced to walk
on the piles of living and dead birds; eight live birds
were found in the piles; 11 full dumpsters of DOAs
were removed from the live hang area (Claxton
Poultry Farms [P6505], 7/13/2011)

↘↘ 8-10 insufficiently cut ducks were removed from
the line before entering the scald tank (Pitman
Farms [P27389], 11/11/2013)
↘↘ 41 live, uncut birds were removed from the line
before entering the scald tank (Townsends [P290],
5/8/2011)
Improper Sorting of DOA and Live Birds
↘↘ 15 live birds were found in the DOA pile, half
buried beneath dead birds (Case Farms Processing
[P44826], 1/3/2014)
↘↘ 25 live birds were on the floor with 40 dead birds
and mud, feathers and fecal material (Mountaire
Farms [P7470], 2/15/2014)

10

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 ↘↘ 500 DOAs were observed, probably due to long and
hot transport (Jennie-O Turkey [P190], 6/27/2013)

↘↘ 9.1% of cages were damaged, with bent wires and
gaping holes (Pilgrim’s Pride [P177], 9/15/2011)

↘↘ 870 turkeys were held in trucks for more than 50
hours without food or water and exposed to wind
(PA Farm Products [P9965], 11/13/2013)

↘↘ During unloading, a cage with 210 live birds
dropped 8 feet on top of other live birds; many died
from impact or suffocation (Tyson Foods [P112],
7/14/2014)

↘↘ Six trailer loads of birds were parked in the sun in
84°F temperature; the birds were exhibiting signs of
heat stress (Pilgrim’s Pride [P192], 8/2/2013)
↘↘ After cold and snow caused cancellation of
slaughter, birds were left in the holding shed; the
next day, 2,583 birds were dead, some frozen to
the sides of their cage; on the following slaughter
day, 7,298 DOAs were reported (Simmons Custom
Processing [P689], 1/13/2014)
↘↘ Subfreezing temperatures and a four-day holding
period resulted in a 5% DOA rate (Southern Hens
[P17766], 2/1/2014)
↘↘ Birds in the holding area showed signs of heat
stress due to high (100°F) temperature; large
number of dying and dead birds were observed
(Tecumseh Poultry [P20251], 6/29/2012)
↘↘ Diesel tank ruptured, spilling diesel on a truckload
of birds; all 2,430 birds on the truck were
euthanized (To-Ricos [P7374], 3/21/2013)
Cages in Disrepair/Cage Unloading Problems
↘↘ Many cages were observed with significant
damage, including broken wires and large holes;
several loose birds were observed running around
(Mountaire Farms [P667], 5/17/2011)
↘↘ Loose birds were observed in the receiving and
live hang areas; carcasses were observed that
appeared to have been run over by a motor vehicle
(Mountaire Farms [P667], 11/29/2011)
↘↘ Numerous damaged cages were observed; the leg
of one bird was stuck in a cage hole and when the
bird pulled his leg out it was lacerated down to
the bone; the bird went into shock from blood loss
(Peco Foods [P6504], 2/12/2013)

↘↘ 212 birds died when a broken cage door became
lodged in the conveyor belt, causing birds to pile up
and suffocate (Tyson Foods [P6651], 11/15/2013)
Improper Handling
↘↘ At postmortem inspection, at least half of the
carcasses had significant damage: bruised or broken
wings and legs, broken ribcages, and dislocated legs
(Garner Abattoir [P10650], 6/7/2013)
↘↘ 8-10 birds in a span of 10 minutes were observed
to have broken and dislocated wings; bruising and
hemorrhaging suggested that the injuries had
occurred when the birds were alive (Cargill Meat
Solutions [P961], 12/14/2012)
↘↘ 45 ducks were observed with compound fractures,
mostly broken wings (Maple Leaf Farms [P300],
12/23/2014)
↘↘ An excessive number of birds exhibited bruised
and broken wings; at times greater than 20% of the
birds entering the establishment had at least one
compound wing fracture (Perdue Farms [P1243],
5/6/2012)
↘↘ Large number of carcasses were observed with
wing and leg fractures and heavy bruising of
the surrounding tissue (Pilgrim’s Pride [P1284],
1/15/2011)
Mechanical Problems Resulting in Injury/Death
↘↘ 130 birds suffocated as a result of the live hang belt
running at slower speed than the dump belt (BC
Natural Chicken [P493], 2/28/2012)
↘↘ The line was stopped due to a malfunction,
resulting in a majority of stunned birds regaining

