Alameda City Council
November 7, 2023

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elizabeth Watts
2030 Santa Clara St Richmond, CA 94804-5236
From: Leah Anton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:05:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Leah Anton
PO Box 342 Ross, CA 94957-0342
From: Jack Zelver
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:06:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jack Zelver
146 Ardmore Rd Kensington, CA 94707-1336
From: Elanor Sue
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:09:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elanor Sue
255 8th Ave Oakland, CA 94606-5146
From: Kim Brink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:09:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Brink
4177 Sora Cmn Fremont, CA 94555-3033
From: Ann Graves
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:10:55 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Ann Graves
1619 137th Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1603
From: Jan norris
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:13:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jan norris
1422 Bellevue Ave Apt 403 Burlingame, CA 94010-3920
From: john Lloyd
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:14:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. john Lloyd
3300 Powell St Emeryville, CA 94608-1528
From: Ron E Ginsberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:14:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Ron E Ginsberg
492 Grove St San Francisco, CA 94102-4303
From: Elaine Parker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:16:19 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elaine Parker
285 Fairlawn Dr Berkeley, CA 94708-2220
From: Shari Riffe
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:17:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Shari Riffe
391 Camino Las Juntas Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2108
From: Jann Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:18:16 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jann Lee
116 Arlene Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1731
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:18:29 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jan Jones
2612 Tulare Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Laura Nardozza
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:23:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Laura Nardozza
741 S Norfolk St San Mateo, CA 94401-3105
From: Ann Myers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:28:20 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Ann Myers
WEBSTER St Berkeley, CA 94705
From: Dorie Gallinatti
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:28:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Dorie Gallinatti
1716 B Saint Charles St Alameda, CA 94501-2234
From: Debra Shapiro
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:29:05 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Debra Shapiro
1111 Marquita Ave Burlingame, CA 94010-3322
From: Arin Weitzman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:29:38 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Miss Arin Weitzman
772 34th St Richmond, CA 94805-1771
From: Gary Cianciarulo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:31:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Gary Cianciarulo
2699 18th St San Francisco, CA 94110-2110
From: Meera P
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:34:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ma Meera P
43456 Ellsworth St Fremont, CA 94539-4201
From: Sandi Covell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:36:10 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Sandi Covell
1183 Alemany Blvd San Francisco, CA 94112-1401
From: Josephine Bellaccomo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:36:18 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Josephine Bellaccomo
1649 Treat Ave San Francisco, CA 94110-5235
From: Kim Shaw
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:36:52 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Shaw
10 Easton Ct Orinda, CA 94563-3609
From: Jennifer Klatt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:37:02 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jennifer Klatt
6694 Liggett Dr Oakland, CA 94611-3252
From: Leland Toy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:37:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr Leland Toy
8235 Moller Ranch Dr Pleasanton, CA 94588-9671
From: Marilyn Gandy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:38:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Marilyn Gandy
950 Grizzly Peak Blvd Berkeley, CA 94708-1549
From: Manasvi Khullar
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:40:25 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Manasvi Khullar
11740 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530-1769
From: Miranda Helly
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:45:46 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Miranda Helly
1570 Jackson St Oakland, CA 94612-4469
From: Roberta Parrish
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:51:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Roberta Parrish
9025 N Clover Way Tucson, AZ 85743-5108
From: Sean San José
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:55:01 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mx. Sean San José
566 Lisbon St San Francisco, CA 94112-3543
From: Daniel Slade
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:55:29 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Daniel Slade
5758 Geary Blvd # 127 San Francisco, CA 94121-2112
From: Laura Ford
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:56:28 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Laura Ford
1601 Broadway Apt 1 Alameda, CA 94501-3050
