The USA perspective and issues

Chester A Gipson

Animal welfare in the United States, as in the world at large, is a highly visible and often controversial topic. As the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Care program, I am responsible for implementing the regulations that support the federal Animal Welfare Act, otherwise known as the AWA, and the Horse Protection Act, known as the HPA. I also represent the United States on international committees focusing on animal welfare.

I want to discuss the AWA and the species it covers, the HPA, and some of the major issues and challenges facing the USA and how industry is responding to those.

The AWA is the primary federal animal welfare statute that covers a broad range of species in the United States. The AWA covers warm-blooded animals used in exhibition, commercial sales of animals, animals used in research, and animals in transport. The Act also covers retail sales of captive wildlife in pet stores and through other venues. This is an exception to the general rule that the AWA does not cover retail sales of animals, such as dogs, cats, and other domestic animals. The AWA does not cover individual pets; captive hoof stock such as deer, elk, and buffalo, except when they are used in AWA-regulated activities; cold-blooded creatures such as turtles, snakes, and lizards; and farm (production livestock) animals.

Most States and local municipalities have statutes that cover the abuse of animals, including production livestock. State statutes can be found at www.usa.gov, which lists contacts for each State.

The HPA is the Federal law that prohibits horses that have been subjected to a practice called soring from participating in auctions, exhibitions, sales, or shows. The HPA also prohibits drivers from transporting sored horses to or from any of these events.

Soring is a cruel and inhumane practice used to accentuate a horse’s gait. Soring may be accomplished by irritating or blistering a horse’s forelegs through the injection or application of chemicals or use of mechanical devices that cause irritation. An accentuated gait may also be accomplished by using inhumane hoof trimming or pressure-shoeing techniques. Sored horses sometimes develop permanent scars in the pastern area due to the use of caustic chemicals or mechanical devices involved in the soring process.

The United States is faced with several challenging issues in the enforcement of the AWA. The issues are primarily related to use of animals in exhibition, commercial sales of animals, animals used in research, and animals in transport. We periodically receive petitions for additional regulations to address these issues. We also receive many requests to investigate allegations of violations of the AWA.

Animals used in exhibition are the focus of intense public scrutiny. Among the exhibited animals receiving the most attention are elephants and big cats. Issues raised regarding these species include:

• Appropriateness of zoos as a suitable environment for elephants. The USDA has received a petition for more stringent regulations for elephants. The petition has been published in the Federal Register soliciting comments from the public. (The Federal Register is the official U.S. government publication in which such announcements must be published.)
  
  
• Availability of a diagnostic test for clinicians to definitively diagnose tuberculosis in elephants.
  
  
• Public contact with big cats. Although contact with adult big cats is illegal, it continues to occur at an alarming rate. Proposed legislation to strengthen the prohibition of close contact between felids and humans is currently under discussion in the United States.
  
  
• Overpopulation of tigers. In many U.S. states, private ownership of tigers is legal. Owners mistakenly assume that, once the tiger gets too big to handle, they can easily relinquish the animal to a nearby zoo or sanctuary. However, zoos don’t normally acquire tigers or other animals from private citizens and many sanctuaries do not have the funds or space to take additional animals. Therefore, the privately owned tigers often become very hard to place.
  
  

Dog breeders are another source of great concern in the United States. While all dog breeders generate a great deal of public attention, most of it in a negative way, only commercial dog breeders are regulated under the AWA. Commercial sales conducted via the Internet are especially challenging to regulate. For instance, distinguishing commercial sales from retail sales of animals sold via the Internet can be difficult.

Puppy imports have generated so much attention and concern that provisions pertaining to them are included in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill. Section 14210 of that bill contains the following provisions:

• Prohibits the importation of dogs into the United States for the purpose of resale unless, as determined by the Secretary, the dog is in good health, has received all necessary vaccinations and is at least six months of age, if imported for resale.
  
  
• Provides an exception to the requirement that dogs must be at least six months of age when imported for resale if they are lawfully imported into Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand in compliance with the applicable regulations of Hawaii and the requirements of this provision and they are not transported out of Hawaii for purposes of resale at less than six months of age.
  
  
• Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations that provide an exception to this provision where a dog is imported for research purposes or veterinary treatment.
  
  
• Requires the Secretaries of USDA, HHS, Commerce, and DHS to promulgate such regulations as necessary to implement and enforce this provision.
  
  
• Holds an importer who fails to comply with these requirements responsible for providing care (including appropriate veterinary care), forfeiture, and adoption for each applicable dog.
  
  

Another area of concern are Class B dealers. Section 14216 of the 2008 Farm Bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to review any independent recommendations made by a nationally recognized panel of experts outlining the use of Class B dogs and cats. The Secretary is also directed to submit to Congress a report on how those recommendations can be applied within the USDA to ensure such dogs and cats are treated in accordance with AWA regulations.

While the federal AWA is the primary federal animal welfare statute, no equivalent law exists for animals used in production agriculture in the United States. However, some laws focusing on individual aspects of animal welfare have made an impact on production agriculture. For instance, the Humane Slaughter Act is enforced by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Under that Act, cattle that are unable to stand or walk ("downer" cattle) when presented for pre-slaughter inspection cannot be sent to slaughter (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_071207_01/index.asp).
On May 20, 2008, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture announced a proposed rule prohibiting ALL “downer” cows from being sent to slaughter, including cows that become unable to stand or walk after passing the initial inspection.

