USDA Enforcement of Animal Welfare Act Weakens, Leaving Animals Vulnerable
Despite expectations of legal repercussions for mistreating animals, a growing trend reveals that many businesses in the US face minimal consequences for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. A recent analysis highlights a shift within the US department of Agriculture (USDA) towards issuing warnings rather than imposing substantial penalties, raising concerns about the protection of animals in various industries.
This summer,a USDA inspector discovered a 4 -year-old female Maltipoo at an Ohio dog breeding facility in dire condition. The dog was missing several teeth, exhibited gum recession, and had loose teeth, yet the breeder received only a warning – a outcome with little practical impact. This case mirrors a similar situation three years prior at Alpha Genesis, a primate breeding and research company, where two animals died after becoming trapped in their cages and another succumbed to injuries following an attack. These incidents, representing severe neglect and mismanagement, are alleged violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
According to a new, exclusive analysis by the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), the USDA has increasingly favored warnings over enforcement actions like fines over the last five years. “USDA is continuously looking for opportunities to improve regulatory compliance and believes that regulatory correspondence, such as an Official warning, can be a useful tool to encourage compliance and deter future noncompliance,” a USDA spokesperson stated.
Passed in 1966,the Animal welfare Act establishes minimum standards for the care of over a million animals used by approximately 17,500 businesses,including provisions for food,water,housing,and veterinary care. However, the act is considerably limited in scope. It excludes the vast majority of animals – over 10 billion annually – raised for meat, milk, and eggs. Furthermore, the legislation does not cover mice, rats, fish, and birds, despite these species comprising the majority of animals used in laboratory research.
In effect, the bill protects less than 0.01 percent of animals exploited by US businesses. Even those animals covered by the act are vulnerable due to a recent court decision and shifting enforcement priorities.
The Jarkesy v. SEC decision, a case originally brought to a jury trial – when an SEC judge fined a hedge fund manager for alleged fraud.This decision effectively limited the agency’s ability to impose certain fines and has had a chilling effect on other agencies, including the USDA.
In the 14 months following the JARKESY decision, the USDA issued only five fines, compared to 63 fines in the preceding 14 months. Furthermore, only one of these five fines was issued during the Trump administration’s second term, suggesting a more lenient approach to businesses allegedly violating the Animal Welfare act – a pattern also observed during Trump’s first term.
“JARKESY has hamstrung us the most,” an anonymous USDA manager told Science magazine in August. “We have an inability to do anything, even when we see bad stuff.”
“The decision in Jarkesy v. SEC impacts all agencies that seek civil penalties before administrative law judges (ALJs),” a USDA spokesperson confirmed. “USDA continues to assess its authorities considering the decision.”
Mary Hollingsworth, director of Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and policy Clinic and a former Justice Department trial attorney, emphasized the need for stronger fines to deter violations. She argued that amending the Animal welfare Act to allow the Justice Department to pursue cases in federal court – where judges are “much more likely to impose a reasonable fine” than USDA judges – is crucial.
A bill proposing these changes, among other Animal welfare Act reforms, garnered 220 cosponsors in the last Congress but failed to reach a vote. A reintroduced version of the bill is currently under consideration. Stronger fines are especially vital for holding research facilities accountable, as they represent the primary enforcement mechanism available to the USDA.
Despite these challenges, the Trump administration has, at least unintentionally, begun to address a core issue: reducing the number of animals used in experiments and promoting the growth of non-animal methods.
The weakening enforcement of a fundamentally limited law leaves countless animals vulnerable to neglect and abuse, highlighting the urgent need for complete reform and robust oversight.
- Rescission Packages, Explained: The Route Trump Bypassed (daybreakwire.com)