From: Rondi Saslow
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:56:41 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Rondi Saslow
PO Box 5595 Berkeley, CA 94705-0595
From: Cayla Coleman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:58:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs Cayla Coleman
205 Bayview Dr San Rafael, CA 94901-2560
From: jorge belloso curiel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:06:42 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. jorge belloso curiel
431 Metro Walk Way Richmond, CA 94801-3236
From: Ruth Stoner Muzzin
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:11:46 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Ruth Stoner Muzzin
PO Box 370761 Montara, CA 94037-0761
From: Vira Confectioner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:18:52 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Vira Confectioner
PO Box 374 Sunol, CA 94586-0374
From: Cindi Goldberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:21:57 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Cindi Goldberg
1257 Hopkins St Berkeley, CA 94702-1144
From: Maria Rivero
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:22:00 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr Maria Rivero
4150 Folsom St San Francisco, CA 94110-6120
From: Judy Bertelsen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:22:03 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Judy Bertelsen
PO Box 2774 Berkeley, CA 94702-0774
From: Janicedotherighthing Greenberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:26:04 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Janicedotherighthing Greenberg
3051 Wheeler St Berkeley, CA 94705-1826
From: Anne Barker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:34:33 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Anne Barker
567 Heather Way San Rafael, CA 94903-2446
From: Julia Earl
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:40:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Julia Earl
7 Sunrise Ln Larkspur, CA 94939-2188
From: Urmila Padmanabhan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:48:06 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Urmila Padmanabhan
42629 Queens Park Ct Fremont, CA 94538-3946
From: Renee Yates
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:48:41 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Renee Yates
607 Congo St # 94131 San Francisco, CA 94131-2807
From: Alma Schiefer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:51:53 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Alma Schiefer
161 Wilkie Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94598-4913
From: Yolanda Calderon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:51:54 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Yolanda Calderon
476 41st St Oakland, CA 94609-2520
From: Diane Arndt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:54:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Diane Arndt
2841 Ptarmigan Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-3136
From: David Perry
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:04:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
David Perry
513 Ashton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306-3608
From: Robert Lawrence
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:05:40 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Lawrence
107 9th Ave San Francisco, CA 94118-1222
From: John Tetzlaff
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:10:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. John Tetzlaff
2131 5th Ave San Rafael, CA 94901-1081
From: Fumi Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:14:57 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Fumi Lee
N A San Francisco, CA 94102
From: Bonnie Carlson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:16:13 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Bonnie Carlson
1018 4th Ave Apt 117 Oakland, CA 94606-2370
From: Sheila Gill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:19:04 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Sheila Gill
PO Box 370592 Montara, CA 94037-0592
From: Mike Evans
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:19:32 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Mike Evans
HEARST Ave Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
From: Ray Staar
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:22:12 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Ray Staar
1441 Clay St Apt 5 San Francisco, CA 94109-0209
From: Sue Hall
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:25:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs Sue Hall
4800 Sorani Way Castro Valley, CA 94546-1350
From: Waltraud Buckland
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:27:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Waltraud Buckland
155 Avenida Dr Berkeley, CA 94708-2124
From: Christie Decker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:32:11 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Christie Decker
786 Geary St Apt 401 San Francisco, CA 94109-7341
From: Linda Riebel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:37:39 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Linda Riebel
3350 Hermosa Way Lafayette, CA 94549-2101
From: Stephan Silen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:45:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Stephan Silen
832 Fawn Dr San Anselmo, CA 94960-1134
From: Andrew Mueckenberger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:45:28 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Andrew Mueckenberger
2953 Southwood Dr Alameda, CA 94501-1751
From: Joseph Cloren
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] thank you
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:45:29 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members.

