M. Butterflies Katz,
Veganpoet.com
March 2012
Leonardo Da Vinci, the ingenious artist, scientist and inventor said "One day the world will look upon research upon animals as it now looks upon research on human beings." I think this is a Truth whose time has come; don’t you?
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are
profitable to the human race or doesn't. ... The pain which it inflicts upon
un-consenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me
sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. - Mark Twain
I’m with Mark Twain…I believe that nothing good could come from harming
other animals; and that includes toxicology testing on animals for
cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, cleaners, or for medical research. On the rare
emergency occasion, I have opted for using pharmaceuticals; particularly for
dogs in my care. Otherwise I’ve made certain that I was not a part of the
demand for animal experimentation. There’s no way to get around the
speciesism that is tied to pharmaceuticals; other animals die in horrific
experiments to allegedly benefit humanity and their chosen companion
animals. Frontline Plus; flea and tick control, for example, may help to
control our furry friend’s fleas, but many other animals had to die to test
this product. Its main ingredient is Fipronil which has been tested on
countless animals; using a test that administers a dose that kills 50% of
the animals involved in the study - and I suspect that many
laboratory test subjects (unwanted dogs and cats) were killed in order to
test the finished Frontline Plus product. Is it morally acceptable to
experiment on nonhuman animals to benefit human beings or a favored species
of animal?
Certainly knowledge has been gained by animal testing. However, this
knowledge is not worth having because it is violating the inalienable right
that every sentient animal possesses; that of not being assaulted by humans.
Although not widely accepted, but gaining momentum, is the abolitionist view
in animal rights that maintains there is no moral justification for harmful
research on animals that does not benefit the individual animal. The
benefits to humans can't outweigh the misery they bring to other animals.
We can compare the case of testing on animals to the Tuskegee syphilis case. Knowledge about
syphilis was learned, but they did so by violating the fundamental rights of
someone who is sentient. Just as racism allowed the Tuskegee syphilis
experiment or the Nazi human medical experiments -- speciesism accepts
animal experimentation. Being human, you will probably better relate to the
Tuskegee experiment or Nazi experiments as an example that makes the point
that “the ends does not justify the means”. If we asked animals used in
experiments – they would also tell us that the end does not justify what
humans do to them. Every animal; human or nonhuman, inherently has the right
not to be harmed by humans, and that basic right is violated by most of
human society. The whole of human consciousness is waking up to this
viewpoint as is evidenced by the progress being made in the last decades.
Preventative health measures are an alternative to relying so heavily on
pharmaceuticals; which are tested on animals for toxicity. Eating a healthy
whole foods diet, getting moderate sun exposure, fresh-air exercise, and
using healing herbals and nutraceuticals - is a path to follow that leads
one away from pharmaceuticals. 'Cruelty-free' is a term that means the
product is not tested on animals. There are now cruelty-free cleaning
products and cosmetics widely available, especially in natural food stores.
We simply need to stop demanding animal toxicology tests by purchasing
products that have not been tested on animals nor do they contain
animal-derived ingredients. It’s not as hard as it sounds…but I remember a
time, three decades ago, when it was! There are many ethical products now
being marketed; showing that there is concern about the issue.
Moving humanity towards veganism is the answer. It’s always the answer.
People eat a diet that kills billions of animals and causes diseases that we
then try to find cures for by cruelly testing on billions more animals. A
whole new paradigm in living and thinking is needed. I have been vegan for
33 years and have rarely needed to use products that were tested on animals;
there is another way. We need to use humans as the “guinea pigs” in an
experiment entitled “What would happen if humanity adopted veganism?”
Extrapolating from the microcosm of the present vegan community; human
health would see vast improvements, and diseases presently afflicting humans
would vanish - and nobody gets hurt in this experiment.
There has been progress in finding alternatives to animal testing and if we
put our brilliant minds to it, we will find more alternatives. If other
animals are so unlike humans that we feel we can inflict misery on them,
then why would we think they’re similar enough to extrapolate findings from
them to humans? Animal physiology is different between the different
species. If they’re enough like us that we can extrapolate findings from
studying them to humans, then we can see that they, like us, have sense
perception, and therefore we should obviously behave towards them as we
would want them to behave towards us; with respect and basic decency. That
would leave out using them as a resource, a commodity, a means to an end, as
well as killing them. Every animal is a soul that just wants to live his/her
life.
