WASHINGTON, D.C. — Some animal welfare experts and producer groups do not support a bill that would apply the Animal Welfare Act to animals used for agricultural research.
"There are reasons for not putting (ag research) under the Animal Welfare Act. It would make research next to impossible," said Dave Warner, director of communications for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
Introduced to the House on Feb. 5, the bill, labeled the AWARE Act, would remove the exemption for farm animals used in ag research at federal research facilities in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA currently covers most animals used in medical research and sets standards for humane care.
Introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), the AWARE Act is a legislative reaction to reports of animal abuse at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC). But this action may not be practical or helpful, said Candace Croney, director of the Center for Animal Welfare Science and associate professor of animal behavior at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.
"I don’t know that the bill would take care of all the problems articulated in the article. We’d have to look at how we would enforce it, the frequency rate of oversight, and the funding," Croney told Farm World.
"As unfortunate as this story is, it’s a conversation starter. What are the public’s expectations and our policies and practices, and do the two align? Second, we need clear policies at every facility used for research, consistent oversight and follow-through," Croney said.
Croney further said that every university and research farm that accepts federal funds is required to have an internal committee that oversees all research protocols. Many animal research facilities voluntarily seek membership with the Assoc. for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care Intl. (AAALAC), which places high standards on animal care, Croney said.
Putting good protocols in place and then communicating those to the public is the best way to deal with animal care issues, she added.
Some producer groups have worries that the AWA may be a big stick used to control production agriculture, in addition to research animals. Warner cited specific swine practices that may not be allowed under the AWA, such as tail docking, castration and teeth clipping.
Further, Warner warned, this legislation may be the first step down the road to applying the AWA to production agriculture. Warner said that the Humane Society, which has endorsed the bill, is less interested in animal welfare than in cutting back the consumption of meat, poultry and eggs.
Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, sent a letter to the editor of the New York Times, complaining about the mistreatment of animals in ag research and agribusiness. "Is it any wonder that millions of Americans are now cutting their meat consumption and eating higher-welfare animal products when this is how government and agribusiness handle their animal-care responsibilities?" Pacelle wrote.
Peter Orwick, executive director of the American Sheep Industry Assoc., said that he viewed the extension of the AWA into ag research as an "overreach."
"The legislative approach raises the specter of the Animal Welfare Act being applied to all animal agriculture," Orwick said.
If the need arises, Orwick said he would join other livestock industry groups to oppose the bill’s progress. Orwick believes that animal welfare in federal ag research should continue to be under the jurisdiction of USDA, which oversees 49 ag research centers nationwide.
USDA is conducting a review and update of its animal care standards for a 60-day period in response to an article in the New York Times blasting MARC with claims of animal cruelty in various research projects. "USDA needs to fully address the situation at MARC," Orwick said, while noting that he doesn’t know if the report in the Times is true. "Animal welfare groups could be blowing this story up for fundraisers."
Still, sheep producers were disturbed by the report that lambs abandoned by their mothers were left to die unaided. In an effort to study ewe maternal instincts, the Times reported that lambs were left to die from exposure and starvation.
Sheep producers have called and emailed Orwick to question that practice, he said.
"It’s not a practice in our industry. When breeding, we select for mothering ability … Lambs do get bummed off occasionally by their mothers, but then we graft them onto another ewe," Orwick said.
"If the point is that they are doing this for the commercial sheep market, what’s the application if they ignore practices that have proved profitable? There are dozens of land grant universities and production animal research centers that obviously have a system that works with checks, balances and oversight. USDA has something to address," Orwick said.
Warner said that he doesn’t know what is happening at MARC and will have to wait for the 60-day review being conducted by USDA.
"The well-being of animals is the top priority of any producer, whether of chickens, cows or pigs. It’s the same for animals on research farms … We don’t know if something untoward happened. Abuse happens, as in every industry. It doesn’t mean that the whole industry or hog farmers are bad people," Warner said.
Warner said that research being conducted to expand the size of sow litters – like that being reported at MARC – is needed. By 2050, the United Nations estimates that the world population will reach 9.6 billion people.
"The U.N. has said that this growing population’s food is going to come as a result of technological innovation, not more farmers. We have fewer farmers every year. That’s why research farms exist," Warner said. "As farmers we need to raise our voices and educate lawmakers on this bill and others."
