Reasons we should reject a ban on horse slaughter

In Chile, you can find it in charqui, in Kazakhstan, you can find it in kazy and shuzhuk, in Japan, you can find it in baniku, and in Italy, you can find it in Pastissada. But here in America, where we call pig’s meat pork and cow’s meat steak, we simply call this international ingredient, horse meat. With such a lack of an appetizing and dehumanizing name, it is no wonder that the debate over whether horses should be slaughtered for human consumption in the United States even exists.

On September 7, 2006, the House of Representatives of the United States passed the bill H.R. 503, otherwise known as the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, that would (if ratified by the Senate) “prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes” (United States 109^th Congress, 1). This legislation is the latest manifestation over the debate of whether American’s should allow the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption to continue. In addition to some legislators, the Humane Society of the United States and celebrities like Bo Derek and Willie Nelson are campaigning for the enactment of a ban on horse slaughter, arguing that, (as it says in the passed legislation) “horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion …[and] unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption” (United States 109^th Congress). However, there are many others, including the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners that are campaigning against such a ban.

Likewise, I am resolved that the United States should reject a ban on the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption. A ban on horse slaughter for human consumption should be rejected in the United States because it will have adverse consequences that will hurt the country more so than the current practice does. Firstly, a ban will have adverse economic consequences for Americans. Secondly, it will create conditions for horses that would be more harmful to their welfare. Finally, it would alienate segments of our population who choose to eat horsemeat for cultural, economical, and health reasons which is harmful to a society that professes tolerance and the equal treatment of others.

The first reason why the United States should reject the ban on horse slaughter for human consumption is because it will have adverse economic consequences for Americans. Banning horse slaughter would both increase the amount of taxpayers’ money being spent by the government for the enforcement of the ban while reducing the amount of money being put into the U.S. economy as a result of the practice.

Currently, USDA inspections of horse slaughterhouses are not paid for by taxpayers, but are paid for by the owners of the slaughterhouses on a fee-for-service basis that is “in line with the practice that governs other animals that are not covered by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, such as rabbit and bison” (Zeller, 1). According to Representative Stephanie Herseth (Democrat from South Dakota), who voted against the ban on horse slaughter, “this system is a reasonable approach that has allowed the industry to continue doing business…providing an outlet for old, injured, and unwanted horses but relieving taxpayers of the burden of paying for it” (Herseth, 1). However, if the ban on horse slaughter were implemented, federal money will have to be allocated in order for the ban to be enforced. As it is written into the bill that would ban horse slaughter, this burden will add up to be $5 million of federal funding, further widening our country’s budget deficit and further straining the state of our economy.

Furthermore, though the proponents of the ban on horse slaughter try to cast the business as a benefit for only the owners of these slaughterhouses, these companies employ working class American citizens to work at their plants and pay American horse owners for their unwanted horses, bringing money into the U.S. economy. Were horse slaughter to be banned, our economy would be further burdened by the loss of jobs for the “hundreds of U.S. citizens that work in the slaughterhouses” and there would be a loss of monetary compensation for owners who sell their unhealthy or unwanted horses and are usually able to recoup at least some of their losses for about $300 to $400 a horse (Zeller, 2).

Secondly, a ban on the slaughter of horses would not only cause economic losses for our country, but it will also create conditions for horses that would be more harmful to their welfare. A ban on horse slaughter, though it is often construed as an effort to protect the welfare of horses, would actually create worse conditions for their welfare by eliminating an outlet for unhealthy and unwanted horses.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, “removing the process as a management option [for unhealthy and unwanted horses] actually poses a greater risk to horse welfare” (Gillete, 1). Each year, slaughterhouses process thousands of horses, according to the USDA, processing nearly 95,000 just in 2005 (United States, “Livestock 2005 Summary”). What then, is to happen to these horses, once this outlet is removed?

For Jerry Finch, the founder of the anti-slaughter, horse rescue group, Habitat for Horses, their mission to rescue horses who are suffering from neglect and inhumane living conditions is a struggle against the odds, especially with the surplus of neglected horses due to “backyard breeders” (Olsson, 4). According to Finch, these horse owners “breed and breed” creating a surplus of horses for no apparent reason (Olsson, 4). It is horses in these horrid living conditions that small organizations, such as Habitat for Horses in which Finch holds both the titles of “founder” and “main pooper scooper,” attempt to rescue horses from (Olsson, 3). However, once horse slaughter is eliminated as an option, the number of horses that suffer under such conditions will increase and consequently add thousands to the number of neglected, unhealthy and unwanted horses that Finch and other groups are scrambling to rescue from a life of suffering. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, were horse slaughter to be banned, this would “overwhelm the ability of horse protection facilities to care for them” thus worsening the conditions for horses (“AVMA outlines flaw in horse slaughter bill”, 2).

Furthermore, many of the horses who are rescued by groups such as Habitat for Horses were not even part of that number bound for the slaughterhouse to begin with since “many are too skinny to be worth much” (Olsson, 4). This only makes the burden that much heavier for such independent rescue organizations to become the primary outlet for unhealthy and unwanted horses were a ban on horse slaughter enacted, and, with roughly 95,000 more horses for these organizations to take in, it is hard to imagine that they would be able to take care of them all. Thus, with a ban on horse slaughter, the United States would be left with in increasing number of horses living for a prolonged period of time in inhumane conditions.

Finally, though at times it is the welfare of horses that appears to be driving the force behind the move to ban horse slaughter in the United States, a closer examination of the argument reveals that the driving force behind the ban is more likely a cultural bias that gives preference to horses over other animals. Such a ban on horse slaughter would alienate segments of our population who choose to eat horsemeat for cultural, economical, and health reasons and would be harmful to our society which professes tolerance and the equal treatment of others.

Not all Americans share this cultural preference for horses and accordingly, they choose to eat horse meat despite the views of the majority. Many Americans still participate in the cultures of their homelands. For example, when I grew up in Hawai`i, my neighbors (who were American citizens) would cook a horse for celebrations, consistent with the Tongan traditions of from their family’s past such as drinking the Kava root. However, proponents of the ban on horse slaughter, such as Representative John E. Sweeney who sponsored the legislation H.R. 503, claim that “Americans do not eat our horses” (Sweeney, 1). This leads one to question just who proponents of the ban on horse slaughter consider to be Americans. Would those who choose to eat horse, in line with traditions from their cultures then, not be American?

A ban on horse slaughter shows a gross intolerance for the values of other cultures by assuming that the values of one culture outweigh the values of the rest simply because one culture outnumbers the other. This intolerance was revealed in the refusal of an amendment to the current legislation to ban horse slaughter, that would have precluded from the bill “groups who have historically used equine meat for religious or cultural reasons,” such as the Native American tribes of the Great Northern Plains, including the Great Sioux Nation (King, 1). A ban on horse slaughter would be harmful to our society by functioning to eliminate the cultural and religious practices of groups in the minority. Moreover, such a ban based on cultural beliefs sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the U.S. government to decide what constitutes ‘American culture’ and what does not.

Even if we were to disregard the consequences of creating an official American culture that does not eat horse, we can still find instances of horse consumption by those in line with the mainstream, American culture. In the early seventies, stores in “Hawai`i, New Jersey, and Connecticut offer[ed] cheap horse meat” in a reaction to the rising costs of beef (Olsson, 3). Though many Americans can currently afford to eat beef today, a ban on horse slaughter would eliminate an economical alternative source for meat were beef prices to rise again as they did in the seventies. A ban on horse slaughter would serve to alienate those who would not be able to afford any of the meats preferred by the mainstream and it would eliminate and economical alternative for those who do not have enough money.

Furthermore, in addition to cultural and economical reasons, horse is eaten because of health reasons. One reason accounting for the popularity of horsemeat in Europe and Japan is due “in large part because horses don’t carry mad cow disease or foot-and-mouth disease” (Eig, 2). Horse meat is also a healthy alternative to other meats because it is low in fat, high in protein, and has “40% fewer calories than even the leanest beef while supplying 50% more protein and up to 30% more iron” (“Horse Meat”). A ban on horse slaughter would eliminate this beneficial meat alternative for those who choose to eat horse meat for health reasons, thus restricting their freedom of choice. Therefore, a ban on the horse slaughter would be harmful to our society because it would alienate segments of our population who choose to eat horse meat for cultural, economical, and health reasons.

Though the proponents of a ban on horse slaughter feel that it should be banned because of the adverse consequences to horses, we must also consider the adverse consequences to both horses and humans that could result because of a ban. Thus, a ban on horse slaughter for human consumption should be rejected in the United States because it will have adverse consequences that will hurt the country more so than the current practice does. Such consequences include the adverse economic consequences for Americans, the creation of conditions for horses that would be more harmful to their welfare, and the alienation of segments of our population who choose to eat horsemeat for cultural, economical, and health reasons which is harmful to a society that professes tolerance and the equal treatment of others.

This is why I am resolved that the United States should not ban the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption. One cultural value that we frequently use is that of freedom. We have the freedom to keep cows, pigs, and horses as pets and the freedom to be vegetarians, vegans, and meat-eaters. It follows then, that we should also have the freedom to decide what kind of meat we can eat. If all men are created equal, then does it not follow that so are all animals? Or is it as George Orwell once observed that “all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell, vi).

Works Cited
“AVMA outlines flaws in horse slaughter bill.” DVM. March 2004: 1E+. ProQuest. 20 Nov. 2006 . Eig, Jonathan. “Horse d’Oeuvres? Mister Ed Becomes the Other Red Meat.” The Wall Street Journal. 30 March 2001: A1. ProQuest 20 Nov. 2006 < did="70301689&sid="2&Fmt="3&clientId="4676&" rqt="309&VName="PQD">. Gillete, Bill. “American Horse Slaughter Protection Act moves to Senate.” DVM.Oct. 2006: 12-13. ProQuest. 20 Nov. 2006 < did="1166663341&sid="1&Fmt="3&clientId="4676&RQT="309&VName="PQD">. Herseth, Stephanie. “Rep. Herseth Opposes Bill to Ban Horse Slaughter.” U.S. Federal News Service. 7 Sept. 2006. 10 Oct. 2006 . “Horse Meat.” Wikipedia. 2006. 20 Nov. 2006 .King, Steve. “Rep. King: Don’t Waste Our Time.” U.S. Federal News Service. 7 Sept. 2006. 15 Oct. 2006 .Olsson, Karen. “Eating a Dead Horse.” Texas Monthly. Dec. 2006: 1+. ProQuest. 29 Nov. 2006. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. Sweeney, John E. “Rep. Sweeney Bans Slaughter of Horses.” U.S. Federal News Service. 7 Sept. 2006. 15 Oct. 2006 . United States. Cong. House. 109th Congress, 2nd Session. H.R. 503, A Bill to Amend the Horse Protection Act… [introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives; 1 Feb. 2005]. 19 Oct. 2006 . United States. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service. “Livestock Slaughter 2005 Summary.” United States Department of Agriculture. Mt An 1-2-1 (06) a. March 2006. 15 Oct.2006 .Zeller, Shawn. “Horse Slaughter War Comes to Washington.” CQ Weekly. 20 Jan. 2006. 10 Oct. 2006 .