New Horse Meat Regulations in the European Union

One of the major export markets for Australian horse meat is the European Union. People living in Italy, France, Belgium, etc, have eaten horse meat for a very long time, and as such have a pretty good understanding of the health risks to people eating horse meat that has not been monitored to rule out prohibited substances.

The European Union have now brought in standards that require countries exporting horse meat to the EU to comply with the following:

"Taking into consideration that in most cases horses are not specifically reared as food producing animals and usually end up in the food chain at the end of their productive lives, special attention needs to be given to the requirements of Council Directives 96/23/EC and 96/22/EC which should guarantee that the horses slaughtered are safe for human consumption. Notwithstanding third countries' existing obligations to implement a residue monitoring plan and submit this on an annual basis to the Commission services for approval, third countries are expected to implement the following measures for those equidae, meat from which is intended to be exported to the EU:

• Equine animals intended for food production should be identified and a system of identity verification should be established.
• In third countries where anabolic steroids are marketed for fattening purposes, there should either be a prohibition on the administration of anabolic steroids for growth promotion purposes to all equidae or there should be a separate system for equidae which may be slaughtered for export of equine meat to the EU. This would require that equidae intended for meat production for the EU would be identified and segregated from those equidae treated with anabolic steroids.
• Treatment records. The purpose of recording treatments of animals with veterinary medicinal products is to ensure that animals are not slaughtered within the withdrawal period of the medicine in question, thus providing guarantees that the EU Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for the particular pharmacologically active substance is respected. In the EU stock farmers are required to keep medicines records. On that basis it is expected that treatments with veterinary medicinal products should be recorded on a document linked to and accompanying the identified animal when moving from one premise to another or to the slaughterhouse (food chain information).
• At the time of moving the animal to the slaughterhouse, the competent authority of the third country should be able to guarantee that the required withdrawal periods for veterinary medicinal products administered to the animal and recorded in the food chain information have been respected.
• The third-country exporting equine meat should set up a risk based programme for controls on the use of veterinary medicinal products and substances prohibited for use in the EU. The control programme should include regular inspections on holdings, collection centres and at slaughterhouses."

Also:

"Any horse in the EU treated with phenylbutazone must be excluded from the food chain and be signed out of the food chain in the equine passport."

Here is the link to the entire document on the EU's official website.

Put simply, all horses that are to be slaughtered for human consumption must be identified (microchipped) and their individual veterinary histories must follow them from owner to owner, and then finally to the abattoir. No anabolic steroids, no Phenylbutazone, indeed none of these commonly used products and medications. Measures to comply with this new system are to have been in place by the 31st July, 2010.

Currently, there is no system of registering horses in Australia, and definitely no system of tracking their veterinary histories. Here is a link to the European Union's horse passport system, in all its technical glory. Australia is a very long way from having that sort of system. So far in fact, that some of the products that exclude a horse from slaughter can be purchased by anyone over the counter, with no veterinarian required.

So what will happen now?

Will the two Belgian owned export abattoirs, one in South Australia and one in Queensland, simply sell more meat to markets outside of the EU? Japan for example? In which case, how long will it take for Japan to become dissatisfied with meat that the EU has deemed to be unsafe?

Will racehorse breeders who rely on getting rid of their horses in this way start keeping detailed records on each horse voluntarily, as part of a "split system"?

Will there be a demand for more brumbies to be slaughtered, instead of domesticated horses?

This is not impossible, as you will see here in the section of the above document from the EU that relates to brumbies:

"For equidae caught in the wild, the provisions as laid down for wild land mammals apply. These provisions foresee the submission of an annual residue monitoring plan which is restricted to the analysis of environmental contaminants (e.g. heavy metals). Countries so approved will be listed in the Annex to Commission Decision 2004/432/EC under the column entitled "Equine"."

It seems that in the most recent Annex to Commision Decision 2004/432/EC, Australia is listed as an approved country. See here for the document in question, 2010/327/EU, dated 10th June 2010. So brumby meat will not be affected by the new regulations.

These are interesting times indeed for the issue of horse slaughter for human consumption.

Your Questions Answered #3

This post is in response to a twitter exchange with someone asking for question suggestions for an interview with butcher Vince Garreffa.

My answers unfortunately don't fit into 140 characters or less, but I shall endeavour to keep them brief!

The Twitter exchange so far:

Them - Interviewing Vince from Mondo Butchers to clarify why he sells horse meat. What are some things you want me to ask?

Me @them - would love to know his thoughts on the rational argument against consuming Oz horse meat:http://tinyurl.com/292npx5 :)

Me @them - Oh, and I'm very interested in what screening/food safety procedures the govt made him follow, re: drugs in horses :)

Them - Interview with Vince from Mondo butchers will be posted on Youtube tonight. Was a real eye opener! some of the facts...