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

11

 consciousness; birds were hung upside down for
more than one hour (Case Farms of Ohio [P15724],
10/9/2013)
↘↘ The stunning bath was not emptied when a
slaughter line went down, resulting in 15 birds
drowning in the stunner (Equity Group [P20322],
6/24/2014)
↘↘ 100 birds suffocated in a pile-up on the live hang
belt (Foster Farms [P6137A], 10/30/2012)
↘↘ During a breakdown of the slaughter line, 40-50
birds were trapped in the water bath and died by
either drowning or electrocution (Gold’n Plump
Poultry [P322], 4/10/2012)
↘↘ A large pile of birds was observed on the transfer to
the live hang belt; 200 or more birds had suffocated
(House of Raeford Farms [P510], 1/26/2012)
↘↘ 83 birds died due to a malfunction of the conveyor
belt (Mar-Jac Poultry [P1307], 1/27/2014)
↘↘ 190 birds suffocated due to an unexpected
stoppage of the line (Pilgrim’s Pride [P1284],
2/15/2012)

kicking and punching birds on numerous occasions.
As previously noted, according to the USDA, no
enforcement actions are possible for intentional
mistreatment unless large numbers of birds are
involved.
↘↘ While catching birds for transport, a worker swung
handfuls of birds back and forth to get momentum
before throwing them into the coop (Case Farms of
Ohio [P15724], 11/15/2013)
↘↘ A worker shoved a live bird into the shackle using
a motion similar to throwing a basketball (Case
Farms of Ohio [P15724], 7/30/2013)
↘↘ Workers threw 7-10 live birds against the wall in the
live hang area (Case Farms Processing [P44826],
2/14/2013)
↘↘ A worker kicked three birds onto the conveyor belt
(Columbia Farms [P1309], 11/3/2011)
↘↘ A worker was observed aggressively handling a bird
by hitting the bird with a squeegee (Dayton Natural
Meats [P9230], 11/3/2011)

↘↘ 132 live birds entered the scald tank due to a
mechanical failure (Sanderson Farms [P40183],
10/3/2013)
↘↘ 100 chickens suffocated in a live hang belt pile-up
(Tyson Foods [P7100], 7/25/2013)
↘↘ 400 live birds suffocated when DOAs blocked the
transfer belt and live birds continued to be dumped
onto the belt (Pilgrim’s Pride [P5787], 10/14/2013)
↘↘ While the line was stopped, there was a pile-up on
the conveyor belt and 150 birds suffocated (Wayne
Farms [P7342], 12/23/2014)

Examples of Intentional Abuse by Workers
Included in the GCP records reviewed by AWI were
many examples of intentional cruelty to birds by plant
employees. Workers have been observed throwing,

12

The bodies of birds who drown in the scald tank turn bright red.

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 ↘↘ A worker manually suffocated a struggling turkey
(Empire Kosher Poultry [P1015], 11/22/2011)
↘↘ A worker was seen holding down birds on the
conveyor belt and punching them with his fists
(George’s Processing, [P13369], 5/3/2013)
↘↘ A worker was seen twice picking up live birds by
their legs and throwing them at empty shackles
(George’s Processing [P13369], 6/18/2013)
↘↘ A worker was seen picking up birds off the conveyor
belt and throwing them down the line so he could
bring the belt forward to fill the line with more
birds; the worker did this four times (House of
Raeford Farms [P510], 7/28/2011)
↘↘ A worker was seen picking up live birds from the
ground and throwing them onto the conveyor belt;
another worker was seen throwing a live chicken
across the live hang room toward a floor drain
(Koch Foods [P7487], 12/11/2013)
↘↘ A worker hung a live bird by the head in a shackle
then pulled on the head to decapitate the bird; this
happened on more than one occasion (Peco Foods
[P6504], 10/3/2014)
↘↘ A worker was seen stepping on live birds (Pilgrim’s
[P855], 10/7/2014)
↘↘ A worker was observed yelling at and kicking live
geese; one goose was picked up by the neck and
thrown (Schiltz Foods [P242], 10/25/2012)
↘↘ A worker sprayed water from a hose on caged birds
with no reason for birds to be sprayed (Tyson Foods
[P17250], 5/29/2013)
↘↘ A worker was observed vigorously shaking cages to
excite birds; a worker was observed kicking a bird
into a cage (Tyson Foods [P758], 4/21/2014)
↘↘ A worker punched a chicken on the live hang belt,
and then grabbed another chicken’s head and
twisted it until the beak pointed toward the ceiling
(Tyson Foods [P7101[, 2/27/2013)

