Birds, rats, and primarily mice comprise at least 90 percent of all animals in U.S. laboratories, yet have been denied coverage by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), a law that provides regulatory oversight of commercial uses of animals, including in research and testing.
On February 22, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
published proposed regulations to protect birds covered by the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and who are used in commercial industries,
such as exhibition, breeding, the pet trade, and some types of
research. Although the AWA has required the USDA to protect birds
for over 20 years, it refused to write regulations, and countless
numbers of birds suffered and died because of USDA’s failure to do
its job. It was only after a lawsuit, filed by AAVS and our
co-plaintiff the Avian Welfare Coalition (AWC), received a favorable
ruling from a federal judge that the USDA finally complied.
Following a 60-day public comment period on the USDA’s proposed
regulations, the agency is required to publish final regulations by
February 22, 2023.
Background
Birds, rats, and primarily mice comprise at least 90 percent of all animals in U.S. laboratories, yet have been denied coverage by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), a law that provides regulatory oversight of commercial uses of animals, including in research and testing. Enacted in 1966, the AWA was amended in 1970 to protect the health and well-being of all warm-blooded animals used in experiments. However, in 1971, birds, rats, and mice were specifically excluded from AWA regulations by the Secretary of Agriculture. In an effort to gain legal protection for birds, rats, and mice, AAVS launched Project Animal Welfare Act: An Act for All on April 30, 1998.
Fight for Change
In 1998, following earlier actions taken by prominent animal rights
groups, AAVS, its affiliate the Alternatives Research & Development
Foundation (ARDF), and others filed a petition with the USDA,
requesting that the birds, rats, and mice exclusion be removed. A
year later, ARDF and two additional plaintiffs (a psychology student
and InVitro International, a company that develops non-animal
alternative test methods) filed a lawsuit against the USDA claiming
that the agency did not have a legal basis to exclude these animals.
On September 28, 2000, USDA settled the lawsuit and agreed to begin
the rulemaking process to grant protection of birds, rats, and mice,
which included solicitation of comments from all stakeholders to
assure that the regulations are enforceable. This agreement with
USDA, granting birds, rats, and mice protection under the AWA, was
hailed as one of the Top Ten Victories for Animals in 2000.
Although the majority of the scientific community supported
protection for these animals, a few biomedical research interest
groups, including the National Association for Biomedical Research
(NABR), an animal research lobbying organization, persuaded
politicians to block the implementation of the settlement. Later, an
amendment to the 2002 Farm Bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002), specifically excluded “birds, rats (of the genus
Rattus), and mice (of the genus Mus) bred for use in
research.”
The USDA notified the public in June 2004 that it had amended the
AWA regulations to reflect this change to the law. The USDA also
began to solicit comments to begin regulating those birds, rats, and
mice, not bred for research, who are covered by the AWA.
USDA to Regulate Birds
As a result of a lawsuit brought by AAVS and the Avian Welfare
Coalition, a court order issued in May, 2020 requires USDA to
complete rulemaking to protect birds, a process that the agency
began 16 years ago. USDA’s failure to provide coverage for these
animals has allowed birds nationwide to needlessly suffer in
commercial industries covered by the AWA, particularly in
exhibition, breeding, and the pet trade.
“AAVS has been working to gain protections for birds since 2000,
when USDA first agreed to draft regulations. We were determined that
they would not walk away from that commitment,” said Sue Leary,
President of AAVS. "In 2004, the agency started the rulemaking
process but it never went anywhere. Finally, a court agreed with us
that our claim of 'unreasonable delay' had merit, and that was a
turning point."