Il Comitato ringrazia di cuore l'amica Silvia per aver curato la versione in inglese del nostro volantino.
Comitato Montichiari contro Green Hill
Montichiari local committee against Green Hill
Green Hill is a company located in Montichiari (Brescia, north of Italy).
It is specialized in Beagle dogs breeding to be sold only and exclusively to vivisection laboratories worldwide.
More than 2500 dogs and litters are kept in Green Hill's 5 sheds. An animal detention center made of close and aseptic buildings, without access to outdoor spaces, fresh air or natural light.
These dogs grow in rows and rows of cages illuminated by artificial lights. They only leave this place when they are charged on vans and sent to vivisection laboratories.
Every month, more than 250 dogs leave this place to be sent to operatory tables of vivisection laboratories.
These dogs are bred to die and condemned to suffer!
Let's say NO to Green Hill, NO to vivisection.
Who we are
The “Montichiari committee against Green Hill” (Comitato Montichiari contro Green Hill) is a group of common citizens. We are ordinary people who – despite different life ideals or different lifestyles - decided to stand up and protest against this company located in our territory and against all other similar companies everywhere.
Our main activity is to inform Montichiari and the neighbouring towns public opinion about the existence of this “dog factory” - and the uselessness of the vivisectionist practice - through leaflets, information desks and public events.
Why we say No to vivisection
The term “vivisection” (or “animal experimentation”) refers to all practices of experimentation on animals and not only to “in vivo” experiments, that means the dissection of living animals.
In Italy, a million of animals are tortured in vivisection laboratories for all kinds of tests every year.
These tests and researches are NOT necessary to save human beings lives, as vivisectors are trying to make us believe.
Animal species are biologically, physiologically, genetically and anatomically very different from each other. Data extrapolation between different species is impossible.
Animal experimentation is not only unreliable, but also dangerous because it opens to misinterpretation.
Knowing that a substance resulted innocuous on a specific animal species does not ensure it will be safe for human beings (sometimes it is safe, sometimes not; side effects are known only after several years). Vice versa, a noxious substance for a particular animal species, such as penicillin, is lethal for guinea pigs and an efficacious drug for human beings.
Why is it practiced then?
In reality it is practiced for economical and professional careers interests and to serve as an alibi for drug manufacturers to protect themselves thereby.
The common jurisdiction imposes that tests for news drugs must be conducted on animals first and on human beings afterwards (tests on human beings are compulsory). According to this, big companies can protect themselves - in case of damages caused by their products - by claiming that animal tests have been conducted before the marketing of a new drug.
Moreover, by selecting a particular animal species, researchers can predict the test results according to companies interests. Animal experimentation is not conducted for SCIENTIFIC REASONS, but for ECONOMICAL REASONS against animals and consumers rights.
Researchers too do not believe in the validity of their tests and the only reasons why they conduct them are for personal interests, as stated during the trial for the thalidomide tragedy: “In the trial for thalidomide, several doctors and famous physiologists affirmed under oath the absolute uselessness of animal experimentation” (Dr. E.B.Chain, Nobel prize for medicine).
Vice versa the marketing of a new drug which caused side effects on animals is possible, as the law prescribes tests on animals, but it does not oblige to discard noxious substances resulted on one or several animal species.
As Dr. P. Lewis stated on his article “Drugs and Pregnancy”, animal testing is pointless from a scientific point of view, but it is needed to reply to the growing request of adequate tests on drugs by the public opinion. In other words, “something” is being done, despite it is not the right thing.