Verification of humane handling in the beef industry

by Leann Saunders – IMI Global Inc. & Jason Ahola, Ph.D., Department of Animal Sciences – Colorado State University

Summary

Many consumers today are making animal product purchasing decisions based on how animals were raised and cared for. This decision is, in most cases, based on labeling claims made on packaged products, point of purchase materials offered, and/or conversations with those selling the product. This specific issue is driven by consumers wanting to know more about how their food is raised and where it comes from.

In today's age of immediate information, social media and 24/7 cable news, consumers want to know as much as possible about the food they are feeding their families. We are in this new world of complete transparency – look no farther than the Facebook phenomenon to understand this trend. Couple this change in how we interact, purchase products and make decisions, with the fact that 98 percent of consumers were not raised on farms or ranches and you quickly realize why this is an important consumer issue today. From a social consciousness perspective, people want to be assured that if they eat a steak, the animal was well taken care of during its lifetime, and they are typically willing to pay more for this assurance.

For those of us involved in food production, the quality of care an animal receives during its lifetime is assumed to be adequate, as we are familiar with livestock production and the concept that if you don’t take care of your livestock, they will not provide for your livelihood. But, for the average consumer with no baseline knowledge, there appears to be a need for verification and validation that animals received appropriate care during their lifetimes and were treated as humanely as possible. Thus, as consumers want more information about their food products, and as brands are working to differentiate themselves, the third-party verification of these credence attributes (those claims made about a product that can’t be determined by simply looking at the product) continues to be in demand.

Discussion

Currently, regulations to oversee the handling of cattle during the slaughtering process are in place. However, prior to the 1958 Humane Slaughter Act, no U.S. laws governed humane slaughter practices. The original law focused on ensuring that proper methods were used to render cattle insensible before shackling, hoisting, casting or cutting. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 was passed as a follow-up to address additional cattle handling concerns associated with the slaughter process.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the reason for the Act is to prevent needless animal suffering, improve meat quality, decrease financial losses and ensure safe working conditions. Compliance with the Act is ensured in beef packing plants via a USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) veterinarian as well as FSIS inspectors on the kill floor. The veterinarian enforces humane slaughter methods throughout the plant by observing methods of slaughter, ensuring corrective action is taken and reporting inhumane treatment of cattle.

Several animal handling and welfare regulations are associated with the Act, and include:

• Animal handling while unloading trucks;
• Appropriate and functional facilities to prevent animal injury;
• Animal handling in pens, alleyways and chutes;
• Handling of disabled or non-ambulatory (“downer”) animals;
• Access to water and potentially feed; and
• Stunning procedures.

Separate from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978, the Animal Welfare Act has been in existence since 1966 (initially referred to as the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966). The Animal Welfare Act focuses on the use and treatment of animals in research laboratories, care and handling of pets, and prevention of cruel practices (including animal fighting). However, the Animal Welfare Act, which is administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, does not cover farm animals that are used for food and fiber. In place of federal laws addressing farm animal care, in recent years several states have passed legislation associated with farm animal welfare.

Initial demand by retailers and consumers

Separate from governmental regulation, in the 1990s the meat packing industry – led by the American Meat Institute (AMI) – initiated voluntary efforts to improve the handling of animals at the time of slaughter. In 1991, AMI published “Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines for Meat Packers,” which was authored by Dr. Temple Grandin, a Colorado State University Associate Professor who has focused her career on animal behavior, humane handling and the design and use of livestock handling facilities. These guidelines focused on animal handling, including the identification of problems with animal handling during the slaughter process (e.g., moving animals, stunning, achieving insensibility on the bleed rail and managing non-ambulatory animals) and possible solutions to these challenges.

In 1997, a follow-up document, “Good Management Practices (GMP) for Animal Handling and Stunning,” was also authored by Dr. Grandin. This resource included information to help packing plants conduct self-audits of animal wellbeing. Ultimately, in 2004 AMI created one animal welfare document (“Animal Handling and Audit Guidelines for the Meat Industry”), which included AMI-approved forms for auditing beef plants.

Only since the mid-1990s has significant animal welfare research occurred, much of which has been led by Dr. Grandin. Her efforts began with a USDA-funded survey of stunning and handling practices in 24 federally inspected beef packing plants in 1996. This initial audit served as a baseline for animal welfare. Each plant was objectively scored for the percentage of cattle that:

• Had to be shot more than once with the captive bolt stunner;
• Were sensible or partially sensible on the bleed rail;
• Fell down or slipped;
• Vocalized in the stunning chute area, stunning box or restrainer; and/or
• Were prodded with an electric prod.

A series of follow-up annual animal welfare audits began in the late-1990s, which were initiated by fast-food retailers (including McDonald’s initially, followed by Wendy’s and Burger King), and utilized Dr. Grandin and her approach to auditing packing plants. In those audits, a set of objective, measureable audit techniques were used to document incidence of the above traits, but primarily only around the time of slaughter. Targets identified for self- and third-party packing plant audits address the same categories that were included in the initial audit (e.g., stunning, bleed rail insensibility, falling/ slipping, vocalization, prodding, etc.).

