How the Animal Welfare Act has evolved over the decades and what still needs to be done

The law and its limits

As he approved the new law in 1966, Johnson quoted humanitarian philosopher Albert Schweitzer, stating, “The quality of a culture is measured by its reverence for all life.”

But Johnson also outlined the new law’s limits. The law didn’t aim to protect all animals or end the practice of animals being used in research. Scientific and medical progress, the president said, requires the use of animals in research, “and this bill does not interfere with that.”

Nearly six decades after its historic passage, the law is still toggling between the high-mindedness of the Schweitzer quote and the reality that the AWA has done a less-than-perfect job of safeguarding animals in the United States. Advocates have praised the AWA for protecting some animals but criticized it for excluding other species. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces the law through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has come under fire from advocates who assert the agency does a spotty job.   

“My overall opinion is that the Animal Welfare Act is necessary. There are people who have discussed, theoretically, maybe we should have some sort of different model, but no one's been able to come up with what the substitute would be,” says John Goodwin, senior director of the Stop Puppy Mills campaign at the Humane Society of the United States. “But the standards of care for dogs are incredibly low.”

Goodwin, whose team fights inhumane conditions at mass dog-breeding facilities, notes that a pet owner who keeps a dog in a cage that’s only 6 inches longer than the animal’s body for lengthy periods could be charged criminally in many states, yet such a practice is allowed for commercial breeders under the AWA regulations.

Beyond that, Goodwin says federal enforcement of the AWA “leaves a lot to be desired.” For example, the Stop Puppy Mills team reads hundreds of federal and state inspection reports yearly to assemble the annual HSUS Horrible Hundred report on problem puppy mills. Some dealers who have been cited in the report many times are still licensed by the USDA, despite years of recurring violations.

In the case of animals used in research, advocates argue that the AWA is failing to provide minimal protection for more than 90% of them.

The original law was expanded in 1970 to protect warm-blooded animals used in experiments. But the following year, the USDA omitted mice, rats and birds from the AWA regulations. In 2000, the USDA settled a lawsuit, agreeing to provide coverage for these species, but Congress intervened, amending the AWA in 2002 to specifically exclude birds, rats and mice bred for use in research from the AWA’s definition of animal.

“That was obviously a huge blow,” says Vicki Katrinak, director of animal research and testing for the HSUS. “If you’re not including them in the Animal Welfare Act, you’re not protecting them with the minimal standards of care.”

Justice for 4,200-plus beagles

Despite its flaws, the AWA has the power to bring bad actors to justice and spur positive change for animals—sometimes in a very big way.

In 2022, authorities investigated the Envigo RMS facility in Cumberland, Virginia, which was breeding beagles for research. Inspectors found puppies in acute distress; dogs being killed instead of receiving veterinary care; nursing mother beagles being denied food; and food containing maggots, mold and feces. Envigo was cited for numerous violations of the AWA, and the HSUS helped remove and find homes through our shelter partners for the 4,200-plus beagles being kept at the facility.

In June 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Envigo’s parent company, Inotiv, will pay an $11 million fine for its AWA violations—the largest penalty in the law’s history.

The fine “demonstrates that there can be severe consequences for violating the Animal Welfare Act and shows that the Department of Justice takes its role seriously in protecting animals and the environment,” says Adam Parascandola, vice president of the HSUS Animal Rescue Team. “After years of too often seeing violations of the Animal Welfare Act left unaddressed, this case has shown that the act can provide robust protections for animals under its purview when vigorously enforced.”

“It’s a historically significant moment,” adds Unti. “It reinforces a cherished public principle: that institutional cruelty is not exempt from the moral scrutiny of the larger society.”

• June 1965: Pepper, a dalmatian in rural Pennsylvania, is stolen from her family and sold to a research hospital in New York City, where she dies in a surgical experiment. After hearing about the stolen dog, a New York congressman introduces a bill to require dog and cat dealers and the laboratories that buy animals to be licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• November 1965: Pepper’s story prompts an article in Sports Illustrated magazine, “The Lost Pets That Stray to the Labs.” Author Coles Phinizy notes that “many pet dogs are being stolen from the front lawns and sidewalks of this country” to meet the “constant and growing need for laboratory animals.”
• February 1966: LIFE magazine publishes “Concentration Camps for Dogs,” an article accompanied by photos of dogs on their way to research facilities being kept in dealers’ “unspeakably filthy compounds.” The eight-page magazine spread sparks a huge number of letters from the magazine’s outraged readers.
• August 1966: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs into law the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, which aims to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets and establishes licensing for dog and cat dealers. HSUS investigations of dog dealers and testimony before Congress helped spur the bill’s passage. The new law regulates the transport, sale and handling of animals before research, covering dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits.
• December 1970: Renamed the Animal Welfare Act, the law expands to cover all warm-blooded animals used for research, testing, experimentation or exhibition. (Horses and farm animals not used for research are exempted.) The amended law also expands the definition of a research facility and broadens “adequate veterinary care” to include the use of anesthetics and tranquilizers and extends coverage to animals used by circuses and zoos.
• December 1971: The U.S. secretary of agriculture initiates regulations to specifically exclude rats, mice, birds, horses and farm animals from the definition of an “animal.” Though these species had not previously been regulated under the AWA, the new regulations codify their exclusion.
• April 1976: AWA amendments expand the definition of a “carrier” to include all forms of commercial enterprises that transport animals, while also establishing care standards for animals being transported. To combat animal fighting, the revised AWA outlaws interstate and foreign transport for that purpose.
• December 1985: In response to an undercover investigation that revealed AWA violations at laboratories, the law is amended to include new requirements for labs to enrich the lives of nonhuman primates, provide exercise for dogs and consider alternatives to painful procedures. In addition, committees are created to oversee animal care at each institution that uses regulated animals.
• November 1990: To help people reclaim their lost pets and prevent stolen animals from ending up in labs, Congress adds a requirement to the AWA that dogs and cats at animal shelters be held there for a minimum of five days before being sold to a research facility.
• September 2000: The USDA settles a lawsuit, agreeing to implement regulations to cover birds, rats and mice.

• May 2002: In a move criticized by animal advocates, Congress amended the AWA to exclude birds, rats and mice bred for use in research from the definition of “animals” protected by the law.
• May 2007: AWA amendments make it illegal to buy, sell or transport the knives, gaffs or other sharp instruments that are attached to the legs of birds used for cockfighting.
• June 2008: The AWA strengthens the definitions of and penalties for animal fighting. And dogs imported to the U.S. for resale are required to be at least 6 months old and in good health, with all the necessary vaccinations.
• January 2019: AWA amendments prohibit animal fighting in U.S. territories including Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Previously, local laws permitted the practice.
• June 2024: Inotiv, the parent company of Envigo RMS, which surrendered more than 4,200 beagles from its research breeding facility in Virginia in 2022 amid charges of mistreatment, pleads guilty to conspiring to knowingly violate the AWA. Inotiv agrees to pay $11 million for AWA violations—the largest fine ever for an AWA case. As part of the plea agreement announced by the U.S. Department of Justice, Inotiv and its related entities will no longer breed or sell dogs. The HSUS had teamed with the DOJ and our rescue partners in 2022 to help remove the 4,200-plus beagles from the Inotiv/Envigo facility and place them into adoptive homes.