From: Aracely Campa
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CLS Animal Testing Letter
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:09:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png
CLS - Alameda Animal Testing Ordinance Final.pdf
ARACELY CAMPA RAMIREZ
Senior Director, State Government Relations
1201 K Street, Suite 1010
Sacramento, CA 95814
M 916.508.7115
califesciences.org
WASHINGTON, DC
1100 H Street, NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20005
P 202 743 7566
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
685 Gateway Blvd. Suite 100
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P 650 871 3250
SACRAMENTO
1201 K Street, Suite 1010
Sacramento, CA 95814
P 916 226 9957
SAN DIEGO
4242 Campus Point Court, Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92121
P 858 551 6677
LOS ANGELES
4130 Overland Ave.
Culver City, CA 90230
P 858 551 6677
califesciences.org
April 16th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions (Item 7B)
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of the life sciences community, we oppose any attempts to regulate animal testing in the Life Sciences industry because it poses a critical problem for life-saving drug development and life sciences research.
In Alameda County, the life science industry is an economic engine – employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000. The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and 11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, approximately one-third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants and administrative staff.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the Life Sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. The creation of regulatory barriers directly conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and with the ability of this sector to grow in Alameda.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of Research and Development for the life sciences sector. For decades, our industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged, including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies, there are still Federal regulatory requirements our industry must meet.
califesciences.org
When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community. Many of these companies are “born” here, and they want to remain committed, thoughtful leaders and be a company this community is proud to have in its neighborhood. Although initially, a company may not conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of Federal approval.
This industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies. To ensure this sector can thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Council to consider these factors before implementing limitations surrounding the use of city-managed properties to understand the implications better.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Sam Chung
Vice President, State Government Relations
California Life Sciences
cc: Members, Alameda City Council
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 6:04:19 PM
Attachments: SAB Letter - Alameda Animal Testing 041524[43].docx.pdf From: Peter Emtage <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:54:44 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions To whom it may concern, attached please find a letter opposing any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry. Best, Peter Emtage, CEO Santa Ana Bio
Peter Emtage, Ph.D.
CEO
Santa Ana Bio
1105 Atlantic Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
April 15th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of the employees of Santa Ana Bio and the life sciences community, we oppose any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry because it poses a critical problem for life-saving drug development, life sciences research, and Alameda’s economic health.
In Alameda County, the life sciences industry is an economic engine – employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000.
The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and 11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021.
Additionally, approximately one-third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants
and administrative staff.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the life sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. The creation of regulatory barriers directly conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and with the ability of this sector to grow in Alameda.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of research and development for the life sciences sector. For decades, the life sciences industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged – including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and DocuSign Envelope ID: FE354729-96F5-4E8F-82B5-762D0351C194 organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies – there are still federal regulatory requirements the life sciences industry must meet.
When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community. Many of these companies are “born” here, and they want to remain committed, thoughtful leaders and be a company this community is proud to have in its neighborhood. Although not all life sciences companies initially conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of federal approval.
This industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies.
To ensure this sector can thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Council to consider these factors before implementing limitations surrounding the use of city-managed properties to understand the implications better.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or the address above.
Best regards,
Peter Emtage, Ph.D.
CEO
Santa Ana Bio
1105 Atlantic Ave, Suite 104
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 858-705-2660
DocuSign Envelope ID: FE354729-96F5-4E8F-82B5-762D0351C194
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Animal research ban
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:44:48 PM
Attachments: 4-16-24 AR ban.pdf
From: Janet Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:20:36 PM
To: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Animal research ban
Sent from my iPad
Dear Councilmember,
I urge a vote to ban animal research on city owned
property. Rather than individually banning companies, such as Science Corp, a blanket ban makes sense. If the biotech industry takes hold on the former naval base, inevitably there will be monkey and dog labs, and an endless stream of
animal research.
Alameda could make a progressive statement of values
and move science forward at the same time.
Much improvement in needed in the health care industry.
Our diseases are not cured, prevented, or even well
understood. There is much money to be made off of how sick Americans are, often battling multiple chronic diseases.
Animal research has been a component, reducing liability for big pharma, of this system. A bottle of pills to mask your symptoms and it is left to the patient to try and figure out how to restore yourself to health.
To truly have an effective health care system would mean concentrating efforts, and studying disease, in humans. If one is sick, one fights for a few minutes with a doctor, rarely has genetic testing, has to pay for laboratory tests of any kind.
One has to try and get oneself into clinical trials, which is often impossible. A true health care system would mean
epidemiological studies, and clinical study of humans. Finding out why we get our chronic diseases and how to cure and prevent them.
Alameda has a chance, with the ban, to apply mounting
pressure to move scientific research forward to a time when human disease is cured, not just profited from. Companies will find other ways to bring their drugs and devices to market, and they will be less harmful and perhaps even human
relevant. Artificially creating disease in animals and profiting from it, has not resulted in human health.
Sincerely,
Janet Davis
From: Foust, Rebecca @ Pleasanton
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Jay Atkinson; Millado, Matt @ Dublin; Montblanc, Stormy @ Alameda Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council - Animal Testing Ban Response Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:23:50 PM
Attachments: City of Alameda Animal Testing_City Council Response_04162024.pdf Good evening,
On behalf of Paceline Investors, please see the attached letter response from Paceline Investors regarding the City of Alameda Animal Testing Ban.
Thank you.
Rebecca Foust (She/Her)
Associate Director | Lic. 01888005
CBRE | Property Management
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 300 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T +1 925 251 4646 | C +1 714 290 9062
[email protected]
Follow CBRE: CBRE.com | LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Weibo | WeChat
Details about the personal data CBRE collects and why, as well as your data privacy rights under applicable law, are available at CBRE – Privacy Policy.
April 16th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of Paceline Investors and the life sciences economic community, we oppose any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry because it poses a critical problem for life-saving drug development, life sciences research, and Alameda’s economic health.
In Alameda County, the life sciences industry is an economic engine – employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000. The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and
11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, approximately one-third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants and administrative staff.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the life sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. The creation of regulatory barriers directly conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and with the ability of this sector to grow in Alameda.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of research and development for the life sciences sector. For decades, the life sciences industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged – including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies – there are still federal regulatory requirements the life sciences industry must meet.
When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of
all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community. Many of these companies are “born” here, and they want to remain committed, thoughtful leaders and be a company this community is proud to have in its neighborhood. Although not all life sciences companies initially conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of federal approval.
This industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies. To ensure this sector can thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Council to consider these factors before implementing limitations surrounding the use of city-managed properties to understand the implications better.
Sincerely,
Paceline Investors
Radius at Harbor Bay
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Importance of Animal Research and Testing Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:18:14 PM
From: Robert F Phalen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:13:31 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Importance of Animal Research and Testing Dear Trish Herrera Spencer, Council Member, Alameda,
As a Clinical Professor of Medicine at UC Irvine I have seen the important contributions of human and animal research and testing to the treatment and prevention of disease and injury. Without the animal contributions, cures and relief of suffering would not advance.
