Plight of #4000Beagles Underscores Heartbreaking Reality of Animal Testing

F E A T U R E S T O R Y

WRITTEN BY JANELL GREGORY, State Director for SC, Humane Society of the United States

photography provided by HSUS

Animal lovers were captivated by this summer’s news concerning the Humane Society of the United States’ efforts to place nearly 4,000 beagles spared from a lifetime of suffering as test subjects into loving homes. This story marked the first time many people became aware that dogs are even used in such tests and the staggering fact that approximately 60,000 dogs suffer this fate each year. We can leverage this heightened public awareness to extend the drive for non-animal methods of testing that are swifter, more accurate, and less expensive than animal use, and of course, better for animals.

It was an all hands on deck situation as the HSUS took on the responsibility for coordinating placement of the beagles. Their placement with HSUS shelter and rescue partners followed a lawsuit filed against contract testing firm, Envigo, by the Department of Justice, alleging Animal Welfare Act violations at Envigo’s dog breeding facility in Virginia. Government inspectors found beagles were killed instead of receiving veterinary treatment for easily treatable conditions. They determined that nursing mother beagles were being denied food and the food that they did receive contained maggots, mold and feces. Over an eight-week period, 25 beagle puppies died from cold exposure. A number of dogs suffered injuries after being attacked by other dogs in overcrowded conditions, according to inspection records.

Multiple shelters and rescues in South Carolina answered the call to provide placement and facilitate adoptions for these dogs, including Carolina Poodle Rescue, Low Country Animal Rescue, and Pet Helpers Adoption Center. Many— if not all--of the beagles placed with these organizations have already found loving homes in South Carolina and have started to live the happy lives they deserve. Across the country, as part of the larger efforts, hundreds of dedicated animal protection workers and volunteers, more than 120 shelters and rescues in at least 29 states, and thousands of adopters and foster homes played a critical role in this operation.

Even after all they’ve endured, the nearly 4,000 beagles removed from this breeding facility are the lucky ones. If the breeding facility hadn’t been cited and sued over poor treatment and conditions the dogs endured, they would almost certainly have been sold to a laboratory. If the laboratory that acquired them was tasked with testing the safety of drugs or chemicals such as pesticides or weed killers, those substances may have been concealed in their food or forcefed to these dogs every day for months, so technicians could monitor their reactions, which could include seizures, vomiting and lethargy. Eventually, if the dogs didn’t die from those doses, they would likely have been killed so their tissues could be examined in necropsy exams.

Instead of subjecting animals to invasive tests, we should be putting greater investments toward organ-on-a-chip technologies, 3D printing, organoids, computational toxicology and other alternatives to animal testing. These alternatives are not only more humane, but even more reliable than conducting these tests on animals. Approximately 90% of drugs ultimately fail in human trials, an estimated half of this is due to unexpected toxicity in humans following animal tests in which no toxicity was observed.

In addition to toxicity testing, dogs are used in many types of biomedical experiments, including those involving cardiac, neurological, respiratory and dental research. In some cases, they may be specially bred with a chronic or fatal disease, too often cannot be usefully applied to humans. We have been working for years to change the landscape for all animals used for research and testing through policy change, corporate engagement, commitment to humane science, and lobbying for increased resources for development of non-animal methods. Animal testing is a complicated issue and change at the scale we need will require a scientific paradigm shift that involves a reorientation of academic and industry science as well as stronger funding and endorsements of non-animal methods by government agencies—all of which can only happen when the public voices their support.

To get us there, members of the public can urge the Food and Drug Administration to stop relying on outdated animal testing, and to make a much stronger commitment to funding, developing and accepting non-animal test methods. If you would also like to help end cosmetics testing on animals, and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, throughout the United States contact your legislators in support of the Humane Cosmetics Act. For those who want to ensure they buy products from companies with a strict cruelty-free standard, visit LeapingBunny.org ■