By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

In 2022, we rejoiced when the federal Big Cat Public Safety Act passed in the U.S. with strong bipartisan support. We had championed that legislation for years, and the cultural zeitgeist of Netflix’s Tiger King, which so many people watched while under Covid-19 lockdown, revealed broadly the sad truths of the captive big cat industry that we and other advocates worked to expose for years, helping to build momentum to pass this historic law.

The BCPSA set limits on private ownership of big cats and banned cub petting, the attraction that generated so many tiger cub selfies across social media. This law has been a lifeline for wild animals. It protects big cats from the gross cruelty of being held captive as pets or handled by the paying public during forced, dangerous interactions that turn a profit and boost social media profiles.

Now, less than four years later, trade associations representing some of the worst of the institutions regulated by the BCPSA, many of them privately owned zoos and menageries, are launching an attack on the law.

You can sign this action alert to stand up for big cats.

Protect big cats >>

After we achieve wins for animals, we don’t just pack up and leave the table. Our work is so important precisely because we constantly defend and advocate for the progress we’ve already made. We advocate for the passage of humane laws, track them to make sure they're being implemented, funded and enforced, and when threats arise, we stand ready to defend this progress. This is to ensure that animal lives are really changed by what we do.

The threat posed by the ‘Protecting Local Zoos Act’

The Protecting Local Zoos Act is a bill whose very name implicitly suggests that it’s not the animals who need protection but the local zoos. And yet the name they’ve given this measure is also a ruse. The Protecting Local Zoos Act is not about protecting zoos as the sponsors want you to think. It’s a Trojan horse of loopholes that would open the door to the very abuse and cruelty that led Congress to pass the Big Cat Public Safety Act in the first place.

The bill would do little in the interests of zoos because the BCPSA did not affect standard zoo operations—it only restricted them from allowing the public to have direct contact with big cats. Instead, this bill would significantly expand the private breeding and international trade of big cats, increasing the risk of a lifetime of abuse, suffering and misery. Big cats don’t belong in backyards, basements, or the hands of untrained and unqualified individuals, and Congress should not turn back the clock on protections that save both human and animal lives.

Do we already need to recall everything that led to the passage of the BCPSA in the first place? Do we need to revisit the hundreds of human injuries and deaths resulting from direct contact with wild cats over recent decades? Do we need to recall again the escapes of wild animals from captivity that end in their bloody deaths? The risks borne by local law enforcement, first responders who came face to face with these animals in backyards and basements? Or, the immense costs shouldered by animal sanctuaries that have taken in animal victims of the big cat trade? Direct public contact with big cats and the private ownership of these kinds of animals is an outrage and an injustice.

Why now?

The common sense that led to the passage of the BCPSA appears to be lacking in some quarters of the Congress at this time. The Feline Conservation Foundation and the Zoological Association of America, an organization seemingly devoted to opposing or weakening all laws, regulations and accreditation requirements that protect wild animals in captivity, have found several elected officials willing to front a legislative campaign to water down the BCPSA.

Their bill would exempt USDA Class B licensees from the strictures of the BCPSA, giving wild animal dealers operating under those licenses renewed opportunities to buy, breed and sell big cats as pets. It would greenlight reliance on non-professional volunteers for contact with dangerous animals at captive display operations. It would remove snow leopards and clouded leopards entirely from the protection of the current law.

The Protecting Local Zoos Act is, plain and simple, a sweetheart deal for poorly run roadside zoos, private menageries and similar operations, one that will let them return to their money maker pitches, like public access for photo ops and chances to pet and cuddle wild animals.

The loopholes

A facility that operates as a zoo by exhibiting, breeding or trading big cats should do so under a Class C exhibitor’s license. There is no reason for Congress to enable private parties to evade the BCPSA’s settled restrictions on breeding, acquisition and sales through acquisition of a Class B dealer’s license. This measure alone will spur the proliferation of big cats, along with unacceptable risks to communities, first responders and the animals who are the innocent pawns of this industry.

This kind of exemption could also lead to exportation of animals in support of the pet trade and public contact industries overseas, with further detrimental consequences. When Ringling Bros. Circus ended its own animal acts in 2017, it exported 15 big cats to a circus trainer operating in Germany.

Another telling exemption championed by the FCF and ZAA and their congressional allies would exempt volunteers from the direct contact restrictions of the BCPSA. This is flatly reckless as volunteers have often been in the unfortunate group of those who have been injured or killed by animals at the kinds of institutions represented by the groups pushing this bill. It’s also disingenuous, for at its worst, this exemption would create a loophole under which any visitor could be designated a “volunteer” long enough to pay for and experience an hour or a day of direct contact with captive big cats. There are countless opportunities for volunteerism at wild animal facilities that do not require direct contact; that’s something that should be reserved for highly qualified, extensively trained, and properly supervised personnel.