I urge you and your colleagues to not curb animal research and testing. These activities are tightly regulated and are not frivolous
Most Sincerely
Robert F. Phalen, PhD
Professor of Medicine, and Public Health
U.C. Irvine
From: Arthur Salmon
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback on upcoming Proposed City ordinance 7-B Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:10:10 PM
Attachments: Outlook-vrk3i5cq.png
Alameda City Council; Proposed Ordinance 7B_Letter in Opposition_Spectrum Project Management_240416.pdf Please see attached for the upcoming meeting this evening thanks in advance
Arthur and the Spectrum Team
Arthur Salmon
Principal
510.507.2717 [mobile]
ACCOUNTABILITY | ADVOCACY | FLEXIBILITY | TEAMWORK
SPECTRUM PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP
2659 SPRING STREET
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063
11 April 2024 Re: Proposed City Ordinance 7-B; Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 7-9.9 (Animal Testing Ban) to Article 7-9 (General Provisions) of Chapter VII (Animal Control) to Prohibit Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda in its Proprietary Capacity. (City Attorney’s Office 10023040) Dear Alameda City Council; I am writing to express my support for the continuation of animal testing within the rapidly growing Alameda Biotech community. While I understand there are concerns surrounding this practice, I firmly believe that it plays a crucial role in advancing basic scientific research and in continuing the growth and development of the scientific community in Bay Farm Island and beyond. First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge the ethical considerations of animal testing. As a society, we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect, minimizing their suffering to the greatest extent possible. It is essential to recognize that animal testing is subject to strict regulations and oversight to ensure that it is conducted in the most humane manner possible. These strict guidelines apply to every jurisdiction, not just Alameda, and are regulated at Local, State and Federal levels as well as being guided by moral and ethical principles. Animal testing takes many forms. Many discovery-oriented, early-stage Biotech companies use well-established protocols on model organisms such as rats and mice. Other more established companies use animal testing to further drug and product development while others use terminal experiments to confirm efficacy during drug development. Much of the negative public opinion of animal testing stems from the testing and development of cosmetics – admittedly a practice that most moral and ethical scientists find distasteful. The issue before the Alameda Planning Commission is a blanket ruling on all animal testing, which is not conducive to basic scientific research, early-stage scientific drug discovery, and the continued growth of Alameda’s burgeoning life science community. The surrounding communities of South San Francisco, San Francisco, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, and the Tri-Valley area are home to thousands of Biotech and R&D companies, many of which require some sort of animal testing to further their scientific goals. A blanket ban on animal testing in Alameda would mean many of our existing companies and community members would simply pull out of Alameda,
significantly reducing the appeal of Alameda for the entire industry as a whole, not just companies who are actively performing animal testing. This represents a loss of tax revenue, a loss of community, and a loss of a huge growth market for the historically underdeveloped Bay Farm Island area.
As a Scientist, a nd Project Manager intimately involved in the development of the Bay Farm Biotech community, and a member of the Life Science community, I strongly urge you NOT to vote on this sweeping and misguided legislation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Arthur Salmon
Principle
Spectrum Project Management
11 April 2024 Re: Proposed City Ordinance 7-B; Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 7-9.9 (Animal Testing Ban) to Article 7-9 (General Provisions) of Chapter VII (Animal Control) to Prohibit Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda in its Proprietary Capacity. (City Attorney’s Office 10023040) Dear Alameda City Council; I am writing to express my support for the continuation of animal testing within the rapidly growing Alameda Biotech community. While I understand there are concerns surrounding this practice, I firmly believe that it plays a crucial role in advancing basic scientific research and in continuing the growth and development of the scientific community in Bay Farm Island and beyond. First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge the ethical considerations of animal testing. As a society, we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect, minimizing their suffering to the greatest extent possible. It is essential to recognize that animal testing is subject to strict regulations and oversight to ensure that it is conducted in the most humane manner possible. These strict guidelines apply to every jurisdiction, not just Alameda, and are regulated at Local, State and Federal levels as well as being guided by moral and ethical principles. Animal testing takes many forms. Many discovery-oriented, early-stage Biotech companies use well-established protocols on model organisms such as rats and mice. Other more established companies use animal testing to further drug and product development while others use terminal experiments to confirm efficacy during drug development. Much of the negative public opinion of animal testing stems from the testing and development of cosmetics – admittedly a practice that most moral and ethical scientists find distasteful. The issue before the Alameda Planning Commission is a blanket ruling on all animal testing, which is not conducive to basic scientific research, early-stage scientific drug discovery, and the continued growth of Alameda’s burgeoning life science community. The surrounding communities of South San Francisco, San Francisco, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, and the Tri-Valley area are home to thousands of Biotech and R&D companies, many of which require some sort of animal testing to further their scientific goals. A blanket ban on animal testing in Alameda would mean many of our existing companies and community members would simply pull out of Alameda,
significantly reducing the appeal of Alameda for the entire industry as a whole, not just companies who are actively performing animal testing. This represents a loss of tax revenue, a loss of community, and a loss of a huge growth market for the historically underdeveloped Bay Farm Island area.
As a Scientist, a nd Project Manager intimately involved in the development of the Bay Farm Biotech community, and a member of the Life Science community, I strongly urge you NOT to vote on this sweeping and misguided legislation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Arthur Salmon
Principle
Spectrum Project Management
From: Arthur Salmon
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback on upcoming Proposed City ordinance 7-B Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:10:09 PM
Attachments: Outlook-vrk3i5cq.png
Alameda City Council; Proposed Ordinance 7B_Letter in Opposition_Spectrum Project Management_240416.pdf Please see attached for the upcoming meeting this evening thanks in advance
Arthur and the Spectrum Team
Arthur Salmon
Principal
510.507.2717 [mobile]
ACCOUNTABILITY | ADVOCACY | FLEXIBILITY | TEAMWORK
SPECTRUM PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP
2659 SPRING STREET
REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063
From: Baiter, Stephen, East Bay EDA
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Meeting Agenda - April 16, 2024 - Item 7-B Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:02:59 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
City of Alameda Life Sciences Animal Testing April 2024.pdf Dear City of Alameda:
The East Bay Economic Development Alliance (East Bay EDA) is submitting the attached letter regarding tonight’s agenda
item 7-B regarding the “Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 7-9.9 (Animal Testing Ban) to Article 7-9 (General Provisions) of Chapter VII (Animal Control) to Prohibit Animal Testing City of Alameda Page 7 Printed on 4/16/2024 City Council Meeting Agenda April 16, 2024 and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda in its Proprietary Capacity. (City Attorney’s Office 10023040)”
We appreciate your acknowledgement of this to the public record for this item.
Sincerely,
Stephen Baiter
Executive Director
Phone: 510.272.3874
Cell: 510.679.7911
Email: [email protected]
linktr.ee/eastbayeda
Sign up for our newsletter
April 16, 2024
Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Alameda City Councilmembers:
The East Bay Economic Development Alliance (East Bay EDA) is writing to oppose efforts t o overregulate animal testing in the life sciences industry within city boundaries because it poses a critical problem for life-saving drug development, life sciences research, and Alameda’s economic health. For more than 30 years, East Bay EDA has brought together top leaders from business, economic development, education, labor, local government, philanthropy, research, and other key sectors to serve as the regional voice and networking resource for strengthening the economy, building the work force and enhancing the quality of life in the East Bay.
While our organization has frequently remained on the sidelines about issues affecting individual East Bay cities, we believe this issue has larger implications for the region and therefore could not allow it to be left unaddressed. The life sciences industry is an economic engine in Alameda County, employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000. The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and 11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, approximately one- third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants and administrative staff. For these and other reasons, we believe that the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan appropriately identified the life sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. A vote by the city’s elected leaders to create additional local regulatory barriers on this industry conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and will stymie the future growth of this sector in Alameda.
The life sciences industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies. The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of research and development for this sector. For decades, the life sciences industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged – including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies – there are still federal regulatory requirements the life sciences industry must meet. When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as ma ndated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community : many of these companies started and are growing here, employing people locally and from across the region. Although not all life sciences companies initially conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of federal approval. To ensure this sector can thrive in this community without unnecessary local constraints, we ask the Council to respectfully consider these factors before implementing limitations on the use of city-managed properties to understand the implications better.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 272-3874 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Stephen Baiter
Executive Director
From: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Jennifer Ott
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Ban on Animal Testing
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:40:11 AM
From: Frank Matarrese <[email protected]>
Date: April 16, 2024 at 7:13:46 AM PDT
To:
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ban on Animal Testing
Hello Marilyn,
I hope you and your family are doing well! It’s been a while. I’ve only marginally follow what’s going on in Alameda, but came across a proposed ban on animal testing property owner controlled by the City of Alameda. I’m assuming that a potential tenant at the base is interested in doing animal testing. As I haven’t read the whole report.
having spent my working career in medical product development and manufacturing and having worked in and run an animal facility early in my career, I there are layers of regulations and oversight meant to prevent animal abuse and inhumane treatment. The FDA recently listed requirements for animal testing in new drug products, and allowing for in vitro testing as a replacement, animal testing remains as critical for new drugs. We would not have had a safe COVID-19 vaccine without animal testing.
I understand the concern about animal testing and I believe that science will eventually lessen or eliminate the need for animal testing a new drug development but I would not support a ban on animal testing during this period of transition from animal base testing to in vitro testing methods.
I believe that the ban proposed for Alameda would only serve to reduce Alameda’s chances of being home to potentially cutting edge science because there is no FDA ban and companies including innovate startups could easily find other places to locate.
I hope you consider this and again I hope all is well with you.
