Home Page
|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
Newsletters Law Breaking Laboratories -- SAEN Blows the Whistle!! During World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week (WLALW) 2004 Stop
Animal Exploitation NOW! released a report: Breaking the Law, Animal
Care in U.S. Labs, which exposed major violations of the law within
twenty five labs across the country. These facilities are among the
worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for 559 violations of federal
regulations for the treatment of animals in labs in a three-year period.
This article summarizes the most crucial information from this report.
The shocking findings of our investigation caused a veritable
firestorm of media coverage in more than six major U.S. cities. Examples
of these stories can be viewed on our website at
www.saenonline.org
in the media coverage section. Many of the laboratories exposed in the SAEN report are well known
across the U.S.: Harvard, Yale, Northwestern, Pfizer, University of
California, University of Pittsburgh, University of Massachusetts, Johns
Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, University of Connecticut, and
University of Florida. According to our statistics four of the top eight
labs in the U.S. for receiving funding by the National Institutes of
Health for animal experimentation are in this group. The majority of these labs violated the law in basic areas like
veterinary care, food, water, etc. In many instances animals were
concretely affected by these violations which even led directly to
animal deaths. The consistent pattern of violations in the area of
Institutional Animal Care & Use Committees (IACUC) indicates that these
labs are incapable of following regulations on their own. The overwhelming pattern of violations exhibited in these facilities
raises an obvious question: “Is the USDA effective in enforcing the
Animal Welfare Act?” The answer is No. While specific violations are not
always repeated, labs continue to illegally abuse animals over extended
periods of time. USDA fines seem to have no impact on these facilities. The University
of Connecticut (UCONN), Storrs, was fined $129,000 for violating the
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) – for infractions which occurred before
3/12/01. The date of the first USDA inspection document used as a basis
for our report is 5/31/01 – which follows the period of violations for
which UCONN was fined. In other words, UCONN had 43 violations of the
AWA in the period immediately following the levying of a $129,000 fine.
Apparently the fine was insufficient to prevent this laboratory from
breaking the law again. It is shocking that the facility with the worst record in terms of
numbers of violations, most repeat and direct violations, and the
highest numbers of violations in areas of IACUC and Veterinary Care --
the University of California, San Francisco -- has received only a
measly $2000 fine in recent years. Apparently the fine was far too small
to be considered significant enough to cause any changes. For a facility
that receives over $160 million from the NIH for the performance of
animal experiments, a paltry $2000 fine is little more than pocket
change. It is strange that a tiny lab, Mount Ida College (reporting less than
100 animals used annually), would come in 11th with twenty five AWA
violations, ahead of labs that use as many as 19,000 animals annually.
It is also surprising that Mt. Ida’s neighbor in Massachusetts (UMASS,
Amherst) was fined $6215, while incurring fewer violations, yet Mt. Ida
has not been fined. It is shocking that certain situations have not resulted in more
substantial reactions from the USDA. For example, when a dog is killed
by accidentally running the animal through a cage washer, severe
enforcement actions should result. The USDA official who inspected
Pfizer after this occurrence simply noted the death of the animal and
said that procedures need to be put into place to prevent the repetition
of such an occurrence. It is very surprising that the USDA documentation which formed the
basis of our report essentially failed to mention issues concerning
either the unnecessary duplication of experimentation or the
non-reporting of experiments involving unrelieved pain. This is
particularly alarming since several labs examined in this report (Johns
Hopkins, Emory, Northwestern, Yale, Harvard, etc.) are engaged in two
areas of experimentation (drug addiction and brain mapping) in primates
which are among the most duplicated and often involve unrelieved pain.
We believe that the USDA typically reacts too slowly to violations of
the Animal Welfare Act, and many violations are allowed to continue for
extended periods before any regulatory enforcement actions are taken.
When enforcement actions are finally taken, they are too insignificant
to have any meaningful impact. Fines in the thousands of dollars for
institutions which receive income in the hundreds of millions from
animal research are almost laughable. Our conclusions should not be news to the USDA. During 1995 the USDA
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of the Animal &
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regarding enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act. The findings of this audit were: “APHIS does not have the authority, under current legislation, to
effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. For
instance, the agency cannot terminate or refuse to renew licenses or
registrations in cases where serious or repeat violations occur . . . .
In addition, APHIS cannot assess monetary penalties for violations
unless the violator agrees to pay them, and penalties are often so low
that violators merely regard them as part of the cost of doing
business.” Apparently nothing has really changed at the USDA since 1995. The OIG
report recommended that APHIS initiate legislation to extend its
enforcement powers. This course of action has not been followed, and as
a result, APHIS’ ability to enforce the AWA has not changed in any way.
When we examine AWA enforcement, we must begin to wonder if the laws
were designed for purposes other than the protection of animals. If the
legislation is not protecting animals (clearly it is not), then what
does it actually accomplish? It allows laboratories to say that they are
regulated. In other words, the Animal Welfare Act (however well
intended) primarily gives animal laboratories the ability to say that
since they are inspected, and supervised, conditions within the
facilities must be adequate. Laws have been passed; inspectors are in
place. Fines are even paid. Everything must be ok? The inspection reports examined for the assembly of our report
clearly indicate that the AWA is not protecting animals. Dogs, cats,
primates, pigs, and animals of many other species are going without
veterinary care, without food and water, and suffer needlessly. Please write to the White House Office of Management and Budget to
urge that APHIS be given the power to close laboratories for violating
the Animal Welfare Act: Joshua B. Bolten, Director
Return to
Vol. 3, No. 1 -
Spring/Summer 2004 |