The sponsors of the Protecting Local Zoos Act also want to remove clouded and snow leopards from protection under the Big Cat Public Safety Act altogether. But the legislative history of BCPSA makes clear the intent of Congress to continue to protect them from the same sad fate as other big cat species. Should the FCF and ZAA have their way, we can reliably predict that the industry will swap in snow and clouded leopards as substitutes for other big cats in public encounters, just as it has already expanded its reliance on small wild cats and other wild animals. And of course, the wild animal pet trade will grow, leading to more animal surrenders, because that’s what happens with so many wild species peddled for public encounters.

What you can do

You can sign our action alert to send the message that you support the full strength of the BCPSA. Fortunately, most Americans see the private ownership of big cats as utterly bonkers. Even if they are unaware of the precise nature of the miseries it causes to animals, they have some comprehension of the personal dangers and threats to community safety private ownership poses.

Even with the BCPSA in place, government and law enforcement agencies must still perform constant enforcement and tracking activities. While enforcement is something that may never be done perfectly, by all external accounts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to do a good job of implementing and enforcing the law. And we do know that the law has helped to address the serious risks that animals in private hands pose to members of the public and to law enforcement officials who must respond to dangerous situations involving such animals. There is no doubt that by curbing the commercial breeding and sale of big cats—which was nothing short of a pipeline to animal misery and public endangerment—the law has made an incalculable difference.

The passage of the BCPSA has done manifest good for wild animals at risk and for individual and community safety. It’s one of the most public-spirited laws ever to pass in Congress, and together, we should do all we can to defend it against such a rash, exploitative and callous attack as the one it’s facing now. 

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals.

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

Dogs in the pet industry should not be forced to breed until they collapse. Dogs with hereditary disorders should not be used for breeding if there’s a strong chance of passing painful ailments on to future generations of pups. Dogs and puppies deserve space to run and play, even if they’re in commercial breeding programs. Yet there are no rules in the current U.S. Animal Welfare Act regulations to ensure that dogs have these basic protections.

Now, there is a new opportunity to help dogs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which enforces the Animal Welfare Act in puppy mills and other facilities regulated under that law, is considering strengthening standards of care for dogs in these places. And we can all do our part to shape the outcome.

You can signal your support for improvements by signing our action alert.

We will submit comments, and we encourage you to also be a part of this process. Comments on agency considerations are meaningful because the agency must read, consider and respond to substantive public input.

The successful protection of animals requires not only good laws but sensible regulatory measures and well-coordinated systems of oversight and enforcement. That’s why we have long advocated for stronger, better and more effective regulations to protect animals in puppy mills and other contexts alongside our work to push greater enforcement against violators who fail to meet even the basic standards of care that currently exist.

Help dogs in puppy mills!

For years, if not decades, case after case has shown just how essential regulatory reform is. We’ve seen outrageous mistreatment of animals continue—as administrations have changed—perpetuating negative assessments of the current state of USDA inspection and enforcement work . That cruelty under the current system has continued for far too long (for one example, consider the case of the Envigo beagles, in which we played a significant role). This history likely led to the widely publicized joint commitment of Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Attorney General Pam Bondi to better coordination between their agencies in addressing animal cruelty.

While we’re pleased that the DOJ and the USDA are committing to addressing a failed system, experience has taught us the hard lesson that inspections and enforcement efforts can only achieve so much when legal standards are inadequate. That’s why the prospect of a USDA plan to bring its regulations up a few notches could bring real change.

The federal regulatory framework for dog care in the U.S. is outdated, especially with respect to puppy mills. And there is a general and broad agreement among state regulators, local rescue groups, other non-profit organizations, scientists, researchers and veterinarians that these standards need to be updated.

Who would be against these reforms for dogs?

A few things bear emphasis as the agency charts a new course. The puppy mill industry and its supporters, such as the American Kennel Club, will probably invoke worn-out claims about bureaucracy, regulatory overreach and the industry’s own opinions of animals’ needs and what constitutes essential veterinary care.

They’re apt to argue, for example, that we should leave animal welfare compliance to the veterinarians employed or retained by commercial breeders. If they have veterinarians at all. This is a discredited and ineffective idea. Period.

They’re likely to decry the limitations of a “one-size-fits-all” approach. This argument is nearly always an attempt to torpedo proposals for reform altogether, or to water them down enough to render them ineffective. The very point of a federal rule like the one considered here is to set a clear and compassionate baseline of care and treatment and hold the regulated parties accountable.

They’ll be quick to deride virtually any standard promulgated as arbitrary or unnecessary. This will be a hard case to make, because the standards we’re going to support will be based in animal welfare science.

These standards are the right thing to do for dogs.

First, it is simply good judgment and sensible oversight to ensure that any mother dog in a commercial facility should have a veterinary evaluation before any renewed breeding attempt.

