Search

The article discusses the History of the Animal Welfare Act. Topics include the basic rules of the Animal Welfare Act with its amendments; review research proposals involving animal experimentation and to provide laboratory oversight. These amendments also increased civil and criminal penalties for AWA violations and established an Animal Welfare Information Center at USDA's National Agricultural Library.

The article discusses Congress passed legislation that later became known as the Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-544) with goals of preventing the theft and sale of pets to research laboratories and regulating the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The Animal Welfare Act as amended is the central federal statute governing the humane care and handling of mammals and certain other animals.

The US Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, has stated that it will take approximately 18 months to develop a vaccine for the current strain of avian flu. This delay will have significant impacts on the global poultry and egg markets, as the virus has already killed 82 million birds in the US. Avian flu not only raises prices for consumers and businesses but also poses a threat to humans, as the first human cases of 2024 have been identified in Cambodia. The delay in the vaccine rollout will cause challenges for US farmers and disrupt food supply chains. The World Organization for Animal Health advises governments to consider bird flu vaccinations for poultry to prevent the spread of the virus. The delay also raises ethical concerns, as the appropriate care and medication for animals are vital aspects of an ethical supply chain. Additionally, stricter animal welfare regulations in some US states, such as California's Prop 12 law, are causing disruptions in the meat and poultry markets. The demand for ethically sourced poultry is evident, with 55% of US consumers considering organic products essential or nice to have. To maintain consumer trust, local US farmers should consider using traceable technology like blockchain to provide transparency in the supply chain. [Extracted from the article]

The highest 2021 corn yield of 602.1684 bushels per acre was achieved by David Hula of Charles City, Va. - National Corn Growers Association Grocers file lawsuit against Prop 12 A coalition of California restaurants and grocery stores has filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the new farm animal welfare law. - Farm Futures Iowa land values up 29% The 2021 Iowa State University Land Value Survey shows the average value of an acre of Iowa farmland skyrocketed 29% over the past 12 months to $9,751/acre. This is the highest dollar value since ISU began surveying land values in 1941. [Extracted from the article]

Meanwhile, Thea Koning, senior global external affairs manager for Unilever's Foods and Refreshment Division, said: "We want to be a force for good in foods, and are fully supportive of the End the Cage Age campaign. Keywords: Barilla; Ferrero; Nestlé Unilever EN Barilla Ferrero Nestl&eacute Unilever N.PAG N.PAG 1 04/08/21 20210317 NES 210317 Food giants Nestlé, Mondelez International and Unilever are among a group of food manufacturers calling on authorities in the European Union to adopt cage-free systems for rearing animals. [Extracted from the article]

What's more, HumaneWatch reports that, "Bershadker isn't the only cat getting fat at the ASPCA: 159 other employees (more than a tenth of the organization) made six-figure salaries. Of every dollar donated to ASPCA, 38 cents was used to pay salaries and benefits. [Extracted from the article]

What's more, HumaneWatch reports that, "Bershadker isn't the only cat getting fat at the ASPCA: 159 other employees (more than a tenth of the organization) made six-figure salaries. Of every dollar donated to ASPCA, 38 cents was used to pay salaries and benefits. [Extracted from the article]