I urge you to support and vote for the resolution coming before you 11/7/23 Agenda # 10B
regarding an resolution for drafting an ordinance which declares that there be no animal experimentation
or animal research permitted at City owned buildings, or land or property controlled by the City.

Please support and vote for this resolution; It is clear from the many emails you are receiving that this is what
a majority of Alamedans want and desire. And there is a long history in Alameda of residents being critical of animal research and the way it is conducted.

Additionaly Alamedans want to preserve the City's good image and we believe that widespread animal research particularly on/at our City owned properties will tarnish this good image.

If the City wants to encourage Life Sciences companies to settle in Alameda, that is well and good.

However under the category of Life Sciences are many many types of companies that do not use animals in their research. We Alamedans ask that the City formulate a policy of encouraging those types of companies to settle here.

Thank you,
Joseph cloren
From: Elaine Chung
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:45:32 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elaine Chung
2122 Ocaso Camino Fremont, CA 94539-5646
From: Howard Lazar
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:47:32 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Howard Lazar
60 Meadow Dr San Rafael, CA 94903-2859
From: Candi Ausman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:49:02 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Candi Ausman
35640 Fremont Blvd Unit 334 Fremont, CA 94536-3420
From: Deborah Temple
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:49:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Deborah Temple
1821 5th Ave San Rafael, CA 94901-1787
From: Karen Kirschling
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:50:19 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Karen Kirschling
633 Oak St Apt 2 San Francisco, CA 94117-2655
From: [email protected] on behalf of Howard Lazar To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:52:04 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Howard Lazar
60 Meadow Dr San Rafael, CA 94903-2859
From: Amy Shepard
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:00:40 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Amy Shepard
11 Curtis Ave San Rafael, CA 94901-2006
From: Thefbiiswatching Izskaminyu
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:07:33 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Prefix Thefbiiswatching Izskaminyu
23 Av Oakland, CA 94606
From: Giuliana Rinaldo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:09:16 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Giuliana Rinaldo
1900 Trousdale Dr Burlingame, CA 94010-5387
From: James Lynch
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:25:52 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. James Lynch
622 W Poplar Ave San Mateo, CA 94402-1136
From: Elizabeth Hook
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 1:46:12 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Elizabeth Hook
2127 Taylor St Apt C San Francisco, CA 94133-2200
From: Carlene Visperas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:05:10 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Carlene Visperas
5361 Meadow Wood Pl Concord, CA 94521-1502
From: Janet Bindas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:13:44 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Janet Bindas
2973 MI Elana Cir Walnut Creek, CA 94598-3844
From: Melvin Thrash
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:21:09 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Melvin Thrash
2023 Fairmont Dr San Mateo, CA 94402-3925
From: Timothy Bickel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:21:50 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Timothy Bickel
1608 Marina Ct San Mateo, CA 94403-5572
From: Jordan Briskin
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:44:51 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Jordan Briskin
2850 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, CA 94306-2512
From: Christina Gill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:47:51 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Christina Gill
297 Lombardi Cir Walnut Creek, CA 94598-4906
From: M Masek
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:50:11 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. M Masek
225 Town And Country Dr Danville, CA 94526-3739
From: Vasu Murti
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:24:30 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Vasu Murti
30 Villanova Ln Oakland, CA 94611-1166
From: Charles Wieland
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:30:46 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr Charles Wieland
206 Compton Cir Apt A San Ramon, CA 94583-1683
From: Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:54:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
5737 Medallion Ct Castro Valley, CA 94552-1708
From: Jennifer Merino
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please do not support animal testing in Alameda Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:09:22 PM
Please vote against animal testing in Alameda tomorrow.

