Posts

What it is Welfare Washing?

welfare

What it is Welfare Washing?

Welfare Washing: What it is and How to Challenge the Disinformation

“Welfare washing” is a relatively new term, borne from the roots of greenwashing. In a more informed and environmentally conscious world, greenwashing erupted as a successful marketing strategy to reassure users that a product was carbon conscious, earth-friendly or had some form of “green” credentials. Unfortunately, many of these claims can be misleading, spouted to increase sales rather than a passion for protection. Frustratingly, we are now seeing the same thing happening with animal welfare.

A supporter of Wild Welfare recently reached out to us to highlight a distressing situation they had encountered in Indonesia. As part of an organised tour, our supporter accidentally found themselves on a civet coffee farm. The civets were in tiny, cramped and barren cages with nowhere to go and little else to eat besides endless coffee cherries. Stereotypic behaviours such as frantic pacing indicated their distress levels, frustration at their restrictive environment, and the problematic ways in which they were managed. Sadly, these animals are often caught from the wild using cruel and traumatic methods.

Aside from the obvious exploitation and suffering that was witnessed during this visit, something that stood out to our supporter was a prominent yellow poster on the wall, written in a mix of Bahasa Indonesia and English, explaining the five freedoms. The five freedoms are a now slightly outdated model of animal welfare, highlighting the importance of the reduction of negative welfare states such as hunger and pain. The fact that this information was displayed so prominently in the civet farm showed an acknowledgement and awareness of the concept, but the surrounding reality showed little to no evidence of using this welfare model to direct the way the civets were managed. 

However, anyone on this tour without the behavioural knowledge of the species might feel reassured by the presence of this poster. If the facility is actively mentioning animal welfare concepts, then surely they must be abiding by those governing principles? Sadly we know this is not the case. 

THIS IS WELFARE WASHING

There are many other examples of this, particularly within the tourism industry, such as a facility named as an animal sanctuary while the reality still exemplifies exploitation. Another facility might make use of buzzwords like “enrichment” or “positive reinforcement training” whilst evidence of the use of these management techniques is severely lacking. 

Welfare washing feels like the next hurdle to tackle when it comes to encouraging ethical tourism decisions, and frustratingly, the goal posts keep on moving. It isn’t enough to see a statement of animal welfare; we need to be searching for evidence to back up that claim. The more we ask for that evidence whenever we are planning any touristic activity involving animals, the more we can push forward animal welfare standards to something more acceptable. As an example, this could be checking that a sanctuary you visit is GFAS accredited, or calling out a tour guide who chooses to take you closer to a whale or dolphin than allowed by the compliance standards which govern the experience.

Our understanding of how to meet animal’s welfare needs, and the sentient capabilities of animals has progressed, and organisations or facilities which house animals now need to make drastic changes along with this understanding. We also need to be aware of what the next hurdles will be in the challenge of this, and how we can tackle them to prioritise true and sustainable animal welfare improvements. 

There are no industry guidelines or standards, and enforcement of the current legislation is limited, leading to exaggerated claims of care and welfare by unscrupulous civet coffee farmers. The civets on display at a touristic facility may just be the tip of the iceberg, with a handful living in better conditions and in fewer numbers for the visiting public. The reality is that there will be many more in severely limiting conditions producing the coffee to supply the domestic and international markets.

Going back to the Indonesian facility, another poster which was displayed and actively spoken about by the tour guide, showed the alleged dietary variation over the course of a week for the civets. The poster claimed they are only fed coffee cherries twice a week, with other foods included in the diet for the majority of each week. Our supporter did see evidence of other items being fed at this facility, but unfortunately, the high demand for civet coffee means that many farms resort to a singular diet to meet the consumer’s thirst for the product. Such restrictions in diet are also thought to lead to early deaths of civets, and are illegal under Indonesian law. The question of whether milk is a healthy option for species which may be lactose intolerant also remains to be answered.  

Welfare washing is a worrying trend, spreading disinformation like a disease. However, we can inoculate ourselves by seeking out the most reliable information from scientific communities utilising evidence-based sources.

Source: Wild Welfare

FOUR PAWS Statement: Live Animal Transport Is a ‘Black Box’ of Hidden Animal Suffering

animal

© RSPCA South Australia

FOUR PAWS Statement: Live Animal Transport Is a ‘Black Box’ of Hidden Animal Suffering

The weeks-long journey of the Spiridon II carrying pregnant cattle as a symptom of cruel transport conditions

Global animal welfare organisation FOUR PAWS is alarmed by the ongoing case of the livestock vessel Spiridon II, that was denied entry to Türkiye due to ear tag documentation issues. 

