Animal cruelty. Two words that carry silent suffering and a call to compassion. Animal cruelty. How do we redefine something that should have never been in our history? Yet through history, the meaning of the term has continuously evolved. The modern dictionary definition of animal cruelty involves “ inflicting harm, injuring, or killing an animal. This can be intentional or it can involve neglect, such as failing to provide adequate food, water, shelter, or medical treatment”(Animal Welfare Institute, n.d.). If we dig a little deeper into our historical works, we come to find that even though the term is often used synonymously across texts, subtle differences and additions to what constitutes cruelty to animals ultimately shapes our understanding. For instance, according to the California Penal Code 597 enacted in 1972, cruelty to animals is defined as 

“Every person who maliciously maims, wounds, tortures, or mutilates a living animal which is the property of another, or maliciously kills an animal which is the property of another, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year, (b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), every person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, drink to shelter, or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the same, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide the same with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides or otherwise uses the same when unfit for labor, is for every such offense, guilty of a misdemeanor” [I.21](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/5453).

In this definition, we see a broader and more descriptive way of understanding what cruelty is to animals. It’s not only physical abuse rather it’s the mental and emotional wellbeing of the animal as well. This is critical because cruelty and welfare, while polar opposites go hand in hand. To be uncruel you need to gravitate towards wellbeing, not merely avoid harmful acts. In addition to this definition, multiple amendments to the Animal Welfare Act, such as the 1985 amendment which will be discussed later in the paper, reflects how cruelty and welfare are linked. It was the acknowledgment of the constituents of cruelty, including the mistreatment of animals in research as implied in the 1972 definition, that enabled the 1985 amendment, which in turn led to improved care for primates in research. And from here, I invite you to delve into paper and explore the documented cases of animal cruelty, the humane organizations and activist movements that worked to combat it, the legal reforms they influenced, and the rise of the no-kill movement. Together these developments reveal how society’s understanding of animal cruelty expanded beyond visible physical harm to include neglect, psychological suffering, and institutional forms of mistreatment.

There are numerous accounts on the harsh treatment towards animals regardless of the time period or place. For example, one documented account of animal cruelty was on April 5, 1966 where a report on twenty-one bunnies were found running on the roof of a variety store in Los Angeles. They were not provided with any shade, nor did they have sufficient water and food. One was also found dead. A verbal order was issued to put the rabbits in cages where someone could check them regularly to make sure their food and water needs were met and eventually a hearing was requested [B.39.93] (https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/media/12657 ). Cruelty as described in the above section reflected the broader legal understanding of cruelty outlined in Penal Code 597, because in this situation, the suffering stemmed from deprivation and neglect rather than physical abuse. Cruelty is not exclusive, in fact even the most universally disliked animals, such as raccoons, must be taken into consideration. For instance, on January 31, 1967, there was another cruelty case of a raccoon, documented in the meeting minutes, that was in a deserted yard with 23 dogs, and was later impounded at 11th Avenue [M.13] (https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/17664). With many more diverse accounts of animal cruelty, it became critical for humane organizations to step in, since the broad definition of cruelty included not only physical abuse but also neglect and deprivation. By recognizing the different forms of suffering, organizations worked to prevent cruelty through enforcement and animal welfare reform.

One such organization was Mercy Crusade, established in 1949 by Betty Cardoni, focusing primarily on animal welfare. Unlike later militant activist groups, Mercy Crusade represented a more traditional form of humane volunteerism centered on education and community outreach.  For example, this organization was known for launching public low-cost spay and neuter clinic programs, humane public education programs, and conducting investigations that solved cases of cruelty to animals [B.38.40](https://feldman.labyrinth.garden/admin/item/12267). Through these efforts, Mercy Crusade promoted the idea that redefining cruelty and having welfare for the animals was a community effort, that isn’t achieved by merely punishing abusive behavior after it occurred. While Mercy Crusade focused on improving the welfare of companion animals through education and community outreach especially among everyday pet owners, other organizations argued that animal suffering was also happening in places where people had less control. Instead of focusing on preventing neglect within communities, these groups targeted research, laboratories, corporations, and government agencies that had much more power over how animals were used. Because of this difference in focus and power the institutions had, they believed that promoting welfare alone wasn’t enough, and they instead focused on exposing and challenging the systems that were responsible for that suffering. This is also a reason why their approach became more confrontational.