Frank
From: Francesca at A.R.M. Team
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council meeting April 16. 2024 Animal testing ban on City property Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 8:59:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Following my prior communications (excerpt below) I'm writing now to respectfully urge you to support a ban on animal testing on City properties and vote for ORDINANCE OPTION ‘A’, thus echoing the sentiments of a majority of Alameda residents.
___Excerpt from prior communication (…with heartfelt thanks for hearing us!) As a resident of Alameda since 1987 and properties owner, please count me in as a vehement opponent to SCIENCE CORP becoming a tenant of our city. My stance and that of many other residents is that we cannot for the sake of a few revenue dollars into the city’s coffers, silence our humanity.
Can you picture yourself here?
Monkeys and other “experimentally desirable” animals are SENTIENT beings that feel pain, anguish, and terror just like you and me. ____
It is serendipitous that such a momentous decision is before our elected officials just as science is moving away from animal live testing, and Congress has taken the unprecedent step of passing a bill effective 2024 which no longer requires animal testing for drugs. This significant position speaks volume despite the millions invested in the breeding, stocking, and maintenance of these lab animals, who until now have been destined to a government-sanctioned atrocious life and a cruel death as the only escape.
Alameda is positioned to become part of this honorable movement, having the advantage of a platform that can support and market city owned spaces to non- animal testing facilities.
Once known for its naval base and now viewed as a safe and clean enclave, our city holds the unique opportunity to craft a new marketable identity with ingenious branding and become known as the little city with the big heart.
Respectfully,
Francesca Battani Strucksberg
137 Parfait Lane
Alameda 94502
Y
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Animal Testing Ordinance – File No.: 2024-3896 Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:34:02 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Alameda City File No. 2024-3896 - CCCC Comments.pdf
From: Alex Khan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:48:33 PM
To: Alex Khan <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Animal Testing Ordinance – File No.: 2024-3896 Dear Honorable Councilmember,
Please accept the attached letter regarding the proposed animal testing ordinance, submitted on behalf of the California Chronic Care Coalition.
Should you have any questions in this regard, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Best regards,
Alex Khan
Policy Counsel
California Chronic Care Coalition
(916) 300-5179
www.californiachroniccare.org
1001 K Street, 6th Floor ♦ Sacramento, CA 95814 ♦ 916 444-1985 ♦ @CAChronicCare CaliforniaChronicCare.org ♦ MyPatientRights.org ♦ ObesityAlliance.org ♦ YourVaccinationGuide.org
April 15th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Animal Testing Ordinance – File No.: 2024-3896
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of the California Chronic Care Coalition and the millions of patients for whom we advocate, we support the inclusion of a reasonable exemption to the proposed animal testing prohibition to read:
“No person shall engage in or permit animal testing or experimentation on any property owned or controlled by the City of Alameda in its proprietary capacity. with the exception of any property owned or controlled by the City of Alameda in its proprietary capacity and zoned AP- E1 (Enterprise-1), AP-E2 (Enterprise-2), AP-E3 (Enterprise-3) or AP-E4 (Enterprise-4), where animal testing or experimentation may be performed as part of research related to anticipated or actual United States Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Environmental Protection Agency or other regulatory filings related to human or animal therapeutics, vaccines, devices and parasiticides.”
CCCC is a unique alliance of more than 30 leading consumer health organizations, including physician and provider groups representing Californians living with chronic conditions. We advise and p romote the collaborative work of policy makers, industry leaders, and patient -centered stakeholders emphasizing access to affordable, quality healthcare focusing on all levels of prevention, coordinated care, and the wellness and longevity of patients.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products is not only heavily-regulated by the federal government—it is also a critical component of the medical research that unlocks new treatments and improves quality of life for millions of Californians and patients throughout the world. For decades, scientists have worked to significantly reduce and replace animal use in their research whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged—including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies— animal testing remains a necessary component of the medical research that patients rely on.
When researchers cannot eliminate the use of all animals in their research, they follow rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals, including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
1001 K Street, 6th Floor ♦ Sacramento, CA 95814 ♦ 916 444-1985 ♦ @CAChronicCare CaliforniaChronicCare.org ♦ MyPatientRights.org ♦ ObesityAlliance.org ♦ YourVaccinationGuide.org
To ensure life-saving medical research continues to thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Alameda City Council to consider these factors before implementing restrictions for animal research on city-managed properties.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Alex Khan, Senior Policy Counsel, at [email protected] or (916) 701-8999.
Sincerely,
Liz Helms
President & CEO
California Chronic Care Coalition
From: Donna Fletcher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger; Jennifer Ott Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4/16 City Council Agenda Item, 7B regarding Animal Testing Ban Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:11:20 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am so happy to see the Animal Testing Ban amendment come before you at tomorrow night's City Council Meeting. I'm writing today to add my voice to others who are asking for your support of this ban--Yes, on Ordinance Option A! As I've learned, testing science is moving away from animal lab testing. And Congress recently passed a bill, effective this year, that no longer requires animal testing for medicinal drugs. I would like to see our show this same leadership on the issue, consistent with our reputation and policy decisions as a compassionate community that doesn't shy away from taking a stand for its values.
Please approve the amendment to Article 7-9 of Chapter VII of the Municipal Code to Prohibit Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda.
Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Donna FLetcher
112 Centre Court
From: Peter Emtage
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:54:44 PM
Attachments: SAB Letter - Alameda Animal Testing 041524[43].docx.pdf To whom it may concern, attached please find a letter opposing any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry. Best, Peter Emtage, CEO Santa Ana Bio
Peter Emtage, Ph.D.
CEO
Santa Ana Bio
1105 Atlantic Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
April 15th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of the employees of Santa Ana Bio and the life sciences community, we oppose any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry because it poses a critical problem for life-saving drug development, life sciences research, and Alameda’s economic health.
In Alameda County, the life sciences industry is an economic engine – employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000.
The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and 11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021.
Additionally, approximately one-third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants
and administrative staff.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the life sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. The creation of regulatory barriers directly conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and with the ability of this sector to grow in Alameda.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of research and development for the life sciences sector. For decades, the life sciences industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged – including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and DocuSign Envelope ID: FE354729-96F5-4E8F-82B5-762D0351C194 organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies – there are still federal regulatory requirements the life sciences industry must meet.
When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community. Many of these companies are “born” here, and they want to remain committed, thoughtful leaders and be a company this community is proud to have in its neighborhood. Although not all life sciences companies initially conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of federal approval.
This industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies.
To ensure this sector can thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Council to consider these factors before implementing limitations surrounding the use of city-managed properties to understand the implications better.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or the address above.
Best regards,
Peter Emtage, Ph.D.
CEO
Santa Ana Bio
1105 Atlantic Ave, Suite 104
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 858-705-2660
DocuSign Envelope ID: FE354729-96F5-4E8F-82B5-762D0351C194
From: Matt Regan
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B animal testing
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 4:40:30 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Alameda Life Sciences Letter.pdf
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Council,
Please find attached the Bay Area Council’s letter of opposition to Item 7B on the Agenda for tomorrow’s Council Meeting.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions,
regards
Matt Regan
Senior Vice President
Phone: 415 298 0330
The Klamath Pier 9, The Embarcadero, San Francisco
www.bayareacouncil.org
April 16th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
The Bay Area Council is a 78 year-old employer sponsored public policy organization representing over 300 of the San Francisco Bay Area’s largest employers. We work on our region’s most pressing issues; transportation, health, housing affordability, climate change, social equity, and water, and our mission is to maintain this region’s economic vitality in a sustainable and equitable manner.
We respectfully oppose item 7B before you at Council on April 16; the misguided attempt to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry. Should it move forward, it would pose a critical problem for life-saving drug development, life sciences research, medical device development as well as Alameda’s economic health and position of international prominence in the life science industry.
In Alameda County, the life sciences industry is an economic engine – employing nearly 28,000 people with an average annual income of approximately $165,000. The life sciences research, testing, and medical laboratories sector saw a 15% growth in average wage and 11.4 % growth in employment from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, approximately one-third of California’s life sciences jobs do not require a college degree, including lab assistants and administrative staff and Community Colleges across the East Bay have tailored classes to prepare students for careers in the industry.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the life sciences sector as one of the six key industries for future growth. The creation of regulatory barriers directly conflicts with the City’s Economic Development Strategies Plan and with the ability of this sector to grow in Alameda.
