Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

File - Frequently Asked Questions

Expand Messages
  • HLSsucks@yahoogroups.com
    Frequently Asked Questions: What is HLS? Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world (see below) and the largest animal
    Message 1 of 129 , Jul 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Frequently Asked Questions:
      What is HLS?
      Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world (see
      <<What is a CRO?>> below) and the largest animal testing facility in
      all of Europe.

      What is a CRO (Contract Research Organization)?
      A CRO, or Contract Research Organization is a lab whose business
      comes from contractual work from other pharmaceutical and chemical
      companies. They do not develop products or research disease and
      treatment; they test products. As a CRO HLS will test any product on
      any animal for any company that has enough money to pay them to do
      so.

      How long has HLS been in existence?
      HLS has been open and killing animals since 1952. The lab will
      celebrate its 50th Birthday December 1, 2002. (Don�t miss the
      National Protest! Check out www.DECEMBER1.net)

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

      Its main site is Huntingdon Research Center (Huntingdon Life
      Sciences; Woolley Road; Alconbury; Huntingdon; Cambridgeshire; PE28
      4HS; Phone (from the U.S.): 011 44 1480 892 000; Fax (from the U.S.):
      011 44 1480 892 205; Email: sales@...).

      HLS also runs an Eye Research Center in England (Huntingdon Life
      Sciences' Eye Research; Barric Lane; Occold; Suffolk; IP23 7PX; Fax
      (from the U.S.): 011 44 1379 672291).

      HLS�s only U.S. site is in New Jersey. Called the �Princeton
      Research Center� in an effort to associate itself with the prestige
      of Princeton, this facility is actually located 30 minutes north of
      Princeton in East Millstone, near New Brunswick in Central New Jersey
      (HLS Inc.; P.O. Box 2360; Mettlers Road; East Millstone; NJ;
      08875-2360; Phone: (732) 873-2550; Fax: (732) 873-8513).

      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).

      These figures were obtained by averaging out the number of animals
      listed in USDA reports and other published reports from other
      overseers and government regulatory agents, over the past few years.

      It is estimated that, at any one time, there are 70,000 animals
      imprisoned at HLS waiting to die.

      What kinds of animals do they use?
      As a contract lab, HLS uses whatever animal(s) they are instructed to
      by the customer contracting the experiment. These include dogs,
      cats, rats, mice, rabbits, fish, birds, non-human primates, and �farm
      animals.�

      When using dogs, labs, including HLS, often use Beagles as they are
      very passive and unwilling to bite. Their docile nature decreases
      resistance to the process of shoving tubes down their throats,
      restraining them, etc. (We�d like them to use a Pit-Bull and see how
      far they get.)

      What products does HLS test?
      HLS tests whatever they are hired to test. They provide full
      development programs to get agrochemicals onto the market (such as
      pesticides, herbicides, weed-killers, fertilizers, etc.).

      They also test household products such as detergents, tanning
      lotions, diet pills, food wrapping plastic, coffee sweeteners, some
      pharmaceuticals etc. Viagra was tested at HLS, as was Olestra, a
      fat-free �oil� that was found safe in animal tests at HLS but caused
      anal leakage in humans.

      HLS also experiments with the controversial genetically modified
      organisms (GMOs) and has performed Xenotransplantation experiments.
      Check out the largest leak ever of documents about a confidential
      experiment here <<Xeno Scandal Link>>.

      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.

      Read the full text of the AWA here:
      http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm

      Beyond the Animal Welfare Act, animals in laboratories are also
      afforded the �protection� of Institutional Animal Care and Use
      Committees, or IACUCs. Institutions that use laboratory animals for
      research or instructional purposes are required by Federal law to
      establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to
      �oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care
      and use program,� (www.IACUC.org). In actuality IACUCs are rubber
      stamp committees comprised of vivisectors from the institution
      conducting the research. In fact, Federal law requires that only one
      member of an institution�s IACUC must be an individual not officially
      affiliated with the institution; no laws exist requiring that any
      IACUC member not be an animal researcher her/himself. Hence, the
      �protection� afforded to animals via IACUC�s is merely a cycle of
      vivisectors rubberstamping vivisectors.

