portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

animal rights

SHAC 7 Updates

The SHAC 7 trial is now entering week 3 and the defense will start soon. What is happening could happen to any one of us, and they need our support.
The real terrorists have blood on their hands.
The real terrorists have blood on their hands.
This Wednesday, the defendants will start their portion of the case. We are asking people to please attend court, but please dress accordingly. The defendants have requested that all supporters PLEASE wear court appropriate clothing.

WHEN: Wednesday, February 22, 23, 24
9 am- 5pm
WHERE: Trenton Federal Courthouse, Trenton, NJ
402 E. State St., Trenton, NJ
4th Floor

HOW TO GET THERE: By car, use mapquest. By train, take the NJT or SEPTA to
Trenton. The courthouse is a few blocks away.

PLEASE NOTE: Absolutely no electronic devices of any kind (including cell phones) are allowed in the courtroom. Leave them at home or in the car.

Updates mailing list

For information on Huntington Life Sciences, the contract research "laboratory" that tortures and kills 500 animals a day:  link to shacamerica.net
More abour Vivisection & HLS 21.Feb.2006 18:40


What is vivisection?

Vivisection literally means the cutting up of a live animal; however dictionary definitions have been revised in over the years, and this term has become a general label for all types of experiments on live animals.

What is HLS?
Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world and the largest animal testing facility in all of Europe.

Where is HLS located?
HLS has 3 facilities: two in England and one in America.

How many animals does HLS use?
HLS kills approximately 180,000 animals every year, or 500 per day. Average numbers of specific animals are as follows (yearly):
Dogs (2600);
Cats (400);
Rodents (132,894);
Rabbits (5106);
Fish (10,300);
Birds (7800);
Primates (1700);
other animals (19200).

What laws exist to protect laboratory animals?

Laws protecting "laboratory animals" are very limited in the U.S. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the most commonly cited legal protection given to animals in labs. However, the AWA is not an provision designed specifically for "lab animals." It is designed to provide (minimal) protection for all animals, as defined by the Act as, "... any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes or as a pet; but such term excludes horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes."

Additionally, the AWA merely regulates adequate food, water, housing, exercise, and veterinary care; it places no restrictions whatsoever on what can be done to animals during actual experiments. The following provision ensures this: "Nothing in these rules, regulations, or standards shall affect or interfere with the design, outline, or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility."

Furthermore, under the Animal Welfare Act rats, mice, birds, fish, and farm animals (which comprise 85-90% of the animals used in "research" are not considered animals and hence are not afforded even the minimal protection of the AWA.

Who are HLS's customers?
HLS is a contract lab and, hence, will test any product on any animal for any reason for any company who has enough money to pay them. However, there are some companies known to be regular customers of HLS. Information on HLS's customers is known largely from documents released during the undercover investigations inside HLS.

Because HLS is a CRO, any company can hire HLS to test its products, and HLS's customers have included some of the largest pharmaceutical, chemical, and cosmetic companies in the world. The only way to ensure that you are not using products that were tested at HLS is to boycott all companies that test on animals. You can get a list of companies that do not test on animals by contacting:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) offers a regularly updated, wallet sized shopping guide to companies and products that are not tested on animals. Contact them at: PeTA, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA, 23510, 757.622.PETA. Click here for their webpage.
SHAC USA is not affiliated in any way with PeTA

By boycotting companies that test on animals, you not only ensure that your money is not going to HLS, but also that your dollars are not being used by *any* company to experiment on animals.

Isn't animal testing necessary for scientific and medical progress?

In a word, no. In more words... while there seems to be general consensus among the public and the press that progress in human medicine is reliant upon animal testing, such consensus does not exist in the scientific community.

SHAC has teamed up with two doctor/researcher organizations who oppose animal research based on the belief that it is harmful to humans. These groups are Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

Scientists and M.D.'s from these organizations - many of them former animal researchers - argue that the cellular differences between species (not only between humans and non-humans, but among different species of non-human animals) are too great to extrapolate experimental results from one species and apply it to another. They cite examples where the predictions of animal research have been devastatingly wrong, the differing behavior between species in reacting to chemicals and experimental procedures, and ask the question, 'how can we know in advance which animal will behave most like the human in a particular experiment.'

Examples include: Thalidomide, which was tested safely on animals but caused horrendous birth defects in humans. Olestra, which was tested safely on animals AT HLS but caused anal leakage in humans. Acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) kills cats - had Tylenol been tested on cats, we'd not have it today. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. This list goes on extensively, as 80% of all drugs that pass animal tests fail the first time humans are exposed to them. Find more examples listed here.

The perceived consensus supporting animal research comes largely from PR firms that work tirelessly to *create* this consensus. They manufacture and advertise support for animal research, but abandon critical debate and lack cogent scientific arguments. Additionally, they shy away from offers to debate scientists opposed to animal research. Americans for Medical Progress is one of the largest of these PR firms. But sometimes, the animal research community. A quote by the head of the National Cancer Institute demonstrates what is revealed when those who profit from animal research slip up. Dr. Richard Klausner stated in the Los Angeles Times, May 1998, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." This is just one in a long line of telling statements from the other side.

While SHAC agrees that animal research is unscientific and harmful to humans, we are not scientists and do not have the expertise or background to do the scientific arguments against animal research justice. We suggest you contact AFMA and/or PCRM and speak directly with M.D.'s and scientists to fully understand these arguments. They can also direct you to primary and secondary resources if you are interested in books that make this argument or further research.