USDA Audit Reveals Shortcomings in Animal Welfare Act Enforcement

By Crystal Schaeffer, AAVS Outreach Director

Although England first established its British Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876, it would take the United States nine decades before it would enact legislation of a similar weight. Spurred by overwhelming public outcry regarding Pepper, a dalmation who was stolen from her backyard and later killed in a biomedical experiment, and a Life magazine exposé unveiling the brutal reality of the trafficking of animals for experimentation, in 1966, Congress enacted the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, legislation outlining minimal standards of care and treatment of cats and dogs who were destined for use in research. Later, the bill became known simply as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and in subsequent years, it was broadened to include more warm-blooded animals who were used in experimentation, entertainment, and exhibition. Through these actions, Congress entrusted the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be responsible for upholding the integrity of the Act.

In an effort to measure its effectiveness in doing so, in the fall of last year, the USDA conducted an audit of its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Animal Care (AC) unit, which is charged with the responsibility of inspecting all facilities covered under the AWA. In what can be considered a genuine evaluation, the audit reveals some disturbing findings that should alarm animal advocates, but also promising admissions and welcome improvements by APHIS.

Passive enforcement of the law

Although the Office of Inspector General (OIG) did state that it believes AC employees are dedicated to their work, it also expressed concern for AC management in the Eastern Region due to passive enforcement of the AWA in that area. For example, the Eastern Region referred an average of 209 suspected violators to the Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) in 2002-3 but only 82 in 2004. Of those referred to IES, AC Eastern management refused to take further action against 27 percent of suspected violators, while Western Region management declined to pursue four percent of possible violators in its territory.

Additionally, some Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) believe that because there is little, if no, consequence for violating the AWA, there are more than twice the number of repeat violators in the Eastern Region than in the Western Region. In reviewing the top 50 repeat violators, the auditors found that 88 percent were located in the Eastern Region. In terms of animal research, this fact is especially demoralizing, since, according to the Audit Report, “The AWA does not authorize ‘the Secretary, during inspection, to interrupt the conduct of actual research or experimentation….’ Therefore, it is more critical for AC to take enforcement actions against research facilities that are repeat violators.”

Recommendations
In order for the AC to have a consistent philosophy and approach between regions, the OIG recommended that specific guidance be outlined and followed in every region, and APHIS agreed to create a flow chart that includes “enforcement action guidelines for inspection reports.” The OIG also advised that all cases in which regional management declined to take enforcement action against possible violators should be reviewed. APHIS has agreed to this, stating that the AC Deputy Administrator or Assistant Deputy Administrator and the IES Director or Assistant Director will review these cases, and if there is a discretion in what course of action should be taken, all involved parties will work together to determine an appropriate course of action.

Monitoring of research facilities

The audit reports that 13 of the 16 facilities visited (all of which were previously cited for violating the AWA) misreported the number of animals used in their research. This finding is especially disturbing, since 15 of these laboratories conducted experiments that involved pain or distress with no drug relief. Many VMOs interviewed stated that they took a “good faith” approach to their inspections, relying on facilities to provide accurate information regarding the number of animals used and the number of protocols conducted. It was also reported that the limited sampling technique that some VMOs used was inadequate in ensuring there were no problems within any one research study. Due to the small sampling, they may not discover if there was a failure to conduct the required search for alternatives, and/or verify that studies were not duplicative.

Recommendations
The OIG strongly recommended that the Research Facility Inspection Guide (RFIG) be revised so that VMOs are required to “verify the number of animals reported in the research facilities’ annual reports.” APHIS concurred and further stated that it would also make other revisions in an effort to help research facilities properly complete required reports. Additionally, it was agreed that the RFIG would also be changed to emphasize the necessity of adequate sampling protocols and reviewing the records of protocols in which animals were not present.

Failure of IACUCs

It was discovered that Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), appointed by research facilities to monitor their laboratories to make certain they are operating in compliance with the AWA, are not effectively supervising animal care and use practices, reviewing protocols, or ensuring that searches for alternatives are researched and used where appropriate. During the past several years, APHIS has worked with IACUCs to help them improve and meet their designated responsibilities. Despite this, however, the Audit Report states, “VMOs believe there are still problems with the search for alternatives, veterinary care, review of painful procedures, and the researchers’ use of animals,” areas of utmost importance in an IACUC evaluation.

The Report also cites a dramatic increase in facilities committing AWA violations, noting that in 2002, 463 of 1,030 facilities were noncompliant in comparison to 2004 when 600 of 1,176 were noncompliant. Alarmingly, but not necessarily surprising, is the 29 percent failure rate of researchers who are required by the AWA to search for and use non-animal alternatives when available. Additionally, the Audit Report states that “33 of the top 50 (66 percent) research facility violators in the nation were education institutions, suggesting that IACUCs at universities are less effective.”

Recommendations
The OIG advised AC to conduct more frequent reviews of those facilities that are repeat violators, to which the agency claimed that such action is already part of its standard protocol. This comment was lamely accepted by the OIG, which stated that more frequent AC inspections “may not improve compliance given that the current IACUC reviews are ineffective.” The OIG was more steadfast in recommending that AC “fully train [IACUC] members on protocol review, facility inspections, and the AWA.” However, APHIS stated only that it would modify existing policy to indicate a change in interpretation of regulations. The OIG responded by saying that such action is not acceptable and that APHIS needs to clarify which regulation it is referring to and provide the language modification.

Conclusion

As demonstrated by the OIG’s recommendations throughout this audit, AC should more stringently enforce animal welfare regulations already in place, reassess its fining procedure, revise the Research Facility Inspection Guide, and better train members of IACUCs, especially at educational facilities. The Audit Report clearly reveals short-comings to AWA enforcement but also provides many suggestions of how to rectify these problems.

Schaeffer, Crystal. (Summer 2006). AV Magazine. Page 12-13.

Print View

Web ViewText Size: