Why ARE we still torturing beagles?
As puppy experiment farm opens, a famous father demands...
MANY readers will recall the disgraceful images of beagles being forced to smoke cigarettes. In 1975 an undercover reporter exposed how these beautiful, intelligent dogs were locked in stocks and forced to inhale smoke to test an allegedly ‘safe’ cigarette.
In one experiment, as I recall, researchers cut holes in the throats of beagles and forced them to breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for an entire year. You may be forgiven for thinking that those were the bad old days and that today we live in a more compassionate era, treating ‘man’s best friend’ with the respect it deserves.
Well, I have news for you: beagles are still being used in this country for animal testing – and in their thousands. Tobacco testing on dogs and other animals has been banned in Britain since 1997, but our beloved beagles are still being forced to endure other forms of vicious testing. They are still having face-masks strapped on in tiny cages, forced to inhale weed-killers, pesticides and other toxic substances.
Sadly, their small size and docile temperament continue to make them prime candidates for experimentation.
And the worst news of all is that the Government, far from putting an end to this practice, has taken the astonishing decision to approve a giant new puppy farm where beagles will be bred specifically for the purposes of animal experimentation.
A few weeks ago, Greg Clark, the Communities Secretary, overturned the decision of the local council and his predecessor Sir Eric Pickles, to give the green light to the facility in Hull, run by Yorkshire Evergreen, a UK company owned by US multinational Marshall BioResources. When I heard, I simply couldn’t believe my ears.
You may know me best as the father of Boris, Mayor of London; Jo, MP for Orpington; and Rachel, distinguished columnist of this newspaper.
But I have been fighting for animals all my life. And one of the things I have fought hardest for has been to end unnecessary and out-of-date forms of animal experimentation.
I believe Greg Clark’s decision to give the go-ahead to the new ‘beagle facility’ in Yorkshire is wrong on so many counts.
Testing toxic substances on beagles is hypocritical. It is cruel. It is bad science and it is quite simply unnecessary. Perhaps worst of all, the new Beagle factory threatens to open the floodgates to yet more experiments on these magnificent creatures.
For a start, Mr Clark’s decision flies in the face of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reduce animal experimentation. I’ve actually read the manifesto.
On page 54 it says: ‘We will encourage other countries to follow the EU’s lead in banning animal testing for cosmetics and work to accelerate the global development and take-up of alternatives to animal testing where appropriate.’
Frankly, how you can license the Yorkshire beagle farm while saying at the same time you are committed to reducing animal experimentation beats me.
Maybe Mr Clark is inclined to argue that the manifesto is not to be taken word for word because the Conservatives never expected to win an outright majority. If he does think that, he is on very thin ice. David Cameron has made it clear to Conservative MPs that the manifesto is to be implemented line by line. No ifs and buts.
But it is not just a matter of political good faith. Mr Clark’s decision flies in the face of decades of devoted efforts by dedicated individuals to dispense altogether with the horrific practices of animal experimentation.
The second objection is the stupidity of it. Investigations by the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) have revealed the shockingly crude and unscientific reality of the tests: chemicals accidentally pumped into dogs’ lungs; puppies force-fed weedkiller which had been on sale for 20 years; tests conducted after human studies began, and so on.
These tests are fundamentally flawed due to differences between dog and human physiology–chocolate, grapes and human medicines such as Ibuprofen are deemed safe for humans, but are potentially harmful to dogs.
There are far more advanced alternatives, including silicon chips which mimic the reaction of organs; testing on cell cultures that have been removed from humans or animals; and computer modelling where machines stimulate diseases and help scientists develop ways to combat them.
In all this I have a surprising ally who has become a personal hero of mine – Professor Michael Balls, father of the former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.
I first met Prof Balls in Brussels at the end of the 1970s. As the moving spirit behind the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME), Prof Balls was determined that the EU should adopt similar standards.
In this, Prof Balls, and others who supported him, were brilliantly successful. The EU Council, with Britain in the vanguard, unanimously adopted strong rules aimed at curbing the widespread practice of vivisection.
Worryingly, organisations such as the NAVS are now concerned that the surge in availability of beagles, as a result of the Yorkshire beagle farm, could lead to a dramatic increase in dog experimentation, simply because of supply and convenience.
I sometimes ask myself whether new Ministers, like Mr Clark, really take the time they need to thoroughly consider these decisions. There are scores of special political advisers scattered around Whitehall. Did any of them actually talk to Prof Balls, for example? Do they realise how much Britain has invested in the effort to improve the lot of laboratory animals? Have they done their homework? I doubt it.
Well, Mr Clark is very soon going to be feeling the political heat as a result of his stunning misjudgment. I urge readers to sign an online petition calling for the Prime Minister to overrule decision. It already has more than 500,000 signatures.
Prime Minister, the ball is in your court. Tell Mr Clark to think again.
‘Testing is cruel and fundamentally flawed’