Shareholder Campaign: Amgen
develops, manufactures, and delivers innovative human
therapeutics and is one of the largest biotechnology
and pharmaceutical companies in the U.S.
Resolution: 'Give the Animals 5'
With the help of PETA supporters who held stock in Amgen,
was filed in the fall of 2003 calling on the company to "Give the Animals 5"—replace five crude and cruel animal tests with state-of-the-art and
scientifically valid non-animal methods that were already in use in other countries.
Amgen opposed our resolution and sought permission from the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to exclude our resolution from its proxy statement,
arguing that it dealt with ordinary business matters that are not subject to a
vote by stockholders. Amgen failed to provide PETA with a copy of its "No
Action" letter, as
required by SEC regulations, and PETA
was unable to offer a rebuttal. Remarkably, the SEC failed to take this into
account when issuing an opinion concurring with Amgen's arguments. Thus, PETA's
resolution did not appear in Amgen's proxy materials that year.
Resolution: Give the Animals 5
following year, PETA filed another similar resolution. Despite
assurances that Amgen was "fully committed to replacing in vivo testing
with other procedures wherever such tests are scientifically valid," the
company opposed our resolution. Approximately 19.6 million shares (2.6 percent)
were voted in favor of the resolution when it was brought to a vote at Amgen's
Resolution: Animal Welfare Policy
2006, PETA filed a resolution with
Amgen calling on the company to develop and make publicly accessible
an animal welfare policy that would include reducing the number of animals used
and ensuring that social and behavioral enrichment measures were implemented for
the animals used both in-house and at contract laboratories.
resolution was largely the result of the horrors uncovered in
the independent contract testing laboratory Covance Inc., whose officials boasted
that their clients included "just about every major company around the world."
published our resolution in its proxy materials, along with its opposition
statement advising shareholders to vote against it. Our resolution garnered 8.4
percent of the vote (almost 58 million shares), which qualified it to be
reintroduced in 2007.
2007 Resolution: Animal Welfare
When PETA re-filed the 2006 resolution for
Amgen's 2007 annual meeting, the company again published our resolution in its
proxy materials along with its opposition statement advising shareholders to
vote against it. The resolution was brought to a vote and garnered 6.2 percent
of the shares (almost 42 million shares).
Animal Welfare Act Violations
In 2008, PETA's shareholder resolution called on Amgen
to issue a report on the measures that the company had taken to resolve,
correct, and prevent violations of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The resolution
was the result of PETA's findings that Amgen had been cited multiple times for
AWA violations in U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection reports. The
violations ranged from unsanitary conditions and poor recordkeeping to keeping
rabbits in cages so small that normal posture was impossible. Our resolution garnered almost 6 percent of the vote (approximately
38 million shares).
Transparency in Animal Use
To promote transparency and minimize the
use of animals, PETA filed a resolution in 2012 calling
for Amgen to issue an annual report to shareholders detailing measures taken to
ensure that Amgen's animal experimentation oversight committee functioned
properly with regard to the use of animals in painful and lethal experiments,
procedures to ensure appropriate animal care at in-house and contract
laboratories, and specifics on the manner in which Amgen used animals and
planned to promote alternatives to animal use.
opposed our shareholder resolution, claiming the annual report would be "an
unnecessary use of Company resources." Almost 31
(7 percent) were voted in
favor of the resolution, allowing PETA to re-file in 2013.
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? Read more.