From: Bianca Molgora
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:25:09 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Bianca Molgora
3976 Folsom St San Francisco, CA 94110-6138
From: Greg Rosas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:29:56 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Greg Rosas
4353 Edwards Ln Castro Valley, CA 94546-3653
From: Nancy Paskowitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:36:23 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Nancy Paskowitz
579 57th St Oakland, CA 94609-1746
From: Shelley Abbate
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:56:09 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Shelley Abbate
2630 Parkside Dr Union City, CA 94587-1714
From: Carol Taggart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:06:43 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Carol Taggart
1705 Valparaiso Ave Menlo Park, CA 94025-5560
From: darrell Rolstone
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:33:49 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. darrell Rolstone
9 Orange Ave Larkspur, CA 94939-1925
From: Patricia Geary
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:27:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Geary
708 Reisling Ct Clayton, CA 94517-1417
From: Sheila Dixon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:27:24 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
ms. Sheila Dixon
1516 Silverleaf Ln Concord, CA 94521-3546
From: George Ruiz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:28:23 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. George Ruiz
1321 Hull Dr San Carlos, CA 94070-2220
From: Jacqueline Barden
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:34:01 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jacqueline Barden
1182 Park Ave Apt A Alameda, CA 94501-5256
From: Caephren McKenna
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 6:56:38 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Caephren McKenna
392 44th St Oakland, CA 94609-2225
From: Alison Raleigh
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:11:40 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Alison Raleigh
762 La Para Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306-3157
From: Catherine Loudis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:21:56 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Catherine Loudis
219 Butterfield Rd San Anselmo, CA 94960-1242
From: Patricia Santos
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:35:26 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Patricia Santos
361 Leo Ave San Leandro, CA 94577-2720
From: Jess Hernandez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:36:22 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jess Hernandez
1684 Matheson Rd CA94521 Concord, CA 94521-2135
From: Alice Polesky
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:52:55 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Alice Polesky
890 Kansas St Apt 4 San Francisco, CA 94107-2664
From: Barbara Greenwood
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:01:25 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Barbara Greenwood
713 Rosewood Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94596-6127
From: rina Place
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:14:12 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. rina Place
2100 Miramonte Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1563
From: Jess Hernandez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:16:03 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jess Hernandez
1684 Matheson Rd CA94521 Concord, CA 94521-2135
From: Ruth Robertson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:32:32 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Ruth Robertson
126 Beaver St San Francisco, CA 94114-1517
From: Julie S
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:19:49 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Julie S
1082 Tilley Cir Concord, CA 94518-1829
From: Marie Sparr
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:34:50 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Marie Sparr
2057 Bayporte Way San Ramon, CA 94582-5722
From: AJ Cho
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:37:35 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mx. AJ Cho
159 Santa Teresa San Leandro, CA 94579-1963
From: Agha Haider
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:51:50 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Agha Haider
10737 Inspiration Cir Dublin, CA 94568-5556
From: Tatyana Shats
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:56:46 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Tatyana Shats
1521 Sutter St Apt 405 San Francisco, CA 94109-5390
From: Petra McClinton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:57:13 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Petra McClinton
PO Box 4134 San Rafael, CA 94913-4134
From: Utkarsh Nath
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:02:56 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Utkarsh Nath
34462 Alberta Ter Fremont, CA 94555-2907
From: Lorien Smyer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:00:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Lorien Smyer
5923 Tehama Ave Richmond, CA 94804-5047
From: Tem Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:27:26 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Tem Narvios
1425 Visitacion Ave San Francisco, CA 94134-2756
From: Esther Roberts
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:27:00 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Esther Roberts
1543 Seaver Ct Hayward, CA 94545-2553
From: Raquel Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:34:12 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Raquel Narvios
1425 Visitacion Ave San Francisco, CA 94134-2756
From: Benjamin Young
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 2:54:36 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Young
240 41st St Oakland, CA 94611-5608
From: Liliane Morin
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 6:57:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Liliane Morin
6400 Shellmound St Emeryville, CA 94608-1018
From: SUSAN LOUIE
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 7:54:50 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

SUSAN LOUIE
PO Box 7605 Berkeley, CA 94707-0605
From: Tank Conner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 7:58:56 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Tank Conner
1516 Yuba Ave San Pablo, CA 94806-4058
From: Linda Savage
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 8:21:33 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Linda Savage
1511 136th Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1640
From: Dorothy Pasquinelli
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:25:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Dorothy Pasquinelli
PO Box 2827 El Granada, CA 94018-2827
From: Elisse De Sio
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:45:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elisse De Sio
1176 Laurel St San Carlos, CA 94070-5009
From: Colleena Brazen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:58:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Colleena Brazen
3241 Sugarberry Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1728
From: Reyla Graber
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda item 10B--Do vote for this Resolution.

Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:59:08 AM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Member,
I urge you to pass the " no animal research on/at City property etc" resolution before you tonight, Agenda item #10B. This really is a logical step forward from the CC vote that was taken on 10/17 regarding Science Corp. From the hundreds of emails you have received both for the 10/17 vote, and likely also for tonight's vote, it seems clear that a majority of Alamedans do not want or desire animal experimentation on at City property.

Under the umbrella called the "Life Sciences" are many businesses that do not utilize animal research/experimentation. We encourage the City to have a policy that encourages those types of
companiesLife Sciences companies to locate here.

Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
From: Heidi Dietz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:15:18 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Heidi Dietz
310 Westline Dr Apt B309 Alameda, CA 94501-5910
From: Joyce Saad
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:51:49 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Joyce Saad
1519 Chestnut St Alameda, CA 94501-2728
From: Laura Mani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 5:51:11 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Laura Mani
1007 Erica Rd Mill Valley, CA 94941-3749
1 Ashley Zieba
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kendra Knight <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:53 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,

As a local resident, I am wriƟng to urge you to vote in favor of item 10‐B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeƟng.

Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard.

