U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Review

December 21, 2016 — 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) chief scientific in-house research agency. The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC), located in Clay Center, Nebraska, is an ARS research facility operated in collaboration with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. On January 19, 2015, The New York Times published an article titled “U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit.” The article contained a number of statements regarding animal care and mortality levels at USMARC. [Source: U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Review, Audit Report 02007-0001-31, September, 2016]

The USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) undertook a review of the research practices and operations of USMARC and to evaluate the concerns expressed by Congress and reported by the media regarding animal welfare. OIG also examined ARS’ oversight and monitoring of USMARC as it relates to animal welfare.

From The New York Times article, OIG selected 33 specific statements to evaluate in an attempt to determine the accuracy of the statements. Of these 33 statements, OIG determined that only 7 were materially accurate—26 were inaccurate, lacked sufficient context, or were uncorroborated. Overall, OIG did not note evidence indicating a systemic problem with animal welfare at USMARC.

Although OIG found the article did not always accurately present animal welfare at USMARC, their review did find that ARS could improve its oversight of animal welfare at the facility and take steps to make its research more transparent to the public. In general, the controls for overseeing animal welfare at USMARC lacked specificity, and the steps ARS took to perform inspections or handle complaints were not carefully documented. ARS also did not make it a priority to establish, maintain, and monitor compliance with animal welfare-related policies and procedures. As a result, ARS had reduced assurance that proper safeguards over animal welfare were in place at the facility.

ARS generally agreed with four of the five recommendations. OIG accepted management decision on four recommendations.