The vessel left Uruguay for Türkiye in mid-September, carrying over 2,000 cattle. After weeks of being stranded at sea awaiting a decision, the weakened animals may now be forced to return to Uruguay. According to the exporter, half of the carried animals were pregnant, raising alarms about the well-being of the cattle and calves born on deck. The exact number of animals that gave birth, lost a calf or died during the journey remains unknown. As this crisis continues to unfold, another livestock vessel carrying around 7,000 animals has departed from Uruguay to Türkiye, raising serious concerns that the same tragedy could repeat itself.

“Not only is it questionable why cattle were sent on such a long transatlantic ordeal in the first place but also why they could be forced to repeat this journey. The cattle finally deserve rest but instead they are reduced to lifeless cargo that is being shipped around. Their basic needs are completely denied. But sadly, the Spiridon II is no isolated case but part of the bigger issue of substandard transport conditions and insufficient documentation. And now, another vessel with even more animals has embarked on the same journey.

Live animal transport resembles a ‘black box’ of hidden animal suffering. We may know where animals depart, stop, and arrive, but not how they were treated along the way. The lack of transparency is unacceptable and allows animal welfare violations to happen with little repercussions. It needs strong transport laws to counter this and put an end to cruel transports via sea for good,” says Corinna Reinisch responsible for animals cruelly traded and transported at FOUR PAWS.

Source: FOUR PAWS

South Africa’s First Holistic Animal Welfare Workshop Delivered at Joburg Zoo

zoo

South Africa’s First Holistic Animal Welfare Workshop Delivered at Joburg Zoo

South African captive animal welfare received a major boost this month, following a four-day interactive workshop hosted by the Johannesburg Zoo (JCPZ). Guided by international animal welfare charities, Wild Welfare and Wild Welfare US, this landmark occasion gathered over 60 animal care professionals from across the region, for the country’s first ever holistic training event on animal behavioural management.

Proceedings began with a key address from Wild Welfare Co-Founder and Field Director Dave Morgan entitled “Exploring the Role of Empathy in Animal Welfare” which introduced the guiding principle that all good welfare practices are fundamentally underpinned by empathy. Dave challenged participants to view their own animal care practices through the lens of compassionate decision-making.

Throughout the four-day workshop, delegates were introduced to the concept of behavioural management and explored proactive, science-based approaches to enhance the care and welfare of captive animals. Participants were guided through engaging sessions covering various topics, including Operant Conditioning, Positive Reinforcement Training (PRT) techniques, behavioural problem solving, Environmental Enrichment Planning and safety. Each illustrated how to provide animals with responsive environments that facilitate greater choice and control, and enhances their psychological and physical wellbeing.

Delegates honed their practical skills during a rope splicing and knot tying masterclass. These skills are essential for the safe and secure construction of enrichment structures, which directly benefit the animals under their care. In addition to the hands-on sessions, groups were tasked with discussing and sensitive theoretical scenarios. One particularly emotive discussion raised a lively debate around the topics of intervention, euthanasia, and long-term animal behavioural health. “Such discussions in an open forum are vital for creating a progressive culture of ethical reflection and transparency within the animal care community”, Executive Director of Wild Welfare US, Margaret Whittaker, expressed.

During “The Training Game”, participants partnered up to demonstrate and simulate PRT in action. While one person plays the “trainer”, the other embodies the role of the “animal,” who must learn the desired behaviour without verbal instruction, guided only by a clicker. This game teaches the importance of timing the reinforcement – a critical skill any trainer must learn; and when playing the part of the animal, future trainers will gain empathy for what the animal experiences during the PRT process – all of which reveals how timing, clarity, and patience are crucial traits of good trainers and essential to shape behaviour. Trainers then had the opportunity to practice their learning on live animals at the zoo including pigs and sheep. Margaret explained how the exercise helped participants “feel what it’s like to be the animal and understand why timing is so critical for good behavioral outcomes when training.”

The diverse event brought together professionals from leading institutions across South Africa including the National Zoo (Pretoria), uShaka Marine World (Durban), Two Oceans Aquarium (Cape Town), Cango Wildlife Ranch, and Lory Park Zoo. Johannesburg Zoo staff also shared their own welfare initiatives, from training and enrichment for Southern Ground Hornbills to improving water quality for Pickersgill Reed Frog tadpoles and developing sustainable browse-collection partnerships.

Louise Gordon, Executive Manager of JHB Zoo said, “This workshop showcased the vast knowledge and passion of both Margaret and Dave. It inspired every person who attended, reaffirming Joburg Zoo’s goal of becoming a centre of excellence for staff development and animal welfare”. Candice Gray, JHB Zoo behavioural enrichment officer added, “It was an absolute privilege to stand up next to the experts from Wild Welfare and Wild Welfare US and co-host this event. Thank you to the keepers who presented the fantastic work happening at their facilities. I’m excited to see what 2026 will bring.”

The South African Animal Keepers Association (SAAKA) also praised the initiative, with their Vice President, Robynn Ingle-Moller commenting, “The Wild Welfare Workshop at Joburg Zoo was rock awesome! It helped us to refine and refresh our understanding of welfare and wellbeing. The message that stood out most, was to be loud, don’t let apathy win, and keep learning and sharing.”