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

13

 Undercover Investigations
Document a Need for Regulation
As noted previously, investigations by animal protection
groups in the mid-2000s, which exposed serious
mistreatment of birds at slaughter, prompted the USDA
to encourage slaughter plants to comply with industry
GCP for bird handling. Recently, animal protection
groups have resumed undercover investigations that
are documenting the same type of abuse uncovered a
decade earlier, demonstrating that the USDA strategy of
allowing the poultry industry to police itself has failed.
Video captured during the investigations suggests
that intentional abuse of birds is common practice, at
least at some slaughter establishments. There appears
to be no correlation between the GCP record of
slaughter plants and the behavior captured during the
investigations. While some of the investigated plants
have been cited by the USDA for similar offenses, others
have had very few GCP citations.

The following investigations were conducted at chicken
slaughter plants over a recent one-year period.
Tyson Foods (P758), Carthage, MS
October 2015
An undercover investigation conducted by Mercy For
Animals (MFA) documented workers throwing, shoving
and punching live birds during shackling. The heads of
shackled birds were pulled off while alive.
Tyson Foods (P7044), Carthage, TX
September 2015
An undercover investigation conducted by the Animal
Legal Defense Fund showed workers intentionally
suffocating birds on the conveyor belt. Some birds were
also crushed by machinery, and a belt malfunction
caused the deaths of 200-300 birds.
Foster Farms (P6137A), Fresno, CA
June 2015
MFA conducted an undercover investigation that
documented workers punching, throwing and beating
birds during shackling. Workers also intentionally ripped
feathers out of live birds “for fun.”
Mountaire Farms (P7470), Robeson County, NC
April 2015
An undercover investigation by Compassion Over
Killing showed workers aggressively punching, shoving
and pushing shackled birds and intentionally ripping
feathers out of birds. Workers also threw live birds into
piles of dead birds.
Wayne Farms (P445), Dobson, NC
March 2015
MFA conducted an undercover investigation that
showed an excessive number of DOA birds. Sick and
injured birds, including some with broken bones,
were shackled on the line for slaughter, and a worker
intentionally suffocated a bird.

Rough handling can result in birds becoming injured before slaughter.

14

Butterfield Foods (P215), Butterfield, MN
January 2015
An undercover investigation by The Humane Society of
the United States documented 45 live birds entering

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 the scald tank in less than 30 minutes. Workers jabbed
metal hooks into transport cages to remove the birds,
and sick and injured birds were thrown against the live
hang wall or tossed into the trash.
Koch Foods (P7487), Chattanooga, TN
November 2014
MFA conducted an undercover investigation that
showed workers violently throwing and kicking birds
during catching. Some birds loaded for transport were
caught in cage doors. At the slaughter plant, live birds
were seen entering the scald tank.

that have had repeated GCP violations. These letters
announce that the state veterinarian and state board of
animal health will be notified of the situation described
within the letter. It is not known why Farm Sanctuary
received Letters of Concerns from only 2 of the 10
USDA District Offices, or whether any state agricultural
agency has ever taken action against a slaughter
establishment for mistreatment of birds.