Another issue of concern in the United States is the slaughter of horses for human consumption. On June 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a lower-court’s decision that left in place a ban on slaughter of horses for human consumption in Illinois.

Currently, the U.S. Congress is considering a law (H.R. 6598) that would ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption throughout the United States. More information about this proposed law can be found at www.thomas.gov.

Many worry that such a ban would result in a surplus of horses, since many slaughterhouses would no longer accept horses. How to address this potential problem was the topic of an all-day discussion at a June 2008 seminar on “The Unwanted Horse Issue” held in Washington, D.C.
Although no law equivalent to the AWA exists for production agriculture animals, similar measures are being considered. For instance, currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress is the Farm Animal Anti-Cruelty Act (H.R. 6202). (See www.thomas.gov for more information.)

In the meantime, the industry has responded to welfare concerns by developing voluntary certification programs. These programs are a growing trend within industry. For example, several major fast-food chains, including McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s, have adopted animal welfare guidelines that they require their producers to meet. In addition, to reduce the use of battery cages, a number of national retailers and food-service providers have instituted cage-free egg policies. Moreover, Smithfield Foods, Inc. recently announced that it is starting to phase out individual gestation stalls at all company-owned sow farms and replacing them with pens or group housing over the next 10 years. The supermarket chain, Winn-Dixie, will give purchasing preferences to suppliers who use or switch to controlled atmosphere killing for poultry, produce cage-free eggs, and pork producers who do not use sow gestation crates.

Industry has also played an important part in establishing voluntary animal welfare standards. For instance, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a coalition of many industry organizations, posts this statement on its Web site: “Animal welfare has always been important to farmers and ranchers, and good animal husbandry is still an essential component on all modern animal farms and ranches today. Because animal welfare is a concern to many consumers, ensuring the public is aware of farmers’ and ranchers’ commitment to their animals has become a top priority across the livestock industry” (http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/home.cfm?Section=Main&Category=AnimalWelfare).

In 2006, the Pew Charitable Trusts, in partnership with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, established the independent National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. The Commission looked at several components of production agriculture, including animal welfare, and came up with these recommendations in relation to animal welfare:

Recommendation #1: The animal agriculture industry should implement federal performance-based standards to improve animal health and well-being.

Recommendation #2: Implement better animal husbandry practices to improve public health and animal well-being.

Recommendation #3: Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce IFAP risks to public health and improve animal well-being.

Recommendation #4: Improve animal welfare practices and conditions that pose a threat to public health and animal well-being.

Recommendation #5: Improve animal welfare research in support of cost-effective and reliable ways to raise food animals while providing humane animal care.

(http://www.ncifap.org/)

In addition to the work done by the Pew Charitable Trusts, many other seminars addressing various animal welfare issues have been held. One of particular interest was held on September 20, 2007, in Washington, D.C. The seminar, which was called Food Animal Agriculture in 2020, was one in a series of educational programs presented by Future Trends in Animal Agriculture (FTAA).

The FTAA is made up of commodity groups, animal advocacy organizations, consumer representatives, government personnel, and others.
During the FTAA seminar, questions like these were considered:

1. What should /could animal production look like in 2020?
   
2. In the future, what should Animal Agriculture look like?
   
3. What considerations are raised in terms of the ethics and philosophy of science, especially in regards to North America and Europe?
4. How can food animal production systems be improved without being a threat to animal production and food security?
5. What should the future global standards for animal production be?
6. What are the projections for animal welfare issues and how will biotechnology impact animal welfare?
   
   

Clearly, the many issues and challenges regarding animal welfare in the U.S.A. are extremely complex. Many of the questions posed are still without answers, despite the intense and ongoing examination of those questions.

Looking to the future, we can’t be sure what the world of animal welfare will look like in a decade or so. What we can be sure of, though, is that animal welfare will increasingly be visible and often controversial as consumers, governments, and industries alike strive to establish practices in keeping with the best interests of the animals.

References

Animal Agriculture Alliance (Web site): http://www.animalagalliance.org/main/home.cfm?Section=Main&Category=Home
Pew Charitable Trusts. National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.
http://www.ncifap.org/
Reynnells, Richard, Ed. Food Animal Agriculture in 2020: One in a Series of Educational Programs Presented by the Future Trends in Animal Agriculture. Washington, DC: September 20, 1997.
U.S. Congress: Farm Bill, Section 14216 (Class B dealers). The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Available on www.thomas.gov
U.S. Congress: Farm Bill, Section 14210 (Puppy Imports). The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Available on www.thomas.gov
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “FSIS Publishes Final Rule Prohibiting Processing of “Downer” Cattle” (press release). July 12, 2007.
USDA, FSIS. “Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer Announces Plan to End Exceptions to Animal Handling Rule” (press release). May 20, 2008.
U.S. Library of Congress. Thomas Web Site: www.thomas.gov