The use of animal testing for drugs, medical devices, vaccines, and chemical development products has been heavily discussed and is a critical component of research and development for the life sciences sector. For decades, the life sciences industry has worked to significantly reduce or replace animal use in new therapies whenever possible and refine the methods and treatment of animals. Although new technologies have emerged – including AI, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoid technologies as alternatives to animal studies – there are still federal regulatory requirements the life sciences industry must meet.
When the industry cannot eliminate the use of all animals in research, it adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, USDA Regulations, and voluntary accreditation bodies such as the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.
Alameda’s life sciences industry is invested in this community. Many of these companies are “born” here, and they want to remain committed, thoughtful leaders and be a company this community is proud to have in its neighborhood. Although not all life sciences companies initially conduct animal testing, it is critically important to be available as an option, if required, as a condition of federal approval. Companies here are at the forefront of gene therapy and other scientific breakthroughs that are curing diseases and improving the lives of cancer patients, people living with diabetes, HIV, depression, and countless other ailments.
This industry improves lives with its cutting-edge, innovative, life-saving therapies. To ensure this sector can thrive in this community, we respectfully ask the Council to consider these factors before implementing limitations surrounding the use of city- managed properties to understand the implications better.
Matt Regan
Senior Vice President Public Policy
Bay Area Council
From: Aycock-Williams, Ari
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Cc: CityCouncil-List; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ordinance on banning animal testing Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:42:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
letter to Ashcraft.pdf
/15/24
From: Dr. Ari Aycock-Williams, Veterinarian
To: Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Sciences Animal Testing Ordinance
Dear Mayor Ashcraft :
I want to register my opposition to the pending Ordinance to restrict the use of animal models in biomedical research in Alameda. Such a ban on animals would delay and possible block life-saving drug development and medical device innovation that not only Alameda residents need, but citizens of the State, the Nation, and the World. California is the leader in biomedical research and the critical research process we call “Benchtop to Bedside” - the discovery, development, testing, clinical trials, and eventual approval by the FDA, benefiting countless human and animal patients. The role animal models play in drug, medical device, and vaccine development is not only heavily regulated by the federal and state laws and regulations, governing principles, and international treaties, it remains critical not for ease or lack of innovation, but because of scientific necessity and requirements of regulatory agencies.
For decades, scientists have worked to significantly reduce, refine, and replace animal use in research. We call these “The 3Rs”, and this process has proven to be and continues as a successful endeavor. Alternatives to animal models are regularly and enthusiastically used and sought whenever possible. However, some research needs to progress to a whole, living system as a necessary component of the biomedical research process to ensure efficacy and safety to all patients.
Research with animal models only begins after investigation of past research to eliminate duplication, refining research protocols with a close eye to animal welfare, reducing the number of animals needed, and replacing animal models wherever possible, and the approval of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, as mandated by the federal Animal Welfare Act. Researchers are strong advocates of animal welfare and are rigorous in developing and following ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) as mandated by the Animal Welfare Act, the NIH, the standards set by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and seeking voluntary accreditation such as that of the AAALAC International (formerly Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care), the gold standard of animal care.
To ensure life-saving medical research continues to thrive in this community, I respectfully ask you to support research, and decline to approve the proposed Ordinance before the Alameda City Council to implement restrictions for animal research on city-managed properties.
Human and animal patients require biomedical research, and biomedical research still requires animal models of research. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ari Aycock-Williams DVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ari Aycock-Williams D.V.M. D.A.C.L.A.M
(She/Her/Hers)
Executive Director
Department of Animal Resources
University of Southern California
(323)442-1689
From: Reyla Graber
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Lara Weisiger; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 7B So Many Options? Please vote for Option A.
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 2:28:18 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Firstly I support the animal testing ban and option A before you this evening, Agenda item 7B. I urge you to pass it.
Secondly, I have concerns and I hope some of you do also about the fact that 7B and the proposed ban now includes 2 options.
Why? Or perhaps the question is- How?
A brief history of this issue, shows that it took literally months, after being submitted by 2 Council Members, Trish Spencer and Malia Vella, to be finally heard by the Council and voted upon by a yes vote 3 to 2.
The issue then passed to Staff to prepare appropriate legislative words which would ban animal testing on all city
properties. That was extent of what was voted upon by Council. Period.
However, Staff has now prepared a report which includes not only the legislative wording for option A(which the Council was voted upon) but also an "Option B".
How could this legally or ethically or policy wise be approriate? Do you really think so?
Please, will you think about this process and what has happened here? Why should it take months and months and 2 Council members for the issue to be heard, and now in the space of
1/1/2 months the Staff come up with option B which negates everything achieved in Option A.
Perportedly a Council Member raised this idea to Staff. Well, so what? If this Council Member is in favor of another
option, why doesn't she or he raise it at 4/16/ council meeting? She or he had time to think about it beforehand.
Or raise the question tomorrow evening on 4/16
Why is it appropriate or proper for one council member ( not 2 as initially required) to place a second
option B out there through staff?
If Council Members have the individual right to screw things up on an adhoc basis, getting Staff involved and coming up belatedly with an option B-- Then may I, as a long time Alameda resident, with hundreds of supporting residents, now present Option C :
Option C would ban animal testing throughout all of Alameda.
And yes, after all that has gone on before, I do feel that Option C should also be presented on 4/16.
However, if you can't entertain my Option C for one reason or another, then I do urge you to vote for the original option, Option A.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
From: Brian Warren
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] File #2024-3896, Animal Testing, Letter of Opposition Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:50:49 AM
Attachments: City of Alameda Letter 04.15.24.pdf
Good morning Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members:
Please fine the attached letter expressing our opposition to File #2024-3896, related to animal testing on city owned or controlled property, included on the April 16, 2024, City Council agenda. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian Warren
Senior Director, State Government Affairs
—
Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO)
1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite #1300
Washington, DC 20005
—
916.606.8016 mobile
—
bio.org
Biotechnology Innovation Organization 1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite #1300 Washington, DC, 20005 202-962-9200 April 15, 2024 The Honorable Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Mayor, City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members: On behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), I write to express our opposition to file number 2024-3896 on your April 16, 2024, agenda, a proposed ordinance that would prohibit biotechnology research and development using animal testing methods on property owned or controlled by the City of Alameda. We acknowledge the goal of reducing or eliminating the need for animal testing in research, however no alternative currently exists that could replace animal testing in the research processes necessary to bring innovative biotechnology products to patients. This ordinance would therefore not stop animal testing; it would merely deter innovative biotechnology companies from basing their operations in Alameda. BIO is the world’s largest advocacy association representing member companies, state biotechnology groups, academic and research institutions, and related organizations across the United States and in 30+ countries. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. Modern biotechnology provides breakthrough products and technologies to combat debilitating diseases. Innovative medicines and cures help people lead longer, healthier lives and positively impact society by providing economic value far beyond their cost. To ensure these transformative therapies get to the people who need them, BIO is committed to advancing policies that foster innovation, fuel investment and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that has made America the global leader in this cutting-edge field. Progress has been made to increase use of alternative testing methods that do not use live animals for research purposes. However, animal testing remains a necessary part of biomedical research. Animals are used to understand disease mechanisms and in drug development. Animal testing also remains necessary in identifying promising compounds and assessing their efficacy in treating various diseases and conditions. Finally, before a potential therapy is administered to humans, animals are used to assess the potential toxicity and side effects of these substances. Alternative testing methods have successfully allowed researchers to reduce animal testing, but the complex biological processes in humans and other animals have not yet been replicated in alternative methods. In vitro (cell culture) and in silico (computer modeling) techniques often simplify biological systems, which can limit their ability to capture the complexity of interactions within living organisms. Biological processes in animals are highly intricate and dynamic, making it challenging to fully replicate them in a laboratory setting. Use of live animals provide the only whole-body response to potential therapies, allowing researchers to assess systemic effects, metabolism, and interactions with various organs and tissues. In vitro models typically focus on specific cell types or tissues, which may not fully represent the integrated response of an entire organism. Lastly, while in vitro and in silico models can provide valuable insights into drug behavior and toxicity, they may not always accurately predict how drugs will behave in a live organism. Progress in the development and use of alternative testing methods led to changes in federal law that open the door to a future without the need for animal testing. However, the federal Food and Drug Administration has not yet finalized regulations or provided guidance for approval of drugs or biologics using alternative testing methods. At this time, animal testing provides the only viable option for the research and development that bring new therapies to patients. We respect the animals involved in our research and treat them humanely. We also understand the ethical considerations with live animal testing and for that reason remain committed to the “three R’s” of animal research: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Until alternative testing methods exist that can adequately replace the need for animal testing, we oppose efforts to limit or prohibit the use of animals. BIO is committed to speaking up for the millions of families around the globe who depend upon our success. We will drive a revolution that aims to cure patients, protect our climate, and nourishes humanity. Sincerely, Brian Warren Senior Director, State Government Affairs
From: Kara Theiding
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote to ban animal testing in Alameda and vote for Option A Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:33:09 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I have been an Alameda resident for 17 years, and I'm writing to request that you support a ban on animal testing on City properties.
