AAALAC accreditation has long been marketed as the “gold standard” for animal welfare in laboratories (assuming there even is such a thing…). 

But data from the USDA reveals a very different story — one Science magazine is now helping to tell. 

This week, Science reported on Rise for Animals’ analysis of more than a decade of USDA inspection data, highlighting a glaring but deeply troubling truth: labs accredited by AAALAC International are responsible for a large majority of the most serious animal welfare violations documented by the federal government. 

The data come directly from industry itself — namely, USDA inspection records and AAALAC’s public accreditation lists.

Our review of more than 14,000 inspection records between 2014 and 2025 shows that, despite comprising only about 42% of the labs inspected by the USDA, AAALAC-accredited institutions were responsible for approximately 73% of all direct and critical citations (the most serious animal welfare violations) issued by the USDA. (These labs also received 78% of all fines issued by the USDA to animal research facilities between late 2019 and mid-2024.)

AAALAC repeatedly refused to comment for Science’s story.

Instead, Americans for Medical Progress (AMP) — another animal research industry trade group with a long history of denying and distorting the truth — stepped in. And, true to form, their statements are not based on facts. They are based on misdirection. 

➡ AMP claims our analysis “exaggerates” the seriousness of violations by counting less serious infractions. That is false.

As Science itself reported, our analysis includes only “direct” and “critical” citations — both defined by the USDA as relating to “a serious or severe adverse effect on the health and well-being of an animal.” (Our analysis excludes the far more common “non-critical” citations.) 

➡ AMP suggests that our use of percentages is misleading. Again, false.

As AMP surely knows (and would accede when not desperate), percentages are simply how proportions are described — and they are derived directly from the very raw numbers AMP claims should be emphasized.

Those raw numbers are clear: of 659 total direct and critical citations reviewed, 485 were issued to AAALAC-accredited institutions. That’s more than 73%, as reported. And, that’s not spin — that’s just math.

➡ AMP then asserts that some USDA citations should not be counted. The federal government’s own records render this false.

By AMP’s logic, a lab should be able to avoid any formal accountability for (and any official documentation of) animal welfare violations simply by reporting them to the USDA. Outrageous as that sounds, this is precisely how the USDA has operated in the past: under the former tenure of the USDA’s current Animal Care head, labs could avoid citations for even serious violations simply by self-reporting them. 

Our analysis, however, is based on the violations the USDA did record — and the fact that the USDA has chosen not to record all violations only makes our case stronger: even with this perverse regulatory loophole, AAALAC-accredited labs still amassed the overwhelming majority of the serious animal welfare violations documented by the USDA.

As does this: since 2019, the USDA has given preferential treatment to AAALAC-accredited labs under the pretense that they should require less federal oversight. In practice, this has meant that AAALAC-accredited labs have been subject to less USDA oversight than non-accredited labs and have typically undergone only partial inspections — with USDA officials reviewing either records, or animals, or facilities (but rarely all three). This has made it harder for the USDA to detect violations at AAALAC-accredited labs and easier for AAALAC-accredited labs to hide violations — and yet, even with the benefit of this inappropriate advantage, AAALAC-accredited institutions have continued to perform worse than those without accreditation.

It’s a damning indictment of both AAALAC accreditation and the USDA’s inappropriate reliance on it, no matter how you cut it.

AMP concedes that “AAALAC accreditation is not a magic guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong.” That much is obvious, and you’ll get no argument from us. But, for decades, the animal research industry has deliberately promoted and sold AAALAC accreditation as just that: a marker of excellence, a deserved shield against scrutiny, and a reason to forego public oversight. (The USDA even formalized this assumption into a policy that Rise for Animals sued over.)

And the industry keeps clinging to AAALAC accreditation even as government data shows the opposite: accreditation is no safeguard at all. Even AMP, in its attempt at defense, tacitly admits what the industry won’t say out loud: that suffering is built into animal experimentation itself, no matter how much lip service is paid to “welfare.”

AMP’s final flail — that our data “paints a misleading picture” of “animal research oversight” — is perhaps the most revealing of all: the only thing misleading here is the industry-crafted illusion that AAALAC accreditation means better animal welfare.

The raw data isn’t ours. It comes directly from the USDA’s own records and AAALAC’s own lists. All we did was put the pieces together — and make the truth visible.

Science gave that truth a national platform.

The animal research industry is now reacting defensively — not because we distorted anything or misled anyone, but because we didn’t. (We actually used the industry’s own data to prove that the animal research industry is misleading all of us.)

Former APHIS administrator Kevin Shea told Science that “it’s inevitable” that the USDA will defer to AAALAC even more going forward. And, that’s a huge problem for those of us working to protect (and ultimately free) animals trapped in labs.

Adding to this problem: our lawsuit against the USDA’s secret inspection policy was recently dismissed — not on the merits, but on standing. (The court didn’t say the policy is legal, only that we can’t challenge it.)

That makes public pressure more essential than ever.
And public pressure begins with public awareness.

We thank Science for helping to bring this important truth to light, and we ask you to help us pass it on.

Share this article on X or Bluesky.
Or copy, paste, and share this link anywhere else: 
riseforanimals.org/news/aaalac-violations