Vivisection: the Government tried to reopen lager kennels like Green Hill

“Maximum protection for animals“. A statement that often resonates in public debate, but which clashes with a complex and sometimes contradictory reality. While on the one hand initiatives are promoted in favor of animal welfareon the other hand, scenarios are cyclically proposed that bring to mind dark pages of history animal testing. The reference is to the fear, materialized in amending proposals, of a possible reopening of farms intended for vivisection, evoking the specter of places like Green Hill.

The story repeats itself, with dynamics that we now know: proposed amendments, often presented with the justification of having to “remedy” alleged European infringementswhich risk ruining years of battles for the protection of animals. As LAV underlines: “Once again, the call for dissent from Italian citizens has prevented yet another step backwards against the animals of the majority, towards obsolete research that slows down real science“.

And in fact, this is not an isolated incident. Only recently, similar proposals had been put forward by representatives of various political forces, then withdrawn following strong reactions from public opinion and animal rights associations, including WORK. In particular, as reported by LAV, “a few hours after the press release in which we announced the risk of reliving the nightmare of Green Hill (the infamous breeding of dogs destined for experimentation), the deputy of Fratelli d’Italia Luciano Ciocchetti announced via its social channels that it wanted to withdraw the amendment and that what we reported was “fake news”. Yet, the additional amendment he proposed to the so-called “save infringements” Law Decree, if approved, would have effectively canceled article 10 paragraph 5 of Legislative Decree 26-2014 which has banned farms like Green Hill for ten years, of beagle dogs, as well as cats and primates“. This amendment, if approved, it would have effectively reopened the way to the creation of animal farms intended for experimentationerasing a fundamental achievement for animal protection.

Subsequently, the discussion was reignited with new proposals, this time signed by senators of the League, once again raising the issue of breeding dogs, cats and – in some cases – primates, intended for experimentation. As highlighted by LAV: “Yesterday, in fact, LAV, thanks to the meticulous monitoring work of the Institutional Relations Office, identified and then disseminated the news of the proposed amendment signed by the Senators of the League Murelli, Centinaio and Borghi which, if approved, would have allowed the reopening of dog, cat and primate farms, nullifying what was achieved ten years ago with the implementation of decree no. 26 and the closure of that hell called Green Hill and removed some constraints obtained for the protection of animals destined for laboratories“.

But what did these amendments actually provide? Beyond the formal motivations, the central issue concerns the possibility of restore animal breeding facilities for researcheffectively canceling the progress made with the closure of entities such as Green Hill. The latter, located in Montichiari (Brescia)was a beagle farm that became sadly known and a symbol of the fight against vivisection. The investigations and subsequent sentences led to the conviction of the farm and some of those responsible for crimes of animal cruelty and killingconfirming the serious irregularities and suffering inflicted on the animals. THE’Experimental Zooprophylactic Institute of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna (IZSLER) of Brescia, which at the time managed the breeding farm, was at the center of complex legal events which turned the spotlight on the responsibilities linked to the management of these structures.

The memory of Green Hill, and the conditions in which the animals found themselves, is still alive in the collective memory and represents a warning against the risk of returning to practices that today appear anachronistic and unacceptable. The echo of those events reverberates every time the possibility of new similar structures is feared.

The reaction of civil society was not long in coming. As LAV reports, “Thousands of people virtually protested against this proposal denounced by LAV and a few hours were enough for the deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, announced the withdrawal of the amendment to guarantee “maximum protection for animals” and reiterating his “no to experimentation”. This type of mobilization has often led to the withdrawal of proposed amendments, demonstrating the strength of public opinion.

A crucial point of the discussion concerns the financing of scientific research. While the possibility of reopening farms is being discussed, critical issues remain regarding investments in alternative research methods to vivisection. This lack of concrete support for animal-free research raises questions about the real desire to progress towards a more ethical and animal-friendly science. As LAV states: “We welcome this decision and ask that, in order to guarantee this “maximum protection”, the funds issued by the Ministry of Health to support innovative animal-free research at universities and public research centers be finally refinanced, as happened in the two-year period 2021/2022 as, at the moment, the institutions have chosen not to provide even 1 euro for animal-free research, despite it being seen as a priority for national and European laws”.

The scientific community is developing and perfecting numerous alternative methods to vivisection, such as in vitro cell cultures, computer models and epidemiological studies, which offer scientifically valid results without the use of animals.