Wild Welfare’s Dave Morgan reflected on the event by concluding that, “No other organisation has ever delivered such a holistic approach to Behaviour Management in South Africa. Seeing the passion and commitment from frontline animal care staff confirmed the urgent need for this training. We’re proud to have supported this step toward a more compassionate future for the continent’s captive wildlife and we’re thrilled that Johannesburg Zoo is keen to build on this success with further workshops next year.”

Source: Wild Welfare

One Health. One Planet. Our Responsibility.

One Health. One Planet. Our Responsibility.

Time for action: a joint statement of the EU Cross-agency One Health Task Force and the European and Central Asia Quadripartite on One Health

As wildfires, heatwaves, floods and other interconnected crises intensify in 2025, recognizing the link between human, animal and environmental health – and acting across sectors – is essential.

This World One Health Day, 9 international organizations make 4 key recommendations and call for action nationally, regionally and globally to advance the implementation of the One Health approach in Europe and beyond.

As representatives of the European Union (EU) Cross-agency One Health Task Force and the European and Central Asia Quadripartite, we jointly acknowledge the urgency of addressing risks where human, animal, plant and environmental health intersect. These risks – intensified by climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, land use changes, complex food chains, and increased trade and travel – demand stronger and more integrated prevention and response measures.

The summer of 2025 was the warmest on record. By early September, nearly 1 million hectares of land had been lost to wildfires in the EU, far exceeding the long-term annual average of 280 000 hectares. Marine heatwaves affected nearly the entire Mediterranean, amplifying ecological stress and threatening livelihoods.

Record-breaking heat and extended mosquito seasons have fuelled the spread of West Nile virus, chikungunya and dengue, while also driving a rise in heat-related illnesses, foodborne infections and pressure on health systems – especially affecting vulnerable populations.

At the same time, animal diseases such as bluetongue, lumpy skin disease and avian influenza threaten animal welfare and food security.

These environmental disruptions further increase the risk of zoonotic and transboundary diseases as habitat shifts, unsustainable land use and agricultural practices bring wildlife, livestock and humans into closer contact.

In light of this, we work closely with the European Commission and call on all stakeholders – governments, other institutions (including financial institutions), civil society, academia and the private sector – to intensify their commitment to advancing One Health at all levels.

To achieve this, we underscore the urgent need to do the following:
  • Enhance global and regional coordination – Ensure alignment in the implementation of the EU Cross-agency One Health Framework for Action and the Quadripartite’s One Health Joint Plan of Action, reinforcing global and regional solidarity in tackling transboundary health challenges.
  • Invest in stronger One Health governance and collaborative leadership – As highlighted by the Scientific Advice Mechanism opinion on One Health governance in the EU, robust governance is essential to connect policies and actions across sectors. Increased investment is required to strengthen institutional capacities, promote inclusive decision-making and foster collaborative leadership models that can effectively manage complex One Health challenges at regional and EU levels.
  • Make intersectoral collaboration the norm – Embed One Health into national and subnational governance systems through legislation, sustained financing and enabling policy frameworks. Build trust and accountability through transparent communication, joint planning and decision-making, data sharing, and cross-sectoral monitoring.
  • Leverage evidence to support strategic investment in One Health approaches – Carry out and build on analyses showing the economic and social value of prevention and preparedness through One Health measures. Ensure that policy choices are grounded in scientific evidence and deliver benefits for human, animal and environmental health, while demonstrating the added value obtained through coordination, collaboration, communication and capacity-building that the One Health approach promotes.

As we celebrate World One Health Day, the challenges we face serve as a powerful reminder of our interconnected vulnerabilities and shared responsibilities. To prevent, prepare and respond to the next pandemic, no sector or country can act alone: we must act together, now.

Through dedicated cooperation and proactive measures, the EU Cross-agency One Health Task Force and the European and Central Asia Quadripartite commit to implementing the One Health approach. We invite all partners to join us in this essential endeavour for the health of people, animals, and the planet.

About the Task Force and Quadripartite

The EU Cross-agency One Health Task Force is a joint initiative of 5 agencies of the EU that have a technical and scientific mandate in the areas of environmental sustainability, public health and food safety. Members include the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) contributes as an observer.

The European and Central Asia Quadripartite facilitates cooperation among the regional offices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and WHO, enabling the WHO European Region to address risks at the human–animal–ecosystem interface and mainstream the One Health approach.

Sources: WHO and WFA

Our lifesaving work in Jamaica

Jamaica

Photo by Grettel Delgadillo/Humane World for Animals

Our lifesaving work in Jamaica

Our Animal Rescue Team is on the ground in Jamaica, helping animals following the destruction left by Hurricane Melissa. The conditions on the ground are heartbreaking. There is no power, and many of the hardest-hit areas remain inaccessible and out of contact, making basic resources like food, clean water and supplies limited.

