|
The Fellowship of Life |
| | |
The Rev Peter Mundy's concern for animal welfare is commendably
Franciscan. Unfortunately, however, his letter (December 12) creates
the impression that companies producing cosmetics, weed-killers,
household products etc, derive pleasure as they spend vast sums of
money unnecessarily 'poisoning' and 'blinding' laboratory animals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The letter caricatures the
serious research undertaken by scientists around the world. Their
sole interest is to prevent 'poisoning' and 'blinding' occurring
with humans.
Governments very properly insist that products in domestic,
commercial and industrial use must be safe for humans (and their
environment). Any new material must be thoroughly checked in the
laboratory before it is used on a widespread basis. This is a simple
concept in theory, but is difficult to achieve in practice. Few, if any, materials are totally safe. Even common salt can
kill. Careful understanding is required, therefore, of the benefit
to be gained against the risk involved. Assessments have to be made to cover extreme conditions as well
as normal usage. People have been known to drink weedkiller and
washing-up liquid. Shampoo regularly gets in the eyes. Lipsticks are
eaten. Testing must cover not only the immediate effects, such as
'poisoning' and skin irritation, but also the longer-term risks of
cancer and even those abnormalities which might only appear in
future generations. Thus far the comprehensive testing of products on animals under
controlled laboratory conditions has been the principle method for
predicting effects with humans. Over the years, it has been possible
to correlate the results of laboratory testing with subsequent
experience when the products are in general use. The process is
lengthy and expensive, but is also reassuring. Research is taking place to develop simpler, shorter tests which,
because they do not involve animals, will also be less expensive.
The attraction is obvious. But until it can be established that such
tests really do predict human safety reaction, it is understandable
and desirable for authorities and companies to take a conservative
position, as human lives are involved. This development cannot be
rushed. No-one wishes to increase the risk of another Thalidomide
problem. By all means, let there be stricter controls on the use of
animals in safety testing, but let us remember and be thankful, such
testing is designed to ensure that our and future generations will
enjoy a healthier and a safer life. In this complicated world, responsible choices have to be made.
The choice that man should have priority over animals does not seem
to be inconsistent with the biblical story of creation. David L Wigley Return to 'Methodist
Recorder' Debate |
Your comments are welcome |
|
This site is hosted and maintained by The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org |
Since 
|