Every year, hundreds of millions of farmed animals are shipped across the United States to breeding, feeding, and slaughter facilities—transport that represents one of the most stressful experiences in a farmed animal’s life. AWI research, chronicled in the newly published second edition of our report Farmed Animals in Transport: The Twenty-Eight Hour Law, indicates that a significant number of these animals likely undergo journeys in excess of 28 hours without food, water, or rest—despite a federal law enacted more than a century and a half ago that is meant to prevent just that.
The Twenty-Eight Hour Law
The very first federal animal protection statute—the Twenty-Eight Hour Law—was enacted in 1873 to safeguard farmed animals from excessive suffering during long-distance transport. In its current form, it prohibits (with some exceptions) confinement of animals for more than 28 consecutive hours without being unloaded for at least five hours for food, water, and rest. Civil penalties of up to $500 can be assessed for each violation.
The Twenty-Eight Hour Law is included in the section of the US Code covering transportation, suggesting a potential role for the Department of Transportation in its enforcement. Historically, however, the Department of Agriculture has been the one to investigate compliance with the law and refer evidence of violations to the Department of Justice. In 1963, the USDA’s “Statement of Policy under the Twenty-Eight Hour Law” was incorporated into the federal regulations, clarifying, among other things, the amount of food to be provided to animals and the conditions required at unloading facilities.
In 1873, trains were the only practical way to ship farmed animals across the country. By 1963, this mode of transport was in steep decline, as rail cars increasingly gave way to long-haul trucks traversing the nation’s interstate highways. From the 1960s until at least the mid-1990s, however, the USDA approached the Twenty-Eight Hour Law as if it were applicable to animals transported via rail only. In 2003, following a petition and pressure by animal advocates, the USDA finally clarified via an internal guidance memo that the law applies to trucks as well. Yet it has never updated its regulations to reflect modern practices.
The regulations contain no mechanism for monitoring transport duration. Two USDA agencies—the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)—play limited roles in detecting violations. The FSIS, which oversees humane handling at federally inspected slaughter establishments, incorporated the Twenty-Eight Hour Law into a 2011 directive instructing FSIS personnel to question plant managers about compliance with the law only if animals arriving at the plant appear exhausted or dehydrated.
The APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) program oversees the import and export of animals across US borders. For some exports, such as cattle shipped from the United States to Mexico, VS protocols require transport containers to be sealed at departure and only opened at the destination or, if the trucks are required to stop, at a designated USDA-approved rest station. The seals provide a mechanism to determine whether animals were unloaded during transit. However, for some imports—including all animals sent directly to slaughter from Canada—VS protocols either omit reference to the Twenty-Eight Hour Law entirely or instruct drivers to proceed directly to their destinations without stopping, effectively ignoring the law’s requirements.
AWI’s investigation into modern enforcement
In the decades after the Twenty-Eight Hour Law’s enactment, enforcement was common. In an 11-year stretch following a 1906 update of the law, the USDA reported more than 800 violations a year. As fewer animals were transported via rail, fewer violations were reported—falling to less than 100 a year by 1976. Long-distance transport of animals, meanwhile, continues apace: In 2023 alone, 64 million pigs and 21 million cattle were moved interstate for purposes other than slaughter. None of these shipments were officially monitored for compliance with the Twenty-Eight Hour Law. In fact, there is no official effort to compile data on transport durations.
Information gleaned from state certificates of veterinary inspection (CVIs), however, suggests travel beyond 28 hours is still common. In a review of over 3,500 CVIs for cattle leaving Florida in 2023, for instance, AWI identified 173 shipments, involving over 30,000 total animals, that likely exceeded this timeframe. A review of calf shipments in 2022 from six states revealed that nearly 123,000 calves under 1 month old may have been confined beyond 28 hours without food, water, or rest. Given these and other examples, it seems evident that the practice Congress meant to curtail over a century ago has not stopped, even as the pursuit of penalties for violations essentially has.
