November 10, 2003
Dr. Bobby Accord
Administrator, APHIS/USDA
4700 River Rd.
Riverdale, MD 20737
Dear Dr. Accord,
Thank you for your letter of July 2, 2003 in response to our concerns regarding the USDA's pain and distress proposal, particularly the current pain and distress categorization system (Federal Register, July 10, 2000). We are disappointed that USDA will not be acting on the proposal at this time, as this is an urgent issue in regards to animal welfare. At this time, however, we would like to specifically call your attention to the issue of a definition of distress, the second aspect of the July 10, 2000 Federal Register notice.
In your response letter, it is indicated that the USDA is seeking a definition that would be acceptable to all parties involved and that the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) has offered to review and propose a definition of distress. However, ILAR formed a committee to examine pain and distress in 1988 and, as a result, the National Research Council (NRC) published Recognition and Alleviation of Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals in 1992, which includes a definition of distress that is largely accepted by the research community as the most appropriate definition of distress available at this time.
The HSUS has conducted an analysis of all 2,839 comments submitted in response to the July, 2000 USDA proposal in order to assess the overall response regarding a definition of distress. The majority of the 2,029 comments from the research community that address the definition of distress issue did urge the USDA not to define distress; this is not surprising because the research community typically opposes any perceived strengthening of Animal Welfare Act regulations. However, if one focuses on the research community comments that propose a specific definition should the USDA move forward, 97% of these commenters support the definition of distress published by ILAR. This percentage demonstrates that there is general consensus among the research community (100% consensus among all parties will never be reached) and that adoption of the NRC definition, although it may need refinement, could serve as an initial definition to propose at this time.
The USDA stated in the Federal Register notice that a definition of distress "could help assist research facilities to recognize and minimize distress in animals in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)." The HSUS entirely agrees with this statement. The proposal also indicates that the term distress is used throughout the regulations, but is not defined. These statements demonstrate that the USDA believes it is important for a definition of distress to be incorporated into the regulations. Failure to adopt a definition of distress sends a message to the research community that USDA is less concerned about distress than about pain.
It has been over three years since the USDA published the pain and distress proposal and this issue should not be postponed any longer. We urge the USDA to consider proposing the NRC definition at this time. Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to hearing your response on this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Martin Stephens, Ph.D.
Vice President, Animal Research Issues