PaƟents
need human‐relevant research—not  cruel, crude animal tesƟng.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science‐driven research. An enormous body of scienƟfic evidence raises serious concerns with the conƟnued use of animals. And researchers are increasingly moving away
from animals for tesƟng drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called Ɵssue chips, which use cells from human organs and Ɵssues, are proving to effecƟvely mimic the responses found in the human body. PharmaceuƟ cal
companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human‐derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr . John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervenƟon will have a favourable clinical benefit‐risk raƟo in human subjects.”

In addiƟon, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including  those that inflict pain. And the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law , has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing invesƟgaƟons and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. NaƟonal InsƟtutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendaƟons and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even  in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is wriƩen correspondence between a violaƟng insƟtuƟon and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspecƟons.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scienƟfically anƟquated system. In contrast, prohibiƟng such experiments on city land would be a win for paƟents and animals.

Please support item 10‐B during
your Nov. 7 meeƟng.

Thank you for your Ɵme and aƩenƟon.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Kendra Knight
1301 Sanchez Ave  Burlingame, CA 94010‐3643

From: Gale
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Animal testing in Alameda
Date: Friday, November 10, 2023 9:03:20 AM
Please consider banning future leases for businesses that do animal testing. Further, please review and consider not renewing current leases for these businesses.

Thank you.

Gale Mitchell
From: Debra Wills
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, November 10, 2023 1:42:52 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Debra Wills
659 Boulevard Way Piedmont, CA 94610-1642
From: Edie Bruce
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Sunday, November 12, 2023 10:30:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 7 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research—not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 7 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Edie Bruce
1116 King Dr El Cerrito, CA 94530-2512
From: Patricia Santos
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:17:05 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Patricia Santos
361 Leo Ave San Leandro, CA 94577-2720
From: Pat Lakner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:19:42 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Pat Lakner
2514 Mar East St Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920-1204
From: Richard Schwartz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:22:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Richard Schwartz
1676 Tacoma Ave Berkeley, CA 94707-1827
From: Cayla Coleman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:25:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs Cayla Coleman
205 Bayview Dr San Rafael, CA 94901-2560
From: Sara Winslow
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:39:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Sara Winslow
538 Peralta Ave San Francisco, CA 94110-5339
From: Teresa Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:58:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Miss Teresa Moore
1731 15th St Apt 312 San Francisco, CA 94103-3325
From: Debra Kaihani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:05:49 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Debra Kaihani
375 Hill Way San Carlos, CA 94070-4410
From: Valerie Jo Ann Orner
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:09:20 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Valerie Jo Ann Orner
1630 Sugarloaf Dr San Mateo, CA 94403-3946
From: Inge Breuer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:22:20 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Inge Breuer
302 4th St Apt 327 San Rafael, CA 94901-3471
From: Lynn Armstrong
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:23:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Lynn Armstrong
408 Seaview Dr El Cerrito, CA 94530-3349
From: Linda Tabor-Beck
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:29:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Linda Tabor-Beck
2712 Harrison St San Francisco, CA 94110-3320
From: Kathy Morey
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:33:33 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Kathy Morey
249 Clifton Ave San Carlos, CA 94070-1752
From: Ashley Lorden
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:27:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Ashley Lorden
2232 Clinton Ave Alameda, CA 94501-4967
From: Kathleen Hart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:36:22 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Kathleen Hart
765 Rose Dr Benicia, CA 94510-3732
From: Kim Bartlett
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:38:55 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Bartlett
3250 Hollis St Unit 211 Oakland, CA 94608-4160
From: Robert Powell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:47:27 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Robert Powell
960 Kern St Richmond, CA 94805-1121
From: Robert Powell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:47:27 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Robert Powell
960 Kern St Richmond, CA 94805-1121
From: Sarah Koenig
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:52:34 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Sarah Koenig
24 Royal Ct San Rafael, CA 94901-4221
From: Jann Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 6:38:21 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jann Lee
116 Arlene Dr Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1731
From: Elizabeth Marshall
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9:26:01 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Elizabeth Marshall
6059 Shelter Bay Ave Mill Valley, CA 94941-3053
From: jon berg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 12:35:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. jon berg
2132 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen Cc: Manager Manager; City Clerk; Yibin Shen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence, 11/21/23 City Council Agenda, Item 10-B, Animal Testing Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 12:51:23 PM
Attachments: ACT Letter 11_15_2023_Item 10B_Animal Testing.pdf Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Please see attached correspondence for the 11/21/23 City Council Meeting, Item 10-B, Animal Testing.

