Victories for animal advocates, especially when it comes to farmed animals, can feel few and far between. The United States has fallen significantly behind other Western countries in protecting farmed animals; in fact, no new federal legislation related to protecting farmed animals has been enacted since 1978, when the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was amended. 

This has not been for lack of effort on the part of animal advocates. Dozens of bills have been introduced at the federal level and all have died a silent death in committee. Most members of Congress, it seems, don’t have an appetite for seriously pursuing legislative change for farmed animals. 

Having mostly struck out at the federal level, advocates have turned to state legislatures and ballot initiatives to fill in the enforcement gaps. As a result, 18 states have enacted laws specifically designed to protect animals on farms over the past 25 years. These provisions fall into three categories: (1) minimum animal care standards (such as requirements for food, water, and veterinary care); (2) prohibitions on specific conventional industry practices (such as the use of cages for egg-laying hens or the extreme confinement of pigs); and (3) bans on the sale of products from producers who do not meet the state’s care requirements (such as eggs from caged hens or pork from the offspring of intensely confined pigs). 

But what happens after the flurry of signature-gathering, lobbying and campaigning? After the laws are passed and the regulations are promulgated, have these efforts resulted in real change and accountability as intended? My organization, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) attempted to find out. 

The Survey

In 2019, and again in 2023, AWI requested records from every state with on-farm animal protection laws or regulations to determine whether, and to what extent, those provisions were being enforced. Between the two survey periods, the number of states with such laws and regulations rose from 16 to 18, and the number of provisions increased from 31 to 44 — an encouraging development. However, the records we received included evidence of enforcement activity for only 12 of these 44 provisions, within 10 of the 18 states. 

Below, we provide a high-level overview of our findings and highlight relevant examples showing variations in enforcement across states. We then offer recommendations for drafting new laws or amending existing laws to improve enforcement. For detailed state-by-state information, please see AWI’s full July report.

Minimum Care Standards

As with our 2019 survey, the 2023 survey revealed that minimum care standards for farmed animals were the most consistently enforced type of protection; six of the eight states with these standards engaged in investigative or enforcement activities during the review period between September 2019 and February 2023.

The states with the most comprehensive enforcement records on minimum care standards were Ohio, New Jersey, and Indiana. Ohio is notable because its state agriculture department holds both investigatory and enforcement powers. While agencies in New Jersey and Indiana have the authority to enforce standards through civil penalties or court orders, records show that they generally only issued written warnings. In New Jersey, severe violations must be referred to law enforcement for prosecution, while Indiana’s standards lack an explicit enforcement mechanism. The Indiana State Board of Animal Health investigates potential violations, but it is up to law enforcement to determine if the state’s general cruelty statutes have been breached. By comparison, Kentucky provided no enforcement records responsive to AWI’s request, despite a state statute containing a clear enforcement obligation. 

A significant issue with these minimum care standards is that enforcement is triggered by the filing of complaints — a member of the public sees a problem and reports it, prompting an investigation. The vast majority of farmed animals, however, are not visible to the public. Nationwide, most complaints involved animals kept outdoors, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, and most investigations targeted small “hobby” farms with fewer than 100 animals. There were very few instances in the records where a state agency used its authority to investigate larger commercial operations. 

Some aspects of these standards, such as adequate housing requirements or bans on certain practices, such as tail docking, could be verified through routine audits. However, most standards relate to day-to-day care, such as requiring “humane” handling and adequate food and water, which are not easily enforceable through audits. These standards also often fail to address the broader animal welfare issues involved in large-scale farming, such as barren living conditions for animals and chronic pain or hunger due to genetic selection for rapid growth. 

The benefit of minimum care standards is that they provide some level of protection for farmed animals separate from state criminal cruelty statutes, which often offer little to no protection. In Ohio and New Jersey, for example, there are mechanisms through which government officials can improve the treatment of farmed animals kept in poor conditions, even if there is no violation of cruelty laws. For example, records from these states include instances where producers were required to remedy muddy conditions, leading to hoof rot, and address medical issues that — even if left untreated — might not meet the legal threshold for cruelty. 

