Alliance for Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals File Complaint Over Crimes Against Animals

AFA and PETA filed a complaint with the Dane County District Attorney’s office on June 9, 2011, documenting over a decade of violations of Wisconsin’s Crimes Against Animals stemming from research involving staged animal fights in the Stephen C. Gammie  and the Catherine A. Marler labs.
The Wisconsin statute is easy to understand:

951.08 Instigating fights between animals.

(1) No person may intentionally instigate, promote, aid or abet as a principal, agent or employee, or participate in the earnings from, or intentionally maintain or allow any place to be used for a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person. This section does not prohibit events or exhibitions commonly featured at rodeos or bloodless bullfights.

951.08 (2) No person may own, possess, keep or train any animal with the intent that the animal be engaged in an exhibition of fighting.

951.08 (3) No person may intentionally be a spectator at a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person.

951.18 Penalties.

951.18 (2) Any person who violates s. 951.08 (2m) or (3) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any person who violates s. 951.08 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class I felony for the first violation and is guilty of a Class H felony for the 2nd or subsequent violation.

Fights between mice have been instigated at the UW-Madison for over a decade. Mice have been kept for this purpose. Mice have been trained through multiple fights with other mice known to be winners or losers. Researchers have earned money from instigating the fights and have paid others in their labs from those earnings. Other university staff and probably students have been spectators at the fights.

Fights between mice are not genteel affairs. Wounding and even death are common results. A BBC video of a fight between mice is available here.


Coming on the heels of the university’s legal problems surrounding the illegal sheep decompression deaths, this new complaint makes clear that the university has a long history of disdain for or ignorance of Wisconsin State laws against cruelty to animals.

The university has now slipped a measure into the state budget bill by way of the University System Omnibus Motion. Item 27:

Liability Protections for Scientific Researchers: Specify that current law provisions prohibiting crimes against animals would not apply to persons engaged in bona fide scientific research at an educational or research institution or persons who are authorized or otherwise regulated under federal law to utilize animals for these purposes.

In short, the University does not want to follow Wisconsin's Crimes Against Animals laws.

What you can (MUST) do:

Contact your state legislators today. Ask them to request a formal Report on Item 27 of the University System Omnibus Motion passed in the Joint Finance Committee as part of the state budget bill.
Don't know your legislators? Click here. It's easy.

Telll them that the language of item 27 is confusing. Are all persons engaged in research at the university exempt from all the state’s anti-cruelty laws all the time wherever they are? Will the university be able to stage dog fights if item 27 becomes law? Tell them that the state has an obligation to regulate the use of animals and protect them from cruelty, especially at the state university.

You can read the complaint here.

http://www.allanimals.org/fighting_mice.html

The Salmon That Grew & Grew

30-Sep-2010


Sometimes science is wrong, and one example of this are Frankenfish: In order to grow bigger salmon that can feed more people, a genetically-modified Atlantic salmon has been created that grows twice as fast as wild ones. Its genes have been artificially augmented with DNA taken from two other fish in order to give it more growth hormone. 

Researcher Craig Altier says, "The fisheries of the world are being rapidly depleted and so advances in aquaculture will be needed to meet the growing demand for protein. Genetically engineered animals might help to feed the world, but they must first meet the most stringent requirements for human and environmental safety.

"Is the introduced growth hormone gene safe for the fish itself? The studies designed to determine this were flawed, and so we don't know yet whether this is true. The burden of proof here is on the producer of this fish, Aquabounty, to perform further research to establish safety for the fish.

"Is the fish safe for human consumption? Exhaustive analysis by the FDA showed no difference from conventional salmon. The growth hormone itself presents no specific risk, as we consume growth hormone in all meats we eat (but SHOULD we?) The FDA also found no increase in allergens, which is important, as fish is already a food that causes allergic reactions in many people.

"We advised the FDA on the possible environmental impacts of this fish. Containment of the fish is essential, as the release of this fast-growing animal could have devastating effects on native fish populations. We need to treat these fish as we would a potentially dangerous medicine or pharmaceutical, and apply all of the same security measures to its production and transport."


http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=8606

The Salmon That Grew & Grew

30-Sep-2010


Sometimes science is wrong, and one example of this are Frankenfish: In order to grow bigger salmon that can feed more people, a genetically-modified Atlantic salmon has been created that grows twice as fast as wild ones. Its genes have been artificially augmented with DNA taken from two other fish in order to give it more growth hormone. 

