Millions of farm animals are exposed to unnecessary stress and suffering before and during slaughter – because workers lack the expertise, skills and technology to ensure humane treatment. That`s why we`ve worked with food companies, governments and scientists in Brazil, China and Indonesia to promote humane slaughter. And our work with our partners is helping veterinarians in Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines introduce humane slaughter as well. There are several ways to promote improvements in slaughter practices, including scientific, economic and legislative ones. As mentioned at the beginning, there is a lot of work in animal welfare science aimed at studying and improving slaughter. The scientific study of the specific harms caused by certain slaughter and pre-slaughter practices and the development of more humane alternative practices will serve to inform and motivate consumers, producers and legislators to make changes. All humane killing methods, including on-farm slaughter and euthanasia, must meet the same criteria: this stress-to-suffering ratio doesn`t even meet the USDA`s notoriously lax criteria for “humane slaughter.” The discussion of animal welfare damage at slaughter usually includes the pain and suffering experienced by animals during the processes of transport, handling and killing. On the other hand, we argue here that even if it were possible to design a slaughter process that does not cause any of this active damage to animals, their welfare can still be affected by the loss of life. Those on social assistance have generally not viewed death as a welfare problem. This may be because well-being has generally been considered at a specific time rather than during life [15], or because well-being is generally considered experiential, so things an animal cannot experience (such as death) cannot affect it [16]. However, both assumptions can be questioned. In any case, our arguments in favour of the inability of truly humane slaughter should not be seen as undermining the importance of research in this area or as a pressure for improved practices.
Although slaughter can always be at least somewhat inhumane, it can be more or less inhumane. If we cannot prevent it, we should at least strive for improvements. Especially when it comes to the form of life, the best way to reduce this problem is to continue research and development of slaughter practices and techniques so that it contains a minimum of suffering. 1978 The Humane Slaughter Methods Act is expanded by an amendment requiring cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, mullets, and other horses (poultry not included) imported into the United States for meat to be slaughtered humanely. Foreign packers exporting to this country must meet standards equivalent to those required by U.S. meat companies. USDA inspectors have the authority to stop the slaughter line on the ground if they find that an animal of a covered species is being slaughtered or treated in a manner inconsistent with the law in relation to slaughter. Slaughter may not resume until equipment defects or misuse by personnel have been remedied. As the practice of slaughter continues, every effort should be made to ensure that animal welfare remains as high as possible.
This, of course, involves eliminating or minimizing pain and/or suffering, but perhaps even some consideration of positive welfare states could be introduced (here, the rise of animal sentience research – such as the recent creation of the journal Animal Sentience – has played an important role in understanding the mental and emotional lives of animals and their connection to welfare [49,50]). This may seem a somewhat absurd proposal given the current state of practice and the suffering that remains to be eliminated. However, there is no reason why slaughterhouses should theoretically not be able to provide positive experiences for animals in the pre-slaughter period, such as pleasant sounds, smells and activities. For example, the smarter an animal is, the more cognitive stimulation it needs to avoid boredom and experience positive states such as pleasure and excitement.[51] This can then end up creating something closer to a pet drifting quietly in the arms of a loving owner than the current procedures of the industrialized slaughterhouse. This would make the end of life less negative and compensate for some of the considerations about the form of life. Although we have argued that slaughter will always cause harm and therefore will never be truly humane in the deeper sense, we still support all measures aimed at improving welfare and moving closer to a more humane slaughter process. The problem that creates the form of a life hypothesis for the case of slaughter is that slaughter is a negative experience that necessarily occurs at the end of life. Slaughter will always be a negative experience for animals. Despite all efforts to ensure the humanity of the slaughter process, there is inevitably stress and suffering. In fact, current slaughterhouses generally operate far below the best standards [9], and large numbers of animals may suffer severe pain and suffering in the final moments of their lives.