Some poultry companies have suspended or fired
workers shown on undercover video intentionally
abusing birds. In addition, animal protection groups
conducting the investigations typically request that
slaughter plant personnel be prosecuted under state
animal cruelty laws. Of the seven investigations
described above, charges have been brought in only
one: MFA’s investigation of the Tyson plant in Carthage,
MS, where a total of 33 animal cruelty charges were
brought against seven plant workers.
To AWI’s knowledge, this is the first time cruelty charges
have been filed for mistreatment of animals at a
poultry slaughter establishment. In general, local law
enforcement and prosecutors appear hesitant to pursue
legal action for animal abuse occurring at an inspected
slaughter establishment, perhaps in part because
they view the treatment of birds at slaughter as falling
under the authority of the state or federal department
of agriculture. Moreover, five states exempt slaughter
by “approved methods” from their cruelty laws, and
an additional five states exempt slaughter in general.
Prosecution of animal cruelty at poultry slaughter
plants in the latter states is likely precluded.
The USDA claims that it refers incidents of intentional
mistreatment of birds to state officials, and in fact
AWI has reviewed GCP records that caution plant
management that such action may be taken. Moreover,
in response to a FOIA request, Farm Sanctuary received
a half dozen Letters of Concerns issued by two USDA
District Offices to individual poultry slaughter plants

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

15

 USDA Records Demonstrate
Ineffective Oversight
AWI’s review of USDA records revealed that some
poultry plants have been cited repeatedly for the same
or similar violations of good animal handling practices.
This is not surprising, given that USDA inspection
personnel are not able to take any enforcement action
for most of the violations. If government inspectors
had been able to take strong enforcement action the
first time a handling problem occurred, it is possible
that the problem would not have reoccurred, and the
animals involved in subsequent incidents would have
been spared considerable pain and suffering.
Amick Farms (P7927)
Plant was cited on numerous occasions for incidents
related to the unloading process and condition of
the transport cages. On 4/4/2011, at least four birds
were caught by their heads in cage doors; one died.
On 4/15/2011, birds escaped through a broken cage
door. On 4/17/2011, a severely damaged cage with
an entire side detached was observed. On 5/6/2011,
birds escaped again through a broken cage door.
On 5/15/2011, one bird’s leg was caught in the cage
during unloading.
Case Farms (P44826)
Plant was repeatedly cited for large numbers of
birds not cut by the automatic knife, on 6/6/2013,
6/10/2013, 6/13/2013, 6/18/2013, 6/20/2013,
6/24/2013, 7/2/2013, 7/8/2013 and 7/10/2013.
Case Farms (P15724)
Plant was repeatedly cited for workers throwing live
birds into the DOA bin, on 9/26/2013, 10/22/2013,
10/24/2013, 11/11/2013, 11/28/2013 and 12/2/2013.
Equity Group (P20322)
Plant was cited on numerous occasions for incidents
in which birds were killed or maimed by being caught
in a space between the dumper belt and the live hang
belt. On 10/7/2014, two birds were caught; one died.
On 10/8/2014, four birds were caught in the same gap;
one died. On 10/15/2014, two birds were caught; one

16

received breast lacerations. On 10/22/2014, one bird
was caught by the leg in the side barrier of the live hang
belt for more than 45 minutes. On 10/26/2014, one live
bird was caught by the leg in the same location as the
10/22 incident; the leg was amputated during removal.
Kraft Global Foods (P9070)
Plant was cited for several incidents related to turkeys
being left inverted on the line for an extended period
of time due to a mechanical problem. On 8/5/2013,
32 live birds were left hanging for 47 minutes; one died
and others were in respiratory distress; eight birds were
in the stunner at the time of the line stoppage; all died.
Two days later, on 8/7/2013, 40 live birds were left
hanging for 55 minutes; four died and others exhibited
respiratory distress; eight birds were in the stunner;
all drowned. On 4/28/2014, 37 live turkeys were left
shackled during a breakdown; one died. Two days later,
on 4/30/2014, 40 live turkeys were left hanging during a
power outage that lasted one hour; four died.
PA Farm Products (P9965)
Plant was cited for three incidents related to unloading
and holding in less than one week. On 11/8/2013,
turkeys were exposed to rain during unloading. On
11/12/2013, turkeys were exposed to wind overnight.
On 11/13/2013, plant was cited for having held 870
turkeys on a truck for more than 50 hours without food
or water.
Pilgrim’s (P206)
Plant was cited for having an excessive number of
birds with broken bones and bruising on 9/11/2013,
9/12/2013, 9/17/2013 and 10/16/2013.
Pilgrim’s (P17340)
Plant was cited for one or more cadaver birds on
multiple occasions: 10/12/2011, 10/18/2011,
10/27/2011, 11/10/2011, 11/11/2011, 12/1/2011,
12/15/2011, 12/21/2011, 12/23/2011, 1/3/2012,
1/6/2012, 1/17/2012, 2/6/2012 and 2/15/2012.
Tyson Farms (P477)
On 8/20/2013, an incident occurred in which more
than 150 birds suffocated after the conveyor belt