Researcher Craig Altier says, "The fisheries of the world are being rapidly depleted and so advances in aquaculture will be needed to meet the growing demand for protein. Genetically engineered animals might help to feed the world, but they must first meet the most stringent requirements for human and environmental safety.

"Is the introduced growth hormone gene safe for the fish itself? The studies designed to determine this were flawed, and so we don't know yet whether this is true. The burden of proof here is on the producer of this fish, Aquabounty, to perform further research to establish safety for the fish.

"Is the fish safe for human consumption? Exhaustive analysis by the FDA showed no difference from conventional salmon. The growth hormone itself presents no specific risk, as we consume growth hormone in all meats we eat (but SHOULD we?) The FDA also found no increase in allergens, which is important, as fish is already a food that causes allergic reactions in many people.

"We advised the FDA on the possible environmental impacts of this fish. Containment of the fish is essential, as the release of this fast-growing animal could have devastating effects on native fish populations. We need to treat these fish as we would a potentially dangerous medicine or pharmaceutical, and apply all of the same security measures to its production and transport."


http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=8606

Beef from offspring of clone eaten

3 August 2010 08:45pm

Meat from the offspring of a cloned cow entered the food chain last year and was eaten, the Food Standards Agency has revealed.

And experts have admitted they do not know how many embryos from cloned animals have been imported into Britain.

FSA chief executive Tim Smith stressed that there were no health risks associated with eating meat or drinking milk from the descendants of cloned cows.

Two bulls born in the UK from embryos harvested from a cloned cow have been slaughtered, one of which "will have been eaten" while the other was stopped from entering the food chain.

The revelation came amid an FSA probe into whether any matter from cows born of a clone have been used in food production.

Under European law, foodstuffs, including milk, produced from cloned animals must pass a safety evaluation and gain authorisation before they are marketed. But the FSA said it had neither made any authorisations nor been asked to do so.

An investigation was launched in the wake of claims that a British farmer had admitted using milk in his daily production without labelling it as from the offspring of a cloned cow.The FSA said on Tuesday that it had traced a single animal, Dundee Paradise, believed to be part of a dairy herd, but could not confirm that its milk had entered the food chain.

Mr Smith told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "There's a live investigation going on at the moment and, whilst we have got a first-class cattle tracing scheme, what we don't know is precisely how many embryos have been imported into the country."

He said such a situation was "inevitable", adding: "It's a bit like the police being there and us expecting no crime. However good the system is, it relies on the honesty of those people participating.

"It's impossible for us to stand by each animal and watch it through each phase of its life cycle."

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2010/08/03/cloned_cow_offspring_in_food_chain

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

Thursday, 20 May 2010
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.

The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.

The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.

The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.

The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.

The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California.

He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another.

Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic.

Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.

The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy.

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.

"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code."

The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.

"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter.

'New industrial revolution'

Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions.

"I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said.

"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide."

Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.

But critics say that the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have been overstated.

Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.

"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.

"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.

"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."

Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.

"He isn't God," she said, "he's actually being very human; trying to get money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict its use."

But Dr Venter said that he was "driving the discussions" about the regulations governing this relatively new scientific field and about the ethical implications of the work.

He said: "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the White House.

"And there have been extensive reviews including from the National Academy of Sciences, which has done a comprehensive report on this new field.

"We think these are important issues and we urge continued discussion that we want to take part in."

Ethical discussions

Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said that the advance was "undoubtedly a landmark" study.

But, he said, "there is already a wealth of simple, cheap, powerful and mature techniques for genetically engineering a range of organisms. Therefore, for the time being, this approach is unlikely to supplant existing methods for genetic engineering".

The ethical discussions surrounding the creation of synthetic or artificial life are set to continue.

Professor Julian Savulescu, from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said the potential of this science was "in the far future, but real and significant".

"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.

"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."

The advance did not pose a danger in the form of bio-terrorism, Dr Venter said.

"That was reviewed extensively in the US in a report from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a Washington defence think tank, indicating that there were very small new dangers from this.

"Most people are in agreement that there is a slight increase in the potential for harm. But there's an exponential increase in the potential benefit to society," he told BBC's Newsnight.

"The flu vaccine you'll get next year could be developed by these processes," he added.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm