Santa Cruz Biotechnology -animal abusers :(

[hoopoe]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8673191]
They provide antibodies for medical research.

Either you order from them or you can’t get work done, many times, since they are often the only producers of the antibody we need.

But hey. We are not doing anything important like say, curing cancer… Nah … No dogs need to be cured… We don’t have to order from them over a news story. Nah.[/QUOTE]

it is a challenge, though I suspect other companies may be ramping up their capabilities.

we often have to bake-off as to who antibody suits our needs best. Their are other options and you may certainly need to cast a wider net and re-evaluate your techniques and technology.

Given some of the evidence I have to wonder what else was/is being falsified.

[Pocket_Pony]

@Bluey;8673705

There is no excusing any abuse, not only for humane reasons in this case, but also because any one that abuses humans, other animals, resources, the environment, reflects badly on all of us, if we have animals or not, that abuse happens.

I agree, Bluey. To me, the “reason” for abuse makes no difference - cosmetics or curing cancer. And if an inspection has shown that their practices are abusive to their animals, that they have falsified records, and who knows what else, they are not a company that I want to give my money to.

As an aside, in doing some poking around online I found that MVP has a new Vitamin E (natural) formula that will have 5,000 IU per oz.

http://www.unitedvetequine.com/horse-nutritional-supplements/natural-E-horse-supplements.asp

[Sticky_Situation]

[QUOTE=Pocket Pony;8674138]
I agree, Bluey. To me, the “reason” for abuse makes no difference - cosmetics or curing cancer. And if an inspection has shown that their practices are abusive to their animals, that they have falsified records, and who knows what else, they are not a company that I want to give my money to. [/QUOTE]

I hope you didn’t take my earlier comment on thread as excusing their treatment of animals because some of the people they do business with are involved in important medical research. There is no excuse for animal abuse.

I simply meant that I didn’t think having radical animal rights organizations comment on the situation was good journalism, as those groups would like to see the abolishment of all research using animals for any reason, regardless of how they are treated and cared for.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8674144]
I hope you didn’t take my earlier comment on thread as excusing their treatment of animals because some of the people they do business with are involved in important medical research. There is no excuse for animal abuse.

I simply meant that I didn’t think having radical animal rights organizations comment on the situation was good journalism, as those groups would like to see the abolishment of all research using animals for any reason, regardless of how they are treated and cared for.[/QUOTE]

We know, just that some were posting about this because the animal rights extremist propaganda evidently is taking some kind of credit here, at least in their communications to their members?

Then it seems that they didn’t really have anything to do here.
This was a regular channels regulating and investigating and now hopefully punish for breaking laws, in all the ways they seem to have done that, including abusing animals.

That is why we have the laws and regulations and protocols to inspect we already have in place.

With video surveillance today, I expect these situations will become very, very rare.

[Pocket_Pony]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8674144]
I hope you didn’t take my earlier comment on thread as excusing their treatment of animals because some of the people they do business with are involved in important medical research. There is no excuse for animal abuse.

I simply meant that I didn’t think having radical animal rights organizations comment on the situation was good journalism, as those groups would like to see the abolishment of all research using animals for any reason, regardless of how they are treated and cared for.[/QUOTE]

Nope, not directed at you.

[INoMrEd]

[QUOTE=dotneko;8673298]
I buy natural vit E from puritans pride.[/QUOTE]

Dotneko - So do I!

[Xanthoria]

[QUOTE=Draftmare;8673401]
So, does this mean that they are out of business?

From the standpoint of somebody who has to feed a higher dosage of Vitamin E than most companies can provide me at a reasonable cost, that really sucks. My mare needs 8000 iu per day, and most supplements at most provide 5000 iu.[/QUOTE]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HyzecjwZzxHj3keS5_fQ3aYEvXDU9IBxb5smQAYfslA/edit?usp=sharing

[SendenHorse]

eh, my point was that sometimes SCBT is/was the only company to make a certain antibody.