Them - Horse meat he sells has been approved by the RSPCA, yet Vince is banned from sellling horse burgers at the Truffle Fest on Saturday

Them - @DontEatAusHorse He has an extensive list of screening procedures at the same abattoir he gets his lamb, beef. Screened for steroids

Them - @DontEatAusHorse 60-70,000 horses are being shipped out of Oz to JAP, HOLL, GER, FRA, BEL for consumption...so why can't a butcher sell?

Firstly, I'm looking forward to the Youtube video. Hopefully you've been able to go into greater depth than the mainstream media has so far.

Regarding the RSPCA approval, has the RSPCA specifically looked into the slaughter of the horses at the abattoir he is using? I'm very interested to learn more about this, as there are no abattoirs in Western Australia specifically set up for horses. The only two horse abattoirs in Australia are the two Belgian owned export facilities in South Australia and Queensland. (To clarify - horse abattoirs are different to knackeries that slaughter horses for pet food, fertiliser, etc.)

The Truffle Festival decided to ask Vince not to sell horse meat at the festival because they were concerned about people protesting there. An understandable decision by the organisers, as they wish to hold a successful event, not one disrupted by protesters.

I would love to see the list of screening procedures. Glad to hear they were screened for steroids. I'm hoping they were screened for other things also, particularly Phenylbutazone. I understand that the limited scope of Twitter may have prevented you from listing further substances, so I look forward to seeing more in the Youtube video.

The well worn argument of "it's good enough for people overseas, so it's good enough for Aussies" would no doubt be quite valid if it were true. New food safety measures being brought in for the European Union on July 31st 2010 will exclude Australian horse meat from their dinner tables, because in the EU they have stringent health standards for tracing prohibited substances in the meat, something which Australia does not do.

You listed France, Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium among the countries importing Australian horse meat. They will all be affected by the new health standards for horse meat in the EU.

You can read about the European Union's standards for residues in horses from third countries in detail here.

I will post more from this document later, but here are some of the key requirements of third countries exporting horse meat to the EU that definitely impact on Australian exports:

"Equine animals intended for food production should be identified and a system of identity verification should be established.

Treatment records. The purpose of recording treatments of animals with veterinary medicinal products is to ensure that animals are not slaughtered within the withdrawal period of the medicine in question, thus providing guarantees that the EU Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for the particular pharmacologically active substance is respected. In the EU stock farmers are required to keep medicines records. On that basis it is expected that treatments with veterinary medicinal products should be recorded on a document linked to and accompanying the identified animal when moving from one premise to another or to the slaughterhouse (food chain information)."

Currently in the EU:

"Any horse in the EU treated with phenylbutazone must be excluded from the food chain and be signed out of the food chain in the equine passport."

Australia has no system for registering horses, definitely no system for tracking medications given to horses, and Phenylbutazone is one of the most common drugs that is used here.

Australian horse meat is NOT "good enough" for people in Europe, who have been consuming horse meat for a very long time, and therefore know a bit more about the health risks. From this it is fairly easy to conclude that it is also NOT "good enough" for Australians.

The figure of 60-70,000 horses being exported is disturbingly large, and I'd be very interested to know the source of that figure. A study published in 2008 has the following to say about the number of horses slaughtered in Australia for export markets:

"The number of horses slaughtered has been estimated from data collected from Ramsay (1994) and has dropped from over 30,000 in the late 1990’s to the current levels of approximately 11,000 – 13,000 horses per annum."

Source - RSPCA knowledgebase report, Amanda Doughty 2008, from the School of Animal Studies and The Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics The University of Queensland, Gatton. The full report (thesis) is available in PDF format here (file size 1.26mb.)

Another figure that I've seen quoted is 40,000 horses per year. It is very difficult to accurate information on this. The government collects the figures, how about they start making them publicly available?

I hope that has covered everything. Sorry if it's a bit on the long side, but I believe it is important to be thorough!

Once again, I am happy to answer all questions, so keep them coming. Comment on the blog, or send me a tweet @donteataushorse

Horse drugs - They have safety standards though, right?

If you've read my summary of the two main points of concern regarding horse slaughter for human consumption, whether it be in WA, or at the two export abattoirs in SA and Qld, then you'll know that if there are prohibited horse drugs in the meat, it can be toxic to humans.

But surely the people who work in the horse slaughter trade know this, and there are safety measures in place, right? I mean... many products that are used on horses have a meat withholding period in the first place because the industry is regulated... right?