Animal Experimentation FACTS: From then to now…along with commentary
Authorities estimate hundreds of millions of animals a year are used in
animal experimentation, worldwide. Generally, animals either die because of
the experiment or are killed afterward.
The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo
testing, and vivisection have similar meanings but different connotations.
Vivisection means operating on a living animal for experimental rather than
healing purposes, and this term is generally used by those who oppose it,
such as: George Bernard Shaw; 1925 Nobel-Prize recipient, who said:
“Atrocities are no less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are
called medical research.” Also opposed was Indian statesman, Mahatma Gandhi,
who stated: “I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific
discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence.” Dr.
Charles Mayo; a skilled surgeon and on the governing board of the Mayo
Clinic said: “I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it
should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no
scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such
barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.” Russian author; Count Leo
Tolstoy said "What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that
they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the
benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
Aristotle was among the first to perform experiments on living animals. In
the 1880s, Louis Pasteur demonstrated the germ theory by inducing anthrax in
sheep. In the 1890s, Pavlov used dogs to demonstrate classical conditioning.
Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922. In 1957, a Russian dog was the
first of many animals to orbit the earth.
Around 1937, the U.S. congress passed laws that required safety testing of
drugs on animals before they could be marketed, and then other countries did
the same. Currently, all new pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous animal testing
before being licensed for human use. European legislation demands that
"acute toxicity tests must be carried out in two or more mammalian species"
covering "at least two different routes of administration".
There has always been a history of criticism and controversy over
vivisection. In 1655, physiologist Edmund O' Meara said that "the miserable
torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state." O' Meara and
others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during
vivisection, rendering results unreliable.
The welfare of animals being regulated by such groups as the USDA is of
little consequence. The USDA looks at other animals as “food”. No animal
used for experimentation will ever be treated with the respect they are due.
Presently, animal rights advocates are not calling for more humane welfare
standards or laws; but for animal experimentation to be abolished.
Research using animals is conducted inside universities, medical schools,
pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial
facilities.
Animals commonly used are mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, fish,
and amphibians. Rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests because they have
less tear flow, and are also used for the production of polyclonal
antibodies. Cats are most commonly used in neurological research. Dogs are
widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education; especially
beagles, because they are easy to handle. Dogs are commonly used as models
for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies;
research that is often highly invasive. Non-human primates are used in
toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology,
behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and in transplantation
research. They are caught in the wild or purpose-bred. To the non-speciesist
person, no animal of any species should be used in animal experimentation;
with the exception of a consenting human.
Animals used by laboratories are supplied by dealers; including those who
supply purpose-bred animals, businesses that trade in free-living animals,
and those who supply animals sourced from pound seizure, auctions, and
newspaper ads. Some animal shelters supply laboratories directly. Four U.S.
states, Minnesota, Utah, Oklahoma, and Iowa, require their shelters to
provide animals to research facilities. Fourteen states prohibit the
practice. In the U.K., most animals are bred for the purpose, but
free-living-caught primates may be used if justification can be established.
The U.S. allows the use of free-living-caught primates. Charles River
Laboratories and Covance; the largest importer of primates in the U.S., are
responsible for more than half of the primates used in experiments.
According to the U.S.D.A. in 2006, about 670,000 animals (57%) (which does
not include rats, mice, birds, or invertebrates strangely enough, as if they
are not animals to be included in their statistics!) were used in procedures
that didn't include more than momentary pain or distress. About 420,000
(36%) were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by
anesthesia, while 84,000 (7%) were used in studies that would cause pain
that would not be relieved. That’s coming from the USDA who does not
recognize the basic rights of other animals and sees living beings as a
commodity for human use. I’m sure 100% of the animals used were distressed
from their unnatural conditions and very sad lives.