I am a registered nurse/nurse practitioner, and while I understand the need to test medicine and equipment, I do not support testing on animals. Animals cannot consent to testing, and humans too often put money before humane treatment of animals. Thankfully, science is moving away from animal lab testing.
Researchers now recognize that animal models often fail to provide results that generalize from one group to another. Moreover, in 2022, President Biden signed the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 into law; this law supersedes the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 that required animal testing as part of every new drug protocol before a drug could be brought to market.
We are moving in the right direction in how we think about medicine and testing. There is a problem, however: the U.S. animal testing market was valued at $4.67 billion in 2019 and expected to continue to grow. There is an industry invested in profiting from animal testing although millions are wasted in unethical biomedical research with questionable results.
I moved to Alameda because I wanted to belong to its kind, reputable community. As Alamedans, we should uphold our city's legacy and image. We should not support the establishment of an animal testing facility or rent properties to industries that engage in inhumane practices. Instead, we should encourage the establishment of businesses with ethical and positive values that reflect our community.
I am a taxpayer. I support Alameda. I am vested in seeing how City properties are put to use, especially if that use is not in line with City values and changes in scientific practice. Alameda can show the way forward by holding the line.
I urge you to vote for the animal testing ban on City properties and to vote for Option A Thank you for your time.
Kara Theiding
112 Avington Road
Alameda, CA 94502
From: Johnson, Colena
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda Proposed City Ordinance Against Animal Research- ACLAM Comment Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 7:22:16 AM
Attachments: ACLAM Comment Re Alameda Proposed City Ordinance Against Animal Research.pdf Please find enclosed a comment from the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) regarding the Alameda Proposed City Ordinance Against Animal Research.
This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (126 East Lincoln Ave., P.O. Box 2000, Rahway, NJ USA 07065) and/or its affiliates, that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. (Direct contact information for affiliates is available at - Contact us - MSD.) It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message.
If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system.
April 12, 2024
Jennifer Ott, City Manager
Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Ordinance Amending Chapter VII (Animal Control) of Alameda Municipal Code to Prohibit Animal Testing and Experimentation on Property Owned or Controlled by the City of Alameda
Dear Ms. Ott & Alameda City Council Members:
The American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine (ACLAM) appreciates the opportunity to respond on behalf of its membership in opposition to the pending Alameda municipal ordinance to restrict the use of animal models in biomedical research in Alameda, C alifornia. ACLAM is recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as the certifying organization for laboratory animal medicine, a recognized specialty within the veterinary medical profession. Our membership includes more than 1,100 Di plomates, the majority of whom are responsible for the care, welfare, and humane use of laboratory animals used in biomedical research.
Use of animal models is critical to drug, medical device, and vaccine development. ACLAM supports efforts to replace, reduce, and refine the use of animals in drug and vaccine development.
However, new drug and vaccine testing technologies to realize this vision are still many years away. Use of animals in biomedical research is heavily regulated by federal and state law. As veterinarians responsible for the humane care and use of laboratory animals, we oversee the application of these laws in the conduct of lifesaving biomedical research. Research with animal models only begins after thorough veterinary and scientific review of research protocols with the goal of enhancing animal welfare, reducing the number of animals used, and replacing animal models wherever possible with alternative models. In addition to review of research protocols, the health, housing, and care of all animals utilized in research is overseen by a veterinarian throughout the course of a study in accordance with the standards established in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and as mandated by the federal Animal Welfare Act.
ACLAM has reviewed the proposed ordinance and strongly urges the City Council members to vote against amending Chapter VII (Animal Control) of the Alameda Municipal Code in accordance with the ordinance option A or B. ACLAM provides the following support for this recommendation:
1. Any municipal ordinance banning use of animals in biomedical research, regardless of size of jurisdiction, could delay critical developments in drug, vaccine, or other therapeutic innovations that are responsible for saving countless human and animal lives.
2. Pre-existing federal and state legislation provides extensive regulatory framework for ethical and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Municipal ordinance restricting use of animals in research will not significantly enhance animal welfare within the State of California and may negatively impact animal welfare through restriction of therapeutic advancements or other unforeseeable mechanism.
We thank the City Council for their time and the opportunity to provide input on behalf of the laboratory animal veterinary community. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeanne M. Wallace, DVM, DACLAM
President, American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine
From: Susan Dunn
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; CityCouncil-List; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please support the BAN on animal testing in Alameda.
Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 2:02:06 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
As a (long time) Alameda resident I'm writng to urge you to support a ban on animal testing on City properties.
And I know many Alameda residents also support the proposed ban and as science is slowly and gradually moving away from animal lab testing. For instance, Congress successfully passed a bill effective 2024, which no longer requires animal testing for drugs. This is a significant step forward in the right direction and is indicative of the future. However, unfortunately, over many years, animal research has become very entrenched as an industry because animal lab procedures are well known and documented plus there are many millions of dollars invested in the stocking and breeding and maintenance of these lab animals.
Alameda has a reputation for being a compassionate community. Let us maintain that good image and even enhance that image. We don't want to see Alameda become the Biggest Animal Testing Center in the East Bay or anything close to that.
Let's strive for something higher and better. Let's actively promote a policy of encouraging non animal testing labs to come to Alameda including other inventive and more positive businesses that are in line with our values.
As taxpayers who support our City properties we have a vested interest in seeing how these properties are best utilized.
Again, I urge you to vote for the animal testing ban on City properties and do vote for Option A.
Sincerely,
Susan and Jeff Dunn
36 Sunny Cove Circle
Alameda
From: katherineawilkinson
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to a Life Sciences Animal Testing Ordinance Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 4:50:15 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft,
I am a Professor of Biological Sciences and animal researcher and want to register my opposition to the pending Ordinance to restrict the use of animal models in biomedical research in Alameda. Animal research saves lives - both human and animal. The proposed ban on animals would delay and possibly block life-saving drug development and medical device innovation that not only Alameda residents need, but citizens of the State, the Nation, and the World. California is the leader in biomedical research and the critical research process we call “Benchtop to Bedside” - the discovery, development, testing, clinical trials, and eventual approval by the FDA, benefiting countless human and animal patients. The role animal models play in drug, medical device, and vaccine development is not only heavily regulated by the federal and state laws and regulations, governing principles, and international treaties, it remains critical not for ease or lack of innovation, but because of scientific necessity and requirements of regulatory agencies. I am the chair of my institution's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and I can attest to how seriously we all take our ethical responsibilities.
For decades, scientists have worked to significantly reduce, refine, and replace animal use in research and every study we conduct has to show that alternatives cannot be used.
Alternatives to animal models are regularly and enthusiastically used and sought whenever possible. However, some research needs to progress to a whole, living system as a necessary component of the biomedical research process to ensure efficacy and safety to all patients.
Research with animal models only begins after investigation of past research to eliminate duplication, refining research protocols with a close eye to animal welfare, reducing the number of animals needed, and replacing animal models wherever possible, and the approval of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, as mandated by the federal Animal Welfare Act. Researchers are strong advocates of animal welfare and are rigorous in developing and following ethical guidelines governing the use of laboratory animals – including a review of all activities by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) as mandated by the Animal Welfare Act, the NIH, the standards set by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and seeking voluntary accreditation such as that of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, the gold standard of animal care.
To ensure life-saving medical research continues to thrive in this community, I respectfully ask you to support research, and decline to approve the proposed Ordinance before the Alameda City Council to implement restrictions for animal research on city-managed properties. Human and animal patients require biomedical research, and biomedical research still requires animal models of research. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katie Wilkinson
--
Katie Wilkinson, PhD
Professor
San Jose State University
Department of Biological Sciences
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0100
From: Jennifer Ott
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Yibin Shen
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alameda Testing Ban
Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 3:05:11 PM
Lara - can this be posted to the 4/16 agenda?