Sure, horse meat apparently comes under the National Residue Survey, so that for each horse slaughtered, apparently $5 must be contributed towards monitoring and assessing chemical residues in exported agricultural products.

Many consider the current system to be insufficient, and assert that a national system of horse registration is required to keep track of substances used on horses.

The problem can be illustrated thusly: Sandy has a one year old horse. The horse cuts his leg and it blows up like a balloon, so she calls the vet. The vet prescribes Ilium Dermapred ointment to be applied to the wound, and Phenylbutazone to help ease the inflammation.

Both of these drugs are very commonly used on horses, but "NOT TO BE USED on horses that may be slaughtered for human consumption" (says so right there on the label, with those exact capital letters.)

Sandy has no plans for her horse to be slaughtered, so it's not a problem.

The horse takes a little while to heal up, but because treatment was started straight away he heals up really well with no visible scar. Thank goodness for that!

So some time goes by, horsey is now three years old, so Sandy gets him "broken in" to saddle and starts riding him. He bucks, and Sandy falls off a couple of times. She decides that he's too much for her to handle and she needs to sell him. Sandy will be sad, but that's what happens with horses. She needs to make room in the paddock for a horse that she can ride.

So Gus buys him from Sandy. He's an experienced rider who wants to make him into a showjumper. Sandy thinks that'll be great, so the sale goes through.

At no point does it occur to Sandy to tell Gus that she gave the horse 2 restricted medications two years ago. Why would she? The horse healed up perfectly, there's no problem with the horse now. Gus would think her very strange indeed for even mentioning it.

What's more Sandy is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to tell ANYONE what drugs she has given to her horse. The vet does not have to report it, no one has to say anything.

So the horse goes showjumping, but he can't jump high enough, so 6 months later he gets sold to a guy called Mark.

Mark has the horse for a while, but then the horse injures himself in the paddock. The injury means the horse can no longer be ridden. Mark isn't going to keep a horse that can't be ridden, so he calls the phone number in the paper for "that guy who buys unwanted horses."

So the horse ends up with the local horse dealer who buys any horse, no matter what's wrong with it. Because the horse is injured he ends up being sold to the abattoir. While the abattoir may ask the person selling them the horse if the horse has had any prohibited medications, there is no way the horse dealer, or even Mark, would know what previous owners have given the horse.

In the absence of any system of registering and microchipping horses to track the medications they are given, each horse needs to be tested for prohibited substances to be sure that there is no health risk to those consuming the meat.

But is testing each horse financially viable?

Of course not. You can't drug test every horse for $5 a head... And this is why I have grave concerns about our export industry.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I'm a "horse person", and you can argue bias all you like, but I would find this part just as much of a concern as if Australia were exporting contaminated tofu...

Edit: Sorry, nearly forgot to mention what happened in WA!

Apparently the WA Health Department "screened" each of the horses slaughtered for Vince Garreffa to make sure they were safe for human consumption. So far my simple question "What did the screening process actually involve?" has gone unanswered. If they had to do a background check or scientific test on each horse, then surely that's an unsustainable method if horse meat is to find a market here? Is the government going to run around doing this extra work for a meat market that is, in Vince Garrefa's own words, "small potatoes"?

Article in The West does not address the real issues

The West published an article on their website this morning about the anti horse meat backlash... unfortunately they've focussed on animal rights activists instead of the real concerns of those of us willing to engage in reasonable debate about this!

Human health risks? No mention... Animal welfare concerns in the slaughter process? No mention... Someone ringing up and mentioning "Underbelly"? Well of course that got in there...

Who would expect such a thing from a newspaper... Hmmm... Oh dear, so easy to be cynical...

Link to the story: "Threats over horse meat sales"

Media Release from Second Chance Horse Rescue

Here is the official media release from Second Chance Horse Rescue regarding the current situation in Western Australia. Second Chance are a horse welfare and rescue organisation who operate in WA.

Second Chance Horse Rescue Inc – Media Statement - Slaughter of Horses for human consumption in Western Australia – July 2010

Second Chance Horse Rescue is a not for profit organisation dedicated to the welfare of horses in Western Australia. Second Chance is opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption and urges the State Government to remove the horse as a declared animal under the Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act 1976 (WA).

Second Chance has reached this position for the following reasons:
1. Concern for Animal Welfare

a. Slaughter of horses
Second Chance is not opposed to the humane euthanasia of horses. Second Chance is however concerned that the slaughter of horses for human consumption will result in poor welfare for the horses involved. This is because there is no purpose built abattoir for killing horses for human consumption in Western Australia.