We can’t discuss animal welfare without mentioning Peter Singer of course. Singer is an Australian philosopher and professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is known for his book, Animal Liberation which he published in 1975, that discusses what life is like for factory farm animals, lab testing, and reconsidering our relationship with them. Currently, there is a revised version titled Animal Liberation Now. (Singer, 2023). The aims of the animal liberation movement “can be summed up in one sentence: to end the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals”(Singer, 1986). For instance, Singer argues that factory farming is an example of speciesism because animals suffer, but their pain is often overlooked so that the meat people consume can be produced more cheaply. So essentially, he believes the movement works to stop this sort of treatment. Furthermore, this ties with Singer’s views on what cruelty actually is, which is making animals suffer when it could be avoided. In particular, this is when people dismiss their pain because the subjects undergoing the suffering aren’t human (Singer, 1986). 

These ideas helped shape the broader animal liberation movement and influenced organizations that sought to expose forms of animal suffering that were often hidden from public view. The differences in approach can be seen in groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Last Chance for Animals (LCA). These groups were vital in exposing the once unknown suffering that happens in research laboratories and revealing the psychological state of cruelty including neglect and exploitation. Consequently, through these actions and efforts, society became more aware of what cruelty actually is, public awareness was reshaped, legal and institutional reforms were influenced, and a precedent for how animal welfare is approached today was established. 

The ALF are known to be  a“far-left extremist group” who are notorious in bringing to light cruel actions that were once concealed to the public eye (Animal Liberation Front, n.d. ). ALF have four core tenets: “free animals from abuse; damage those profiting from the suffering and exploitation of animals; expose hidden cruelties against animals through non-violent actions and freeing of animals; and take all necessary precautions to prevent harm to animals or humans”(Animal Liberation Front, n.d. ). Through these tenets, they have historically advocated for animals, in what many would consider controversial ways. For example, in 1984, the ALF claimed that they had poisoned Mars Bars as a means to protest the company’s animal testing practices, where they were feeding monkeys diets rich in sugar to research tooth decay (Around the world; some candy off shelves after threat in Britain, 1984).  They eventually admitted that this was actually a hoax intended to bring about public attention. They used consumer distress in learning about poisoned candy bars, and the subsequent halt of sales in stores, as a strategic way of drawing attention to the forms of cruelty they opposed. Additionally, from an account like this, we get a glimpse of how animal cruelty was not just physical injury that can be easily detectable with the eye. Rather, animal cruelty in this case was the concealed reality behind laboratory animal practices that gradually harmed the health of the animals involved. This event demonstrated how activists with direct-action approaches used publicity to force public discussion and engage society on what is happening. Although many individuals view the methods as extreme, the overall result was successful in bringing the lab's animal testing practice public.

The ALF is also known for a case of arson at  UC Davis that took place on April 16, 1987 around  2:59 a.m. where a “fire badly damaged an animal diagnostic center building under construction at the University of California”(Los Angeles Times, 1987). There was a note signed by the ALF stating that the vandalism was “to retaliate in the name of thousands of animals tortured each year on campus” (Los Angeles Times, 1987). The $4.6 million arson fire at John E. Thurman Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory was interestingly enough remembered in 1997 by another fire launched by the ALF to mark the 10 year anniversary (University of California, Davis, n.d.). This form of animal advocacy in a sense doesn’t resonate with the animal liberation movement described by Peter Singer, because as he describes it “...actions which involve the general public, or violent actions which lead to people getting hurt, would polarize the community as a whole” (Singer, 1986). So, in a sense this event created a divide between public opinion where on one side, people viewed the attack as resistance against institutional cruelty and on the other hand people viewed it as a dangerous form of protesting. 

  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) refer to themselves as “the largest animal organization in the world”, and they worked in tandem with the ALF to help stop animal cruelty in research in May 1984 (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation, n.d.). On this date, the ALF raided the University of California-Riverside laboratory to rescue an infant monkey named Britches who was separated from his mother and isolated in a wire cage with his eyes sewn shut. PETA’s role was to file complaints and document the footage of Britches, which consequently brought public attention and closed down the research project.  Thereby, while both groups used different methods in this event, raiding versus publicity, both approaches together resulted in the rescue of Britches. In this scenario, we also see that cruelty was both physical and psychological because the infant was separated from his mother at an age when he needed her most. 

Another notable event that the ALF and PETA had was in January of 1985 where the ALF carried out animal liberation at the City of Hope National Medical Center in LA. The ALF and PETA drew attention to the conditions that research animals underwent:“ sloppy surgeries and inadequate or no post-operative care, and frequently bled to death in their cages or suffocated in their own fecal matter”. Through the ALF’s efforts, the NIH suspended more than $1 million in research grants, and the experiments were stopped (Best & Nocella II, n.d.). Animal cruelty here is redefined by showing us that animals in research must be handled with ultimate humane care, and just because an animal is used for research purposes does not mean they should be dehumanized. 