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 broke down. The very next day, more than 200 birds
suffocated when the belt broke again.
The Most Inhumane Slaughter Plants?
AWI has calculated the number of GCP records issued
to each federal poultry plant during the four-year
period studied (2011-2014). As noted previously,
nearly 40% of all US federally inspected plants were
issued no GCP records, despite the fact that they likely
slaughtered millions of birds during this time. Since
GCP are currently voluntary, it is possible that some of
these plants received few, if any, audits of bird handling.
Consequently, it is not known whether receiving a large
number of GCP-related citations reflects poor bird
handling practices or the presence of conscientious
inspection personnel, or some combination of the two.

Figure 6 lists the plants that were issued the highest
number of GCP records for the period 2011 through
2014. Two Case Farms plants located in the state of Ohio
received, by far, the most citations. While records from
most of the plants on the list depict issues with one or
two areas of bird handling, records from the Case Farms
plants demonstrate problems with nearly all aspects
of handling. The fact that these plants were cited
repeatedly for GCP violations illustrates the failure of the
USDA’s current oversight strategy. Since no consequences
have resulted—other than issuance of Noncompliance
Records or Memorandums of Interview—these plants
have had no incentive to alter their behavior and treat
birds more humanely.

Figure 6. Poultry Slaughter Plants with the Most GCP Records
Company Name

Plant Number

Plant Location

Number of GCP Records
(2011-2014)

Case Farms Processing

P44826

Canton, OH

79

Case Farms of Ohio

P15724

Winesburg, OH

68

Pilgrim’s Pride

P17340

Hickory, KY

41

Pilgrim’s Pride

P218

Lufkin, TX

33

Pilgrim’s Pride

P1353

Chattanooga, TN

28

Amick Farms

P7927

Hurlock, DE

26

OK Foods

P165H

Heavener, OK

25

Tyson Foods

P758

Carthage, MS

23

Tyson Foods

P7044

Carthage, TX

22

Sanderson Farms

P40183

Kinston, NC

22

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

17

 Poultry Industry Misrepresents
USDA Oversight
The US poultry industry promotes the view that the
USDA actively enforces humane slaughter practices for
poultry, while simultaneously arguing that the USDA
lacks the authority to regulate humane slaughter of birds.
Following are examples of inaccurate—and in some
cases, contradictory—statements by leaders of the
poultry industry regarding the USDA’s authority to
regulate the humaneness of slaughter and stop the
mistreatment of birds.

Claim: The USDA regularly takes enforcement
actions to ensure humane handling
Industry Statements
“FSIS inspectors and plant personnel continuously
monitor activities in slaughter establishments ensuring
that humane slaughter practices are followed.”
Tom Super, vice president of communications
National Chicken Council
(Dec. 17, 2013, NCC press statement)
“By law, the Agriculture Department provides aroundthe-clock, on-site inspectors who can take enforcement
action for mistreatment if spotted.”
John Starkey, president
US Poultry & Egg Association
(Mar. 25, 2015, USA Today)
“USDA inspectors are on site. If they see abuse they
have authority to stop things.”
Robert Ford, executive director
North Carolina Poultry Federation
(Mar. 16, 2015, Raleigh [NC] News Observer)
Fact
Current USDA regulations do not allow inspectors to take
enforcement action in response to inhumane handling
of individual birds. Consistent with this, the 2015 USDA
Notice on poultry GCP states that mistreatment of “only
single or small numbers of birds” does not constituent a
noncompliance with FSIS regulations.