Some animal protection advocates have opposed the establishment of minimum animal care standards out of concern that they might hinder future efforts to implement higher-level husbandry standards. This concern is valid, but laws setting minimum livestock care standards can be written to maximize their effectiveness. Our research indicates that a well-crafted bill could significantly enhance the protection of farmed animals. 

New laws establishing care standards should mandate the creation of a board (with at least two seats reserved for experts in animal welfare and/or representatives of a local humane society), tasked with drafting and revising rules based on specific criteria. The law should specify that, at a minimum, the standards must ensure sufficient food and water for farmed animals, a safe environment that supports animal health, and access to necessary medical care. Additionally, the law should specify what factors the board can consider when drafting the rules, such as not prioritizing purely economic interests over animal welfare. 

At the very least, the standards should be grounded in contemporary animal welfare science and incorporate the World Organisation for Animal Health’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, which could prevent future disputes. For instance, in 2008 the New Jersey SPCA sued the New Jersey Department of Agriculture over their vastly different interpretations of the word “humane.” The court determined that, among other things, the department had erred in adopting regulations that permitted all “routine husbandry practices” without any evidence demonstrating that these practices were “humane,” as required by statute. 

Ohio’s criteria for standards, by contrast, are more specific and include “generally accepted veterinary medical practices, livestock practice standards, and ethical standards established by the American veterinary medical association [sic],” as well as “best management practices for the care and well-being of livestock.” Although, at first glance, these criteria may appear overly industry-friendly, they still resulted in significant limitations on the amount of time that sows can be kept in gestation crates (albeit with a 14-year phase-in period), and a tail docking ban for dairy cattle (Ohio was only the second state to do so behind California). 

To ensure minimum care standards reflect the latest animal welfare science, any state statute should require the board to meet periodically to review and consider updates to the rules. These meetings should include opportunities for public testimony, and the review process should require public comment periods, as mandated by most state administrative procedure acts. Last year, at AWI’s urging, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board released proposed changes to its animal care standards to require pain relief for disbudding and dehorning ruminants. If these standards are adopted, Ohio would become the only state in the country to mandate these improvements.

Other key elements for robust animal care standards are included in AWI’s report. 

Laws Prohibiting Certain Production Methods

Laws prohibiting specific practices that are harmful to farmed animals have been the focus of animal protection advocates in recent decades, and, as a result, are more common than minimum care standards. When enforced through on-farm audits, these laws can protect all farmed animals within the state and, if accompanied by sales bans, in other states too. However, enforcing these laws can pose significant challenges. Policymakers assume that most producers will comply with anti-confinement laws by the time they take effect, but there is no current method to verify this.

Of the 30 state laws or regulations banning specific practices, AWI received enforcement records for only two: Ohio’s tail docking ban (OAC 901:12-6-02, part of its minimum animal care standards) and Colorado’s hen housing standards (COLO. REV. STAT. §§ 35–21–201 to 35–21–209). There are several possible explanations for this. First and most obvious, most of these laws lack enforcement mechanisms and rely solely on complaints without proactive agency verification (i.e., producer reports or affidavits, third-party audits, and state department inspections). The records reviewed by AWI suggest that few, if any, complaints are filed with agencies or law enforcement. As is the case with minimum care standards in industrial settings, the lack of public visibility — compounded by the criminalization of whistleblowing or undercover activity in many states — hampers enforcement.

Another reason for the apparent lack of enforcement is that many laws banning specific practices have been passed in lower-production states where there are fewer animals that may be subjected to those practices to begin with. For instance, of the nine states with gestation crate bans, only Colorado and Michigan have significant numbers of breeding sows, ranking 14th and 15th among states in the USDA’s national inventory. Similarly, only two states with veal crate bans (Ohio and New Jersey) have substantial production levels. 

Finally, the lack of records of enforcement could, in fact, point to producers actually complying with these laws — many of which have been in effect for several years, allowing producers ample time to adjust. By late 2019, six gestation crate bans had been in place for at least four years. Producers planning new facilities in these states are likely aware of the existing prohibitions. Additionally, producers may be complying with these laws due to growing consumer demand for products from animals raised in higher-welfare conditions. 