Thank you.

ACT
ACTAlamedaCitizensTaskForceVigilance,Truth,Civility___________________________________________________________________________________ November 15, 2023
DearMayorandCityCouncilmembers,
Re:11/21/23,AgendaItem10-B
WesupporttheordinancetoprohibitanimaltestingandexperimentationonCity-ownedproperties.Thetrendinrecentlegislationatthestatelevelhasbeentofurtherrestrictanimaltesting.Recently-implementedSB-879isonesuchexample,Giventheprivateownershipofthesetenants,theCItymaybelimitedinitsabilitytolearnwhatisactuallyoccurringonitsproperty, potentiallyexposingtheCItytoadditionalliability.

Thankyou.

Sincerely,
ACTBoard
AlamedaCitizensTaskForce, P.O. Box6413, Alameda, CA94501 From: Joy Kosobayashi
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 2:32:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Joy Kosobayashi
949 Continental Dr Menlo Park, CA 94025-6622
From: nicole kidd
To: Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Lara Weisiger; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please protect animals - VOTE IN FAVOR of 10B, prohibiting animal experiments!!! Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 4:18:28 PM
Importance: High

As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote in favor of Item 10-B, prohibiting animal experiments on public land, during the Alameda City Council’s November 21 meeting.

Banning cruel and ineffective animal experiments on city land would be a win for both human patients and animals, showing that Alameda supports ethical, human-relevant, science-driven research.

Ninety-five percent of new drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials.

Researchers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly moving toward modern, non-animal methods for testing drugs and developing treatments for humans. Superior, cutting-edge technologies—including organs-on-chips and three-dimensional organ models that use human organ and tissue cells—are readily available and effectively mimic human systems.

Thank you for your ongoing dedication to protecting animals.

Nicole Kidd | 510-967-8295 | ‍♂‍
Analyst | Trend Scout |  Moderator |
AUSD CTE INDUSTRY ADVISORY CHAIRPERSON
NEW: https://NicoleKidd.com #ArtisanNK #NKiddJewelry

From: Cathy Yee
To: Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Lara Weisiger; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support of Item 10-B
Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 8:37:53 PM
As an Alameda resident, I urge you to vote in favor of Item 10-B, prohibiting animal experiments on public land, during the Alameda City Council’s November 7 meeting (rescheduled for November 21)
Banning cruel and ineffective animal experiments on city land would be a win for both human patients and animals, showing that Alameda supports ethical, human-relevant, science-driven research.

Ninety-five percent of new drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials.

Researchers and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly moving toward modern, non-animal methods for testing drugs and developing treatments for humans. Superior, cutting-edge technologies—including organs-on-chips and three-dimensional organ models that use human organ and tissue cells—are readily available and effectively mimic human systems.

Thank you in advance for your support to protect animals.

Warm regards,
Cathy
From: Heidi Dietz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2023 9:57:38 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Heidi Dietz
310 Westline Dr Apt B309 Alameda, CA 94501-5910
From: Roberta Stern
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 16, 2023 12:00:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Roberta Stern
5665 Ocean View Dr Oakland, CA 94618-1532
From: Rosanne Fissore
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 16, 2023 5:11:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Rosanne Fissore
6 Lychee Ct San Ramon, CA 94583-3424
From: Judith Gottesman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, November 16, 2023 8:31:16 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Judith Gottesman
PO Box 5043 El Cerrito, CA 94530
From: Dina Slobodnink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 10:51:02 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Dina Slobodnink
510 41st St Oakland, CA 94609-2412
From: Charmaine Hinman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 11:25:40 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Charmaine Hinman
60 Maywood Way San Rafael, CA 94901-1173
From: M G
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk; M G
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 10B
Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 2:31:23 PM
Dear City Council Members,
We do not want anyone experimenting on live animals in Alameda.

Thank you,
Dr. Les Hilger
Sharon Gardner
Mary Elena Goodan
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Ryan Leong; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 11/21/23 Agenda Item 10-B
Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 11:19:59 AM
I wish to voice my opinion AGAINST any proposed animal research facilities to be established on City of Alameda controlled property.