We’ve been helping a local shelter, Negril Pup Rescue, which is caring for 90 animals, with immediate needs such as food, and with long-term recovery plans, as their building sustained significant damage. We’re continuing to provide critical supplies across the island, assessing where our help is most needed and working with partners in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the Bahamas to help as many animals as possible.

Source: Humane World for Animals

FOUR PAWS on Early Avian Influenza Surge

avian

© FOUR PAWS

FOUR PAWS on Early Avian Influenza Surge

Mass killings are mere symptom control

This year’s avian influenza season started unusually early and at an alarming rate, with outbreaks reported in the United States, Japan, and several European countries, where unprecedented levels for this time of the year have been observed. The highly pathogenic H5N1 strain is also suspected to have reached Australia for the first time, following the discovery of hundreds of dead seal pups on sub-Antarctic Heard Island. The rapid spread has sparked fears of a new avian influenza crisis. Since the avian influenza season began in October, the virus has taken a heavy toll on animals, resulting in the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of poultry birds worldwide and a significant loss of wildlife. According to data from the World Organisation for Animal Health, approximately 907,222 poultry birds either died or were killed due to the highly pathogenic virus in September, most of them in the Americas.

“It is deeply concerning that mass killings of animals have become the new normal in the fight against avian influenza. To truly end the suffering, we must move beyond symptom control and address the root causes of the problem. Fur farming and factory farming are breeding grounds for pandemics: overcrowded, cruel and unhygienic conditions accelerate the transmission, circulation, and mutation of viruses, like highly pathogenic avian influenza. We urgently need to reduce the number of farmed animals and end fur farming. Transitioning to smaller farms with higher animal welfare standards can lower disease risks, limit killings, animal suffering and financial loss for farmers,”

-Nina Jamal, responsible for Global Affairs at FOUR PAWS

While biosecurity, monitoring and surveillance, movement control and vaccinations are important tools to contain outbreaks of avian influenza, they don’t address the underlying causes, the global animal welfare organisation emphasises.

Data indicates that the intensification of farming since 1940 has been linked to more than half of all zoonotic diseases in humans. “To protect human and animal health, prevention at the source is key. We urge all governments to sign, ratify and implement the Pandemic Agreement after it is open for signature. By embracing the One Health approach, the Pandemic Agreement represents the first legally binding instrument to recognise the deep interconnection between human, environmental health and animal welfare. It captures binding commitments to help prevent the spillover of pathogens, before humans and animals suffer,” adds Jamal.

Source: FOUR PAWS

Paving the Way for Major Animal Welfare Reform in Japan

Japan

Paving the Way for Major Animal Welfare Reform in Japan

Wild Welfare recently visited Japan to drive forward a plan to improve the lives of countless captive wild animals across the country. The visit included a programme of high-level engagements with national NGOs, government representatives, and prominent academics. The core focus of the engagement was to promote a compassionate and scientifically informed approach to human-wildlife interactions, strengthening protections for kept exotic species in Japan’s many zoos, aquariums and exotic animal cafes.

In late September, Wild Welfare’s Executive Director, Simon Marsh, and Animal Welfare Consultant, Georgina Groves, travelled to Tokyo to address a public symposium at the University of Veterinary and Life Sciences in collaboration with the Japanese Coalition for Animal Welfare (JCAW). The Wildlife Husbandry Management and Human-Wildlife Contact event explored the current status and challenges of keeping wild animals in captivity.

During Simon’s presentation, he highlighted the trend towards increased public and tourism industry awareness of animal welfare issues both internationally and domestically in Japan. He noted that growing public awareness of what constitutes good animal care and welfare is a key component of reforming unethical behaviors and common practices. Simon referenced key factors that can result in poor animal care, drawing upon commonalities identified in published research, building on his evidence-based case for change. Georgina Groves followed up by discussing the negative welfare impacts of human-animal interactions, such as those commonly seen at exotic animal cafes across Japan. Georgina explained how ‘novel’ and ‘intimate’ human-animal interactions negatively normalise the objectification of wild animals, making them appear nothing more than props for human entertainment. She expressed how, aside from the poor welfare, this sort of interaction was ineffective for achieving educational or conservation goals and contributed to further disconnecting the public from positive wildlife engagement.

In total, over 50 individuals attended the symposium in-person and online; including representatives from other NGOs, local authorities, zoos, animal-related schools, national press, and the general public. Also in attendance was the Chair of the Government’s Animal Welfare Committee and a prominent Kokkai from the Ministry of the Environment. Such an audience positively indicated how collaborative advocacy efforts are starting to gain real momentum within the country.