Another prominent case, The Silver Spring Case, which took place in September 1981, highlights the actions PETA was involved in. In response to animal cruelty accusations, police raided the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) in Silver Spring, Maryland and removed 17 macaque monkeys that were being used in Edward Taub’s neuroscience experiments. Taub was accused of “wanton cruelty and a failure to provide adequate care for his animals. PETA worked to amplify this accusation by depicting the monkeys as ‘victims’ ”(Kirk, 2019) . For example, PETA explains that Taub “subjected the monkeys to surgeries in which he severed their spinal nerves, rendering one or more of their limbs useless. By means of electric shock, food deprivation, and other cruel methods, he forced them to try to regain the use of their impaired limbs to pick up raisins from a tray—or else go without food”(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.). PETA recorded detailed notes describing what was happening inside IBR and took photos of the monkeys and their living conditions and submitted this evidence to the police “ and an intense, decade-long battle for custody of monkeys ensued”(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.). So, in the end “ Taub lost a sizable government grant, and the public image of animal experimentation was badly dented” (Singer, 1986). In all, the activist group’s efforts clearly revealed the inhumane actions that the monkeys endured; while the approach to doing so was controversial, the end result was a success for them because, from their perspective, they saved many monkeys from suffering and brought the issue to the attention of the public. Of course, this event also intensified national debates surrounding laboratory ethics.

To illustrate this, on August 28, 1983  a crowd of 300 people gathered chanting “stop the torture” at the American Psychological Association (APA) in Anaheim, California. The reason for their gathering was to express their contempt for the way animals were treated in the Edward Taub’s lab that operated in the Institute for Behavioral research in Silver Spring. The general public displayed Taub in effigy on posters as they protested (Warren, 1983). So although their way of protesting was rather extreme, their protest shows how society became more cognizant of what goes on beyond the doors of some research labs and their contempt towards the mistreatment of animals. 

The last activist group  worthy of mention, is Last Chance for Animals (LCA), a non-profit organization founded in 1984 whose mission is to eliminate animal exploitation through education, investigations, and public awareness campaigns (VolunteerLA., n.d.). One of LCA’s most significant actions took place in 1988, when activists broke into UCLA’s Brain Research Institute “where cats were being tortured as research subjects”(Last Chance for Animals, n.d.). This footage was aired on CNN and created a public discussion. 

Additionally, the LCA investigated Class B animal dealers that were stealing pets and selling them to research facilities. Their documentation helped prosecutors convict people for felony pet theft, which set the stage for similar cases in California (Last Chance for Animals, n.d.). The LCA in the 1980s and 1990s was influential in bringing about media attention and shifting the way people understood cruelty, because the psychological neglect that the cats underwent is just as significant as physical abuse. Through education campaigns, investigations, and media outreach, the LCA helped broaden public understanding of cruelty beyond visible physical violence to include emotional neglect, exploitation, and institutional abuse.

Collectively, these three organizations (ALF, PETA, and LCA) influenced many legal changes and institutional reform. For example, due to PETA’s work, there were many withdrawals of federal research funds for animal cruelty. Additionally, as a response to the Silver Spring case which was brought to light by PETA, congress passed amendments to the Animal Welfare Act of 1985 (Wikipedia contributors, 2026). This legal change required improved care for nonhuman primates and resulted in the establishment of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUCs) to oversee animal research (Wikipedia contributors, 2026). Furthermore, these groups helped influence the passage of the Pet Protection Act of 1990 which mandated a 5-day holding period for dogs and cats in shelters before they get sold to research facilities (U.S. Congress, 1991–1992). However, not all legal reforms were in favor of these activist groups. In response to acts of vandalism, arson, and break-ins, Congress passed The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA). This federal law passed in 1992 served as a means to protect organizations that use animals, such as the research labs themselves, after the existing threats and forms of vandalism that were arguably advocacy efforts (Animal Legal & Historical Center, n.d.).  These developments showed that animal rights activism expanded animal protections and stronger governmental response to radical protesting methods.

The last major shift in contesting animal cruelty is the no-kill movement, which advocated for animals through pet adoption systems. The shift from these animal rights groups to the no-kill movement was due in part to the public backlash against extremism. For instance the arson and the break-ins that the activist groups conducted was not universally supported whereas efforts like reducing euthanasia and increasing adoption (all core components of the no-kill movement) were   more widely accepted, requiring no direct or violent attacks on institutions. Volunteers played a vital role in the movement and public awareness campaigns encouraged pet adoptions (Best Friends Animal Society, n.d.) . Overall, no-kill helped broaden acceptance of shelter-based rehabilitations and helped reframe animal welfare advocacy around community based responsibility. 

