Assessment of USDA FSIS Humane Handling Enforcement Actions: 2021-2023

Clicks: 22
ID: 331524
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #64 of 110 articles by views in Translational animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Humane Handling Enforcement Actions (HHEA) are issued by the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) when federally inspected slaughter establishments fail to comply with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the regulations that are used to enforce it. The objective of this study was to systematically analyze and characterize HHEAs issued by USDA FSIS between 2021 and 2023. All HHEA letters issued by USDA FSIS from January 2021 to December 2023 were accessed from the USDA FSIS website and the following information was recorded for each letter: date, FSIS district, type of regulatory action, reason for the noncompliance, species, follow up action, and plant size. In addition, if stunning was the reason for the HHEA, the type of stun, the reason for stun failure, number of stuns until the animal was rendered insensible, whether an employee had to leave the kill floor to obtain an additional stunning device, and whether attempted exsanguination of a conscious animal occurred were also recorded. Summary statistics were calculated for the entire population dataset. Between 2021 and 2023, 199 HHEAs were issued by USDA FSIS; 62 in 2021, 71 in 2022, and 66 in 2023. Of these HHEAs, the majority involved cattle (49.25%; 95/199) and swine (38.69%; 77/199). A total of 92.96% (185/199) HHEAs included stunning as a cause. Of the 185 HHEAs that involved stunning, most (48.11%, 89/185) involved the mechanical stunning of cattle. Attempted exsanguination of conscious animals (i.e., an attempted or completed cut to the throat of a conscious animal that had not been effectively stunned) was described in 18.38% (34/185) HHEAs issued for stunning or multiple reasons. Additionally, an employee left the kill floor to obtain a backup stunning device in 20.54% (38/185) HHEAs that involved stunning; this occurred most often with cattle (10.27%; 19/185), followed by swine (9.73%; 18/185). Many HHEAs lacked clarity in reporting by FSIS and were classified as ‘not reported.’ HHEAs should indicate the species involved, and if stunning-related, the type of stunning device, reason for stun failure, and total number of stun attempts. Further research and training for slaughter establishment personnel are essential to protect animal welfare at slaughter. Slaughter establishments must also be prepared to take immediate corrective action if an initial stun fails to prevent leaving the kill floor to obtain additional stunning equipment or attempting to exsanguinate a conscious animal.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220727439 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Allison L Matzek, Kurt D Vogel, Denise Perry, Ashlynn A Kirk, Karly N Anderson
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Translational animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/tas/txag154
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txag154
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.