On Tuesday, April 16, City Council [1] narrowly approved a ban on animal testing [2] or experimentation on property owned or controlled by the City of Alameda [3] except where such testing or experimentation is performed as part of research related to regulatory filings related to human or animal therapeutics, vaccines, devices, and parasiticides. Critics contend this mostly maintains the status quo.
[4]
Council also voted to revise the real estate subdivision regulations to implement the General Plan and Housing Element and make other technical amendments recommended by the Planning Board.
Background
In January 2024, after rejecting leasing Building 11 to Science Corp [5] over animal ethical concerns, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting animal testing and experimentation on City-owned or controlled property.
The City does not lease to tenants conducting animal testing. However, the municipal code is silent on the topic. Therefore, such uses could occur. No other California municipality bans animal testing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates animal testing as an initial step in its approval process for new drugs. Such testing often determines whether a drug will proceed to clinical trials.
The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 of 2022 allows companies to use non-clinical test methods to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of investigational drugs before or during human trials. This legislation represents a shift from animal use. However, the FDA has neither published final rules for implementing the Act nor established guidelines for non-animal test methods. Researchers and advocates are pushing the FDA to develop protocols for these alternative methods.
The City’s 2018 Economic Development Strategic Plan identified life science [6] as one of six priority economic sectors. Since then, the life science sector has more than tripled, adding over 3,300 jobs to the local economy. Approximately 35 life science companies employ approximately 4,600 people, including some of the City’s largest employers, such as Penumbra [7], Abbott Diabetes Care, and Exelixis [8]. Senti Bioscience [9] and Azzur [10] recently engaged in major commercial construction.
Council considered two proposals. Option A proposed prohibiting animal testing and experimentation on City-owned or controlled property. Option B proposed prohibiting animal testing on City-owned or controlled land except in the Enterprise District of Alameda Point [11] for limited purposes and only when required for regulatory filing.
[12]Business and university feedback
City staff solicited feedback from Alameda-based life science companies, residents, and the general public. Perspectives varied widely according to the value placed on economic, human health, and animal welfare concerns.
In February, The Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance [13] and City staff hosted a roundtable with local life science business executives. Common feedback included the following:
- An animal testing ban would significantly risk the City’s reputation as a life science hub, conveying its lack of support for the industry and impacting its ability to attract and retain companies.
- A ban on City property could establish a precedent for expanding the ordinance to private property.
- The life science industry supports the development of alternative testing methods, but such methods, as well as the regulatory framework, are currently inadequate.
- Alameda Point lends itself to the life science sector due to its large buildings.
- Alameda would suffer as the first city in the state to pass a ban.
Industry representatives and Madlen Saddik of the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance echoed these concerns at the Council meeting and through written correspondence. Local carpenter union representatives also opposed the ban, noting the degree to which their livelihoods depended on carpentry work related to the industry. All these entities opposed Option A, but some supported Option B, including the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance.
Three professors representing the University of California, Irvine, the University of Southern California (USC), and San Jose State University submitted correspondence opposing a ban on animal testing. Dr. Ari Aycock-Williams of USC wrote, “Such a ban on animal (testing) would delay and possibly block life-saving drug development and medical device innovation that not only Alameda residents need, but citizens of the state, the nation, and the world.”
[14]Community and public feedback
In March, the City held a community workshop [15] and opened a public survey. Between the two, the City received 37 responses, of which 23 were from Alameda residents. Most participants strongly supported banning animal testing on city-controlled land. It was unclear whether the responses reflected the sentiments of the broader Alameda community.
The Council also received 275 letters from individuals supporting a ban. Of these, only nine were from residents of Alameda, with 269 resulting from an organized letter-writing campaign in which participants, primarily from around the Bay Area but some from out of state, sent identical letters. The letter argued that animal experiments on public property endorse a poorly regulated, scientifically antiquated system.
Public comment at the meeting was split. Eleven speakers supported Option A, while 10 either opposed banning life science animal testing or supported Option B. Those supporting a ban cited animal welfare concerns.
Maddie, a former primate care worker in a research setting, described a stressful, demoralizing work environment where animals lived in cages barely larger than their bodies and “life was disposable.” She said that despite supposed oversight, animal interests are never prioritized, regulations are often ignored, and violations are rarely punished.
Alameda resident and animal rights activist Maria said, in a voice shaking with emotion, “I would never want an animal tortured so I could live longer.” Richard argued that jobs should not take precedence over moral considerations.
In an email to the Alameda Post, Janet Davis, a board member for the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, called Option B “duplicitous,” saying any animal research can be started and regulatory agencies later notified. She called it a green light for animal research to flourish at Alameda Point.
Council discussion and vote
Councilmember Trish Herrera Spencer [16] supported Option A, arguing that the life science industry, spurred by powerful profit motives, was misrepresenting what it would do. It would only ban animal testing on City property. No life science companies are on City property, so existing businesses wouldn’t be affected. However, the ban would affect City properties at Alameda Point, where she didn’t want businesses involved in animal experimentation near Spirits Alley and the planned performing arts center.
Herrera Spencer said that until the Science Corp lease application came to light, she was unaware that animal testing was happening in Alameda. She decried being denied access to see the Science Corp vivarium, rhetorically asking if the industry is providing appropriate animal care, why not be transparent?
Councilmember Malia Vella [17] wanted to calm fears by affirming that the City was not considering expanding regulation into private property. She supported Option B, noting it would preclude cosmetics-related animal testing but provide for bringing life-saving medical products to market, necessitating some animal testing. She supported lobbying the FDA for improved testing requirements.
Vice Mayor Tony Daysog [18] supported Option A, characterizing it as a modest compromise to limit but not end animal testing in Alameda, where the life science industry is free to flourish in the city’s business parks. He argued that Option B kept the status quo, confirming with staff that Option B would allow companies like Science Corp to lease Building 11. Vella countered that Science Corp refused to add such limiting language to their lease when offered the opportunity. Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft [19] added that leases require four Councilmember votes for approval.
Councilmember Tracy Jensen [20] noted she had worked in animal labs, including during the HIV/AIDS crisis, and had seen effective drugs developed using animal experimentation. She supported Option B on the condition that language referencing the Alameda Point Enterprise Zone be removed. She noted that the 2018 Economic Development Strategic Plan identified life science as a priority industry and said it was unfortunate if Herrera Spencer, who was mayor at the time, was unaware that the industry involves animal testing.
Council motion and vote
Councilmember Vella motioned to adopt an amended Option B prohibiting animal testing on City-owned or controlled land except as required for regulatory filing related to human or animal therapeutics, vaccines, devices, and parasiticides and to update the legislative agenda to add advocacy for replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal testing. Mayor Ashcraft initially wanted to provide direction to staff without passing an ordinance but lacking support, she favored Vella’s motion. The motion passed 3-2. Herrera Spencer and Daysog voted against it.
Subdivision regulation
Council also voted to revise the real estate subdivision regulations [21] to implement the General Plan and Housing Element and make other technical amendments recommended by the Planning Board. The revised ordinance will streamline the approval process [22] (link downloads decision-making table) for several subdivision actions.
Contributing writer Karin K. Jensen covers boards and commissions for the Alameda Post [23]. Contact her via [email protected] [24]. Her writing is collected at https://linktr.ee/karinkjensen [25] and https://alamedapost.com/Karin-K-Jensen [26].