What kind of person would want the job of killing laboratory animals when
they are no longer needed for study? Methods include: the animal can be put
in gas chambers or made to inhale gas with a face mask; with or without
being sedated or anesthetized. Sedatives or barbiturates can be given
intravenously, or inhalant anesthetics may be used. Decapitation (beheading)
is used for rodents or rabbits, with or without sedation or anesthesia.
Cervical dislocation (breaking the neck or spine) can be used for birds,
mice, and immature rats and rabbits. Maceration (grinding into small pieces)
is used on 1 day old chicks. High-intensity microwave irradiation of the
brain can preserve brain tissue and induce death in less than 1 second;
which is currently used on rodents. Captive bolt to the brain is typically
used on dogs, ruminants, horses, pigs and rabbits. Gunshot may be used, but
only in cases where a penetrating captive bolt may not be used.
Electrocution can be used for bovines, sheep, pigs, foxes, and mink after
the animals are unconscious, often by a prior electrical stun. Inserting a
tool into the base of the brain is usable on animals already unconscious.
Slow or rapid freezing, or inducing air embolism, are acceptable only with
prior anesthesia to induce unconsciousness. Sadism or research; that is the
question?
Toxicology or safety testing, is conducted by pharmaceutical companies
testing drugs, or by contract animal testing facilities such as Huntington
Life Sciences, on behalf of a wide variety of customers. Approximately 5,000
animals are used for each chemical being tested and 12,000 used to test
pesticides. The tests are conducted without anesthesia, because interactions
between drugs can interfere with the results.
Toxicology tests are used to examine finished products such as pesticides,
medications, food additives, packing materials, etc. The substances are
applied to the skin or dripped into the eyes; injected intravenously,
intramuscularly, or subcutaneously; inhaled either by placing a mask over
the animals while restraining them, or by placing them in a gas chamber; or
administered orally, through a tube into the stomach, or simply in the
animal's food. The LD50 test is used to evaluate the toxicity of a substance
by determining the dose required to kill 50% of the test animals. In 2002,
this test was replaced by methods which use fewer animals and cause less
suffering. However the test still accounts for over a third of all animal
toxicity tests worldwide. Irritancy is measured using the Draize test, where
a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino
rabbit. Scientists have criticized this test for being cruel. Although no
accepted alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test may reduce
suffering, provide more realistic results, and was adopted as the new
standard in September 2009. However, the Draize test will still be used for
substances that are not severe irritants.
The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for assuring that cosmetics
are safe and properly labeled, in the U.S. Contrary to popular belief, they
do not actually require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety.
However, they advise cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is
appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products.
If a company truly wants to be “cruelty-free” it seems the FDA is okay with
that: “FDA supports the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal
testing as well as adherence to the most humane methods available within the
limits of scientific capability when animals are used for testing the safety
of cosmetic products. We will continue to be a strong advocate of
methodologies for the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests
with alternative methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.”
Cosmetics-testing on animals is still conducted in the U.S., but it is
banned in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. In 2002, the European Union
agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the animal-tested cosmetics
throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetic-related animal-
testing. The ban is opposed by L’Oreal whose headquarters is in France, as
well as by the European Federation of Cosmetic Ingredients; which represents
70 European countries. Uh-hum…True beauty is found in being just and
compassionate; not in “make-up” that has caused animals to suffer. Only a
very shallow and speciesist person could debate the validity of testing
cosmetics on animals.
Animal testing of cosmetics is neither banned nor required under U.S. law,
but regulations in China (and a few other nations) still require the use of
skin and eye irritation tests on animals. There are non-animal tests for eye
and skin irritation that are accepted all over the world, but not recognized
by Chinese law. A few major U.S. cosmetic companies have misleadingly
reported that their products are cruelty-free (because they are in the
U.S.), but the company still chooses to sell their products to China. It has
been done by a few major cosmetic companies (Avon, Mary Kay, etc). There are
thousands of companies that don’t test their products on animals and lists
can be found online.
Efficacy studies test whether experimental drugs work by inducing the
appropriate illness in animals.
Animals are bred in laboratories to be used by the military to develop
weapons, vaccines, battlefield surgical techniques, and defensive clothing.