Second, it is reasonable to require that breeders screen all dogs for overall health, especially with respect to canine brucellosis, a contagious and zoonotic bacterial infection that affects the reproductive organs, and for heritable disorders and their terrible consequences down the line, as puppies are sent to puppy-selling pet stores with congenital conditions and compromised health.

Finally, there are the sorts of concerns that anyone who has kept and cared for a dog can understand. Dogs need room to play, time outside of their enclosures to run and socialize, suitable housing that allows them to meet their most basic behavioral requirements and needs, and enrichment toys and activities to provide mental stimulation and enhance their overall health.

The USDA’s notice coincides with our renewed push for passage of the Puppy Protection Act, which would accomplish many of the same goals, including required veterinary care and routine health screenings; prohibitions against harmful breeding practices; higher standards for socialization and enrichment; and adequate space, temperature control and access to outdoor exercise.

In August of this year, we’ll mark the 60th anniversary of the passage of the Animal Welfare Act. The proper treatment of dogs was at the very heart of that compassionate legislation. Let’s make 2026 a year to remember, too, one in which the public, representatives in Congress and federal agencies came together for stronger protections for animals.  

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals.

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

A major roadblock to ending animal experiments is the lack of funding to develop technologies that can replace them. But last week, the National Institutes of Health helped close that gap. The U.S. government agency announced that it is investing more than $150 million to develop cutting edge nonanimal research methods that better simulate human biology—without harming animals. This represents NIH’s largest investment to date in non-animal methods.

As the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, NIH has the power to shape how research and testing dollars are spent not just in the U.S., but around the world. Globally, an estimated 190 million cats, monkeys, mice and other animals suffer in harmful experiments every year.

The funding will be awarded to research teams across the U.S. and be used to establish “technology development centers” that will create sophisticated non-animal methods for studying gynecological disorders, cardiac disease, neurological disorders, rare diseases and other conditions. The centers will also focus on developing advanced non-animal tests that can assess how things from pesticides to laundry detergent can affect human health and the environment.

Because animals and humans are so biologically different, animal experiments do a poor job of mimicking the human body. The result is that they are actually hindering—not advancing—science. For example, according to NIH, more than 90% of drugs that appear successful in animal tests go on to fail in human clinical trials. In contrast, cutting-edge alternatives use human data, tissues and cells to create technologies like organs-on-a-chip, 3D human tissue models, advanced human cell-based systems, computational models and AI-driven simulations based on how the human body works.

For decades, we’ve made the case that Congress and government agencies should prioritize and increase funding for research and testing methods that don’t rely on animals, and we secured congressional support through the federal appropriations process. We’ve also worked in collaboration with NIH to ensure that human-based research methods replace animal experiments for drugs and other products.

This dramatic funding commitment is just the latest example of the work NIH has done to begin to phase out animal experiments in favor of sophisticated human-based techniques.

• Last April, the agency made the groundbreaking announcement that it would prioritize human-based research technologies and reduce the number of animal experiments funded by the agency.
• In May, NIH revealed that it had closed the last beagle laboratory on its campus—a lab that carried out experiments on thousands of dogs.
• In July, NIH announced another shift toward non-animal methods, saying it would “prioritize human-based technologies and models, where scientifically valid and justified,” and that “funding opportunities will indicate a special emphasis on human-based approaches.”
• In September, the agency launched a center dedicated to developing organoid technology that can replace animal experiments, with contracts totaling $87 million for the first three years.
• In February this year, the Oregon Health and Science University entered into talks with NIH about the possibility of turning the Oregon National Primate Research Center, a federally-funded research laboratory with nearly 5,000 monkeys, into a sanctuary.

Over the last year, NIH and other U.S. government agencies have taken extraordinary steps forward for animals in laboratories. We’re continuing to work with scientists, government agencies, legislators, companies and animal advocates around the globe, and we’ll keep doing this work until sophisticated technologies have made animal experiments obsolete.

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals.

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

Ahold Delhaize USA, the parent company of well-known grocery store chains, including Food Lion, Giant, Hannaford and Stop & Shop, has strengthened its cage-free egg policy by formally introducing steps toward reaching its goals, including a concrete action plan with public reporting. This dramatically improved accountability clearly shows a much stronger commitment toward 100% cage-free eggs, a goal the company says it will fully achieve by 2032 at the latest. Ahold has already begun rolling out improvements in its egg supply chain as a result, which should continue until full compliance is met.

On an egg factory farm that still uses cages, it is the status quo for a hen to be crammed into a wire cage roughly the size of a microwave with as many as nine other birds, all of them unable to spread their wings for their entire lives. Each hen is forced to eat, sleep and defecate in a space with dimensions the size of a letter-sized sheet of paper.

This corporate commitment would not have happened without you and your steadfast dedication to speaking up for animals. We also acknowledge the work of the many other organizations across the U.S. and abroad that helped make this possible.

