Please forward as is appropriate. Please take 10-15 minutes to act on this tonight or tomorrow AM. Whether you are in LA or not. It has implications for the rest of CA and Nationwide too.

thanks

From: Florence Blecher
Subject: Oppose Taxation of Pet Owners Without Representation, MSN & Mandatory Microchip

The Budget & Finance Committee for the City of L.A. will be considering 07-2412 at their meeting on Monday 9/10. It is a Department of Animal Services report relative to a request for an ordinance to allow fees to be evaluated and set by the Board of Animal Services. (see attached pdf file)

Ed Boks wants to be able to set whatever fees (including fines, permits, fees on animal shows, pet shops, etc.) whenever he wants to "recover" however much he spends on salaries and "indirect" costs in addition to the costs of impound, feeding and care of the animals. He also wants to be able to waive all or parts of these fees whenever he wants in order to compete more effectively against retail outlets. Currently, he's allowed to have up to 3 promotional events a year without Council approval, plus he's allowed to unlimited fee waivers on all animal transfers to other shelters or approved rescue groups.

We think pet owners should strongly oppose this ordinance because it's equivalent to "Taxation Without Representation", when elected officials abdicate their taxing authority to non-elected officials that have no vested interest in the tax payers' concerns. It will be a blank check issued to Animal Services, with zero accountability to the people subjected to the fees. It means that Animal Services can pay excessively high salaries to some of its employees, or double their payroll, or spend millions to redecorate executive offices, or lavish executive perks or bonuses, it would be "no problem" because all they'll have to do is charge it to pet owners and pet-related organizations. In fact, it wouldn't matter if Animal Services' annual average per animal costs were 10 times higher than at an average truly no-kill shelter's. Boks would not be held accountable for the lousy performance because his functions technically "would not cost the city anything" because it is "self funded" by unlimited levies on pet owners and pet related organizations.

We cannot allow Ed Boks to get away with this. It will be held up as a model for Animal Services in other communities and states. This is yet another prong of the AR's AB1634-type attack. They could easily choke off pet ownership by making the cost prohibitive for most people, especially for dog and cat fanciers with multiple pets let alone conscientious breeders.

Sorry this is such a short notice. We urge Everyone to flood the Committee and the entire Los Angeles City Council with emails and phone calls to ask them to vote No on 07-2412. Tell them to remain responsive to their constituents and Not Abdicate their taxing authority to non-elected bureaucrats. Again, this is very short notice, but if it is at all possible, Please Attend the hearing and voice your oppositions. This issue is item 10 (out of 15) on the Committee's meeting agenda <http://lacity.org/clk/committeeagend/clkcommitteeagend1847538_09102007.pdf>;. The Budget & Finance Committee meeting and contact info are listed below. Theoretically, all information sent to the Committee's Legislative Assistant, Lauraine Braithwaite, should automatically become part of the Committee's public record and be distributed to all Committee Members.

Budget & Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, September 10, 2007
Room 1010, City Hall - 1:00 PM

Committee Members:
Bernard Parks, Chair
Phone: 213-473-7008
Fax: 213-485-7683
Email: <councilmember.parks@lacity.org>

Wendy Greuel
Phone: (213) 473-7002
Fax: 213-680-7895
Email: <councilmember.greuel@lacity.org>

Greig Smith
Phone: 213-473-7012
Fax: 213-473-6925
Email: <councilmember.smith@lacity.org>

Bill Rosendahl
Phone: 213-473-7011
Fax: 213-473-6926
Email: <councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org>

José Huizar
Phone: 213-473-7014
Fax: 213-847-0680
Email: <councilmember.huizar@lacity.org>

Legislative Assistant - Lauraine Braithwaite
Phone: 213-978-1075
Email: <lauraine.braithwaite@lacity.org>

As a follow-up to our August 16 email, we'd like to remind Everyone to flood the Public Safety Committee and the entire Los Angeles City Council with emails and phone calls to ask them to vote No on 07-1212 "Ordinance Re Animal Spay, Neuter And Breeding" and on 07-2391 (Mandatory Microchipping). Attached is an Associated Press article published yesterday titled "Chip implants linked to animal tumors", which reported that a series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab animals. See article link at <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/chipping_america_ii;_ylt=Ap1ACq40nKK2DJRxiRQPtC6s0NUE>;.