The passage of dozens of tough state animal-protection laws last year reflects growing public interest in animal welfare. Today, many Americans view pets as family members, and some even leave bequests to pets in their wills. Vegetarianism has gone mainstream as people have become concerned about the conditions on factory farms, and many scientists say farm animals have feelings. Fifteen years ago, only 10 of the country's law schools offered animal-law courses; today about 130 do. At the same time, however, billions of animals are slaughtered for food each year in our meat-eating society, and live-animal research is a major tool of biomedicine. The food industry, researchers and others who depend on using and killing animals are fighting back against what they call overblown concerns about animal rights. Last November, for example, Ohio voters approved an amendment to the state's constitution barring the legislature from approving any animal-protection laws that would apply to farms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Animal Welfare Act was first passed in 1966 to prevent pets from being stolen and sold to research laboratories, and to improve the treatment and well-being of animals intended for research. Congress has amended the act five times since then to strengthen its provisions, expand coverage to more animals and activities, and curtail animal fighting, among other things. Some animal protection groups support measures to further expand federal regulation of animal treatment. Bills proposed in the 109th Congress included those addressing animal fighting, dog and cat protection, and pet evacuation in disasters, among others. Several proposals have reemerged in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 137/S. 261; and H.R. 1280/S. 714. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has been ratified by 167 nations, including the United States. It regulates the international trade in animals and plants that may be threatened by trade. CITES entered into force in 1975 and currently regulates the trade of approximately 28,000 species of plants and 5,000 species of animals. Many believe that CITES has been a success, citing that no species listed under CITES has gone extinct in the last 30 years. Others believe that CITES, although successful, has had implementation difficulties, such as the lack of enforcement and implementation regulations in some Party nations. Protected species are organized under CITES into three appendices. Species in Appendix I are threatened with extinction and trade in these species is prohibited for commercial purposes. Appendix II contains species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but which require controlled trade to prevent population declines. For species protected in Appendix III, at least one country has requested other countries to assist in regulating trade originating in that country. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) implements CITES in the United States and contains provisions for protecting rare foreign species. The ESA, however, protects species based on several criteria that may threaten their survival; CITES focuses solely on the threat of trade to a species's survival. Further, CITES allows for the trade in species if trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species; the ESA may allow imports of foreign endangered species if trade enhances the survival of the species in their native country. In the United States, comparisons of wildlife protection under the ESA and CITES may be an emerging issue for Congress. Some argue that the ESA regulations on importing some foreign species may inhibit conservation efforts in foreign countries that rely on funds generated from wildlife trade. Others respond by noting that CITES is focused only on the trade in endangered species, rather than the overall protection and conservation of the species such as in the ESA. Issues regarding the effectiveness of enforcing CITES and the implementation of CITES may also emerge. CITES signatories held a meeting in October 2004 to discuss several proposals for listing or changing the listing of species within its appendices. The United States participated and successfully lobbied to downlist the bald eagle (from Appendix I to Appendix II) to reflect increasing populations of bald eagles in the United States. Other changes included a rejection of limited trade in elephant ivory for some African nations, approval for a limited hunt of black rhinoceros, and increased protection for some marine species. This report will be updated as warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill establishing a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which officially will come into being on January 23, 2003. The President originally proposed (in June 2002) that all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) - including the Plum Island Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostics Laboratory - be transferred into the new Department's Office of Border and Transportation Security to support its counter-terrorism mission. APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and diseases and posts inspectors at about 125 ports of entry around the country. Border inspection activities account for an estimated 60% of APHIS's staff and 30% of its budget. The remaining resources are devoted to a wide range of domestic activities, e.g., coordinating animal disease and plant pest control and eradication programs in the states, providing technical trade dispute advice and resolution, and enforcing animal welfare laws, to name just a few. The House Agriculture Committee recommended changes to the President's proposal (H.Res. 449) that reflected the concerns of a wide spectrum of the U.S. agriculture community, which feared that transferring all of APHIS out of USDA would seriously hamper the agency's considerable domestic, non-border activities. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security incorporated these changes into an amended version of the President's proposal, which it reported out and the full House passed in July 2002 (H.R. 5005). The amended proposal specified that only the APHIS border inspection employees would be transferred to DHS, and that the USDA Secretary would retain considerable authority over their activities and funding. The bill also included the transfer of the Plum Island lab to DHS. The Senate homeland security bill, S. 2452, originally would have transferred border inspection and quarantine functions, authorities, employees, and assets to the new department, but not the Plum Island facility. However, the Senate acceded to the House language on the APHIS provisions before the full Senate passed its version of H.R. 5005 on November 19. Section 421 of P.L. 107-296 authorizes the transfer of no more than 3,200 APHIS border inspection personnel to DHS, along with the Plum Island lab. Plant and animal quarantine functions, as well as all other APHIS program activities, are to remain in USDA. Some differences of opinion still exist concerning the Plum Island lab transfer. Supporters maintain that the new department needs the lab's foreign animal disease diagnostic capabilities to detect potential bioterrorism, while opponents argue that the lab's research on behalf of the U.S. livestock sector may be hampered by its top-secret designation. This report covers the background and policy issues related to the Act establishing the DHS and its implementation and will be updated as necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the proposal for the introduction of more harsh animal welfare standards by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the production of organic meat and poultry under its organic certification scheme in the U.S. It states that housing, transport, and slaughter conditions are covered under the proposed rules of USDA.

The article reports on the move of luxury apparel group Moncler to refute allegations of Italian broadcaster RAI3 "Report" programme that it has sourced down from suppliers that use inhumane methods to pluck geese as of November 2014. Topics include the Moncler's response that it suppliers adhere to the principles established by the European Down and Feather Assocation, and its statement that it has always produced in Eastern Europe and has never transferred production away from Italy.

The article reports on the new directive issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Services that includes that will ensure humane treatment and slaughter of livestock at its inspected facilities.

The article discusses the animal welfare provisions in the Agricultural Research Endeavors Act of the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The article discusses the Animal Welfare Legislation passed in the 114th Congress in the U.S.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 was reauthorized by the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-238) as signed by President Clinton on April 30, 1994. These Amendments reauthorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior -- the agencies responsible for implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act -- through fiscal year 1999. In addition, substantial changes were made to many of the Act's provisions, incorporating contributions from commercial fishers, conservation groups, public display institutions, scientific researchers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Commission, animal protection groups, and the Alaska Native community. The most significant amendments involved establishing a new regime to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, replacing the Interim Exemption in place since 1988. Three new sections were added to the Act to address commercial fishing: the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; development and implementation of take reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with commercial fisheries; and studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. Maintaining the original aspirations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Amendments continue to protect marine mammals, seeking to maintain stocks at, or recover stocks to, their optimum sustainable population levels. To achieve that goal, protection of essential habitats including rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance is emphasized by including specific ''habitat'' language in the bill. Other major changes include a mechanism for authorizing importation of polar bear parts (other than internal organs) from Canada (provided the required findings are made); revised permit provisions for public display and scientific research; establishment of permits for purposes of photography; procedures for authorizing the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds which are having a significant negative effect on salmonid fishery stocks; eliminated jurisdiction over the care and maintenance of captive marine mammals held for purposes of public display at registered or licensed facilities; and authority for providing grants to Alaska Native organizations for the purpose of developing co-management structures for marine mammal stocks taken for subsistence purposes. This CRS Report summarizes provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 and outlines this Act's implementation schedule for use by Members of Congress and their staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]