Advocacy Archive

Re: Docket No. 98-106-1

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is considering a petition asking that the Animal Welfare Act regulations be expanded to include rats, mice and birds. The proposed expansion would drain already-scarce resources from research and from AWA enforcement. We believe the changes would not produce a significant increase in animal welfare because the protections have already been achieved: the AWA in its current form has had a significant impact in terms of sensitizing scientists to animal welfare in planning and conducting research, and we believe that this sensitivity extends to the care of rats, mice and birds.

The petition and APHIS's request for public comments were printed in the Federal Register on January 28, 1999. Note: the deadline for the comment period was extended to May 28, 1999.

• Text version of Federal Register
• PDF version of Federal Register

May 28, 1999

Docket No. 98-106-1
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD
APHIS - Suite 3C03
4700 River Road - Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Re: Docket No. 98-106-1

To Whom It May Concern:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking, as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 18, Thursday, January 28, 1999, p. 4356), that requests an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations. Specifically, the requested amendment would extend coverage of AWA regulations to birds, rats and mice.

We are fully committed to protecting the welfare of all animals used in research and we support the strongest possible enforcement of the standards of care for the humane treatment of laboratory animals under the AWA. Rigorous compliance with the AWA is central to ensuring the health and well-being of laboratory animals. But in our view, the proposed expansion of AWA coverage, however well-intended, would in practical terms substantially weaken efforts to monitor compliance by diluting the already-scarce resources that are available for AWA enforcement and monitoring programs of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS inspection and monitoring programs already are operating under an extremely tight budget. Extending AWA coverage to include birds, rats and mice would strain the APHIS budget beyond its current capacity and would jeopardize protections for animals currently covered under the AWA, including primates, cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, and others. We also believe that a significant amount of resources would be diverted from research because of the additional administrative burden that would be imposed by the inclusion of birds, rats and mice under the AWA. This burden would affect federal agencies that support and conduct research as well as universities and other institutions that conduct research, all of which would be required to absorb the costs associated with the additional AWA regulation.

Further, the requested amendment is unnecessary because protection for birds, rats and mice has already been achieved. The AWA in its current form has had a significant impact in terms of sensitizing scientists to animal welfare in planning and conducting research involving animals, and we believe that this sensitivity extends to the care of birds, rats and birds. Scientists give as much concern to these animals as they do to animals that are covered under the AWA. Therefore, the amendment would be extraneous from the standpoint of laboratory animal welfare.

For a more detailed discussion of impact of this amendment and related issues, we refer you to the comments submitted by the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) concerning the AWA amendment. As a member of NABR we support the views expressed in the NABR comments and believe you will find the NABR's information extremely helpful in addressing this complex topic.

To summarize our views: However well-intended, the inclusion of birds, rats and mice, as requested in the petition to amend the AWA, would not improve animal welfare. It would only dilute the APHIS enforcement effort and would seriously hamper research. The amendment would result in significant costs -- both in direct economic terms and in terms of the opportunity costs incurred by the research enterprise — but would achieve no additional benefit to animal welfare.

Sincerely,

Alan G. Kraut
Executive Director