Global Animal Partnership

A successful retail leader in natural, organic and locally produced foods, Whole Foods Markets made a decision in 2010 that their beef, pork and poultry products would all be required to meet the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards. They launched the program Feb. 2, 2011, and if you go into a Whole Foods store today you will see the GAP Step Rated Product. Whole Foods requires a minimum of Step 1 compliance for all fresh chicken, pork and beef sold in their stores.

Animal welfare initiatives have been a priority to Whole Foods for a number of years. The founding of GAP and, subsequently, Whole Food’s complete adoption of the GAP 5-Step Rated standards across their chicken, pork and beef products is very aggressive and has made a significant statement. Whole Foods sees this as an important purchasing decision for their customers and is moving forward to address it.

Global Animal Partnership (GAP) is nonprofit, whose signature initiative is the 5-Step Program. GAP’s responsibility is to set animal care and wellbeing standards, and then to conduct training of independent certification companies to audit meat suppliers to the established standards. Currently, GAP has standards in place for beef, pork and poultry. The program requires independent, third-party certification companies to evaluate locations (farms/ranches, backgrounders, feedlots) to the 5-Step standards, and the GAP certification process will determine the Step Level achieved. The certifier follows ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Guide 65 guidelines, which requires auditors to be independent of that which they are auditing, employ qualified and trained auditors and ensure consistency in the audits being conducted. Once the audit is conducted, the certifier determines compliance to the step within the standard and determines the location’s approval for a 15-month period of time. The structure of the program is similar to other ISO Guide 65 models, such as certified organic or the USDA Processed Verified Program’s (PVP) model for claims that could change with the animal over time, such as non-hormone treated cattle (NHTC), NeverEver3, etc.

The GAP 5-Step Program allows for traditional/conventional beef production systems to fit into the equation. Step 1 at the feedlot level is similar to much of the same criteria required in the national Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Feedlot Assessment Guidelines for good animal care and wellbeing. Step 1 at the ranch level also engages the participant in good animal care and wellbeing requirements. Step 4 is more specific to grass-finished (or grass-fed) operations or those systems where cattle can continue to have access to pasture for a minimum of three-quarters of their lives. GAP has shown an appreciation for the vast differences in production systems throughout the United States. They consider the uniqueness within each operation, and therefore, openly discuss and consider situations and arguments that provide better welfare. GAP administrators have indicated they will continue to use this information to strengthen the standards moving forward.

In addition to GAP, there are other cattle welfare standard certification programs that are being used by food suppliers, such as Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), which is promoted with a “Certified Humane” label at foodservice and retail. The Animal Welfare Institute Standards promotes its program using the “Animal Welfare Approved” label. From an industry perspective, AMI has recommended its Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide (as mentioned previously), animal care and wellbeing guidelines are part of the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Program and the Beef Marketing Group has a standard called the "Progressive Beef Standard."

Moving forward

Whole Foods Markets has been willing to share with their direct suppliers in the cost of establishing this program in order to build an adequate supply of GAP Step-Rated meat. In spite of being categorized as a natural and organic retailer, Whole Foods Markets actually has a very extensive meat case with products that are sold at premium prices. The shopper demographic for Whole Foods Markets are people with higher discretionary income who have the financial wherewithal to make food purchases based not only on factors such as price and quality, but also “credence attributes.” Whole Foods Markets’ financial investment in purchasing GAP Step-Rated meat underscores the importance of welfare issues to the company and its customer base.

The U.S. beef industry, compared to other more intensive animal production industries (poultry, swine, etc.), is generally viewed as having a much more solid track record in regard to the humane handling of cattle. This is due, in part, to the beef industry’s voluntary grassroots BQA Program – created by cattle producers to assure consumers that the safe, high quality, and wholesome beef they are purchasing is from cattle raised, cared for and handled in a humane manner.

It has been documented that USDA supports the concept of the beef industry creating and voluntarily-implementing objective criteria for GMPs to ensure humane handling of cattle. For most cattlemen, this is preferred to the implementation of mandatory state or federal regulations. However, in the newly expanding market for verification of humane handling of cattle, there is a great need for science-based research related to the development of uniform consumer-driven standards for the proper management, care, handling, and transportation of animals. This includes specific research into the effects of typical on-farm and on-ranch practices (e.g., castration, dehorning, branding, etc.) on animal welfare.

Conclusions

It has been interesting to watch the dialogue on both sides of this topic. Animal welfare continues to be an important issue to many consumers. At the end of the day, everyone wants good animal welfare – from a basic perspective, it makes for a better product – and if these programs help bring people to the middle and feel better about consuming meat products, why wouldn’t we engage?

The beef industry should support science in this arena, engage on the topic and look at ways to improve the welfare of animals while ensuring we do so in the most efficient, cost-effective manner possible. As these programs drive differentiation, it gives both consumers and producers more programs to look at, ponder and make a decision regarding participation.

Additional Resources

On-line resources

Information on some of the animal welfare programs available can be accessed via USDA’s Animal Welfare Information Center at http://awic.nal.usda.gov

Specific details on the GAP 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards is available at www.globalanimalpartnership.com