324 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
the litigants; the cases in which they are parties 
provide an interesting view of the perceived roles 
that existing Federal and State animal welfare 
laws play when such disputes arise. 
The Parties 
Friends of Animals, Inc. 
Friends of Animals; Inc. (FOA), is a not-for- 
profit; charitable organization incorporated under 
the laws of New York; with registered agents in 
a number of other States. FOA claims some 100,000 
members nationwide, more than 5,000 of whom 
live in Connecticut, where these FOA complaints 
were filed. FOA is active in defense of all animals' 
right to humane treatment— politically, as well as 
legally. In the suits, FOA alleged that among its 
members are “individuals who are owners of dogs 
and . . . who have an intense interest in the prop- 
er administration and enforcement" of animal 
welfare laws (37). 
U.S. Surgical Corporation 
Headquartered in Norwalk, CT, U.S. Surgical 
Corporation is the leading producer of surgical 
stapling devices used for surgical tissue repair and 
wound closure. It has been in business for some 
18 years and total sales in 1982 were $146 mil- 
lion. Its surgical products, marketed under the 
trade name AUTO -SUTURE, are sold in over 40 
countries. U.S. Surgical has international subsidi- 
aries in seven European countries and Australia, 
and the company employs about 1,900 people, 
two-thirds of whom work in Connecticut. Though 
it receives no Federal funding to support its prod- 
uct research or development, the company is sub- 
ject to inspection and licensure by the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as a “re- 
search facility” under the Federal Animal Welfare 
Act, by the Drug Enforcement Administration 
under the Controlled Substances Act, and by the 
Departments of Health and Consumer Protection 
in Connecticut, which regulate the use and dis- 
posal of dogs in research (106,123). U.S. Surgical’s 
president has expressed concern about the amend- 
ment of the Federal Animal Welfare Act that 
would require the company to appoint nonaffili- 
ated persons to internal animal care review com- 
mittees that have access to confidential business 
information (113). 
The Controversy 
U.S. Surgical's use of dogs purchased from lo- 
cal animal dealers to provide live-tissue training 
for its sales staff, also known as technical field 
representatives, in the use of surgical stapling 
equipment at the Norwalk teaching facility first 
came to the public's attention with the publica- 
tion of a newspaper article in November 1981. 
That article contained a variety of allegations 
about the company’s practices: 
• "Sales personnel with no medical experience 
and surgeons destroyed at least 900 dogs at 
the Norwalk laboratory between October 1, 
1980, and September 30, 1981. Additional 
hundreds of dogs are operated on each year 
for sales demonstration purposes by the com- 
pany's traveling sales staff and at regional and 
national sales meetings.” 
• Anesthesia was "routinely administered to 
the dogs by persons with no medical train- 
ing, including the sales staff.” 
• U.S. Surgical "failed to comply, for three con- 
secutive years, with federal laws that [re- 
quired it] to register with the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture.” 
• In at least one case, the personnel perform- 
ing live -tissue training demonstrated the 
strength of the staple closure by lifting a dog 
by the clamp enclosing the abdominal fascia 
and by attempting to sunder the stapled cut. 
• Some dogs appeared to be inadequately anes- 
thetized, "jumping, jerking, writhing, and moan- 
ing” or showing other apparent signs of pain 
or distress during demonstrations, and others 
died prematurely, apparently from overdoses 
of barbiturates used for anesthesia. 
• USDA officials quoted in the article were of 
the opinion that use of dogs for this purpose 
was a legal research activity although they 
"questioned the validity of sacrificing animals, 
especially in such large numbers, for this type 
of commercial purpose.” 
• One of the federally licensed dealers from 
whom the company had acquired dogs had 