Thanks,
Jen
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dan Poritzky <[email protected]>
Date: April 2, 2024 at 6:40:17 PM PDT
To: Lois Butler <[email protected]>, Eric Fonstein
<[email protected]>, Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>, Joan Hu <[email protected]>
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, David Farrell <[email protected]>, Eric Tecza <[email protected]>, Madlen Saddik <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Alameda Testing Ban
Joan. Can you pls attach the tenant poster of all the LS companies making their home in The Research Park? Thank you
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Dan Poritzky <[email protected]>
Date: 4/2/24 3:21 PM (GMT-10:00)
To: Lois Butler <[email protected]>, Eric Fonstein
<[email protected]>, Jennifer Ott <[email protected]> Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, David Farrell <[email protected]>, Eric Tecza <[email protected]>, Madlen Saddik <[email protected]>
Subject: Alameda Testing Ban
Mayor Ashcraft, City Manager Ott, Lois, and Eric….
I understand there is a council meeting next week re an animal testing ban.
The below email would be DEVASTING to everything we have worked on at The Research Park. I personally don’t like animal testing. However, there are laws. Treatment. Ways of dealing with animals in a safe and humane way.
Everything we have worked for to make Alameda a hub for Life Science… say goodbye if we have something like this get passed. I hope you all understand the seriousness of this. I’m away this week but can be available for a call.
Otherwise, I will be back in Alameda on the 8
th.
I leave with a PDF of all of the Life Science companies at our Park…. Doesn’t include Joe’s and Paceline tenants.
Thank you for considering, Dan P
Dan J. Poritzky
Managing Partner
Blue Rise Ventures
2020 Challenger Drive, Suite 101
Alameda, CA 94501
[email protected]
415-378-2129 cell
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
From: Amanda Hagan
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions Date: Thursday, April 4, 2024 2:29:57 PM
Attachments: Alameda Animal Research.pdf
Please find attached a comment letter for your April 16th hearing. Thank you.
Amanda Hagan
Director, State Government Affairs
Animal Health Institute
202-256-6503
ahi.org
April 16th, 2024
Alameda City Council
City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
RE: Life Science Animal Testing Restrictions
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
On behalf of the Animal Health Institute (AHI), we respectfully oppose any attempts to regulate animal testing in the life sciences industry. AHI is the U.S. trade association for research-based manufacturers of animal health products – the medicines that keep pets and livestock healthy.
The use of animals in testing a broad range of human and animal products has long been a matter of public debate. For several decades, researchers, non-government organizations, industry and regulators have acknowledged the Principle of the 3 R’s as guidance in this area. Specifically, the 3 R’s refer to:
• Replacing animal use in an experiment as long as adequate alternatives are available. • Reducing the use of animal experiments and the number of laboratory animals used, while using only as many animals as are needed to obtain a statistically significant outcome. • Refining the methods and treatment of the animals during the experiments.
The animal health industry is committed to the 3 R’s principle and is working with each of the federal agencies that approves/reviews animal health products to increase the adoption of non-traditional test methods. Progress has been made with the U.S. animal health regulatory agencies, and opportunities exist to enhance this progress. The animal health industry has worked with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the adoption of in vitro testing methods to replace outdated animal testing methods to test for potency. The animal health industry has also worked collaboratively with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the need for research animals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated a commitment to the 3 R’s principle.
The animal health industry, however, is unique among industries that use animals for research. In animal health, laboratory animals are used in the research and development process. But, since we are making products for use in animals, those products must also be tested on the target animal. The use of animals is required by the federal regulatory agencies which approve animal health products, including the USDA, FDA, and EPA. While we continue to work on reducing the need for animal testing, some amount will always be required by federal agencies because we are making products to improve the health and welfare of animals.
The Federal Animal Welfare Act governs, among other animals, dogs and cats used in research. The Animal Welfare Act contains 164 pages of USDA regulations governing animal use along with an additional 424 pages that comprise the USDA’s Animal Welfare Guide, which is used by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to inspect facilities which use animals in research. The Animal Welfare Act and USDA regulations require registration and licensing of entities using animals in research, inspections of facilities, and generally govern all aspects of humane care.
USDA requires facilities to submit an annual report that includes the number of animals being bred, conditioned, or held for use in teaching, testing, experiments, research, or surgery but not yet used for such purposes; as well as how many animals were used in different categories of research.
We consider the use of animals in research a privilege and we take this responsibility seriously. Creating barriers at the local level to research that helps animals live longer, healthier, and happier lives would be a step backwards for animal health.
Sincerely,
Mandy Hagan
Director, State Government Affairs
From: Catherine McBride
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:42:28 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. Catherine McBride
Santa Rosa, CA 95405-4754
From: Heather Guillen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:42:46 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. Heather Guillen
San Jose, CA 95112-6330
From: [email protected] on behalf of Leslie Smith To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:42:57 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. Leslie Smith
Oakland, CA 94611-1806
From: [email protected] on behalf of Ramona Williams To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:43:24 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,
Ms. Ramona Williams
Danville, CA 94526-3838
From: [email protected] on behalf of Martin Horwitz To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:43:24 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. Martin Horwitz
San Francisco, CA 94122-1608
From: [email protected] on behalf of Leo Ashton To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:43:42 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. Leo Ashton
San Jose, CA 95125-1707
From: [email protected] on behalf of Barbara Mason To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:43:43 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. Barbara Mason
Campbell, CA 95008-5903
From: Youching Yeh
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:45:32 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,
Youching Yeh
Fremont, CA 94538-2537
From: [email protected] on behalf of Patricia Lakner To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:45:37 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,
Patricia Lakner
Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920-1204
From: Michael Tomczyszyn
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:46:01 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. Michael Tomczyszyn
San Francisco, CA 94132-3140
From: [email protected] on behalf of Jennifer Klatt To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:46:25 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,
Ms. Jennifer Klatt
Oakland, CA 94611-3252
From: Samuel Durkin
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:48:36 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. Samuel Durkin
Fairfield, CA 94534-7400
From: [email protected] on behalf of Melissa Davis To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:49:17 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. Melissa Davis
Dublin, CA 94568-1250
From: [email protected] on behalf of Waltraud Buckland To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:49:46 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. Waltraud Buckland
Berkeley, CA 94708-2124
From: [email protected] on behalf of Samuel Durkin To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:50:03 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. Samuel Durkin
Fairfield, CA 94534-7400
From: [email protected] on behalf of Arlene Lightford To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:50:51 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 Arlene Lightford
Los Gatos, CA 95032-1147
From: [email protected] on behalf of Beverly Perillo To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:51:02 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. Beverly Perillo
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-2316
From: [email protected] on behalf of Heather Guillen To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:52:46 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. Heather Guillen
San Jose, CA 95112-6330
From: leslie smith
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:52:47 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,
Ms. leslie smith
Oakland, CA 94608-2321
From: Arlene Lightford
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:53:10 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 Arlene Lightford
Los Gatos, CA 95032-1147
From: [email protected] on behalf of Cindi Goldberg To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:53:28 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. Cindi Goldberg
Berkeley, CA 94702-1144
From: Leslie Smith
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:56:12 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. Leslie Smith
Oakland, CA 94611-1806
From: [email protected] on behalf of BurT Greenspan To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:58:10 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. BurT Greenspan
Novato, CA 94947-5201
From: [email protected] on behalf of DIANNA M Pugh-Ramsey To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:58:28 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. DIANNA M Pugh-Ramsey
Vallejo, CA 94591-6831
From: [email protected] on behalf of Patricia Blackwell-Marchant To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:00:18 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,
Ms. Patricia Blackwell-Marchant
Castro Valley, CA 94552-1708
From: [email protected] on behalf of Suzanne Becket To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:07:44 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,
Ms. Suzanne Becket
Cupertino, CA 95014-5707
From: [email protected] on behalf of Geralyn Gulseth To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:08:11 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 Geralyn Gulseth
Alameda, CA 94502-6701
From: [email protected] on behalf of Patty Garcia To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:08:29 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,
Patty Garcia
Universal City, TX 78148-4034
From: [email protected] on behalf of AG Callan To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:12:49 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,
AG Callan
San Francisco, CA 94122-2008
From: [email protected] on behalf of Amanda Paulk To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:13:23 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,
Amanda Paulk
Mountain View, CA 94040-1060
From: [email protected] on behalf of Ashley Blank To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:39:48 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,
Ashley Blank
Anchorage, AK 99501-7203
From: [email protected] on behalf of Rondi Saslow To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:43:52 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,
Rondi Saslow
Oakland, CA 94618-1518
From: [email protected] on behalf of Bel Torun To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:51:39 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,
Bel Torun
Mountain View, CA 94040-4730
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kim Bartlett To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:59:22 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. Kim Bartlett
Emeryville, CA 94608-4160
From: [email protected] on behalf of Judy Bertelsen To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:06:48 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,
D Judy Bertelsen
Berkeley, CA 94702-0774
From: [email protected] on behalf of Michelle Mendoza To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:11:11 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 Michelle Mendoza
Hayward, CA 94540-4791
From: [email protected] on behalf of Phoenix Giffen To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:12:36 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,
