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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Robert Sweezy
Fremont, CA 94538-5124
From: Jack Zelver
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:14:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jack Zelver
Kensington, CA 94707-1336
From: Anita Watkins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:15:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anita Watkins
Oakland, CA 94611-2404
From: Elisse De Sio
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:19:59 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elisse De Sio
San Carlos, CA 94070-5009
From: Anne Tuddenham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:20:31 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Anne Tuddenham
El Cerrito, CA 94530-2550
From: Cayla Coleman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:28:13 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Cayla Coleman
San Rafael, CA 94901-2560
From: T Roth
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:30:08 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. T Roth
Dillon Beach, CA 94929
From: Roberta Stern
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:51:25 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Roberta Stern
Oakland, CA 94618-1532
From: Ray Staar
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:44:19 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Ray Staar
San Francisco, CA 94109-0209
From: Katherine Salassi
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:54:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Katherine Salassi
Sonoma, CA 95476-7518
From: John Lopez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:54:24 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. John Lopez
Vancouver, WA 98660-2817
From: cassy s
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:55:34 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. cassy s
Fairfield, CA 94534-1456
From: Alison Mink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:00:11 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Alison Mink
Dublin, CA 94568-2265
From: Mike Evans
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:19:47 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Mike Evans
Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
From: Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:16:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
Castro Valley, CA 94552-1708
From: Ruth Robertson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:20:23 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Ruth Robertson
San Francisco, CA 94114-1517
From: Leanne B.
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:30:16 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Leanne B.
Santa Rosa, CA 95401-5920
From: Alfred Kuba
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:49:58 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Alfred Kuba
Mountain View, CA 94043-3438
From: Linda Johnson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:53:23 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Linda Johnson
San Mateo, CA 94401-3658
From: Rokhsana Daghighian
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:57:45 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Rokhsana Daghighian
Foster City, CA 94404-4017
From: ray xavier
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:56:09 AM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. ray xavier
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1113
From: Claudia Bruckert
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:00:52 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Claudia Bruckert
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-1637
From: Janet Monfredini
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:04:03 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Janet Monfredini
San Francisco, CA 94127-1540
From: Julia Rinaldi
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:05:58 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Julia Rinaldi
Santa Rosa, CA 95407-6680
From: Niloofar Shambayati
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:15:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Niloofar Shambayati
Berkeley, CA 94707-2407
From: Marcella Schantz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:17:23 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Marcella Schantz
Castro Valley, CA 94546-2514
From: SUSAN LOUIE
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:18:50 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
SUSAN LOUIE
Berkeley, CA 94707-0605
From: Annette Benton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:36:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Annette Benton
Pittsburg, CA 94565-2293
From: J Young
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:25:09 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
J Young
Alameda, CA 94502-6441
From: norma campbell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:39:51 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. norma campbell
Campbell, CA 95008-2424
From: Barbara Mason
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:44:01 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Barbara Mason
Campbell, CA 95008-5903
From: Sarah Kim
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:41:13 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Sarah Kim
Santa Clara, CA 95051-0950
From: Cyndi Sood-Parker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:59:40 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Cyndi Sood-Parker
Castro Valley, CA 94546-2346
From: Deborah Temple
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:55:32 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Deborah Temple
San Rafael, CA 94901-1708
From: Connie Devine
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:11:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs Connie Devine
Yerington, NV 89447-2130
From: Stephanie Clark
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:18:58 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Stephanie Clark
Concord, CA 94520-4050
From: Tem Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:14:24 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Tem Narvios
San Francisco, CA 94134-2756
From: Dian Hardy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:22:05 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dian Hardy
Sebastopol, CA 95472-3567
From: Lisa Tichenor
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:27:31 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lisa Tichenor
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-3716
From: Cynthia Hellmuth
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:27:42 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Cynthia Hellmuth
Benicia, CA 94510-3142
From: Mona Tichenor
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:28:06 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mona Tichenor
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-3716
From: John Thompson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:28:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Thompson
Sarasota, FL 34239-6719
From: Lisa Tichenor
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:28:36 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Lisa Tichenor
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-3716
From: Candi Ausman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:48:39 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Candi Ausman
Fremont, CA 94536-3420