Following the symposium, key stakeholders held a followup meeting to solidify partnerships and coordinate strategies for driving forward actions to bring about robust welfare reforms. Wild Welfare representatives met with partner organisation, the Japan Coalition for Animal Welfare (JCAW), to discuss coordinating advocacy efforts, with discussions centring on leveraging momentum in cooperation with engaged political figures within the country. Focus was placed on discussing how a robust national licensing system should ideally be introduced to significantly improve standards for zoos and aquariums across the country. “The integration of strong welfare considerations across conservation, research, and education frameworks is paramount for positive progress within this area” Georgina explained.

Further discussions continued in collaboration with JCAW, JAZA (Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums), and WWF Japan to explore areas of collaboration to address urgent issues such as zoonotic disease risks in animal cafés and the exotic pet trade, as well as animal welfare concerns. WWF Japan shared valuable insights from their recent risk assessment on animal cafés, reinforcing the need for policy to be guided by both animal welfare and public health considerations. This supported the findings from a collaborative research paper from Wild Welfare, Nippon Life Sciences University and Nottingham Trent University, on animal cafes in Japan, which is due to be published soon. Wild Welfare reaffirmed its commitment to providing technical expertise and capacity-building resources to support partners in driving these essential reforms into fruition.

Wild Welfare Director, Simon Marsh explained that, “As part of our ongoing research and advocacy against the use of wild animals for purely entertainment purposes, we are committed to seeing an end to the exploitation of wildlife in animal cafes across Japan ”. The charity is now calling for much-needed regulation to be implemented to protect animals housed in these establishments. “It has become clear that thousands of exotic species are being kept in significantly poor and inadequate conditions, causing mass unnecessary animal suffering” Simon concluded.

Overall, the visit was highly productive, reinforcing Wild Welfare’s dedication to supporting Japan’s growing animal welfare movement. Cooperation between NGOs, government officials, and industry bodies, is laying out a clear roadmap towards stronger, more compassionate protection for all captive wild animals across Japan.

Sources: Wild Welfare

How Dogs Are Used In Testing?

Humane World for Animals

How Dogs Are Used In Testing?

Discover how and why tens of thousands of dogs are used in U.S. laboratories each year.

Dogs in Research & Testing – FAQ

Over 40,000 dogs are used in experiments annually in the U.S., enduring painful procedures and often resulting in euthanasia. Learn what happens and how you can help end this injustice.

How many dogs are used in experiments every year?

Over the last three years, 44,000 dogs were used in experiments each year on average in the United States. In addition, tens of thousands of puppies destined for labs are born at breeding facilities every year.

What kinds of experiments are dogs used in?

Dogs are used to test the safety of drugs, medical devices and pesticides such as weed killer, insect repellent, and rat poison. This kind of testing tries to determine how a substance, ingredient or device will affect human health. Dogs used for testing are fed quantities of the test substance—such as a weed killer or a new medicine under development—on a daily basis for months and observed for harmful effects. These substances can be given to the dogs in their food, as pills or through force-feeding. They are sometimes injected with substances or forced to inhale them. Most dogs used in these kinds of tests are eventually killed so that their tissues and organs can be examined. In order to test medical devices or other products, dogs are implanted with items such as pacemakers and typically killed after the test is over.

Dogs are also used in many types of biomedical experiments, including cardiac, neurological, respiratory and dental experiments. Dogs may be specially bred to have a fatal disease, such as muscular dystrophy. In other cases, healthy dogs will be operated on to give them symptoms of serious conditions like heart disease or to remove or damage some of their organs and then further experimented upon. They are also typically killed after the experiment is over.

What kinds of institutions use dogs in experiments?

More than 250 institutions in the U.S. report using dogs in experiments each year, including chemical, pesticide and drug companies (and the contract laboratories that carry out dog tests for these companies), public and private universities, community and technical schools, government-owned facilities, Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities and hospitals.

Which laboratories in the U.S. used the largest number of dogs in 2023?

dogs

Some research institutions compile annual animal use data from all their facilities across the U.S. and report it in only one USDA annual report. This makes it impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in each state.

Where do laboratories get the dogs they use in experiments?

The majority of dogs in laboratories are purpose-bred, meaning that they are bred with the intent of selling them to laboratories that use dogs in harmful experiments. Tens of thousands of dogs destined for labs are born at breeding facilities every year. People who breed and sell purpose-bred animals (including dogs) are called Class A dealers and are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  

Historically, some cats and dogs were sold to laboratories by brokers known as random source Class B dealers, who acquired animals at auctions, from newspaper ads and various other sources, including animal shelters. Thankfully, random source Class B dealers have not been allowed to operate since 2015 when Congress first passed legislation to prevent them from being licensed.

Some cats and dogs in laboratories are still obtained directly from animal shelters, a practice known as “pound seizure.” Pound seizure laws vary from state to state with one state (Oklahoma) requiring shelters to give cats and dogs to laboratories when requested rather than euthanizing them, and other states allowing or prohibiting laboratories from taking animals from animal shelters. Some states have no laws at all, leaving it up to the individual shelter or locality.

