.
CRS Issue Statement on Animal Welfare
Geoffrey S. Becker, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
January 11, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40255
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
CRS Issue Statement on Animal Welfare
hether additional measures are needed to protect the health and well-being of animals
has been a subject of debate in Congress. Animal protection activists, on the one hand,
W have long sought legislation to modify or curtail how nonhuman animals, whether
living in captivity or in the wild, are used and treated. However, producers have resisted new laws
to regulate animal activities that they deem to be acceptable or even necessary.
Animal protection groups appear to share a common goal of ensuring the well-being of all
animals, but from there, viewpoints can diverge widely. Some groups, for example, oppose all
human uses of other animals, including for food, clothing, medical research, or entertainment;
they often take the position that animals should have certain legal rights typically afforded to
humans. Other groups accept most traditional human uses of animals but believe any suffering
should be minimized or eliminated.
Groups representing those who earn their living from animals in agriculture, exhibitions,
research, the pet industry, or other activities, say they agree that animals should be treated
humanely, and that they do so. However, they argue, many proposals for new regulation lack a
scientific basis or professional understanding of animals and their behavior; are overly intrusive,
and/or do not respect humans’ rights and relationships to other species.
For much of American history, laws have evolved (generally at the state and local levels) which
are aimed primarily at protecting animals from cruel treatment, such as the infliction of pain,
failure to provide adequate sustenance or shelter, and other neglectful or deliberatively harmful
acts. In more recent decades, state and local as well as federal lawmakers have shown a
willingness to consider more prescriptive proposals regarding human treatment of, and
interactions with, other animals. At the federal level, the major laws include the Animal Welfare
Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 2131-2159), the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1821-1831), the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1906), and the Twenty-Eight Hour Law (49 U.S.C. §
80502). Numerous other federal statutes are aimed at the protection or preservation of animals
living in the wild and/or traded internationally; examples include the Endangered Species Act, (16
U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544), the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 41-48), and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1423h).
Examples of farm-related proposals that were introduced in recent Congresses include banning
the slaughter of horses for human food; requiring that disabled livestock be humanely destroyed
and diverted from the food supply; and requiring producers to meet certain minimal standards if
their animals will be used for products in federal programs. Bills also have been offered, and a
number of them enacted, addressing the treatment of nonfarm animals—many of them as
amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. They include such changes as strengthening enforcement
of the act, expanding coverage to more animals and purposes, and tightening prohibitions against
dog and other animal fighting activities, for example. Animal welfare bills are emerging again in
the 111th Congress, in response to continuing public interest in the issue. Whether any will
advance through committees and the full House and Senate during the second session remains to
be seen.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
CRS Issue Statement on Animal Welfare
Issue Team Members
Geoffrey S. Becker, Coordinator
Tadlock Cowan
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
gbecker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7287
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Kori Calvert
Liana Sun Wyler
Information Research Specialist
Analyst in International Crime and Narcotics
kcalvert@crs.loc.gov, 7-6459
lwyler@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177
Carol Hardy Vincent
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
psheikh@crs.loc.gov, 7-6070
Sarah A. Lister
Don J. Jansen
Specialist in Public Health and Epidemiology
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
Vivian S. Chu
Legislative Attorney
vchu@crs.loc.gov, 7-4576
Congressional Research Service
2