Global diversity means a diversity of food sources; from those we consider staples to those we believe should disappear entirely. As a result, preferences and approvals are subjective decisions, especially when considering distant production processes and how personal food is to each of us. These nuances are clear in the protein sector, with the limitations of how we perceive meat-producing animals best exemplified by the horse slaughter segment. And when you cannot make the distinction between livestock and companion animal, absolutely, the word ‘slaughter’ can be jarring. For some readers, this will be an uncomfortable blog. But it is also a necessary conversation to understand that animal welfare is (or should be) independent from personal opinions toward the sector.
Canada has a long-standing and prominent role in global horse meat production. Approximately 16% of the globe within 17 countries consumes horse meat for a variety of reasons. Horse meat still holds incredible cultural purpose across the globe, not to mention its protein role for pets and zoo animals. Canada, as much as our markets exist beyond our borders, does legally allow horse meat consumption, with Quebec specifically acknowledging the delicacy. Beyond the exorbitant price per kilogram (upwards of CAD $45), horse meat from draft breeds like Clydesdales and Percherons is reportedly a leaner substitute for beef, with higher protein and less cholesterol than its more conventional counterpart. While the sector may be slowing down and increasingly concentrated, horse meat, especially live export, is a reality of Canadian agriculture. So, before forming feelings-based opinion, it is important to understand just what the sector entails and where, specifically, improvements can be made.
Unpacking the Sector
The horse meat market can be split into two: domestic slaughter and live exports. In the domestic stream, horses are grain-fattened on feedlots, primarily in Alberta, which have horse-specific standards for operation and animal handling – like with every livestock animal raised in Canada – to ensure high ethicality and animal quality of life. Anyone who has interacted with horses knows how easily spooked they are, and so considerations must be made in slaughter/processing facilities and all stages of handling and transport, to limit animals’ fear responses. Part of the apprehension toward horse slaughter comes from the use of abandoned, rejected, and/or retired animals from non-meat purposes. There is absolutely a role slaughter can play for these animals; in Alberta, it can cost upwards of $3,500 annually to maintain a horse and mature horses are a dominating population. However, for identical economic, welfare, and regulatory reasons as with other livestock species, healthy, meat-producing animals benefit horse slaughter best.
Since 2010, every horse destined for slaughter is required to have a veterinarian-signed Equine Information Document, verifying the animal has been free from illness, medications, and vaccinations for at least six months prior to slaughter. Included within these prohibitions is the zero-tolerance trace identification of phenylbutazone (“bute”): a commonly used anti-inflammatory drug in horses. This withdrawal period pairs nicely with the minimum six-month period on feedlots required for imported animals and prevents the over-saturation of the horse meat market with unwanted/surplus non-meat animals. Once at a slaughter facility, the owner of that processing plant is required to keep up to date on facility maintenance, employee/handler training, response planning, meat handling, and how to prevent adverse events along the slaughter supply chain. Then, assuming all provisions in the Safe Food for Canadians Act are followed, the product can be consumed by Canadians or transported to foreign markets.
For freshness and domestic animal welfare reasons, destination countries may prefer the live export route of the horse meat sector, opting to slaughter within their own borders. This is the fate of over 85% of Canada’s meat horses, and therefore subjects exporters to another set of air transport-specific welfare considerations about loading, handling, crate size, transport time, and animal travel companions. Transporters are also required to make checks on the animals every 30 minutes in the air, to guarantee crew responsiveness to any adverse travel effects on the animals. A violation of any transport or welfare standards can yield penalization from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA); at the time of writing, the CFIA has issued over 200 warnings or fines to Canadian animal handlers in 2025.
The Concerning Case of Bill C-355
The CFIA is involved across the supply chain and is required to investigate potential misconduct although, when relying on the public or the observations from individuals unfamiliar with the sector they are critiquing, allegations can further muddy the water as to how much the CFIA misses. If you listen to activist groups, then the CFIA is turning its back on Canadian horses by allowing live export to slaughter.
In September 2024, activists brought to the CFIA instances of what they call a “Canada exception” to horse transport. The group alleged that a variety of welfare standards in air transport to Japan were notoriously and consistently violated by Canadian exporters, including a poorly kept secret that Canadian travel times often exceed legal maximums. Following investigation, the CFIA denied the certifications of one exporter until standards improved. Similar conditions were alleged in April 2025 regarding six horses although, investigation found no misconduct or welfare concerns in transit or in handling that warranted penalty. Between 2023 and 2024, activist groups claim 21 Japan-bound horses died in transport; the CFIA only report one.
For many, this was enough evidence to justify Bill C-355. First introduced in 2023 (and later lost with the dissolution of the Trudeau Administration in 2024), Bill C-355 would have banned the live air export of horses destined for slaughter in other countries. Note that this bill is what is referred to as ‘activist-based’, decidedly going against Canada’s typical risk-based regulatory system and tabled on the basis of falsehoods because of public optics and not welfare. A welfare-based bill would have stepped in where the CFIA failed to protect horses, not stepped over the agency and its decisions. This bill explicitly targeted farmers participating in international markets, as there is no legislation speaking to the domestic slaughter and consumption of horse meat.
Room to Improve
A blanketed end to horse slaughter is not a solution to welfare concerns and, contrastingly, could make overall welfare worse. Canada’s animal welfare standards are comparatively strict and holistically determined, so it is also alleged that the absence of Canadian horse slaughter could drive exports towards countries with weaker welfare standards. The Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada suggest slaughter prohibition would increase the number of abandoned or neglected animals as the value of a Canadian horse would decline with the lost market; the CFIA, for all its shortcomings in resources now, cannot accommodate an influx of misconduct reports. If air transport welfare is still primary concern, more airports should be equipped with animal housing space, to give zero excuse for an exporter extending travel time for a minute past the 28-hour maximum.
However, there are domestic changes we can make to sector transparency that would limit the inspection burden. Canadian horse slaughter figures have not been reported since 2016; that’s nearly a decade of public uncertainty. While the declining number of slaughter facilities and feedlots challenges government’s ability to provide information while maintaining confidentiality, more information about the size, value, and changes to the sector would undoubtedly calm fears about nefarious practices. In the same breadth, reducing sector concentration by introducing independent abattoirs may improve the impression of horse meat, as would increased surveillance of feedlots and processing facilities.
Beyond necessary improvements, Canada’s horse meat sector is incomplete compared to other livestock sectors. It has neither the size nor the confidence to push past the voices that fundamentally oppose horse meat but love pork chops. And that is fine; you do not have to enjoy a product to recognise the value and quality of its production. We do not have to agree on whether horse meat should exist or if Canada should be a player, but we can definitely agree that regulations must be evidence based, and animal welfare and humane practices are the bare minimum for our livestock.