Which dealers have large numbers of dogs in their possession?

Breeders of purpose-bred dogs (dogs that are bred specifically to be used in experiments) are called Class A dealers and are licensed and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Of the Class A dealers selling to laboratories in 2023, the following dealers had some of the largest numbers of dogs in their possession:

View the Chart

What is life like for dogs in laboratories?

Dogs in laboratories suffer immensely. In addition to the painful experiments that the vast majority of dogs in laboratories experience over days, months, years or even decades, life in a laboratory is typically a miserable and terrifying experience.

Typically kept alone in barren steel cages with little room to move around and few, if any, comforts, such as toys or soft bedding, dogs often become unbearably lonely and anxious, often devoid of the companionship of other dogs or the loving touch of a human. The painful—often excruciating—procedures that they experience include being intentionally injured, implanted with medical devices, infected with diseases, subjected to repeated surgeries, force-fed drugs, pesticides or other substances and observed for harmful effects such as heart failure, liver disease, signs of cancer or even death. They typically also watch (or hear) other animals suffering, including their own parents, siblings or babies.

Dogs in laboratories may also be mistreated by inexperienced or careless staff. Although there are penalties for laboratories when animals are injured or killed due to negligence or when they fail to meet minimum standards of animal care, in reality, the fines are typically either very small or waived entirely.

  • Read about our 2022 undercover investigation at Indiana laboratory Inotiv, one of America’s largest animal testing labs. We documented hundreds of dogs, monkeys, rats and pigs undergoing experiments, including terrified beagle puppies being force-fed potentially toxic drugs in cruel and ineffective months-long tests paid for by Crinetics, a pharmaceutical company in San Diego.
  • Read about our 2019 undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners to be adopted.
What happens to the dogs once the experiment is over?

Dogs are typically killed once an experiment is over, particularly dogs used in chemical/drug testing. However, more and more states are passing laws that require laboratories, when possible, to offer dogs to shelters and other rescue organizations so they can be adopted into loving homes after the experiments they were used in have ended. As of December 2023, 16 states have such laws.

Aren’t there laws to protect dogs used in experiments?

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is supposed to protect certain animals, including dogs, used in experiments, but this law only offers minimum standards for housing, food and exercise. The law also stipulates that the proposed experiments be reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which is appointed by the laboratory and largely made up of employees of the institution. A 2014 audit report reviewing AWA oversight of animal laboratories found that “animals are not always receiving basic humane care and treatment and, in some cases, pain and distress are not minimized during and after experimental procedures.” Although there are penalties for laboratories when animals are injured or killed due to negligence or when they fail to meet the minimum standards of animal care stipulated by the Animal Welfare Act, in reality, the fines are typically either very small or waived entirely.

Why are dogs still used in experiments?

The vast majority of experiments on dogs are not required by government law or regulations; however, the federal government plays a significant role in most of the experiments carried out on dogs in the U.S.

These types of tests on dogs have been performed for decades, regardless of whether they provide valuable information.

While some government agencies, like the EPA, are now taking a critical look at these animal tests and determining if they actually provide information that is necessary for assessing how safe a product or substance is for humans, or if better approaches are available, other agencies have done little. More efforts can be made by agencies to invest in and encourage the development of non-animal methods.

Swapping animal experiments for non-animal alternative methods seems like a straightforward process, given that using animals has so many limitations and sophisticated new technologies offer countless possibilities for creating methods that are more humane and that more accurately mimic how the human body will respond to drugs, chemicals or treatments. Unfortunately, developing these alternatives is a complex process facing many obstacles, including inadequate funding. In some cases, a non-animal alternative must be formally “validated”—an expensive and lengthy process—in order to be accepted by government agencies, both in the U.S. and globally. In contrast, animal experiments have never been subjected to the same level of scrutiny and validation. Despite these challenges, many scientists are increasingly committed to developing and using non-animal methods.

What are the non-animal alternatives to using dogs in experiments?

The world is moving toward a future dominated by sophisticated methods that use human cells, tissues and organs, 3D bioprinting, robotics, computational modeling and other technologies to create experiments that do not rely on animals.

While animal tests have not significantly changed since they were developed decades ago and will always have severe limitations, these advanced non-animal methods represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer, provide countless possibilities to improve our understanding and treatment of the human body and will only continue to improve over time. Non-animal methods also have several advantages over outdated animal experiments: they more closely mimic how the human body responds to drugs, chemicals and treatments; they are more efficient and often less expensive; and they are more humane. Ultimately, moving away from antiquated animal experiments is better for both humans and animals.

We advocate for the immediate replacement of animal experiments with available non-animal methods and for increased funding to develop new methods. A concerted effort to shift funding and technological development toward more non-animal alternatives will lead us toward a future where animal experiments will become a thing of the past.

