Opinion>Congress Blog>Opinions - The Administration

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

New proposal could legalize killing more animals

Comments:

by Isaac DeBlasio, opinion contributor - 05/01/26 1:30 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Isaac DeBlasio, opinion contributor - 05/01/26 1:30 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

FILE – Workers process chickens at a poultry plant in Fremont, Neb., on Dec. 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

The Department of Agriculture announced a proposal to reduce food costs by allowing for increased line speeds in slaughterhouses with birds and pigs. This is being championed as a step towards further economic freedom and reduction of food insecurity.

However, an increase in slaughter speed is not the free-market win it is made out to be. In truth, it highlights a grave moral wrongdoing on American soil and exposes how easily big government can strip billions of individuals of their freedoms.

Behind the thick, windowless walls of slaughterhouses lies the cruelest injustice in American history: the mass killing of farmed animals. In the U.S., nearly 10 billion land animals are sent there every year to meet a demise one could only describe as a scene from their worst nightmares. Except this is not a dream; this is the real world.

Industry standards are in place to minimize the animals’ suffering, but their effectiveness is debatable. The practice of stunning to render animals unconscious before slaughter has inconsistencies with success. It has been reported that inadequately stunned animals have failed to be identified in slaughter lines and remained fully conscious as they were killed. At this rate, the proposed plan heightens the risk of more animals being missed in the chaos of the environment.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has published a study evaluating the efficacy of a common stunning method used on birds in the U.S. The criteria for its effectiveness were determined from the birds’ physiological and behavioral reactions post-stun.

In a shocking conclusion, it was found that more animals could be conscious on the kill line than initially believed. Of the tested birds, nearly half may have still experienced some degree of consciousness post-stun. It was recorded that 45 percent still had electrical brain activity that potentially indicated awareness. Additionally, up to 22 percent exhibited behavioral responses, including wing flapping, head shaking, and blink reflexes.

Chicken slaughterhouses are incredibly fast-paced, killing 140 birds per minute. There is no time for slaughterers to read the brain activity of stunned animals. The only criterion they have to determine unconsciousness is the animal’s observed body movements, and many get missed due to the speed. Animals whose bodies are completely paralyzed may still be fully aware of the excruciating end-of-life experience.

The new proposal cannot be championed as a move towards greater freedom while simultaneously enslaving and killing sentient individuals through the use of force.

A free-market society offers the greatest range of individual freedom for all. For this freedom to be maximized, the non-aggression principle must also be present. This moral philosophy discourages the use of force or coercion to achieve one’s own goals, advocating for voluntary interactions that do not impede on others’ liberties.

Although farmed animals are not humans, they do experience inclinations to pursue their own desires free from stress. For example, chickens may want to feel the sun on their feathers and forage during their brief lives. Most are unable to experience this, though, because they are viewed as property with limited individual rights.

One animal activist, Zoe Rosenberg, rescued neglected chickens from being killed at a slaughterhouse in Sonoma County, Calif. But because chickens do not hold legal personhood status, she was charged with felony conspiracy, two counts of trespassing, and tampering with a vehicle.

Cases like this are far too common, where courts deny that the property being stolen is actually an individual in need of rescue.

Animals have no way of representing themselves in court, so it is our duty, as the species capable of high-level moral reasoning, to advocate for them on their behalf.

The adoption of this proposal threatens to legalize the killing of more animals in risky conditions. This would be a huge step backward in the progression of animal rights. In a country that champions liberation from authoritarianism, it would be wise to start considering how the most innocent in this world are treated.

Isaac DeBlasio is a junior fellow at the Wilberforce Institute, a think tank focused on free-market, pro-liberty solutions for fighting animal cruelty.

Add as preferred source on Google