Thank you,
Kevin Leong
48 Kara Road
Alameda, CA
From: Petra McClinton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:03:27 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Petra McClinton
PO Box 4134 San Rafael, CA 94913-4134
From: G.Conroy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:05:42 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. G. Conroy
1358 8th Ave San Francisco, CA 94122-2408
From: Kim Bartlett
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:13:02 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Kim Bartlett
3250 Hollis St Unit 211 Oakland, CA 94608-4160
From: bonnie Kohleriter
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 9:55:08 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. bonnie Kohleriter
82 Partridge Ct Alamo, CA 94507-2829
From: Steven Keena
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:13:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Steven Keena
636 Hyde St San Francisco, CA 94109-7285
From: Steven Keena
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:13:35 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Steven Keena
636 Hyde St San Francisco, CA 94109-7285
From: rina Place
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:33:33 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. rina Place
2100 Miramonte Ave San Leandro, CA 94578-1563
From: Jenny Tuffnell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 10:37:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Jenny Tuffnell
292 Dartford St Hercules, CA 94547-3641
From: Lori Dawson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 11:19:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Lori Dawson
5216 Forrestgreen Ct Concord, CA 94521-3749
From: Vivien Dennis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 12:15:03 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Vivien Dennis
35170 Garcia St Union City, CA 94587-5206
From: Susannah Bruder
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:46:19 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Susannah Bruder
193 Gambier St San Francisco, CA 94134-1022
From: Monique Hopkins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:51:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Monique Hopkins
3850 San Pablo Ave Apt 318 Emeryville, CA 94608-3857
From: Nancy Joachim
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 1:57:11 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Nancy Joachim
2342 Shattuck Ave # 376 Berkeley, CA 94704-1517
From: Patty Garcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 2:53:46 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Patty Garcia
970 Vermont St Oakland, CA 94610-1665
From: Patricia Santos
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 7:08:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms Patricia Santos
361 Leo Ave San Leandro, CA 94577-2720
From: Laura Mani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 12:15:49 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Laura Mani
1007 Erica Rd Mill Valley, CA 94941-3749
From: Jess Hernandez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 8:10:35 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jess Hernandez
1684 Matheson Rd CA94521 Concord, CA 94521-2135
From: Midori Nakayama
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 7:04:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Midori Nakayama
220 Cardenas Ave San Francisco, CA 94132-2420
From: jon berg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Thursday, December 7, 2023 6:59:47 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. jon berg
2132 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
From: Helen Lahoda
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, December 8, 2023 2:36:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Miss Helen Lahoda
1080 Jones St Berkeley, CA 94710-1547
From: Jennifer Sellers
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Friday, December 15, 2023 3:33:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Nov. 21 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research–not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Nov. 21 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Jennifer Sellers
3901 Clayton Rd Apt 66 Concord, CA 94521-2531
From: Carol Strand
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:11:38 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Carol Strand
1733 Madera St Berkeley, CA 94707-2513
From: Teresa Goodman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 9:28:10 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Teresa Goodman
2209 Scott St San Francisco, CA 94115-1722
From: Jorge Becerril
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 11:44:44 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Mr. Jorge Becerril
35 Alpine Ter San Francisco, CA 94117-3166
From: Gwen Willows
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Monday, January 1, 2024 7:43:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Gwen Willows
3022 Tulare Ave Richmond, CA 94804-1150
From: Elizabeth Rust
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stand for patients - prohibit animal experiments on city property Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 4:54:28 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of item 10-B during the Alameda City Council’s Jan. 2 meeting. Neither city residents nor locals who frequently visit Alameda want animal experiments conducted in their backyard. Patients need human-relevant research – not cruel, crude animal testing.

An ordinance that prohibits animal experiments on public land would show that Alameda supports ethical, science- driven research. An enormous body of scientific evidence raises serious concerns with the continued use of animals.

And researchers are increasingly moving away from animals for testing drugs and developing treatments.

Today, 95 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. Instead, devices called tissue chips, which use cells from human organs and tissues, are proving to effectively mimic the responses found in the human body.

Pharmaceutical companies are quickly expanding their use of these modern, human-derived methods.