In 2008 the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency used live pigs to
study the effects of improvised explosive device explosions on internal
organs, especially the brain. World peace will NOT be achieved through war
and military, through torture and killing, but through rising to a new
perception of respecting fundamental rights of all other sentient animals;
humans and nonhumans alike.
In 1997, Dolly the sheep was born; cloned from tissue taken from another
adult sheep. Dolly appeared to be normal. She lived 6 years and gave birth
to several lambs. She was killed in 2003 after contracting a progressive
lung disease. Although the production of Dolly was a genetic scientific
breakthrough, it was controversial since it meant that cloning a human being
had now become a possibility; another valid reason for ending animal
experimentation.
Many countries are trying to find alternatives to using animals in
education. Horst Spielmann, German director of the Central Office for
Collecting and Assessing Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, said in
2005: "Using animals in teaching curricula is already superfluous. In many
countries, one can become a doctor, vet, or biologist without ever having
performed an experiment on an animal." In the U.S., 95% of medical schools
have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training
with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems,
computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American
Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the
replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in
undergraduate medical education."
A great number of drugs that have been approved in both the U.S. and U.K.
after animal testing, subsequently have had to be withdrawn because they
have caused serious side-effects or death when given to people. Animal
experiments can be unreliable because animals’ bodies are different from
ours. Thousands of chimpanzees have been used in useless experiments to find
a cure for AIDS, but it is now known that AIDS won't kill chimpanzees. The
link between smoking and lung cancer was first observed in people, but
because no animals developed cancer when forced to inhale tobacco smoke,
human health warnings were overdue by many years. Animal experiments give us
misleading information because other animals don’t necessarily get the same
diseases as we do. Also drugs affect other animals differently. A drug such
as aspirin, commonly used by people, is highly poisonous to cats, for
example.
CeeTox is a pioneering research laboratory that uses human cell-based in
vitro toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer
products; that replace cruel tests on animals. In a 2007 report, the
National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can
"transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to
one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods."
An innovative biotechnology firm has developed a 3-D (test tube) human
"liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the
human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used
to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals.
VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct system uses
human cells to create a small working human immune system for testing the
safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This faster method replaces
cruel tests on animals.
Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private
companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in
vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for
animals when it comes to conducting burn research, cosmetics testing, doing
research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapon attacks.
Antibodies have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into
mice. They can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or
taken from human cells.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing is a non-profit
center; a part of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health. From their site: “We promote humane science by supporting the
creation, development, validation, and use of alternatives to animals in
research, product safety testing, and education.”
The U.K.'s 'Dr. Hadwen Trust' is a medical research charity that funds and
promotes non-animal techniques to replace animal experiments. Established in
1970, the work undertaken by the Dr. Hadwen Trust benefits humans with the
development of more relevant and reliable science while also benefiting
laboratory animals. Projects receiving funding from this trust include
epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, breast and skin cancer, meningitis, asthma,
diabetes, drug testing, arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, lung injury,
whooping cough, vaccine testing, dentistry, heart disease, tropical illness,
fetal development, brain tumors and AIDS.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a non-profit
organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet,
preventive medicine, alternatives to animal research, and encourages what it
describes as "higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research." Its
primary activities include outreach and education about nutrition to
healthcare professionals and the public; ending the use of animals in
medical school curricula; and advocating for legislative changes.
University of California Davis Center for Animal Alternatives disseminates
information on alternatives to animal experiments.
Response to drugs are demonstrated and taught by computer simulation
exercises at the Alternatives to Animal Experimentation Laboratory,
Department of Pharmacology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College. This is the
first such lab in India. India is also home to the Mahatma Gandhi-Doerenkamp
Center for Alternatives to Use of Animals in Life Science Education.
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods is an online
database of toxicology non-animal alternative test methods. Categories
presently include 'in vitro' methods, QSAR models, and bibliographic
section.
Leonardo Da Vinci, the ingenious artist, scientist and inventor said One day the world will look upon research upon animals as it now looks upon research on human beings.
I think this is a Truth whose time has come; don’t you?
Return to Animal Rights Articles