To conclude, “animal cruelty” are still the same two words we started the paper with. Two words that continue to carry both silence and confrontation. What started as a definition slowly became something larger, something shaped by direct action, law, and by the way society chooses to see suffering. Throughout history, cruelty was not only understood as visible harm, rather it expanded to include the hidden forms of cruelty such as neglect and psychological distress. From Mercy Crusade’s focus on community care and prevention, to the more confrontational and exposed realities brought forward by the ALF, PETA, and LCA, animal cruelty was repeatedly redefined through action as much as language. What was once unknown to the public, was eventually forced into public view, whether through investigation, protest, or media. Even the no-kill movement reflects another shift in this understanding, where cruelty is not only what is done directly to animals, but also what is allowed to happen through systems of euthanasia and neglect. In the end, these movements did not simply respond to animal cruelty, they ultimately reshaped its meaning overall.

Bibliography

Animal Legal & Historical Center. (n.d.). US Public Law 101-624 (Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1990). Michigan State University College of Law. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.animallaw.info/statute/us-awa-us-public-law-101-624-awa-1990-0

Animal Welfare Institute. (n.d.). Animal cruelty. Animal Welfare Institute. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://awionline.org/programs/companion-animals/animal-cruelty/

Best Friends Animal Society. (n.d.). Best Friends Animal Society. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://bestfriends.org 

      Best, S., & Nocella II, A. J. (n.d.). Introduction to the Animal Liberation Front. Retrieved 

February 23, 2026, from http://www.brontaylor.com/courses/pdf/Best+Nocella--ALFintro.pdf 

      Counter Extremism Project. Animal Liberation Front. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2026, 

from https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/animal-liberation-front 

 Kirk, R. G. W. (2019). The Silver Spring monkey controversy: Changing cultures of care in twentieth-century laboratory animal research. HoST – Journal of History of Science and Technology, 13(2), 31–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2019-0012 

 

Last Chance for Animals. (n.d.). Last Chance for Animals—LCA 1980’s—Present. Last Chance for Animals’ History and Accomplishments. Retrieved February 23, 2026, from https://www.lcanimal.org/about-lca/lca-1984-present?utm_source

 

Los Angeles Times. (1987, April 17). The World. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-17-mn-638-story.html 

        New York Times. (1984, November 19). Retrieved February 23, 2026, from 

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/19/world/around-the-world-some-candy-off-shelves-after-threat-in-britain.html

Newkirk, I. (1992). Free the animals!: The untold story of the U.S. Animal. The Noble Press, Inc. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/fsfqyhxz98lzssjz7xehw/AOSiBgUfq_tjfvnOja0FftI/Free%20the%20animals!_%20the%20untold%20story%20of%20the%20U_S_Animal%20--%20Newkirk%2C%20Ingrid%20--%20Chicago%2C%20United%20States%2C%201992%20--%20Noble%20Press%2C%20Incorporated%2C%20The%20--%209781879360112%20--%209f71487de1347bca5858c21cd105717e%20--%20Anna%E2%80%99s%20Archive.pdf?rlkey=vw1ak28rrshti2ef265j3bx1b&e=2&dl=0 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (n.d.). The Silver Spring monkeys. PETA. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/silver-spring-monkeys/

Peta Foundation. Foundation to support animal protection (The PETA Foundation). (n.d.). 

Retrieved February 23, 2026, from https://www.petafoundation.org/ 

Singer, P. (1986). The animal liberation movement: Its philosophy, its-- Old Hammond Press. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/fsfqyhxz98lzssjz7xehw/AMh7FA6-WntZBCFFtAQzftU/The%20animal%20liberation%20movement%20_%20its%20philosophy%2C%20its%20--%20Singer%2C%20Peter%2C%201946-%20--%20Nottingham%2C%20England%2C%201986_%20--%20Nottingham%2C%20England_%20Old%20Hammond%20Press%20--%209780948062025%20--%208ed2c0aeb9fd7926308fe1cb0e95af84%20--%20Anna%E2%80%99s%20Archive.pdf?rlkey=vw1ak28rrshti2ef265j3bx1b&e=6&dl=0

Singer, P. (2023, May 21). Philosopher Peter Singer: ‘There’s no reason to say humans have more worth or moral status than animals’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/21/philosopher-peter-singer-theres-no-reason-to-say-humans-have-more-worth-or-moral-status-than-animals 

U.S. Congress. (1991–1992). Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992—S. 544, 102nd Congress. Congress.gov. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/544

University of California, Davis. (n.d.). Re: Arson fire at Center for Comparative Medicine. UC Davis News. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/re-arson-fire-center-comparative-medicine

     VolunteerLA. Last chance for animals (LCA) – letsvolunteerla. (n.d.). Retrieved February 

23, 2026, from https://letsvolunteerla.org/listing-item/last-chance-for-animals-lca/  

Warren, P. M. (1983, August 28). Group hits use of animals for psychological research. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/153528094?sourcetype=Newspapers

Wikipedia contributors. (2026, March 31.). Silver Spring monkeys. Wikipedia. Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys