Corporate crimes and Animal Welfare

Animal Welfare

Corporate crimes and GlaxoSmithKline PLC,

Testing practices are often cruel

GlaxoSmithKline uses animal testing and vivisection in its drug

research. In it's company policy on animal testing GSK "...acknowledges

that it has a moral responsibility to ensure best practice in the

humane treatment of laboratory animals."[28] In spite of this, GSK's

testing practices are often cruel, and the tests themselves completely

unnecessary.

GSK's animal testing policy claims "Non-medical Consumer Healthcare

products...are never tested on animals unless there is a specific demand

for this from national governments."[29] Yet, the Animal rights group

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in August 2000

listed SmithKline Beecham as a company that manufactured animal tested

products. These were personal health care and household products that

were not required by US law to be tested on animals. SmithKline

Beeecham's animal testing policy at the time also stated that testing

would only be carried out if required by law.[30]

Failing Global Health Needs

14 Million people die each year from infectious diseases, most of them

in developing countries. [31] The medical treatments available are

often archaic and ineffective, especially for so-called 'neglected

diseases' (Malaria, Tuberculosis, Sleeping Sickness, Chagas disease,

and leishmaniasis), whose victims are almost exclusively from

developing countries and poor. These diseases are linked with poverty

and unsanitary living conditions; new drugs are desperately needed.

At present, private pharmaceutical companies control the development

of new medicines. People in Developing countries, who make up 80 per

cent of the world's population, only represent about 20 per cent of

worldwide medicine sales.[32] Since these people are relatively poor,

GlaxoSmithKline, along with other major pharmaceutical companies, do

not see it as profitable to develop medicines for their needs, and do

negligible research into medicines which would help them. "Of all

annual health related research, only 0.2 per cent is spent on

pneumonia, diarrhoea, and tuberculosis-three poverty related ailments

which account for 18 per cent of the global disease burden."(Oxfam,

Briefing paper on GlaxoSmithKline, 2001).[33] This failure, in effect,

kills untold numbers of people every year. It is the fault of the

pharmaceutical industry putting their company profits above the lives

of people, but it is also the fault of governments and other bodies

like the United Nations for depending on market forces to provide

people with basic necessities.

Environmental Issues

GlaxoSmithKline owns dozens of chemical plants all over the world. The

chemical plant they own in Ulverston is marked by it's carcinogenic

emissions and repeated violations of environmental regulations.

According to the Factory Watch website, GSK's chemical plant in

Ulverston is one of the most carcinogenic polluters in the UK. Factory

Watch's information, compiled from Environment agency data, looked at

over 1,500 factories nation-wide. The Ulverston site was ranked number

three on Factory Watch's list, emitting 773 tonnes of carcinogens in

2001, 10 per cent of the national total.[34]

In September 1992 the Ulverston site (then owned by Glaxo Wellcome)

dumped several toxic chemicals in the river Leven, without

authorisation. The chemicals included trichloroethylene, chloroform,

and chlorobenzene.[35]

Also, in May 1994, the Ulverston site discharged, again without

authorisation, 1,350m3 of "ineffectively treated effluent" into M. The

company was required by law to notify the authorities within 24 hours,

but they didn't until six days later.[36]

SEE:

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=325

More on GlaxoSmithKline

Despite Protests, Panel Says Avandia OK

In an earlier 20-3 vote, the panelists said that available data show

the drug does increase heart risks. Panelists said the drug's warning

label should be updated and there should be additional study.

The manufacturer, PLC, argued that there is no increased risk, citing

its own analyses of studies of Avandia, also called rosiglitazone

By ANDREW BRIDGES,AP

Posted: 2007-07-31 06:00:40

WASHINGTON (July 30) - The widely used diabetes drug Avandia should

remain on the market, government health advisers recommended Monday,

saying evidence of an increased risk of heart attack doesn't merit

removal.

