Home Page
|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
Media Coverage Alleged abuse at Charles River By Franklin B. Tucker/ Staff Writer Outside the front gate of the nondescript corporate headquarters of
Charles River Laboratories on Ballardvale Street, Michael Budkie is on a
one man crusade. The rail thin Ohio native is executive director, driver and lone
protester for Stop Animal Exploitation Now, an organization highlighting
the abuse to animals he said is occurring in laboratories across the
country. As he stood before the facility on a cool October morning, he said
Charles River - one of Wilmington�s largest firms that employs hundreds
of employees - is one of the most cited for animal abuse in New England.
Budkie minces few words on what�s occurring inside the fenced in
plant. "It�s terrorism against animals," he said. But according to a Charles River Laboratories spokeswoman, Budkie�s
charges have less to do with animal care as it has with misplaced
activism. "It is unfortunate that animal activist groups such as the one you
noted have promoted misinformation in their desire to halt all
biomedical research," said Elizabeth Ferber, Charles River�s director of
global communications. Information provided by Budkie alleges that Charles River violated
the federal Animal Welfare Act 22 times in the first nine months of 2005
in the veterinary care and housing of the animals used in research. The violations, noted by federal inspectors from the US Department of
Agriculture and the Institutional Animal Care and Use committee, caused
many of the animals - in the case of Charles River the animals were dogs
and rabbits - to be in pain and distress including lateral recumbency,
lost righting reflex respiration irregular and foreleg, and thorax and
nick muscle hypertonic. Federal law requires institutions using laboratory animals must
establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to oversee and
evaluate all aspects of the institution�s animal care and use program.
In one case, on July 21, 2005, the investigator found that nearly 40
of 48 dogs housed in one room at Charles River had lesions on their paws
due to the animals being housed in cages with rubber-covered wire
bottoms. Needless suffering? The result of the violations, Budkie alleges, was the needless death
of several animals. "They are not following their own procedures for animal care," said
Budkie. Nor is Budkie�s SAEN the only one making these charges. In fact, the
company was taken to court by animal activists in New Mexico where it
was found not negligent last year in the death of a number of
chimpanzees at its Alamogordo lab While not addressing the specific charges logged against the company,
Charles River�s Ferber said that the firm "is ethically obligated to the
animals under its stewardship and we take that obligation very
seriously." She noted the company is proud of the culture of humane care of
laboratory animals it has established - of which more than 95 percent
are rats and mice specifically bred for research - through raising
awareness and providing training to its employees on the importance of
that care which is regulated under a number of stringent laws and
regulations. Ferber also said that Charles River is also a strong supporter of
using non-animal methods whenever appropriate. But in many cases, "testing on animals in the drug development
process is not optional," said Ferber, noting that existing laws require
that the safety of medicine be initially tested on animals. "Without animal testing, clinical trials in people would be so
dangerous that no authority would allow them to be conducted," she said.
Established in 1946, Charles River makes it�s corporate headquarters
in Wilmington for the past 40 years. The firm is a leading lab for the major national and international
pharmaceutical and biotech firms along with major hospitals and for
governmental research. Charles River�s facilities are known for collecting data and
analyzing information that helps bring drugs and procedures to the
consumer efficiently. "We are dedicated to fighting human diseases - diseases such as HIV,
AIDs, cancer, diabetes and a myriad of life-threatening illnesses that
affect millions of people each year," said Ferber. Charles River reach is significant, with 101 production facilities,
offices, and laboratories in 17 countries and approximately 7,500
employees worldwide with more than 500 employees with PhD, MD or Doctor
of Veterinarian Medicine degrees. And it�s making money. Last year the company had $1.1 billion in
sales - up 46 percent from 2004 - with a net income of $142 million. The stock has taken a hit, falling from a high of slightly more than
$50 per share in late March down to $34 by the 4th of July. But it has
been recovering, up 30 percent since its low now around $45 as of this
week. And the business is trending upward. MSN�s Stockscouter, a program
that predicts future performance, said the mid-cap growth stock garnered
a perfect 10 - the best possible rating - as its expected to
significantly outperform the market over the next six months with less
than average risk. A significant amount of the money filtering to Charles River comes
from the federal government in grants and research funding. With a total
of $11 billion in the federal pipeline, companies become addicted to
this funding. "It�s very hard to walk away from that sort of money," said Budkie.
Stifling civil rights? And the public will have less information on the business and it�s
treatment of lab animals if recent federal legislation targeting the
actions of a few extreme animal activists is passed and signed into law.
Due to violent actions from domestic groups such as the Animal
Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, both houses of congress
will be debating legislation that would make it a crime to prevent
animal researchers from conducting their work. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which has as co-sponsors in the
senate a conservative from Oklahoma and a liberal from California -
would make it a federal crime to harass or cause "economic disruption"
to animal researchers, suppliers, such as Charles River, alleges Budkie,
and people who are simply know a researcher or supplier. The bills have the backing of a newly formed trade group called the
Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, made up of dozens of academic
and medical associations and firms such as pharmaceutical firms and
research laboratories such as Charles River. But the current language is so broad, according to Budkie, that any
action taken that could affect the profits of the suppliers could be
deemed in violating the law. "So if our Web site with this information causes one customers to no
longer use Charles River or another lab, they could say we are
terrorist," said Budkie. He noted that simple civil disobedience - such as blocking one of the
three entrances to the Charles River facility could be viewed as an
economic disruption. But according to the senate sponsors, James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma,
chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, from the Judiciary Committee, introduced the
bi-partisan legislation they claim would improve the effectiveness of
the U.S. Department of Justice�s response to recent trends in the animal
rights terrorist movement. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was drafted with technical
assistance from counter-terror experts at the Department of Justice and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "Our bi-partisan legislation will provide law enforcement the tools
they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists� who
commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with
animals," said Inhofe. "The tactics used by animal rights extremists have evolved in the
face of our current laws, and consequently, the scope of their terror is
widening," Feinstein said. "We need the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to fight these tactics,
including the latest trend of targeting any business and associate
working with animal research facilities." But Budkie believes that researchers and their supporters are using
the general anxiety related to terrorism to attack the civil liberties
of those who oppose animal exploitation. "Just like the Patriot Act and listening to private phone calls, they
are exploiting the times we live in to try and stop the truth from
coming out," said Budkie. http://www.townonline.com/wilmington/ http://www.townonline.com/tewksbury/ Return to Media Coverage |
We welcome your comments
and questions
Fair Use Notice: This document may contain
copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit,
educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material
(as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since