Once fully implemented throughout Ahold Delhaize’s U.S. grocery retailer networks, the commitment is estimated to impact more than 5 million hens in the egg industry per year. The company has stated, too, that it has set benchmarks to show the decreased use of cage systems leading up to the 2032 deadline. The company aims for a 75% cage-free goal for 2026 and 85% goal in 2028.

This announcement comes at a particularly significant moment for hens kept for eggs in the U.S. The cage-free egg industry has reached an all-time high in market share; 47.7% of hens used for eggs are now housed in cage-free systems nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA itself acknowledges the value of these systems, as it has mandated the use of cage- and crate-free systems for its official organics program through binding regulations.

Fewer than 15 years ago, cage-free production accounted for only single-digit percentages. The steady rise to today’s record level reflects the cumulative impact of legislative advances, consumer awareness and demand and corporate commitments.

For pregnant pigs who suffer immensely in gestation crates, Ahold Delhaize USA has also reinforced its commitment toward its stated goal to reduce the time that pigs in its supply chain will spend in intensive confinement. The company aims to source pig meat from suppliers that reduce their use of gestation crates by 2028. Three of the company’s five supermarket chains have already met this goal.

Ahold Delhaize USA joins a growing group of retailers, restaurants and foodservice companies that have already transitioned to purchasing cage-free eggs within supply chains, including some big players. The U.S. branches of major brands including McDonald’s, Subway, Amazon and nearly all stateside Costco divisions are now 100% cage‑free, alongside many of the nation’s largest packaged food manufacturers such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever and Mondelez.

However, while many companies have made important strides, others, including Target, still refuse to fulfill publicly made promises to go cage‑free. Join us in pushing Target to follow through by signing our petition to Target’s CEO, Michael Fiddelke, at TargetCruelty.com.

Urge Target to keep its animal welfare promises and stop using cruel cages and crates >>

We are devoted to seeing a better, more humane future for farmed animals. Not only do we track companies who have made promises to ensure that they follow through, we also work hands-on in our campaign to bring on the cage-free future for farmed animals. We meet with suppliers who are willing to transition to higher welfare systems and offer scientific research and expertise to show why improving animal welfare is crucial for everyone. At times, we even set up farm visits to facilitate company introductions to farmers and producers who have gone cage-free, and we provide companies with strategies and insights to help with implementation plans. This is how we work on-the-ground to ensure promises are fulfilled, not empty.

While we work on ending the cage age for farmed animals, one of the most important things you can do to help farmed animals is by choosing more plant-based meals in place of animal products. Many of the companies with the strongest animal welfare policies are also intentionally diversifying their menus to increase plant-based meal selections. You can see how these companies rank in the Food Service Industry Protein Sustainability Scorecard.

In this way, everyone can make a difference for farmed animals each day by choosing to eat more plant-based meals, even as we all do our best to support the corporate campaigns that produce animal welfare gains at scale.  

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals.

Legislation undermines science-based safeguards for more than 130 species poisoned by products of hunting and fishing on federal lands

WASHINGTON (March 18, 2026)—Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 215 to 202, largely on party lines, to support a bill that would substantially increase the risk of harmful lead exposure to both animals and humans from spent hunting ammunition or abandoned fishing tackle on federal lands and water. If the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (H.R. 556) becomes law, key federal agencies would be prohibited from restricting the use of toxic lead ammunition and fishing tackle on many federal lands and waters used for hunting and fishing. The U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be unable to take science-based actions to protect wildlife, people and public lands from lead contamination, even though safer, lead-free alternatives are widely available and effective.

“Long ago, we took steps to eliminate lead from fuel, paint and other products, so why would we tolerate its indiscriminate scattering on our nation’s parklands and waterways? We should have the same zero tolerance policy on our wildlands, especially since non-toxic alternatives are available,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. “More than 130 species—from bald eagles to bears—have been documented suffering from lead poisoning after ingesting contaminated carcasses or tackle, and for birds even a single pellet can cause brain damage, organ failure or death. There is no justification for spreading toxic metal across our landscapes, given the serious threats it poses to both animal and human health and safety.”

“Each year, 10 to 20 million birds alone are killed by lead shot and its deleterious effects on our ecosystems. And the World Health Organization estimates 1.5 million people die due to lead exposure each year, so why would the House of Representatives sanction the continued use of lead in bullets?" said Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund, formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund. “Federal and state programs provide incentives to encourage the use of lead-free alternatives, and those are the programs that should be expanded. Tell the U.S. Congress to get the lead out.”

Since the start of the 119th Session last year, and often with support from big industry backers, Congress has moved to weaken federal wildlife protections in a host of areas. This includes legislation that would advance major rollbacks to the Endangered Species Act, gut core components of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, and strip wolves and grizzly bears of Endangered Species Act protections altogether. These actions represent a sweeping effort to undo conservation protections that have safeguarded America’s wildlife and public lands for decades.