Examples of non-animal alternative methods

  • “Organs-on-chips” are tiny 3D chips created from human cells that look and function like miniature human organs. The organs-on-chips are used to determine how human systems respond to different drugs or chemicals and to find out exactly what happens during infection or disease. Several organs, representing heart, liver, lungs or kidneys, for example, can be linked together through a “microfluidic” circulatory system to create an integrated “human-on-a-chip” model that lets researchers assess multi-organ responses.
  • Sophisticated computer models use existing information (instead of carrying out more animal tests) to predict how a medicine or chemical, such as a cholesterol drug or lawn fertilizer, might affect a human.
  • Cells from a cancer patient’s tumor are used to test different drugs and dosages to get exactly the right treatment for that specific individual, rather than testing the drugs on animals.
  • Specialized computers use human cells to print 3D tissues that are used to test drugs.
  • Skin cells from patients, such as those with Alzheimer’s disease, are turned into other types of cells (brain, heart, lung, etc.) in the laboratory and used to test new treatments.
  • Sophisticated computer programming, combined with 3D imaging, is used to develop highly accurate 3D models of human organs, such as the heart. Researchers then input real-world data from healthy people and those with heart disease to make the model hearts “beat” and then test how they might respond to new drugs.
What are the disadvantages to using animals in experiments?

  • Animal experiments are time-consuming and expensive.
  • Animal experiments don’t accurately mimic how the human body and human diseases respond to drugs, chemicals or treatments.
  • Animals are very different from humans and, therefore, react differently.
  • Increasing numbers of people find animal testing unethical.
  • There are many diseases that humans get that animals do not.
What are you doing to end experiments on dogs?

There is no place for harmful experiments on dogs in the U.S. We are committed to ending this practice.

  • In the summer of 2022, we led the removal of 3,776 beagles from Envigo, a facility in Virginia that bred dogs to sell to animal laboratories. This historic mission was the result of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice that described shocking violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the facility. Instead of continuing to suffer, the dogs removed from Envigo were headed to loving homes, a process facilitated by our shelter and rescue partners around the country.
  • In April 2022, we released the results of our six-month undercover investigation at Indiana laboratory Inotiv, one of America’s largest animal testing labs, including footage of terrified beagle puppies being force-fed potentially toxic drugs in cruel and ineffective months-long tests paid for Crinetics, a pharmaceutical company in San Diego.
  • In 2019, we released the results of our undercover investigation at a Michigan laboratory where thousands of dogs are killed every year. After weeks of pressure from the public, the pesticide company that had commissioned a test year-long fungicide test on 32 dogs, agreed that the test was unnecessary and released the dogs to one of our shelter partners to be adopted.
  • In 2021, we released a report examining the U.S. government’s role in using dogs in experiments. We found that the government uses millions of taxpayer dollars to fund harmful experiments on dogs each year—and also seems to prefer that companies carry out dog tests. Our researchers scrutinized public records and found that between 2015 and 2019, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded more than $200 million to 200 institutions for 303 projects that used dogs in harmful experiments. Dogs were subjected to multiple surgeries, fitted with equipment to impair their heart function and implanted with devices to alter normal bodily functions. Following the conclusion of an experiment, dogs are typically killed instead of being adopted into loving homes.
  • We are calling on federal agencies to develop a plan and create a timetable for phasing out and ending all experiments on dogs. We also want all the federal funding mechanisms to commit to supporting the development and use of non-animal methods. For example:
    • After a recent analysis we performed that showed the 90-day dog test for pesticide registration was rarely used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the risk that pesticides pose to humans, we are urging the agency to eliminate or significantly limit this test in the near future. We also want the agency to reaffirm their previously stated commitment to end their reliance on using mammals to test pesticides and chemicals by 2035.
    • We are asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support the development of alternative methods that replace dogs in experiments.
    • We want the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to adopt the recommendations of an independent panel review released in 2020 that analyzed VA experiments using dogs, identified several areas where dogs are not needed and urged the agency to develop a strategy to replace all animal use.
    • We are recommending that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) scrutinize grant proposals for projects using dogs, by applying strict criteria that must be met before dogs can be used and that they ban the use of dogs in experiments that cause unrelieved pain. We are also requesting that the NIH define a date when they will no longer fund or support experiments on dogs.
  • We are pushing states to pass laws that protect dogs in laboratories. We support bills to:
    • prohibit or limit the use of dogs in experiments not required by federal law, similar to laws passed in California and Illinois.
    • ensure an opportunity for dogs and cats to be adopted into loving homes after the experiment ends.
    • strengthen regulatory oversight of facilities that breed dogs destined for laboratories and increase penalties for animal welfare violations.
    • direct state funding to support the research and development of non-animal technologies, similar to the law passed in Maryland.
What can I do to help end tests and experiments on dogs and other animals?

Source: Humane World For Animals

Treat your animals for ticks! Please!

Treat your animals for ticks! Please!