So to say, eh just don’t use them what is the big deal? if your grant and paper hinges on that one study, it is a big deal. that was my point, it’s easy to say things that don’t affect you personally.

I’ll also say that any of this abuse stuff automatically creates some dose of skepticism in me. I don’t really trust much from online sources since it can all be sensationalized.

I think if it’s true, it’s a huge issue and should be dealt with. I have a very hard time thinking this could slip through any cracks though…could be, but as tight as regulations are…well it would be very unusual.

I’m on your side here though, caution is needed. Just don’t rush to judgement because of what some people read on the internet.

[snowrider]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8676253]

I’ll also say that any of this abuse stuff automatically creates some dose of skepticism in me. I don’t really trust much from online sources since it can all be sensationalized.

I think if it’s true, it’s a huge issue and should be dealt with. I have a very hard time thinking this could slip through any cracks though…could be, but as tight as regulations are…well it would be very unusual.

I’m on your side here though, caution is needed. Just don’t rush to judgement because of what some people read on the internet.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the article? They’ve been cited and agreed to the sanctions. It’s over and done.

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=snowrider;8676264]
Did you read the article? They’ve been cited and agreed to the sanctions. It’s over and done.[/QUOTE]

ok, so now what? anyone know for sure what the deal is?

[Wirt]

John Stephenson is a great guy. He owns the company
here is a link to his ranch. Big animal abuser don’t you know

http://www.sanjuanranch.com/

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8676253]
eh, my point was that sometimes SCBT is/was the only company to make a certain antibody.

So to say, eh just don’t use them what is the big deal? if your grant and paper hinges on that one study, it is a big deal. that was my point, it’s easy to say things that don’t affect you personally.

I’ll also say that any of this abuse stuff automatically creates some dose of skepticism in me. I don’t really trust much from online sources since it can all be sensationalized.

I think if it’s true, it’s a huge issue and should be dealt with. I have a very hard time thinking this could slip through any cracks though…could be, but as tight as regulations are…well it would be very unusual.

I’m on your side here though, caution is needed. Just don’t rush to judgement because of what some people read on the internet.[/QUOTE]

I would consider USDA/APHIS to be a reasonably credible source, in this case.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8676405]
I would consider USDA/APHIS to be a reasonably credible source, in this case.[/QUOTE]

I don’t know, but I guess the investigation will determine what exactly happened and who was to blame, if the owner or some low end manager and why that happened at all.

Glad they caught them.

[Leather]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8676276]
ok, so now what? anyone know for sure what the deal is?[/QUOTE]

While AWI is a questionable source, the consent decision document seems legit. (APHIS hasn’t loaded to their reading room yet.)

https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/USDA-SCBT-Filed-consent-decision.pdf

[hoopoe]

issues like this are not a case of one and done,

you can search the USDA / APHIS web site and see dig in to the history of violations and inspections

the violations at this facility are systemic and at their most basic relate to the physical plant; the food quality , the daily care and record keeping of same.

These are the basic principles of the AWA, then there are the specific and egregious violations of the effect upon the animals; injuries, untreated physical issues.

This is not a lone wolf, it is a company culture.

[SendenHorse]

so still hard to tell what the story is…?

[Ghazzu]

Looks straightforward to me

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;8677241]
Looks straightforward to me[/QUOTE]

I don’t believe everything I read/hear online.

[apprider]

You don’t just agree to give up a huge part of your business and a huge fine if you think you have a good case on your hands. This is going to disrupt work at a fair number of labs across the country, but on the other hand if the animal welfare was that shoddy, the product probably is as well.

[candico]

Since these violations occurred over a few years, that means ownership was okay with it. Someone concerned with animal welfare would have tightened up the ship so to speak after the first one or two violations. And to agree to pay a 3.5 million dollar fine and shutting down that portion of their business vs fighting the accusations in court speaks volumes about knowing they have no valid excuse for the infractions and probably put profit over prioritizing animal welfare. I just wonder how much went on that inspectors never saw.

Owning a bunch of show horses does not mean someone cares about animal welfare at all.