Media Contacts:

• Rodi Rosensweig, Humane World for Animals, (202) 809-8711, rrosensweig@humaneworld.org
• Liz Bartolomeo, Humane World Action Fund, (240) 742-0475, ebartolomeo@humaneaction.org 

Humane World for Animals and Humane World Action Fund encouraged by newly proposed guidance to advance non-animal methods

WASHINGTON (March 18, 2026)—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made further progress toward replacing animal use in testing with suitable non-animal methods. Humane World for Animals and Humane World Action Fund, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund, today welcome newly proposed FDA guidance that encourages pharmaceutical companies seeking regulatory approval to submit data from non-animal methods, providing a framework for validation considerations of these methods.

“We are pleased to see FDA release draft guidance specifically focused on new approach methods, as we’ve been pressing for,” said Kathleen Conlee, vice president for animal research issues at Humane World for Animals. “While this is a positive step, we will be urging the agency to further strengthen and broaden their proposal while also calling on industry to work with FDA to advance non-animal methods to reduce animal suffering and promote scientific innovation.”

Human-relevant, non-animal methods such as advanced cell-based systems using human cells can provide more accurate and efficient insights into how drugs affect people than animal tests can provide.

This is the latest in a series of steps the agency has taken over the past two years to reduce reliance on animal testing. In May 2024, Humane World for Animals submitted a legal petition to accelerate the adoption of non-animal methods, which included specific recommendations on how to do so.

In April 2025, the FDA released a roadmap outlining its plan to make animal experiments the exception rather than the rule in drug evaluations, incorporating several of the reforms outlined in the petition. Since then, the agency has begun implementing that roadmap, by identifying unnecessary animal tests that can be reduced or eliminated and updating its website to highlight instances when accepted non-animal methods could be used in drug development.

“The FDA is continuing its drum beat of announcements moving away from outdated animal methodologies with the release of this guidance, which encourages the industry to submit data from non-animal approaches instead of animal testing data,” said Tracie Letterman, vice president for federal affairs at Humane World Action Fund. “We’re encouraged by the Trump administration’s stated commitment across the federal government to make animal testing a matter of last resort, however, if FDA really wants the industry to submit data from non-animal methods, the next step is for FDA to revise its regulations to make it clear that animal testing is not legally required for drug approvals.”

Today’s action follows a series of announcements made by federal agencies since last year to reduce reliance on animal testing. This includes the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewed commitment to eliminate tests on dogs, rabbits and other mammals by 2035, FDA’s introduction of new draft guidance to reduce testing of monoclonal antibodies using non-human primates such as monkeys, and the National Institutes of Health‘s stated plan to prioritize human-based research technologies to reduce animal experiments in NIH-funded research.

NIH also announced today that it is investing $150 million in human-based research to reduce use of animals, through its first ever awards under the Complement Animal Research in Experimentation (Complement-ARIE) program. These “Technology Development Centers” will develop non-animal platforms to cover diverse topics including better understanding of women’s health, disease pathologies, neurodevelopmental issues and chemical safety screening.

Download Photos/Video about animals used in research

Media Contacts:

• Liz Bartolomeo: 240-472-0475; ebartolomeo@humaneworld.org
• Emily Snow Gugel: 202-779-1814; eehrhorn@humaneworld.org 

Across the world, an estimated 190 million animals are used for testing and research every year. Many of these animals, including mice, rats, rabbits, monkeys, dogs and fish, are used to explore how human bodies may respond to chemicals. But there are major differences between animals and humans, and immense advancements in technology that hold promise for replacing the use of animals in these tests. Here, Jay Ingram, managing director of chemicals for Humane World for Animals’ global research and testing campaign, explains why new methods hold promise for ending animal testing for chemicals.

Chemicals are everywhere. Whether you're cleaning your home, using personal care products, eating, treating an illness or just existing, you are exposed to chemicals. For some people, the word “chemicals” can spark feelings of unease, as we have often been told that chemicals are harmful. While it's true that there are a number of chemicals that can pose a risk to our health, there are also a large number that are not harmful, and many that help us live better, healthier lives. This makes it all the more important for scientists and regulators to determine if certain chemicals may pose a risk to our health, and at what levels.

Most countries around the world have strict chemical testing regulations that govern the work of scientists and others who are charged with answering these important questions. The main way of determining the potential risk of chemicals has long relied on animal tests, which cause untold suffering as animals are exposed to chemicals being directly poured into their eyes, shoved down their throats, smeared on their shaved skin, injected into them, pumped into the air they breathe, or dosed into every bite of food they eat.

Many chemical regulations were introduced a long time ago, with the rationale at the time that animal testing was the best and only way of determining chemical safety. These regulations often rely on a strict set of animal tests that must be conducted, many of which expose animals to extremely high doses of chemicals, far beyond what we humans would ever experience. For example, tests on rats involved feeding them the human equivalent of 210 grams (over 7 ounces or 16 tablespoons) of salt in a single instance, which would be impossible for a human to ingest at once, no matter how much you love potato chips (a typical serving of chips usually has around 0.2 grams of salt).