Summer is almost here for pets and their owners that means: tick season.

Ticks are horrible little parasites that can transmit several very serious diseases to dogs and cats, and even humans. Ticks are rife in long grass or wild areas, and so a particular concern for pet owners who walk their dogs on the mountain, in parks and open areas, or for dogs that roam in bushy areas around their homes. TEARS Animal Rescue recently saved a little dog that almost died from being bitten by ticks.

If you can afford it, the best treatment is tick control medication available at your vet. If not, you can you approach your nearest animal welfare organisation, like TEARS, and get your pets treated to prevent them getting sick from tick bites. Unfortunately, some home remedies that people believe will keep ticks away can be very harmful for your pets and don’t work at all. TEARS Animal Rescue Spokesperson, Tinka Shapiro, says, “Please don’t try anything that could hurt your dog or cat. We have seen some cases where petrol or motor oil has been used as tick prevention as the owners believed this would work. It does not work and it will only harm your pet,” she explains.

On top of getting your dog tick control medication, you can also do a daily check to make sure there are no ticks on your pets or in their beds. Focus on their ears, neck, underbelly and between their toes when you are looking for the small brown arachnid. It is a good idea to treat your pets’ bedding and kennels with tick control products and wash their bedding every week, especially during spring and summer as ticks are more active in the warmer months.

Ticks can cause a few serious diseases, here are some of them with their symptoms:
  • Babesiosis known as biliary (fever, anaemia, jaundice, lethargy)
  • Ehrlichiosis (fever, bleeding, weight loss, eye issues)
  • Anaplasmosis (joint pain, fever, lethargy)
  • Tick paralysis (weakness or paralysis)
  • Haemobartonellosis (anaemia, lethargy in cats, pale gums)

Meisie is the little dog that got very ill with ehrlichia, a tick-borne bacterial infection. She got so sick that she nearly died. She was handed into the Hermanus Animal Welfare, and then sent onto TEARS Animal Rescue as she had been exposed to Parvo, a highly contagious and potentially fatal viral disease that affects unvaccinated dogs.

Meisie became lethargic and her belly was very swollen despite her body being skeletally thin: the symptoms of ehrlichia. Shapiro explains, “Meisie’s liver was failing due to the fluid build-up in her abdomen. We did a blood test to diagnose the ehrlichia and started to treat poor Meisie. There was a time we were not sure she would make it,” she says Shapiro, “but she did!

“To make things even better, Meisie was fostered by a staff member and then adopted earlier this week. We are so happy that she now has a lovely place to call home,” says Shapiro.

Please take your pets to your closest welfare organisation or TEARS Animal Rescue to have them treated with tick control medication or visit your nearest vet.

Source: TEARS

What Is One Health?

What Is One Health?

FOUR PAWS shares why the health of humans, animals, and the environment are interconnected and why it should matter to us.

In South Africa, where people live closely with animals and nature whether in rural villages, townships, or urban centres, the health of one affects the health of all. That’s the heart of the One Health approach: recognising that the well-being of humans, animals, and the environment are deeply intertwined.

 Understanding One Health

One Health is a global concept that encourages collaboration between doctors, veterinarians, environmental scientists, and communities. It’s about working together to prevent disease, protect ecosystems, and promote healthier lives for everyone whether they walk on two legs, four legs, or grow from the soil.

Diseases like rabies, brucellosis, and even tuberculosis can spread between animals and humans. These are called zoonotic diseases, and they’re more common than many people realise. In South Africa, where stray animals roam freely and livestock are part of everyday life, the risks are real, but so are the solutions.

 Why it matters to Mzansi
  • In rural areas, livestock health affects food security and family income.
  • In townships, unvaccinated pets can spread preventable diseases.
  • In cities, pollution and poor waste management harm both people and animals.
  • Across the country, climate change and habitat loss increase the risk of new diseases emerging.

By embracing One Health, communities can improve access to clean water, reduce disease outbreaks, and protect the animals they depend on whether for companionship, farming, or cultural heritage.

“One Health is not a luxury it’s a necessity,” says Fiona Miles, Director of FOUR PAWS South Africa. “In South Africa, where communities often rely on animals for companionship, livelihood, and security, protecting animal health directly protects human health.”

FOUR PAWS is working to promote humane and sustainable solutions like sterilisation campaigns, education programmes, and advocacy against illegal wildlife trade. These efforts don’t just help animals; they build stronger, safer communities.

What you can do
  • Vaccinate and sterilise your pets
  • Do not support inhumane farming practices
  • Reduce your consumption of meat, dairy and eggs
  • Report illegal wildlife trade
  • Learn about zoonotic diseases and how to prevent them
  • Join local initiatives that protect animals and the environment

 One Health is not just a scientific idea it’s a community movement. When we care for animals and the environment, we’re caring for ourselves too.

For more information, please visit our website at www.four-paws.org.za

Source: Four Paws