      What is SHAC?
      SHAC, or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, is an international campaign
      to close HLS. SHAC began in England after 4 legendary campaigns that
      closed animal breeders revolutionized the animal rights movement.
      The campaign has now spread across Europe and the US, and around the
      world, with anti- HLS activity in at least 15 countries (including
      America, Ireland, the UK, Portugal, France, Germany, South Africa,
      Italy, Austria, Czech Republic, Holland, Indonesia, New Zealand,
      Austria, and Japan) and in nearly every major city in the U.S.

      SHAC-USA began in January 2001 when the Little Rock, AR-based firm,
      Stephens Inc., saved HLS from bankruptcy. As UK campaigners
      steam-rolled HLS, the lab turned to the US for financial backers to
      rescue it, as no company in England would touch it with a 10-foot
      pole. American activists took a stand against allowing our country
      to be a dumping ground for things that more progressive countries
      have kicked out. SHAC-USA was formed to target the HLS�s New Jersey
      facility, its US affiliates, and to pose a firm resistance to HLS�s
      eyeing America as a safe haven.

      Shouldn�t we be targeting the vivisection industry as a whole rather
      than just one lab?
      Both the vivisection and animal rights activists agree: the HLS
      campaign is an attack on the entire vivisection industry. In a
      6/13/02 Financial Times article, Frankie Trull, President of the U.S.
      Foundation for Bio-medical Research (a vivisection-funded PR group)
      marked it as a gateway campaign, telling a conference on the �threat
      of animal rights activism� that, ��attacks on HLS threaten(ed) the
      entire scientific[sic] research community.�

      The vivisection industry is enormous, politically connected, and very
      well-funded. Taking on a select, winnable portion of it allows us to
      make a huge dent while building a larger, stronger movement to
      continue in the direction of obliterating animal testing.

      Closing HLS will send ripples throughout the entire animal research
      industry, and it is fighting harder than ever to make sure we don�t
      win. A line has been drawn in the sand between animal testing and
      animal rights, and both sides recognize HLS as the battleground.

      Won�t ending animal testing in Western countries just send it �Third
      World� countries where standards are lower and it will be worse for
      the animals?
      Such a move is considered highly unlikely by scientists. In short,
      these countries do not have the infrastructure to support the
      vivisection industry.

      Close communication between the company developing the product and
      the company testing it is necessary. Major chemical and
      pharmaceutical companies are not going to move to Third World
      countries because, (a) CEO�s, Boards and Management have no interest
      in living there, (b) these countries are not prime locations for
      running their company or promoting their product.

      Additionally, quality control issues arise: (1) These countries
      simply do not have the technology and resources to conduct testing
      that uses sophisticated equipment. One example is quality
      electricity as opposed to fluctuating amperage, etc. (2) Outside
      agencies evaluate the testing and it is unlikely regulators are going
      to travel to the Third World to do so. If these countries had their
      own regulatory agencies, quality control again becomes an issue. (3)
      Companies who test their products on animals avoid liability when
      these products cause problems in humans. So, when the lawsuits come
      down and the jury learns the drug was tested in Vietnam, Pakistan,
      etc., the plaintiff�s will receive higher rewards.

      [Note: the above answer was informed by M.D.�s from Americans For
      Medical Advancement.]

      Isn�t it more important to get people to go vegan/end the fur
      trade/stop hunting/etc. than close this one laboratory?
      Unarguably stopping all animal suffering is important. Some feel it
      is more important to work for �farm animals� because a larger number
      of animals are killed for food, or fur because the fur trade is
      already weakened, etc. However, it will not be the HLS campaign - or
      any other campaign against a different issue - but a strong movement
      that attacks all animal abuse, that achieves animal liberation. And
      the HLS campaign has done more to build an effective animal rights
      movement than any campaign before it.

      Vivisection was not chosen because it is particular. Rather, the HLS
      campaign presented, for the first time, an opportunity to join hands
      with a more sophisticated movement, one with four previous victories
      driving it, and build the type of movement that will be necessary if
      we are to achieve animal liberation. No other example in the
      grassroots has presented such an opportunity.