Horses are naturally more flighty than cattle or sheep and abattoir facilities designed for those species are not suitable for horses without compromising their welfare. Unless a race and holding/stunning box is specifically designed for horses, a horse is likely to be able to move excessively which results in ineffective stunning, causing unnecessary pain and suffering during the slaughter process, an unacceptable result.

In addition, personnel at abattoirs are unlikely to be experienced in handling horses. As a minimum, Second Chance would expect anyone involved in handling horses for slaughter to have undergone training in stock handling techniques specified for horses, as is done for other species, in order to minimise stress on the animals and improve safety and welfare.

b. Lack of enforcement of Animal Welfare Legislation
Second Chance is concerned that if a market for horse meat for human consumption is established in Western Australia, the welfare of horses will not be controlled given the current appalling state of animal welfare law enforcement in Western Australia. Such a market could result in horses frequenting saleyards, enduring long distance transportation and the establishment of 'backyard breeders' in an effort to produce large numbers of young horses as cheaply as possible.

The sole animal welfare agency of the State Government, the Animal Welfare Unit of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, has only 2 inspectors who are responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) in all of Western Australia. It is clear that there will be nobody to regulate such an industry and ensure animal welfare standards are complied with.

2. Drug Residues and Food Safety

Horses are not included in the National Livestock Identification System and do not require waybills when sold or moved within Western Australia, unlike other livestock. This means it is impossible to know where horses have come from in the event of a disease outbreak or food safety or residue contamination issue.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace a horse's origin removing incentive for sellers to ensure that horses destined for slaughter are free of chemical residues. Given that the equine industry uses large quantities of drugs, such as phenylbutazone, that have been banned by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority for use in food producing animals, the Government will be placing human health and safety at inexcusable risk. This risk is especially real if the majority of horses destined for slaughter are by-products of the racing industry, an industry which has a high demand for veterinary drugs such as phenylbutazone.

3. International comparison

Second Chance finds the decision of the State Government to legalise horse slaughter for human consumption especially unfathomable given the recent banning of this exact same practice in the United States in 2006.

Link to source

Thinking of Trying Horse Meat in WA? Read this first...

Here is a simple summary of two major issues of concern with regard to the recent decision to allow the sale of horse meat for human consumption in Western Australia.

1. Human Health

Horses in Australia are routinely treated with medications, feed additives and even products such as insect repellents that have "NOT TO BE USED ON HORSES THAT MAY BE SLAUGHTERED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" written on the label.

Horses slaughtered for human consumption are not bred for this purpose, and as such their owners and trainers use these products without a second thought. For example, if you want a racehorse to be a winner, of course you will do whatever necessary to keep it fit and healthy. While the horse is still racing there is no problem, but what happens if that horse is too slow, ends up being put through an auction and is purchased by a meat buyer?

In Australia there is no system of tracking individual horses and the medications, etc, that they have been given throughout their lifetime. It is difficult even to track down information about who may have owned the horse in the past, let alone what treatments it may have received.

One very commonly used drug that is of major concern is Phenylbutazone, known in the horse world as "bute". It is used by many horse owners as if it is "horsey panadol", given to horses whenever there is even the slightest thing wrong with them. One of the key reasons why Europe introduced a system of horse "passports" was to track the use of Phenylbutazone, which is not safe for humans to consume at any level in horse meat. Until such a system is introduced in Australia, there are serious risks to human health in bringing horse meat to the table.

Edit: In the case of the horses slaughtered for Vince Garreffa, the WA Health Department "screened" the horses to ensure they were safe. The exact screening procedures are not known to me at this point, despite repeated requests for this information (I will update this if my questions are answered at some point.) If the screening involves such measures as background checks or blood tests on each horse, this would seem to be a ridiculously unsustainable method of ensuring food safety... particularly bearing in mind that other butchers will no doubt also wish to start selling horse meat.

2. Inhumane Slaughter Technique

Without going into unpleasant details... The method of slaughter used on horses intended for human consumption is designed for cows, not horses. Horses are not rendered unconscious in the same way as cows, due to the different shape of their skulls. This results in them suffering terribly in the slaughter process.

A humane technique has yet to be found, and this has led to horse slaughter for human consumption being banned in the United States.

If you can handle the unpleasant details, please click here or here for more information. (These links are from the USA, but the technique is the same as that used in Australia.)

Please take a look at this online petition regarding the decision in Western Australia. It will only take a moment of your time if you decide to sign it.

Unfortunately this matter in Western Australia is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the massive problem of horse slaughter in Australia. We will be updating this blog regularly with more information, but until then, for further reading visit Horse Slaughter FAQs and Do you need to breed? (A 278kb PDF file that you are encouraged to print out and plaster about where horsey people might see it!)