In disease research, the use of animals is also failing to develop suitable treatments. In 2012, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University wrote that it is “nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.” In addition, federal rules related to the welfare of animals in laboratories are weak and poorly enforced. Despite its name, the federal Animal Welfare Act allows all forms of animal experiments—including those that inflict pain.

And the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is supposed to enforce the law, has been repeatedly cited by its own inspector general for unnecessarily closing investigations and significantly reducing fines for violators.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has its own rules related to the conduct of animal experiments, but they are mostly recommendations and never appear to result in fines or other punishments—even in cases of animal deaths or severe negligence. NIH’s method of “enforcement” is written correspondence between a violating institution and the agency. NIH does not conduct animal welfare inspections.

Allowing animal experiments on public property would endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.

In contrast, prohibiting such experiments on city land would be a win for patients and animals.

Please support item 10-B during your Jan. 2 meeting.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Ms. Elizabeth Rust
1906 B Second Ave Walnut Creek, CA 94597
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: 10B
Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 8:53:47 PM
Attachments: Alemeda City Council Members.docx
From: Bonnie Kohleriter <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 8:26:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Dear Council Members, I was disappointed you were unable to hear 10B this past evening
as you and our community were involved in considering the mayor's letter regarding Gaza.

I have been concerned as well with the people of Israel and Gaza, but I am also concerned
about the many animals, about which most of us don't know, who are being tortured behind
closed doors in universities, laboratories, and private for profit facilities in this country.

Science
has developed some amazing tools recently which we can use to research new cures for humans
so that we don't need animals for testing. Science Corp wants to lease land in Alameda for
animal testing but we can and we need to move away from this kind of research without
compromising our future health. Please vote to have staff draft an ordinance wherein animal research
is prohibited on Alameda city owned or controlled property. Please read the attachment giving reasons
for this prohibition. Thank you Bonnie Kohleriter, retired science teacher and advocate for animals

TO: Alameda City Council Members
FROM: Bonnie Kohleriter
RE: Have Staff Dra� an Ordinance to Prohibit Animal Research on Alameda City Property DATE: January 3, 2024
As a former science teacher and advocate for the health and safety of animals I would like to share with you why I want you to vote to have staff dra� an ordinance to prohibit animal research on property owned or controlled by the City of Alameda. This prohibi�on would affect Science Corp who wants to lease property in the City to do animal tes�ng. 1) The United States is spending $45 Billion dollars to do animal tes�ng yearly of which approximately $ 20 billion is for primates, dogs, cats, and farm animals. 2) We have seven primate centers around the country whose condi�ons and research are being ques�oned constantly. Numerous organiza�ons are trying to shut them down. Do we need more facili�es?
3) We have recently passed the Moderniza�on Act in which drug research no longer needs to be done using animals as we now have perfected new tools that are arguably superior to the use of animals.
4) Recent studies show 90-95 % of research done using animals doesn’t translate to or hold up in human trials as animals are different than humans. 5) As a re�red science teacher much of the ongoing research using animals I have read is frankly bizarre (of ques�onable use) and the variables cannot be controlled so you cannot conclude causal outcomes.
6) A lot of the research is not transparent. It is done in secrecy behind closed doors. A lot of the research done also does not have accountability required of it. 7) Repeatedly primates are ripped from their homes and social structures (families), flown long distances in small cages without food and water, isolated in small barren cages to live out their lives, only to be taken out to be cut open, cut apart, burned, shocked, poisoned, starved, restrained, made addicted to drugs, brain damaged, and more, and in the end, killed.
8) 99% of what is done to the animals is excluded under the Animal Welfare Act. Yet the animals are forced to endure immeasurable pain.
9) We talk about liberty and jus�ce for all. We are upset when one group of humans delivers genocide to another group of humans. But we ci�zens of the United States don’t apply this thinking to the es�mated 110 million voiceless animals each year who don’t have to be tortured and killed because of the modern day tools and procedures we have developed to do research.
10) I urge you Council Members to vote for staff to dra� an ordinance that would disallow Science Corp to lease land owned or controlled by the City of Alameda. Animal tes�ng is increasingly not needed to develop cures for humans but it is difficult for researchers at this moment to give up the old ways for the new. The Council does not need to aid and abet Science Corp.

Thank you for considering my comment.

Bonnie Kohleriter