AWI submitted over a dozen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to APHIS, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its Office of Inspector General seeking documentation of enforcement from 2006 through 2023. Neither DOT entity provided records responsive to AWI’s requests, and DOT guidance and websites make no mention of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law; we have seen no evidence that the department is assuming an active role in enforcement. Meanwhile, the ENRD’s minimal and heavily redacted records suggest that the DOJ hasn’t pursued penalties in the last 20 years, and a search of federal district court dockets for mention of the law during this period returned no results. The records do show, however, one case referred by APHIS to the ENRD (of which there is no further record) and an unrelated scheduled meeting between ENRD and APHIS staff concerning the Twenty-Eight Hour Law.
APHIS’s Investigation and Enforcement Services (IES), by contrast, provided hundreds of pages documenting USDA investigations into possible violations of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law. The totality of records received (and one found independently by AWI), however, point to only 20 such investigations conducted between 2006 and 2023, while revealing much about the state of modern enforcement:
- Scant monitoring: Most investigations were initiated by emergency incidents of extreme weather or public complaints. Since the 2011 directive, FSIS inspectors have reported five potential violations, only two of which appear to be based on directly observing signs of animal distress. As noted above, inspectors are to make inquiries about the journey if the animals appear exhausted or dehydrated. This detection system depends heavily on the inspector’s subjective judgment. More importantly, inspectors don’t even observe unloading unless performing specific humane inspection tasks. In fact, the records received suggest that inspectors may only watch truck unloading for a short time once every few weeks.
- Incomplete travel documentation: Livestock haulers are exempt from the requirement to use electronic logging devices (ELDs) to document hours of service and do not maintain paper records of travel time, rest stops, or mileage beyond a few months. Industry shipping forms can be incomplete or inaccurate, and investigators often rely on long-after-the-fact interviews and mapping tools to estimate trip duration—methods prone to delay and ambiguity.
- Poor follow-through: In multiple cases, investigations were closed due to “insufficient evidence,” even when drivers admitted to noncompliance or when mortality rates or seal data pointed to violations. Moreover, some investigations took months to complete, during which key evidence was lost or forgotten.
- USDA’s muddled view of its authority under the law: In at least 12 of the 20 investigations, there was evidence the animals endured 28 hours or more of transport without being unloaded. Yet only one case was referred to the DOJ. Four others resulted in “official warnings” issued by the USDA threatening penalties (that it arguably doesn’t have the authority to assess). Furthermore, in multiple cases involving Canadian transport companies, USDA officials concluded they lacked any authority to act—despite no known exemption to US laws for foreign entities operating within the United States.
A transportation system that has changed and a law that hasn’t
In sum, it appears that government agencies have failed to adapt to the modernization of animal transport and failed to invest in the infrastructure needed to detect and prove violations. In truth, comprehensive legislation to address inhumane transport conditions is needed. Short of this, however, steps can be taken to restore some meaning to the existing Twenty-Eight Hour Law.
For one thing, USDA oversight should be strengthened. FSIS inspectors should be required to verify compliance more frequently during unloading at slaughter plants. VS should update border protocols to require and verify compliance for all animals entering or exiting the United States. APHIS should standardize documentation, require trip records, and refer all substantiated violations to the DOJ.
In addition, Congress should pass legislation incorporating an explicit enforcement mechanism into the Twenty-Eight Hour Law. This could include (1) requiring the DOT to monitor compliance with the law at the roadside checks it already routinely performs, and (2) removing the ELD exemption for animal haulers. These reforms involve actions and technologies already in use to monitor compliance with other transportation rules. They could readily be used to monitor compliance with the Twenty-Eight Hour law as well.
Toward this goal, Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) worked with AWI last year to introduce the Humane Transport of Farmed Animals Act (HR 8699). This bill would require the DOT and the USDA to create mechanisms such as those outlined above for investigating transport violations—including inspections and audits of records—a major step toward developing a consistent and effective approach to monitoring and enforcing the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and ending the constructive nullification of one of the very few statutes Congress has passed to protect farmed animal health and welfare.