Killing animals for food has been long identified as a moral question that affects food choice (16). Historically, food choice or specific food aversion has been motivated by religious, health, or moral concerns. Horsemeat is widely consumed in non-English speaking countries. In liberal democracies, entrepreneurs are generally free to sell any type of food product they wish, provided that a food product is not derived from an endangered species and is not harmful to human health, a market for it exists, and manufacturers comply with existing sanitation and food safety regulations. An example of a new product is crocodile meat (17).
If native born US horses had an assurance of a minimum length of life, regulation of slaughter (but not prohibition) would be expected. In the state and federal legislation passed thus far in the USA to prevent trade in horsemeat, the right to kill horses humanely has not been challenged, with the exception of those falling under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program (2). Under recent legislative changes, horses remain property and anyone in the USA can humanely kill his or her own horse without fear of sanction. It is the providing of horse tissue as meat for human consumption that has become the criminalized human act.
Food avoidances and taboos have historically been based on religion, or have functioned to demonstrate social status differences between individuals and social groupings (18). Although Leviticus is silent on the specific issue of horse (19), in 723, Pope Gregory III indicated that the eating of horses was a ‘filthy and abominable custom’ in his instructions to Boniface, Bishop to the Germans (20). In Ireland, the Canones hibernenses, which date from the 7th century, impose an unusually harsh penance of 4 y on bread and water for the consumption of horsemeat (20). The explanation of this nonbiblically based Canon Law is that the consumption of horsemeat was associated with pre-Christian Celtic and Teutonic religious sacrifice (20,21). The church condemnation of horsemeat consumption was directed to suppressing pagan practices and distinguishing the Christian from the heathen (20,21).
In the past 30 y, there has been a general decrease in meat consumption in western culture and an increase in vegetarian practices (22,23). Specific food avoidance, especially meat avoidance, is commonly supported by ideological justification and the emergence of moral vegetarianism (24,25). Moral vegetarians view meat avoidance as a moral imperative and, in contrast to health vegetarians, are upset by others who participate in meat consumption (24). In some social circles, the act of eating has progressed from being a source of nutrition and sensory pleasure to being a social marker and, often, a declaration of moral entity or a manifestation of a philosophy of life (24–26), similar to the presumed intent of Pope Gregory III almost 1300 y ago.
More recently, a new concept has been introduced into the thinking on ethics of food choice, specifically “conscientious omnivory.” Conscientious omnivory is a consumer-based food choice and purchase pattern in which the individual consumes a broad range of meat and animal products; however, these individuals choose to consume products from animals in a production system that, the consumer believes, uses animals in ways that assure that the animal’s life has been worth living (27). For example, Matheny and Chan (27) argue that consumption of beef from cattle that spend a majority of their lives under pastoral conditions has fewer severe ethical concerns than the consumption of pork and poultry from animals that are raised in more intensive confinement. The ethical argument for horse-meat prohibition is clearly not consistent with the conscientious omnivory argument. Of possible farm animals available for human food, it could be argued that horses have, on average, the best quality of life and, therefore, should provide the fewest ethical issues for an individual that normally would prefer free range eggs, grass fed beef, and similar products.
Historically, specific food aversion and food as identity has been used as a symbolic tool to separate people by cultural identity. Both the Senate Bill (S. 311) and the House Bill (H.R. 503), introduced in the 1st session of the 110th Congress, contain the clauses “horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion” and “unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption.” Both statements reflect a perception or myth of the American experience of the horse. To have an alternate view of the horse would be, by comparison to this standard, “un-American.” The discourse in opposition to horse slaughter is more compatible with cultural intolerance or a resurgence of nativist convictions than by a claim of concern for unnecessary pain and suffering of animals.
Horsemeat consumption, seen as part of pagan sacrifices and celebration, understandably resulted in severe sanction under archaic Irish Canon Law (20). Under natural law, sanction is proportional to the severity of offence. In California, since 1998, a 2nd offence of offering horsemeat as human food is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence (MMS) of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 2 y (28). Interestingly, the California Penal Code stipulates that conviction for intentionally and maliciously committing an act of mutilation, maiming, torturing, or wounding a living animal may be punished by incarceration in a county jail for not more than 1 y — a misdemeanour, as is bestiality (29). In Canada, most Criminal Code MMS are related to violent crime. A minimum imprisonment of 4 y is stipulated for violent criminal behavior, such as sexual assault or hostage taking, where a firearm is utilized in the commission of the offence (30).
In California, eating horsemeat is restricted under the Criminal Code. Characterizing a human behavior as “criminal” communicates that an offence carries the most severe public moral sanction. This is rather incongruent, as other morally questionable commercial activities, such as the massive adult film industry estimated at between 9 and 13 billion dollars annually, is not subjected to state regulatory control (31).
The ethical argument posed by the antislaughter proponents is based on the belief that horses are different from other farm animals. The following quote is from a major apologist paper:
The continuation of horse slaughter is based on the demand for horseflesh dinner tables of Europe and Asia. … Logic and decency dictate that those who earn their living “on the backs” of horses; those who love and respect horses; and all those with humane values join together to end this unsupportable practice (13). This assertion is a forceful, direct, moralization, savored with a hint of natavist intolerance.