Mr Phoenix Giffen
Petaluma, CA 94952-2654
From: [email protected] on behalf of Patty Linder To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:30:55 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,
Ms. Patty Linder
San Jose, CA 95136-1804
From: [email protected] on behalf of David Wendt To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:40:06 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,
Mr. David Wendt
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3384
From: [email protected] on behalf of Janice Greenberg To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:47:45 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. Janice Greenberg
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-4675
From: Julia Earl
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:47:50 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,
Ms Julia Earl
Larkspur, CA 94939-2188
From: Miranda Helly
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:50:28 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. Miranda Helly
Oakland, CA 94612-4419
From: Mary Chase
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:53:38 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. Mary Chase
San Francisco, CA 94114-3340
From: [email protected] on behalf of You will die By your own hate To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:58:23 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,
You will die By your own hate
Oakland, CA 94606
From: Alfred Kuba
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:03:12 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,
Mr. Alfred Kuba
Mountain View, CA 94043-3438
From: Sheila Perry
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:03:34 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,
Mrs. Sheila Perry
San Jose, CA 95127-2211
From: ferran puig
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:03:52 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,
Mr ferran puig
Berkeley, CA 94708-1733
From: Lorien Smyer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:07:51 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. Lorien Smyer
Richmond, CA 94804-5047
From: Jann Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:10:44 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,
Jann Lee
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1731
From: Lisa Winningham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:11:42 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,
Lisa Winningham
Los Gatos, CA 95032-3839
From: Suparna Mandal
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:14:31 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,
Ms. Suparna Mandal
Foster City, CA 94404
From: Margery Gray
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:32:04 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,
Ms. Margery Gray
San Francisco, CA 94116-1829
From: Jess Hernandez
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:49:39 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,
Dr. Jess Hernandez
Concord, CA 94521-2135
From: Susan Fischer
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 2:51:51 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. Susan Fischer
Walnut Creek, CA 94597-2176
From: Scott Nelson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:11:54 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,
Mr. Scott Nelson
Bethel Island, CA 94511-1075
From: Renee Yates
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:12:24 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,
Ms. Renee Yates
San Francisco, CA 94131-2807
From: Amy Zink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:18:14 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 Amy Zink
Oakland, CA 94606-1167
From: Alex Weisshaus
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:31:04 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,
Mr. Alex Weisshaus
San Francisco, CA 94110-7317
From: Annette Benton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 4:24:02 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. Annette Benton
Pittsburg, CA 94565-2293
From: Sarah Koenig
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 4:31:19 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 Koenig
San Rafael, CA 94901-4221
From: Laura Mani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 4:44:36 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,
Mrs Laura Mani
Mill Valley, CA 94941-3749
From: Judy Schultz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:01:31 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,
Ms. Judy Schultz
San Francisco, CA 94115-2927
From: Catherine Valentine
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:04:39 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,
Catherine Valentine
San Jose, CA 95138-2306
From: richard robbins
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:12:46 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. richard robbins
San Rafael, CA 94901-2946
From: Tem Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:15:28 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: Kendra Knight
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:18:23 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,
Kendra Knight
Burlingame, CA 94010-3643
From: Hurlon Luck
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:25:23 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,
Mr. Hurlon Luck
San Jose, CA 95125-2390
From: Ann Graves
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:42:39 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,
Mrs. Ann Graves
San Leandro, CA 94578-1603
From: Elanor Sue
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:55:18 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,
Ms. Elanor Sue
Oakland, CA 94606-5146
From: Julia Rinaldi
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 5:51:40 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. Julia Rinaldi
Santa Rosa, CA 95407-6680
From: Pat Marriott
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:08:46 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,
Pat Marriott
Los Altos, CA 94024-6040
From: Scott Iwamura
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:34:46 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. Scott Iwamura
Moraga, CA 94556-2248
From: darrell rolstone
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:49:49 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,
Mr. darrell rolstone
Larkspur, CA 94939-1925
From: Charmaine Hinman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 6:58:25 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,
Charmaine Hinman
San Rafael, CA 94901-1173
From: Philip Le roux
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:12:15 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,
Mr. Philip Le roux
Berkeley, CA 94707-1725
From: Linda Johnson
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:25:24 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,
Linda Johnson
San Mateo, CA 94401-3658
From: Myrna Cohen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:30:55 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,
Ms. Myrna Cohen
San Jose, CA 95124-2831
From: sandy goulart
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:39:08 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,
Miss sandy goulart
San Jose, CA 95148-1236
From: Leanne B.
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:46:13 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. Leanne B.
Santa Rosa, CA 95401-5920
From: Greg Rosas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:59:57 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: Suzanne Wood
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:04:24 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,
Ms. Suzanne Wood
Berkeley, CA 94705-2158
From: Raquel Narvios
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:29:08 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. Raquel Narvios
San Francisco, CA 94134-2756
From: Maria Nowicki
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:29:55 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,
Ms. Maria Nowicki
San Francisco, CA 94116-2517
From: Alice Polesky
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:34:28 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,
Alice Polesky
San Francisco, CA 94107-2664
From: john Lloyd
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:41:35 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. john Lloyd
Emeryville, CA 94608-1528
From: Jennie Richards
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:51:05 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,
Ms Jennie Richards
Santa Rosa, CA 95409-6110
From: Edie Bruce
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:58:31 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,
Ms. Edie Bruce
El Cerrito, CA 94530-2512
From: Renee Snyder
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:44:08 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,
Dr. Renee Snyder
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-1218
From: Lyla DeVita
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:55:15 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,
Ms. Lyla DeVita
Moraga, CA 94556-1130
From: Nisha Blum
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:58:52 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,
Nisha Blum
San Jose, CA 95134-1522
From: AJ Cho
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 10:24:16 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: Joslyn Baxter
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 10:50:23 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,
Dr. Joslyn Baxter
Mill Valley, CA 94941-3860
From: Daniel Carrillo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 10:57:52 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,
Mr. Daniel Carrillo
San Bruno, CA 94066-1539
From: Nikki Nafziger
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:11:46 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. Nikki Nafziger
Vallejo, CA 94590-7907
From: Rodney Parker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:27:32 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,
Mr. Rodney Parker
Antioch, CA 94509-4355
From: Jayne Walker
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:22:38 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. Jayne Walker
Sonoma, CA 95476-6051
From: Erica Danjelic
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:00:24 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,
Erica Danjelic
Belvedere Tiburon, CA 94920-2000
From: Jojy M
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 6:59:31 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,
Mr. Jojy M
Fremont, CA 94539-5242
From: Karen Dallow
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:03:25 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,
Ms. Karen Dallow
El Sobrante, CA 94803-1732
From: Yolanda Calderon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:24:58 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,
Yolanda Calderon
Oakland, CA 94609-2520
From: Carlene Visperas
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 9:18:04 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. Carlene Visperas
Concord, CA 94521-1502
From: Pat Cuviello
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 10:52:03 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. Pat Cuviello
San Mateo, CA 94402-3989
From: John Oda
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 10:53:04 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,
John Oda
San Francisco, CA 94115-3500
From: Marsha Armstrong
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:05:17 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. Marsha Armstrong
Monte Sereno, CA 95030-2220
From: Tifenn Caudron
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:34:50 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 Tifenn Caudron
San Ramon, CA 94582-5022
From: Susanna Gordon Gordon
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 11:39:43 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. Susanna Gordon Gordon
Pleasanton, CA 94566-7142
From: pinkyjain pan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:20:43 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,
pinkyjain pan
Tucson, AZ 85710-8825
From: Ulka Agarwal
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:42:27 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. Ulka Agarwal
Campbell, CA 95008-6422
From: norma campbell
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:45:32 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. norma campbell
Campbell, CA 95008-2424
From: Laura Ice
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:52:02 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. Laura Ice
Sebastopol, CA 95472-3564
From: Robin Dye
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:28:15 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,
Robin Dye
San Jose, CA 95132-3504
From: Mary Sanders
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:40:28 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 Mary Sanders
Petaluma, CA 94952-4123
From: Stacey Andre
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:42:32 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,
Stacey Andre
Benicia, CA 94510-1448