Studies have also been conducted where animals have been fed 970 milligrams of sodium dodecyl sulfonate (one of the main ingredients in soaps) every single day. This is the equivalent of humans eating 10 tablespoons of the pure chemical every day for the rest of our lives. The fact that we tend to only use soap on our skin, and don’t eat it, means this amount is very significant.

But because chemicals are everywhere, animal testing is also, sadly, everywhere. But it doesn’t have to be.

 

We have known for decades that testing on animals doesn't always give an accurate picture of how humans will be affected by chemicals. Our bodies function differently from animals’ in many ways. For example, I make sure my dog, Maisie, doesn't eat any chocolatey treats, as these would likely make her very sick. Even small amounts of chocolate can cause vomiting or diarrhea in dogs, while larger quantities can lead to seizures, irregular heartbeat or even death. By contrast, aside from perhaps contributing to weight gain, chocolate is benign for most humans. And we are exposed to chemicals in different ways and amounts compared to what animals experience in lab tests.

There is a growing social and scientific consensus that there are ethical and practical problems associated with using animals to make determinations and decisions concerning human health. So, as we shift away from animal testing, what methods can be used to determine chemical safety?

Our bodies have a number of structures called receptors, which are like puzzle pieces, and they can become active, or switch off, if a puzzle piece with the right shape comes along. It is these processes that make our bodies work, but it can also trigger harm. Computer software tools make use of huge amounts of human biological information and can accurately predict whether a chemical has the right shape to fit into the puzzle pieces inside our bodies, and if they do, what will happen as a result. These tools are frequently used to determine the safety of cosmetic ingredients and can similarly be used to identify chemicals that have structures associated with DNA damage, which could lead to cancer. They confer a tremendous advantage, allowing scientists to quickly and cheaply screen out potentially harmful chemicals without using animals and with greater benefits to human health and safety. Using computers not only allows us to focus on data that directly relates to people rather than animals but also has the benefit of speed—we can screen chemicals multiple times faster than testing on animals, in some cases getting results in days as opposed to years.

 

Growing cells in a lab gives us a safe, ethical way of seeing how human cells will behave when exposed to chemicals. We can see the complex processes and how these are affected by chemicals under a microscope. Some scientists are even taking human cells and putting them into complex systems that mimic entire organs in our bodies. These systems are called “organs on chips” and they can replicate organs like a human liver, with all its complex interactions, and put it on a device that is roughly the size of a USB flash drive.

These are powerful advances, as they allow us to predict what will happen without the need to test on a human or animal. This means that the information we get from these tests is more relevant to protecting you and your families than animal tests are, because these tests are based on human biology, and not that of an animal.

 

Although these scientific technologies have been in place for some time, and are continuously improving, chemical safety laws have been slow to catch up, and regulators are sometimes hesitant to adopt these methods. Many decision-makers are more comfortable with information from animal tests—they know that this information cannot be fully trusted, but the historic use of animals gives them a feeling of confidence because “it’s always been done this way.” Additionally, there is an influential industry built on breeding and supplying a continuous flow of animals for profit.

Tell the FDA: Make it clear that animal testing is not required!

It is long past time for chemical laws across the globe to change and start allowing for more non-animal methods to be used in determining the safety of chemicals. Change can be hard but uptake of more predictive methods of human biology for safety as we continue to pursue even more advanced science, give us a better chance of creating a world where the chemicals we are exposed to are safer for us, and where the suffering that animals endure in labs is put to an end once and for all.

Jay Ingram is managing director of chemicals for Humane World for Animals’ global research and testing campaign.

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

California’s Proposition 12, Massachusetts’ Question 3 and the other state-level laws that have simultaneously enhanced public health and animal welfare in the United States represent the agricultural market of the future, and perhaps more importantly, the moral progress of the nation. Industrial agriculture’s cruel crating of pigs and caging of laying hens are giving way—inexorably—to more humane approaches that will better serve and sustain family farms, public health and the social and cultural integrity of rural communities.

Even so, there is aggressive and defiant opposition from the National Pork Producers Council—a single belligerent and laggard trade group based in Iowa, the epicenter of intensive confinement operations for pigs. Together, with congressional allies, it’s pushing for a Farm Bill package that stymies the adoption of more humane approaches to raising pigs for food, unapologetic in its defense of mass-scale industrial pig factories, which are a blight on the landscape, a source of tremendous environmental harm, and a driver of rural decline in the United States.

For the rest of us, of course, when it comes to the animal welfare implications of such operations, the case is closed. They’re hell for animals, sites of utter disregard for animals’ suffering, and a genuine embarrassment to humanity.