On Jul 31, 6:26 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:

> Animal Welfare

>

> Corporate crimes and GlaxoSmithKline PLC,

> Testing practices are often cruel

>

> GlaxoSmithKline uses animal testing and vivisection in its drug

> research. In it's company policy on animal testing GSK "...acknowledges

> that it has a moral responsibility to ensure best practice in the

> humane treatment of laboratory animals."[28] In spite of this, GSK's

> testing practices are often cruel, and the tests themselves completely

> unnecessary.

>

> GSK's animal testing policy claims "Non-medical Consumer Healthcare

> products...are never tested on animals unless there is a specific demand

> for this from national governments."[29] Yet, the Animal rights group

> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in August 2000

> listed SmithKline Beecham as a company that manufactured animal tested

> products. These were personal health care and household products that

> were not required by US law to be tested on animals. SmithKline

> Beeecham's animal testing policy at the time also stated that testing

> would only be carried out if required by law.[30]

>

> Failing Global Health Needs

> 14 Million people die each year from infectious diseases, most of them

> in developing countries. [31] The medical treatments available are

> often archaic and ineffective, especially for so-called 'neglected

> diseases' (Malaria, Tuberculosis, Sleeping Sickness, Chagas disease,

> and leishmaniasis), whose victims are almost exclusively from

> developing countries and poor. These diseases are linked with poverty

> and unsanitary living conditions; new drugs are desperately needed.

>

> At present, private pharmaceutical companies control the development

> of new medicines. People in Developing countries, who make up 80 per

> cent of the world's population, only represent about 20 per cent of

> worldwide medicine sales.[32] Since these people are relatively poor,

> GlaxoSmithKline, along with other major pharmaceutical companies, do

> not see it as profitable to develop medicines for their needs, and do

> negligible research into medicines which would help them. "Of all

> annual health related research, only 0.2 per cent is spent on

> pneumonia, diarrhoea, and tuberculosis-three poverty related ailments

> which account for 18 per cent of the global disease burden."(Oxfam,

> Briefing paper on GlaxoSmithKline, 2001).[33] This failure, in effect,

> kills untold numbers of people every year. It is the fault of the

> pharmaceutical industry putting their company profits above the lives

> of people, but it is also the fault of governments and other bodies

> like the United Nations for depending on market forces to provide

> people with basic necessities.

>

> Environmental Issues

> GlaxoSmithKline owns dozens of chemical plants all over the world. The

> chemical plant they own in Ulverston is marked by it's carcinogenic

> emissions and repeated violations of environmental regulations.

>

> According to the Factory Watch website, GSK's chemical plant in

> Ulverston is one of the most carcinogenic polluters in the UK. Factory

> Watch's information, compiled from Environment agency data, looked at

> over 1,500 factories nation-wide. The Ulverston site was ranked number

> three on Factory Watch's list, emitting 773 tonnes of carcinogens in

> 2001, 10 per cent of the national total.[34]

>

> In September 1992 the Ulverston site (then owned by Glaxo Wellcome)

> dumped several toxic chemicals in the river Leven, without

> authorisation. The chemicals included trichloroethylene, chloroform,

> and chlorobenzene.[35]

>

> Also, in May 1994, the Ulverston site discharged, again without

> authorisation, 1,350m3 of "ineffectively treated effluent" into M. The

> company was required by law to notify the authorities within 24 hours,

> but they didn't until six days later.[36]

>

> SEE:http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=325

>

> More on GlaxoSmithKline

>

> Despite Protests, Panel Says Avandia OK

> In an earlier 20-3 vote, the panelists said that available data show

> the drug does increase heart risks. Panelists said the drug's warning

> label should be updated and there should be additional study.

>

> The manufacturer, PLC, argued that there is no increased risk, citing

> its own analyses of studies of Avandia, also called rosiglitazone

>

> By ANDREW BRIDGES,AP

> Posted: 2007-07-31 06:00:40

>

> WASHINGTON (July 30) - The widely used diabetes drug Avandia should

> remain on the market, government health advisers recommended Monday,

> saying evidence of an increased risk of heart attack doesn't merit

> removal.

------------ HEY! MICHAEL VICK WAS ONLY ...

.... testing animals for medicine and science! That's gonna be his

DEFENSE, and he's probably going to get off with it!

------------