The L.A. City Council has just returned from a 2+ weeks recess. A hearing date has not been set by the Public Safety Committee on the proposed MSN and Microchip ordinances yet. Now is the time to send in your oppositions. Contact info for the Public Safety Committee is listed below. According to the Committee's Legislative Assistant, John White, all information sent to him will automatically become part of the Committee's public record and will be distributed to all Committee Members. He says the Committee welcomes input from ALL interested parties, regardless of whether they're California residents.
L.A. City - Public Safety Committee
Mondays - 10:00 a.m. - Room 1010

Committee Members:

Jack Weiss
Phone: 213-473-7005
Fax: 213-978-2250
Email: <councilmember.weiss@lacity.org>

Greig Smith
Phone: 213-473-7012
Fax: 213-473-6925
Email: <councilmember.smith@lacity.org>

Bernard Parks
Phone: 213-473-7008
Fax: 213-485-7683
Email: <councilmember.parks@lacity.org>

Dennis P. Zine
Phone: 213-473-7003
Fax: 213-485-8988
Email: <councilmember.zine@lacity.org>

Ed Reyes
Phone: 213-473-7001
Fax: 213-485-8907
Email: <councilmember.reyes@lacity.org>

Legislative Assistant - John White
Phone: 213-978-1072
Fax: 213-978-1079
Email: <John.White@lacity.org>


Pasted below this email is a list of contact information for Los Angeles City Council, Mayor and City Controller. Please send copies of your oppositions to all of them. Please also call and if possible, attend hearings and/or visit them. Again, you want to urge them to vote No on:
- File no. 07-2412 (Allow fees to be set by the Board of Animal Services)
- File no. 07-1212 (Mandatory Castrations & Hysterectormies)
- File no. 07-2391 (Mandatory Microchipping)

This is not just a problem for the City of Los Angeles. Remember how incredibly easy it was for L.A. County to "morph" a proposed BSL to an MSN & Microchip ordinance? The success in L.A. County emboldened AR groups to bring AB1634 to California, as well as other MSN & Microchp legislations to various communities across the country! Urge all the politicians to consider an alternative ordinance, a truly No Kill model such as Nathan Winograd's No Kill Advocacy's Companion Animal Protection Act <http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/capa.html>;. No Kill Solutions have facts and figures on a number of success stories that greatly saved lives and costs. We must take control of the debate in guiding legislations pertaining to out pets, and fight AB1634-type legislations wherever they may crop up. We should gain the upper hand if we have a proven model that won't involve broad invasions of pet owners' rights and privacy. It would be considerably more politically palatable. There's nothing that says we have to settle for a compromised version of AB1634.

For the sake of our future ability to share our lives with our pets, and for the sake of the continuing existence of our beloved dogs and cats, Please redouble your efforts to help each other fight these types of draconian laws. Pet lovers in the cities of Los Angeles and Hunting Beach need our combined voices now. We need to prevent these AB1634-type legislations from enactment there. Otherwise, they WILL be held up as examples to Support passage of AB1634 for California, and then for the rest of the country! The attached "Huntington_Beach-CFA_HBFlyer90707 - 2.pdf" file from the CFA has suggested talking points and contact information for the Huntington Beach City Council.

As a final FYI, since the successful morphing of the proposed BSL into MSN in Los Angeles County, the HSUS now heartily Opposes BSL. After all, it's much better to be fair and ban all breeds rather than just one or two!

----
Ken & Patti Burton - Kifka Borzoi
E-mail: Kifka@Kifka.com

Los Angeles City Council - City Hall Office Contact Info
Mailing Address:
City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801

Los Angeles City Hall Information (213) 473-3231

Council Members (Alphabetical)
(Click on Dist. # to go to Counceil Member's Website)

Dist. 7 Richard Alarcón
City Hall Office - Room 425
Phone: 213-473-7007
Fax: 213-847-0707
Email: <councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org>

Dist. 6 Tony Cardenas
City Hall Office - Room 455
Phone: 213-473-7006
Fax: 213-847-0549
Email: <councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org>

Dist. 13 Eric Garcetti - President
City Hall Office - Room 470
Phone: 213-473-7013
Fax: 213-613 0819
Email: <councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org>

Dist. 2 Wendy Greuel - President Pro Tempore
City Hall Office - Room 475
Phone: (213) 473-7002
Fax: 213-680-7895
Email: <councilmember.greuel@lacity.org>

Dist. 15 Janice Hahn
City Hall Office - Room 435
Phone: (213)-473-7015
Fax: 213-626-5431
Email: <councilmember.hahn@lacity.org>

Dist. 14 José Huizar
City Hall Office - Room 465
Phone: 213-473-7014
Fax: 213-847-0680
Email: <councilmember.huizar@lacity.org>