From: Linda Waldroup
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:33:02 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Linda Waldroup
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-3001
From: Ann M
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:51:56 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Ann M
Berkeley, CA 94705-1955
From: Cindi Goldberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:57:17 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Cindi Goldberg
Berkeley, CA 94702-1144
From: Tim Bickel
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:59:35 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Tim Bickel
San Mateo, CA 94403-5572
From: Eileen Harrington
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:15:53 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Eileen Harrington
Napa, CA 94559-4730
From: Kendra Knight
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:26:48 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Kendra Knight
Burlingame, CA 94010-3643
From: L Haage
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:24:47 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms L Haage
Oakland, CA 94618-1224
From: Shannon Montoya
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:51:35 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Shannon Montoya
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2308
From: Margery Gray
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:51:10 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Margery Gray
San Francisco, CA 94116-1829
From: Christie Decker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:58:55 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Christie Decker
San Francisco, CA 94109-7363
From: Zoe Novic
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:19:59 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Zoe Novic
Berkeley, CA 94708-1349
From: PAUL BABBINI
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:11:01 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. PAUL BABBINI
Santa Rosa, CA 95401-5419
From: Sharon Budde
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:47:49 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Sharon Budde
Concord, CA 94521-5005
From: Merry Bates
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:40:44 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Merry Bates
Oakland, CA 94619-1408
From: Joseph Allman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:00:18 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Joseph Allman
San Francisco, CA 94108-3171
From: Myrna Cohen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 3:54:02 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Myrna Cohen
San Jose, CA 95124-2831
From: Sandi Covell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:29:26 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Sandi Covell
Daly City, CA 94015-4003
From: Christina Gill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:14:11 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Christina Gill
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-4906
From: Carla Cabral
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:32:37 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Carla Cabral
Martinez, CA 94553-8833
From: Deborah Riggins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:36:34 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Deborah Riggins
Sonoma, CA 95476-8171
From: Igor Makasyuk
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:41:50 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Igor Makasyuk
Palo Alto, CA 94306-4481
From: Marsha Armstrong
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:19:27 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marsha Armstrong
Monte Sereno, CA 95030-2220
From: Susan Urang
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:53:52 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Susan Urang
San Jose, CA 95126-3217
From: AJ Cho
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:59:05 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mx AJ Cho
San Leandro, CA 94579-1963
From: Myrna Cohen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:22:54 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Myrna Cohen
San Jose, CA 95124-2831
From: Sheila Dixon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:10:29 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Sheila Dixon
Concord, CA 94521-3546
From: Yonatan Naamad
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:30:31 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Yonatan Naamad
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-6542
From: Dorothy Pasquinelli
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:57:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Dorothy Pasquinelli
El Granada, CA 94018-2827
From: Phoenix Giffen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:55:51 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Phoenix Giffen
Petaluma, CA 94952-2654
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:04:30 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Jan Jones
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Dorothy Pasquinelli
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:57:41 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Dorothy Pasquinelli
El Granada, CA 94018-2827
From: Phoenix Giffen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:55:51 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Phoenix Giffen
Petaluma, CA 94952-2654
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:04:30 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms Jan Jones
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Meghana Gadgil
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:39:15 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr Meghana Gadgil
Berkeley, CA 94709-1405
From: Elanor Sue
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:04:38 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elanor Sue
Oakland, CA 94606-5146
From: Greg Rosas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:17:08 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mr. Greg Rosas
Castro Valley, CA 94546-3653
From: E Edwards
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:25:34 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. E Edwards
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-1309
From: LAUREN SCHIFFMAN
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:32:02 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. LAUREN SCHIFFMAN
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1331
From: sandy goulart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:38:11 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Miss sandy goulart
San Jose, CA 95148-1236
From: Russell Stone
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:44:04 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Dr. Russell Stone
San Jose, CA 95148-3209
From: Edie Bruce
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:23:12 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Ms. Edie Bruce
El Cerrito, CA 94530-2512
From: Raquel Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:06:55 PM
Dear City Clerk Lara Weisiger,
As a local resident, I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Animal Testing Ban Option A during the Alameda City Council’s April 16 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 Animal Testing Ban Option A.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Raquel Narvios
San Francisco, CA 94134-2756