      SHAC views this campaign within a broader agenda of animal rights.
      Our outreach events include information on numerous animal issues.
      The HLS campaign has planted the seed of animal rights as a
      legitimate political struggle for many people.
    • HLSsucks@yahoogroups.com
      Frequently Asked Questions: What is HLS? Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world (see below) and the largest animal
      Message 129 of 129 , Apr 1 2:35 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Frequently Asked Questions:
        What is HLS?
        Huntingdon Life Sciences is the 3rd largest CRO in the world (see
        <<What is a CRO?>> below) and the largest animal testing facility in
        all of Europe.

        What is a CRO (Contract Research Organization)?
        A CRO, or Contract Research Organization is a lab whose business
        comes from contractual work from other pharmaceutical and chemical
        companies. They do not develop products or research disease and
        treatment; they test products. As a CRO HLS will test any product on
        any animal for any company that has enough money to pay them to do
        so.

        How long has HLS been in existence?
        HLS has been open and killing animals since 1952. The lab will
        celebrate its 50th Birthday December 1, 2002. (Don�t miss the
        National Protest! Check out www.DECEMBER1.net)

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

        Its main site is Huntingdon Research Center (Huntingdon Life
        Sciences; Woolley Road; Alconbury; Huntingdon; Cambridgeshire; PE28
        4HS; Phone (from the U.S.): 011 44 1480 892 000; Fax (from the U.S.):
        011 44 1480 892 205; Email: sales@...).

        HLS also runs an Eye Research Center in England (Huntingdon Life
        Sciences' Eye Research; Barric Lane; Occold; Suffolk; IP23 7PX; Fax
        (from the U.S.): 011 44 1379 672291).

        HLS�s only U.S. site is in New Jersey. Called the �Princeton
        Research Center� in an effort to associate itself with the prestige
        of Princeton, this facility is actually located 30 minutes north of
        Princeton in East Millstone, near New Brunswick in Central New Jersey
        (HLS Inc.; P.O. Box 2360; Mettlers Road; East Millstone; NJ;
        08875-2360; Phone: (732) 873-2550; Fax: (732) 873-8513).

        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).

        These figures were obtained by averaging out the number of animals
        listed in USDA reports and other published reports from other
        overseers and government regulatory agents, over the past few years.

        It is estimated that, at any one time, there are 70,000 animals
        imprisoned at HLS waiting to die.

        What kinds of animals do they use?
        As a contract lab, HLS uses whatever animal(s) they are instructed to
        by the customer contracting the experiment. These include dogs,
        cats, rats, mice, rabbits, fish, birds, non-human primates, and �farm
        animals.�

        When using dogs, labs, including HLS, often use Beagles as they are
        very passive and unwilling to bite. Their docile nature decreases
        resistance to the process of shoving tubes down their throats,
        restraining them, etc. (We�d like them to use a Pit-Bull and see how
        far they get.)

        What products does HLS test?
        HLS tests whatever they are hired to test. They provide full
        development programs to get agrochemicals onto the market (such as
        pesticides, herbicides, weed-killers, fertilizers, etc.).

        They also test household products such as detergents, tanning
        lotions, diet pills, food wrapping plastic, coffee sweeteners, some
        pharmaceuticals etc. Viagra was tested at HLS, as was Olestra, a
        fat-free �oil� that was found safe in animal tests at HLS but caused
        anal leakage in humans.

        HLS also experiments with the controversial genetically modified
        organisms (GMOs) and has performed Xenotransplantation experiments.
        Check out the largest leak ever of documents about a confidential
        experiment here <<Xeno Scandal Link>>.

        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.

        Read the full text of the AWA here:
        http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm

        Beyond the Animal Welfare Act, animals in laboratories are also
        afforded the �protection� of Institutional Animal Care and Use
        Committees, or IACUCs. Institutions that use laboratory animals for
        research or instructional purposes are required by Federal law to
        establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to
        �oversee and evaluate all aspects of the institution's animal care
        and use program,� (www.IACUC.org). In actuality IACUCs are rubber
        stamp committees comprised of vivisectors from the institution
        conducting the research. In fact, Federal law requires that only one
        member of an institution�s IACUC must be an individual not officially
        affiliated with the institution; no laws exist requiring that any
        IACUC member not be an animal researcher her/himself. Hence, the
        �protection� afforded to animals via IACUC�s is merely a cycle of
        vivisectors rubberstamping vivisectors.