Unfortunately, a majority of the House Agriculture Committee has turned a blind eye to the rampant cruelty of intensive confinement systems for pigs, and the real and urgent needs of America’s rank-and-file small-scale producers and farmers and its rural communities, by advancing a Farm Bill that truly does not meet the moment. A few key congressional leaders have embraced the pork council’s lies and adopted its broken-record bleating about the humane standards being adopted in state after state.

That’s too bad, because the pork council isn’t the voice of America’s farmers and producers, and it certainly doesn’t represent the will of the American public. Simply put, the NPPC is a conscienceless trade association that serves the largest corporate pork producers and processors, and the animal factories those interests operate are among the worst neighbors one could have in rural America.

In this desperate phase of its campaign to overturn duly enacted laws in nearly one-third of American states (it has failed in every previous attempt to do so in Congress and the courts), the pork council is putting its money on a ludicrously named bill, the Save our Bacon Act. Its supporters are deliberately mischaracterizing this as a battle over bacon, when all that we and other supporters are trying to do through these voter-approved state laws is to spare animals from the abuses of intensive confinement in the pork industry.

The serious challenges now facing rural America, and especially its responsible family farmers, include corporate consolidation, depressed commodity markets, rising input costs and trade disruptions, many of which could be addressed through a balanced and bipartisan Farm Bill. In that light, it’s not merely irresponsible but bizarre that the committee chair and his allies would insist on the Farm Bill incorporating the Save Our Bacon Act and another controversial measure—one that immunizes pesticide manufacturers from accountability via lawsuits challenging the use of products linked to cancer.

The decision to include these poison pills makes it very likely that the Farm Bill will fail in the full House.

Dog import measure raises concerns

There are other measures in the committee’s Farm Bill package that concern us. One involves the importation of dogs into the United States. We respect the desire of the legislative sponsors of the Healthy Dog Importation Act to prevent sick dogs from entering the country, and we believe that effective disease prevention protocols are critical to lifesaving importation programs. However, the bill goes a step further and sets a precedent that could prevent animal welfare organizations from requesting donations to offset the cost of care for animals rescued from cruelty.

Through our own programs, we understand the decisive importance of safe and well-managed importation channels for international rescue work involving animals in hurricanes, earthquakes and other emergencies, dog meat farm closures and other situations in which we and other organizations are active around the world. Helping dogs and puppies receive care, including translocation to the U.S. when their home countries are overwhelmed by an emergency, should not be up for discussion.

Who benefits by creating more obstacles to bringing dogs and puppies to safety in the U.S.? The measure’s supporters include the National Animal Interest Alliance, the American Kennel Club and a few other organizations with conflicts of interests and hidden agendas, such as selling puppies from puppy mills and protecting from scrutiny certain cruelties of importance to their membership. This time around, they’ve even got the support of the pork council for their bill!

The Healthy Dog Importation Act is an especially worrisome proposal because there is a Senate version with many Agriculture Committee members in support, which increases its chances for inclusion in a final version of the Farm Bill.

An unwarranted handout to the mink industry

One of the most peculiar handouts in the House Farm Bill is the proposed earmark of tax dollars to help the mink industry develop and expand into international markets. There has been a prohibition on this handout for nearly 30 years, but the House committee bill inexplicably revives it. In the United States as in other nations, this industry is sinking fast, with approximately 100 mink operations left, consumer demand for real fur at an all-time low and some countries banning fur imports. Mink operations are proven incubators for COVID-19 and avian influenza, and scientists consider the industry a high risk for future viral pandemics, including zoonotic variants that could jump to humans with terrible consequences. This boondoggle doesn’t deserve a penny of the public’s money.

From time to time, over the years, the Farm Bill has been a vehicle for good when it comes to animals and their protection. Not this time around. At the end of the day, there is no daylight between one backwards-facing faction of the pork industry and key members of the House Agriculture Committee in their hostility toward some of the most important animal protection laws ever passed. Nor is there any daylight around the two. They’re standing together in the dark, blind to the dynamics of a changing world and to rapidly shifting public opinion about the mistreatment of animals. Their collusion has made this a fiasco of a Farm Bill, and so long as it is bogged down by the language of the Save our Bacon Act, it isn’t worthy of passage.

Block the threat posed by the Save our Bacon Act >>

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals.

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

One of the very first things President Trump did after resuming office in January 2025 was sign an executive order titled  “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential.” Buried in the long list of instructions, the order contained a directive for the Department of Interior that effectively ordered the agency to once again allow the practice of bear baiting in Alaska. 

Bear baiting is the intentional use of food such as pastries or bacon grease to entice the animals into range. This cruel practice targets animals while they are simply trying to eat what they need to survive. Mother bears in particular, determined to be able to provide enough milk to feed their cubs, become attracted by these piles of food; the killing of these bears can be a death sentence, too, for their cubs.

Now, the National Park Service has taken yet another step toward subjecting bears to this inhumane and dangerous practice by formally proposing to rescind the 2024 regulation that banned bear baiting on Alaska’s national preserves. 