From: Cheryl Buckingham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 6:12:27 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,
Cheryl Buckingham
Berkeley, CA 94702-1781
From: Colleena Brazen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 7:34:21 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,
Colleena Brazen
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1728
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:41:03 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 Jan Jones
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Connie Devine
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 5:28:31 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,
Connie Devine
Yerington, NV 89447-2130
From: Josephine Bellaccomo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 6:56:50 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,
Josephine Bellaccomo
San Francisco, CA 94110-5235
From: Jaye Bergen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:47:42 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. Jaye Bergen
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4266
From: Bianca Molgora
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 3:46:47 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,
Ms Bianca Molgora
San Francisco, CA 94110-6138
From: Barbara Greenwood
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 10:41:00 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. Barbara Greenwood
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-6127
From: Dina Slobodnink
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 12:38:33 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 Dina Slobodnink
Oakland, CA 94609-2412
From: [email protected] on behalf of Dina Slobodnink To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 12:41:31 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,
Miss Dina Slobodnink
Oakland, CA 94609-2412
From: Laura Ice
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:52:02 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. Laura Ice
Sebastopol, CA 95472-3564
From: Robin Dye
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 5:28:15 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,
Robin Dye
San Jose, CA 95132-3504
From: Mary Sanders
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:40:28 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 Mary Sanders
Petaluma, CA 94952-4123
From: Stacey Andre
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 8:42:32 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,
Stacey Andre
Benicia, CA 94510-1448
From: Cheryl Buckingham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 6:12:27 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,
Cheryl Buckingham
Berkeley, CA 94702-1781
From: Colleena Brazen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 7:34:21 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,
Colleena Brazen
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1728
From: Jan Jones
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 12:41:03 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 Jan Jones
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1437
From: Connie Devine
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 5:28:31 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,
Connie Devine
Yerington, NV 89447-2130
From: Josephine Bellaccomo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Saturday, April 13, 2024 6:56:50 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,
Josephine Bellaccomo
San Francisco, CA 94110-5235
From: Richard Schwartz
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 8:47:51 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. Richard Schwartz
Berkeley, CA 94707-1827
From: Susan Urang
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 7:14:42 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,
Ms. Susan Urang
San Jose, CA 95126-3217
From: Sheila Gill
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 1:41:43 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,
Sheila Gill
Montara, CA 94037-0592
From: Glenna Dowling
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 9:52:45 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,
Glenna Dowling
San Francisco, CA 94115-2927
From: Ruth Selan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:44:22 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. Ruth Selan
San Jose, CA 95128
From: [email protected] on behalf of Diana Navon To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:28:34 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,
Diana Navon
Berkeley, CA 94708-1607
From: Ramona Williams
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:02:50 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. Ramona Williams
Danville, CA 94526-3838
From: Jann Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:01:43 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,
Jann Lee
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1731
From: Lisa Sheeper
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:03:18 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,
Lisa Sheeper
La Selva Beach, CA 95076-1513
From: lenore sorensen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:03:31 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,
lenore sorensen
Kensington, CA 94707-1337
From: David Wendt
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:04:06 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. David Wendt
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3384
From: Maryam Eskandari MD
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:05:06 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,
Maryam Eskandari MD
Albany, CA 94706-2106
From: Leo Ashton
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:05:06 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. Leo Ashton
San Jose, CA 95125-1707
From: Lynne PreFontaine
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:05:07 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 Lynne PreFontaine
Alameda, CA 94501-3732
From: Denise Russo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:05:23 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 Denise Russo
Rio Vista, CA 94571-2197
From: Ramona Williams
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:05:50 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. Ramona Williams
Danville, CA 94526-3838
From: Pat Cuviello
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:06:44 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. Pat Cuviello
San Mateo, CA 94402-3989
From: Kristen Lowry
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:07:26 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. Kristen Lowry
Vacaville, CA 95688-3853
From: ferran puig
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:07:26 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. ferran puig
Berkeley, CA 94708-1733
From: Lorraine Lowry
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:09:39 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. Lorraine Lowry
Vacaville, CA 95688-3853
From: Lynette Ridder
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:13:27 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. Lynette Ridder
Concord, CA 94521-2910
From: Joslyn Baxter
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:14:37 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. Joslyn Baxter
Mill Valley, CA 94941-3860
From: Ron Ginsberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:16:23 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,
Ron Ginsberg
San Francisco, CA 94102-4303
From: pam zimmerman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:17:11 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. pam zimmerman
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-2230
From: Enoe Corado
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:18:00 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. Enoe Corado
San Francisco, CA 94141-0056
From: paula goldberg
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:19:38 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. paula goldberg
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2630
From: Usha Aluru
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:20:19 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,
Usha Aluru
Fremont, CA 94539-3743
From: Erika Tunick
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:24:00 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,
Erika Tunick
San Francisco, CA 94114-3123
From: Charmaine Hinman
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:29:08 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,
Charmaine Hinman
San Rafael, CA 94901-1173
From: lila cohen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:36:52 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. lila cohen
Berkeley, CA 94708-2112
From: Shari Riffe
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:33:26 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. Shari Riffe
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2108
From: Holly Peters
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:38:54 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 Holly Peters
Pinole, CA 94564-0061
From: AG Callan
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:43:23 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,
AG Callan
San Francisco, CA 94122-2008
From: Gary Cianciarulo
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:43:32 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. Gary Cianciarulo
San Francisco, CA 94110-2110
From: Bruce Haak
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:53:23 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,
Dr. Bruce Haak
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-7427
From: Kathy steinbrecher
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:58:04 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. Kathy steinbrecher
Lafayette, CA 94549-3026
From: Llll D
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:01:22 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,
Miss Llll D
Albany, CA 94706
From: Lisa Winningham
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:06:19 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,
Lisa Winningham
Los Gatos, CA 95032-3839
From: Christopher Evans
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:06:35 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. Christopher Evans
Berkeley, CA 94720-0001
From: Melissa Davis
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:09:59 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,
Mrs. Melissa Davis
Dublin, CA 94568-1250
From: Stacy Baar
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:16:40 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. Stacy Baar
Alameda, CA 94502-6418
From: Miranda Helly
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:20:40 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. Miranda Helly
Oakland, CA 94612-4469
From: Erin Meadows
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:17:57 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. Erin Meadows
Berkeley, CA 94708-1741
From: Kim Bartlett
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:21:39 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. Kim Bartlett
Emeryville, CA 94608-4160
From: Elaine Woodriff
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:27:00 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. Elaine Woodriff
Petaluma, CA 94954-1429
From: Kara Foster
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:32:24 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,
Kara Foster
Elk Grove, CA 95624-6043
From: Sara Winslow
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:37:37 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. Sara Winslow
San Francisco, CA 94110-5339
From: Suzanne Becket
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:37:31 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. Suzanne Becket
Cupertino, CA 95014-5707
From: Laura Nardozza
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:39:00 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. Laura Nardozza
San Mateo, CA 94401-3105
From: Patricia Banchik
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:43:22 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. Patricia Banchik
Oakland, CA 94609-1423
From: Kate Ague
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:47:54 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,
Kate Ague
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3738
From: Debra Kaihani
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:52:52 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. Debra Kaihani
San Carlos, CA 94070-4410
From: Colleena Brazen
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:10:24 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,
Colleena Brazen
Walnut Creek, CA 94598-1728
From: Nancy Beckus
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:01:27 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 Nancy Beckus
Danville, CA 94526-4155
From: Lisa Robles
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:11:00 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,
Lisa Robles
Emeryville, CA 94608-2735
From: Robert Sweezy
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Support Animal Testing Ban Option A Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:12:06 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.