        What is SHAC?
        SHAC, or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, is an international campaign
        to close HLS. SHAC began in England after 4 legendary campaigns that
        closed animal breeders revolutionized the animal rights movement.
        The campaign has now spread across Europe and the US, and around the
        world, with anti- HLS activity in at least 15 countries (including
        America, Ireland, the UK, Portugal, France, Germany, South Africa,
        Italy, Austria, Czech Republic, Holland, Indonesia, New Zealand,
        Austria, and Japan) and in nearly every major city in the U.S.

        SHAC-USA began in January 2001 when the Little Rock, AR-based firm,
        Stephens Inc., saved HLS from bankruptcy. As UK campaigners
        steam-rolled HLS, the lab turned to the US for financial backers to
        rescue it, as no company in England would touch it with a 10-foot
        pole. American activists took a stand against allowing our country
        to be a dumping ground for things that more progressive countries
        have kicked out. SHAC-USA was formed to target the HLS�s New Jersey
        facility, its US affiliates, and to pose a firm resistance to HLS�s
        eyeing America as a safe haven.

        Shouldn�t we be targeting the vivisection industry as a whole rather
        than just one lab?
        Both the vivisection and animal rights activists agree: the HLS
        campaign is an attack on the entire vivisection industry. In a
        6/13/02 Financial Times article, Frankie Trull, President of the U.S.
        Foundation for Bio-medical Research (a vivisection-funded PR group)
        marked it as a gateway campaign, telling a conference on the �threat
        of animal rights activism� that, ��attacks on HLS threaten(ed) the
        entire scientific[sic] research community.�

        The vivisection industry is enormous, politically connected, and very
        well-funded. Taking on a select, winnable portion of it allows us to
        make a huge dent while building a larger, stronger movement to
        continue in the direction of obliterating animal testing.

        Closing HLS will send ripples throughout the entire animal research
        industry, and it is fighting harder than ever to make sure we don�t
        win. A line has been drawn in the sand between animal testing and
        animal rights, and both sides recognize HLS as the battleground.

        Won�t ending animal testing in Western countries just send it �Third
        World� countries where standards are lower and it will be worse for
        the animals?
        Such a move is considered highly unlikely by scientists. In short,
        these countries do not have the infrastructure to support the
        vivisection industry.

        Close communication between the company developing the product and
        the company testing it is necessary. Major chemical and
        pharmaceutical companies are not going to move to Third World
        countries because, (a) CEO�s, Boards and Management have no interest
        in living there, (b) these countries are not prime locations for
        running their company or promoting their product.

        Additionally, quality control issues arise: (1) These countries
        simply do not have the technology and resources to conduct testing
        that uses sophisticated equipment. One example is quality
        electricity as opposed to fluctuating amperage, etc. (2) Outside
        agencies evaluate the testing and it is unlikely regulators are going
        to travel to the Third World to do so. If these countries had their
        own regulatory agencies, quality control again becomes an issue. (3)
        Companies who test their products on animals avoid liability when
        these products cause problems in humans. So, when the lawsuits come
        down and the jury learns the drug was tested in Vietnam, Pakistan,
        etc., the plaintiff�s will receive higher rewards.

        [Note: the above answer was informed by M.D.�s from Americans For
        Medical Advancement.]

        Isn�t it more important to get people to go vegan/end the fur
        trade/stop hunting/etc. than close this one laboratory?
        Unarguably stopping all animal suffering is important. Some feel it
        is more important to work for �farm animals� because a larger number
        of animals are killed for food, or fur because the fur trade is
        already weakened, etc. However, it will not be the HLS campaign - or
        any other campaign against a different issue - but a strong movement
        that attacks all animal abuse, that achieves animal liberation. And
        the HLS campaign has done more to build an effective animal rights
        movement than any campaign before it.

        Vivisection was not chosen because it is particular. Rather, the HLS
        campaign presented, for the first time, an opportunity to join hands
        with a more sophisticated movement, one with four previous victories
        driving it, and build the type of movement that will be necessary if
        we are to achieve animal liberation. No other example in the
        grassroots has presented such an opportunity.

        SHAC views this campaign within a broader agenda of animal rights.
        Our outreach events include information on numerous animal issues.
        The HLS campaign has planted the seed of animal rights as a
        legitimate political struggle for many people.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.