Dist. 4 Tom LaBonge
City Hall Office - Room 480
Phone: (213) 473-7004
Fax: 213-624-7810
Email: <councilmember.Labonge@lacity.org>

Dist. 8 Bernard Parks
City Hall Office - Room 460
Phone: 213-473-7008
Fax: 213-485-7683
Email: <councilmember.parks@lacity.org>

Dist. 9 Jan Perry - Asst. President Pro Tempore
City Hall Office - Room 420
Phone: (213)-473-7009

Email: <Jan.Perry@lacity.org>

Dist. 1 Ed Reyes
City Hall Office - Room 410
Phone: (213) 473-7001
Fax: 213-485-8907
Email: <councilmember.reyes@lacity.org>

Dist. 11 Bill Rosendahl
City Hall Office - Room 415
Phone: 213-473-7011
Fax: 213-473-6926
Email: <councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org>

Dist. 12 Greig Smith
City Hall Office - Room 405
Phone: 213-473-7012
Fax: 213-473-6925
Email: <councilmember.smith@lacity.org>

Dist. 5 Jack Weiss
City Hall Office - Room 440
Phone (213) 473-7005
Fax: 213-978-2250
Email: <councilmember.weiss@lacity.org>

Dist. 10 Herb J. Wesson, Jr.
City Hall Office - Room 430
Phone: (213) 473-7010
Fax: 213-485-9829
Email: <councilmember.wesson@lacity.org>

Dist. 3 Dennis P. Zine
City Hall Office - Room 450
Phone: (213) 473-7003
Fax: 213-485-8988
Email: <councilmember.zine@lacity.org>

***************************************************************************************

L.A. City Antonio R. Villaraigosa - L.A. City Mayor
City Hall Office - Room 303
Phone: 213-978-0600
Fax: 213-978-0750
Email: <mayor@lacity.org>


***************************************************************************************

Controller Laura Chick - L.A. City Controller
200 N. Main Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213-978-7200
Fax: 213-978-7211
E-Form: <http://www.lacity.org/ctr/contact_us.htm>;

City Controller's Mission Statement
The City Controller, an independently elected citywide official, is the taxpayers' watchdog and the City's chief auditor and accountant. The Controller's job is to investigate and publicly report problems with city departments, increase governmental efficiency and save taxpayer money by improving operations, conduct financial and performance audits of all city departments, offices and programs, monitor and report on all matters relating to the City's fiscal health, keep the City's official financial records, and supervise all expenditures of city funds, including payroll. This website contains links to more information about my office and the vital functions it performs on your behalf.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/chipping_america_ii;_ylt=Ap1ACq40nKK2DJRxiRQPtC6s0NUE

Chip implants linked to animal tumors

By TODD LEWAN, AP National Writer
Sat Sep 8, 2007 2:04 PM ET
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found "reasonable assurance" the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top "innovative technologies."

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

"The transponders were the cause of the tumors," said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

"We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities," Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats," but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

"In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product."

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee's review.

Was the AMA aware of the studies?

No, he said.

___

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" — malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

• A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent — a result the researchers described as "surprising."

• A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.

• In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.

Caveats accompanied the findings. "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided," one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

"There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members," said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. "I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern."

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were "reasonably small," in his view, the research underscored "certainly real risks" in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to "tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months," he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP's request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. "That might be a little hint that something real is happening here," he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: "It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people."

Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven't reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP's four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer's cause was uncertain.)

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines "to see if you have a biological effect." Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence "does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations."

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn't happened.

___

The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.

When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient's medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals.

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause "adverse tissue reaction," FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

"The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe," she says, "but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?"

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

"At the time we reviewed this, I don't remember seeing anything like that," he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search "didn't turn up anything that would be of concern."

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, "even if it's adverse information."

Watson added: "The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device."

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it's not the same. The microchip isn't like a pacemaker that's vital to keeping someone alive, he added, "so at this stage, the payoff doesn't justify the risks."

Silverman, VeriChip Corp.'s chief executive, disagreed. "Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners," he said. "We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency."

___

And what of former HHS secretary Thompson?

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip's approval, Thompson replied: "I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever."

FDA's Watson said: "I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all." VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush's Cabinet, he formed a "medical innovation" task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a "Medical Innovation Summit" on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA's acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency "deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error." One notable example he cited: "the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week."

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson's actions "unacceptable" even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

"A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it's like the Wild West," said the group's executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits — and the ease — of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"

"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."

"No concerns at all?"

"No."

But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.

___

On the Web:
http://www.verichipcorp.com
http://www.antichips.com
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/