Protect Alaska’s bears from the cruel practice of bear baiting!

Trophy hunters bait bears to make them easy to kill, and they defend this practice by suggesting that baiting is needed to “manage” bear populations. Ironically, baiting can unnaturally increase bear populations by putting excessive junk food calories into ecosystems. But even many hunters oppose the practice of bear baiting for being unsporting. And, indeed, there are many reasons to outlaw bear baiting entirely.  

This tactic jeopardizes human safety—it’s part of the reason the NPS banned baiting in the first place. Since the goal of baiting is to change bear behavior by drawing them to a certain place, it naturally increases run-ins with hikers, campers and boaters.

Bait sites attract other species too, concentrating animals together, which can lead to the  transmission of diseases like  rabies, mange or chronic wasting disease between animals. Baits often contain theobromine and caffeine, which is toxic to many species, including bears and dogs.

This NPS announcement is the latest blow in a years-long struggle to protect Alaska’s bears and other animals from the cruel results of baiting. Baiting—along with a slew of other practices, such as killing mother bears, wolves and coyotes in their dens, with their cubs and pups—was first banned by the NPS in 2015. When the 2015 ban was reversed in 2020, we and our allies successfully challenged the decision in court. Finally, in July 2024, the government restored the bear baiting ban (but, much to our disappointment, continued to allow other indefensible methods of killing). Now, the fight against baiting is back on. 

A federal ban is critical for bears because Alaska state law incentivizes aggressive wildlife management practices designed to keep populations of bears and other animals such as wolves and coyotes unnaturally small.

The fringe group of trophy hunters and others who support these methods sometimes claim a need to kill wild carnivores to boost prey species for hunters in a practice known as “predator control.” However, the best available science shows that predator control doesn’t work. Instead, it harms wild carnivores and prey species alike. Historically, brown bear populations have dwindled in Alaska because of the state’s own “intensive management” practices.

Not only is baiting cruel, dangerous and scientifically without merit for managing bear populations, it is unpopular. We know that Alaskans overwhelmingly oppose bear baiting: a 2023 poll found that 75% oppose the practice. Generally speaking, Americans—including those who live near bears in states like Wyoming, Montana and Idaho—want to see bears protected.

Simply put, this change in policy doesn’t come at the behest of the American public but as a concession to a vocal minority: trophy hunters so eager to kill animals they will engage in the most cruel and risky of practices to do it.  

We urge the administration to do right by Alaska’s wildlife, residents and visitors and revise its stance on this indefensible practice.  

Kitty Block is president and CEO of Humane World for Animals. 

Proposed federal rule seeks to roll back critical wildlife protections and allow cruel ‘bear baiting’ in Alaska’s national parks once again

WASHINGTON (March 6, 2026)—The Trump administration has once again advanced a proposal to strip away wildlife protections and permit some of the most horrific trophy-hunting practices imaginable on Alaska’s national preserves. In a proposed rule published today, the U.S. National Park Service seeks to rescind a 2024 regulation that banned bear baiting on Alaska’s national preserves.

“Baiting bears with piles of donuts or meat scraps to lure them into range and gun them down is cruel beyond words and one of the most indefensible forms of trophy hunting there is,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, formerly called Humane Society of the United States. “Bait piles also habituate bears to human scents and can lead to dangerous conflicts at campgrounds, picnic areas and other spots like trailheads where there is food. For years, we have fought in the courts to keep this from happening in Alaska’s national preserves, and we have won time and again because the law and science are on the side of protecting wildlife. Wildlife must be respected, and bear baiting has no place in Alaska or anywhere.”

Bear baiting on Alaska’s wildlife preserves has a history of ups and downs. It was banned in 2015 under President Obama, but that ban was reversed in 2020 during President Trump’s first term. Humane World for Animals and its allies successfully challenged that initial Trump rule in court and the National Park Service under President Biden subsequently restored the bear baiting ban.

“Rescinding the 2024 rule against bear baiting in Alaska isn’t just a step backward, it’s a return to sheer brutality by the Trump administration,” said Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund, formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund. “This proposed rule is a greenlight for trophy hunters to kill animals with vile methods and no regard whatsoever for the science and public safety concerns that have sidelined those methods. If policymakers are willing to overturn a well-founded federal safeguard this easily, no wildlife protection measure is secure.”

Across Alaska bear baiting is unpopular, with more than 75% of state residents saying they oppose it. The proposed NPS rule blatantly panders to trophy hunting interests at the expense of Alaska’s wildlife, visitors and residents.

Learn more about bear baiting from Humane World for Animals.

Media Contacts:

• Rodi Rosensweig, Humane World for Animals, (202) 809-8711, rrosensweig@humaneworld.org
• Liz Bartolomeo, Humane World Action Fund, (240) 742-0475, ebartolomeo@humaneaction.org