18

Claim: The USDA regulates humane handling
Industry Statements
“FSIS has guidelines and directives setting humane
slaughter requirements under the Poultry Products
Inspection Act. To the extent the extreme, exceedingly
rare, and likely exaggerated examples of employee
misbehavior cited in the petition [submitted by AWI
and Farm Sanctuary] actually occur, they likely violate
existing FSIS regulations.”
Tom Super, vice president of communications
National Chicken Council
(Dec. 17, 2013, NCC press statement)
“Humane slaughter is important to our industry, and
we are governed by requirements under the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.”
John Starkey, president
US Poultry & Egg Association
(Mar. 25, 2015, USA Today)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspects
slaughterhouses and sets humane slaughter
requirements under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Robert Ford, executive director
North Carolina Poultry Federation
(Mar. 16, 2015, Raleigh [NC] News Observer)
Fact
The USDA has acknowledged that its regulations
contain no humane handling requirements for
individual birds. Regulation 9 CFR 381.65(b), which
prohibits live birds from drowning in the scald tank, has
been interpreted by the USDA to only apply to large
groups of birds entering the tank while still breathing,
which would indicate that the slaughter system is out of
control. Regulation 9 CFR 381.90 requires that carcasses
showing evidence of the bird having died from causes
other than slaughter be condemned; however, this
section does not prohibit worker behavior that can
result in the death of a bird. According to the 2015
Notice, adherence to GCP is “a process control issue
and not a bird-by-bird performance standard issue.”
Therefore, not one USDA regulation currently requires
that individual birds be handled humanely.

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 Slaughter lines operate at such
high speeds that workers cannot
catch all the birds who are
inadequately cut. The ones they
miss drown in the scald tank.

Claim: The USDA does not have authority to
regulate humane handling
Industry Statement
“The Poultry Products Inspection Act does not grant
FSIS authority to regulate issues that do not affect food
safety, wholesomeness or labeling, and, contrary to its
allegations, nowhere in this petition [submitted by AWI
and Farm Sanctuary] is there a genuine link between
humane handling of chicken and food safety.”
Tom Super, vice president of communications
National Chicken Council
(Dec. 17, 2013, NCC press statement)
Fact
In two statements within the same press release, the
National Chicken Council asserts that the FSIS does
regulate humane handling (and therefore problems of
mishandling and abuse are kept in check) and that the
FSIS has no authority to regulate humane handling.
The rulemaking petition submitted by AWI and Farm
Sanctuary makes the case that the USDA has authority to
regulate handling of birds that has the potential to result
in adulteration of poultry products. The poultry industry
itself has frequently acknowledged the connection
between live animal handling and meat quality.

ANIMAL W ELFARE INSTITUTE

19

 Recommendations
Based on its research into the welfare of birds at
slaughter in the United States, the Animal Welfare
Institute offers the following recommendations:
↘↘ The USDA should promulgate regulations
requiring humane handling of birds to decrease
the adulteration of poultry products. Such
regulations should address worker training, holding
times and conditions in holding areas, maintenance
of transport crates, removal of birds from crates,
shackling of birds, treatment of sick and injured
birds, and measures to prevent live birds from
entering the scald tank.
↘↘ The USDA should implement a reporting system
for humane handling of poultry similar to its
Humane Activities Tracking System for the
slaughter of mammals. The USDA should also
significantly increase its verification audits for the
humane handling of poultry by District Veterinary
Medical Specialists.

↘↘ The poultry industry should share any available
research demonstrating that electrical stunning,
as commonly practiced in the United States,
effectively renders birds insensible to pain prior
to slaughter. If such research does not exist, the
industry should commission scientifically valid
studies to determine the impact of low-current
electrical stunning on bird sensibility. Most
importantly, if research demonstrates that the lowcurrent approach is ineffective, then the industry
must change its practice.
↘↘ Third-party animal welfare certification programs
should require—or at a minimum, strongly
recommend—that producers use stunning
methods that avoid conscious shackling and
cause a minimum of distress to birds. For
producers employing electrical stunning, third-party
certification programs should require that producers
provide evidence of the use of adequate electric
current levels to render birds insensible to pain.

↘↘ The USDA should post online records related to
noncompliance with poultry humane handling
requirements.
↘↘ The USDA should refer incidents involving
intentional abuse of birds at slaughter for
prosecution under state animal cruelty laws. The
USDA should release any evidence in its possession
that could assist in the prosecution of individuals
and companies participating in cruel acts.
↘↘ The US Congress should pass legislation requiring
that all birds killed for food be rendered
insensible to pain prior to slaughter. Congress
should direct the USDA to enact regulations to
require methods of stunning determined by
scientific studies to render birds insensible to pain
with a minimum of distress.

20

The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter in the United States: The Need for Government Regulation

 ('08

Animal Welfare