As with minimum care standards, careful consideration of legislative language is important to maximize the chances that it will have the intended effect. Laws banning specific practices should clearly assign responsibility to a single relevant agency, such as agriculture or food safety, to implement specific enforcement mechanisms. This would prevent confusion over agency jurisdiction and would reduce the likelihood of an agency using its discretion to determine how to enforce the law. Producers should be required, as in California and Colorado, to register with the responsible agency and provide annual proof of compliance for all facilities. The agency should have the authority to accept independent third-party certifications and conduct inspections to verify compliance or investigate complaints.

Sales Bans

Sales bans have garnered the most opposition from industry stakeholders, as evidenced by the extensive litigation over the bans passed in Massachusetts and California. Given this uncertain legal landscape, it is not surprising that of the nine state laws that ban the sale of specific animal products that don’t meet certain standards, AWI received enforcement evidence for only four — all related to the sale of eggs. However, setting aside a discussion of the constitutional issues related to sales bans, AWI believes that these laws can be drafted in such a way to maximize enforcement activity and ensure that compliance can be monitored. 

Many states with sales bans lack the in-state production capacity to meet consumer demand, relying instead on out-of-state producers. This creates a challenge to ensuring that all products sold within the state comply with relevant standards. Some states, like California, take a proactive stance, requiring producers and distributors to demonstrate compliance before selling products inside the state. Others, like Massachusetts and Oregon, mandate that producers or distributors maintain records proving compliance, but they only need to provide evidence if a complaint arises. Washington, on the other hand, only requires distributors to attest that they understand compliance is required, without furnishing any proof. 

There are obvious flaws in a complaint-based compliance model. Retailers are unlikely to self-report noncompliance. Therefore, complaints would need to come from individuals knowledgeable about production conditions and product distribution, which is also unlikely. For example, an employee on a sow breeding farm in Iowa or a layer house in Indiana might not know where the farm’s products are ultimately sold. Moreover, a consumer in California or Massachusetts would receive no clues from a package of pork or veal sold at a supermarket about on-farm conditions. 

Fortunately, not all states follow a complaint-driven model. Arizona requires proof of compliance to be included with paperwork accompanying eggs sold in the state. Colorado, Nevada, and California require producers or sellers to provide proof of compliance when registering or applying for certification with the state agriculture department. In Nevada, however, despite the legislative directive requiring certification, a records officer from the Nevada Department of Agriculture informed AWI that the department leaves it up to retailers to ensure compliance. AWI also found that California allowed self-certification during the survey period. 

Critics of sales bans typically assume that state officials would need to conduct out-of-state inspections, which can be burdened by jurisdictional conflicts and resource limitations. However, a practical solution exists: Many states rely on third-party certifiers to conduct inspections and audits. These certification programs often set detailed animal welfare standards and conduct on-farm inspections to ensure compliance. Several companies also offer audits to verify adherence to a single standard, such as the use of gestation crates or battery cages. 

Unfortunately, the rigor of these audits varies among certifiers. For instance, the United Egg Producers cage-free certification, an industry-funded program accepted by many states as proof of compliance, has significant drawbacks. Among them: auditors provide a week’s notice prior to each inspection and only inspect a quarter of a producer’s layer houses. Therefore, state legislation should specify acceptable certification programs, favoring truly independent third-party certifiers that perform unannounced inspections.

Sales bans that are fully enforced are worth pursuing, because they have the potential to meaningfully reduce animal suffering. Advocates should push for language that at least requires producers and distributors to demonstrate compliance through annual on-farm inspections by a qualified third-party certifier. Penalties for noncompliance should be substantial enough to deter violations and prevent producers from treating fines as a mere business expense.

Conclusion

Animal advocates invest significant time and resources to persuade state legislators, regulators, and voters to support laws that improve farmed animal welfare. Yet, as AWI’s 2019 and 2023 surveys reveal, weak enforcement remains a major obstacle. Advocates and policymakers should carefully analyze the degree to which states have implemented these laws and learn from their experience. We hope that AWI’s findings and recommendations will lead to stronger laws, which could substantially improve the lives of many of the 9.7 billion farmed animals raised and killed in this country each year.