Humane Society Pushes for End of Animal Testing
By Troy Seidle, director of
Research and Toxicology for Humane Society International
The use of animals in experimentation has proven to be among the most
intractable issues faced by The Humane Society of the United States, Humane
Society International (HSI), and Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF).
Progress depends largely on developing superior non-animal methods to
animal-based procedures—no matter how inhumane or irrelevant such animal testing
may seem—and then ensuring that the new methods are used. Developing new
methods for the safety testing of chemicals and consumer products typically
faces two additional hurdles: formally demonstrating their effectiveness
(“validation”) and gaining their acceptance by regulatory authorities.
An important barometer of progress in this arena is the World Congresses on
Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, which bring together the best
and brightest alternatives advocates and scientists from academic, corporate,
governmental, non-profit, and other sectors. The 7th World Congress was held
last week in Rome on the 50th anniversary of the modern movement to reduce, refine, and
ultimately replace experiments on animals, with more than 850 delegates from
across the globe.
Since the inception of the World Congresses in 1993, The HSUS has helped to
sponsor and organize these conferences, participate in their program, and use
the opportunity to bestow our Russell & Burch Award for outstanding
achievement in advancing alternative methods.
A recurring theme of this year’s World Congress was the 2007 call by the U.S.
National Research Council (NRC) for the science of safety testing to be given a
major face-lift. It is increasingly recognized that World War II-era animal
poisoning tests, in addition to being inhumane, are too expensive and
time-consuming to meet emerging regulatory mandates, such as the requirement in
Europe (and likely soon in the U.S. as well) to reassess the safety of tens of
thousands of widely used chemicals. The vision of “21st century” safety testing
proposed by the NRC would see animal tests replaced by robot-automated cellular
tests and sophisticated computer models.
Support for 21st century safety testing was evident throughout the 4-day
conference. An HSUS-led resolution inspired by the NRC
vision was endorsed by conferees from more than two-dozen countries. The framers
of the NRC vision—including The HSUS' vice president of Animal Research
Issues, Martin Stephens, Ph.D.—were presented with two awards at the
conference.
Moreover, high-level officials from North American, European and Asian
governments and corporations gave talks demonstrating an unprecedented level of
interest, and investment, in moving away from animal testing. For instance, the
European Commission and European Cosmetics Association announced the launch of a
more than $73 million-joint initiative to fund research to replace long-term
testing on animals—the single largest such funding program created to date.
The European Commission has also committed to fund a three-year HSI-driven
initiative called “AXLR8”, which aims to lay the groundwork in Europe for a move
to an animal-free approach to safety testing. At the same time, major consumer
product, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies have joined with The
HSUS/HSI/HSLF in a consortium to promote similar
work in the U.S.
These are exciting times for those wishing to relegate animal testing to the
history books. The challenges include ensuring that the modern vision of
animal-free safety testing is realized sooner rather than later, and that
similar approaches are developed for the larger field of animal use in
biomedical research.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Should we test on human instead? I'm fine with moving away and reducing as much as possible the testing on animals of consumer products and chemicals ; however, the last line of "and that similar approaches are developed for the larger field of animal use in biomedical research"
If you know anything about biology, biochemistry, biophysics, bio-anything you'll know the biomedical research is not moving away from animal testing any time soon.
I doubt there is even an estimate on this, but the number of human lives that have been saved or dramatically improved through animal research is in the hundreds of millions of lives over the centuries. The USDA reports that 84,000 animals experience distress or suffering through animal testing (circa 2006). While I feel bad those 84,000 animals suffered (most of them likely rodents of some type); I'm not willing to eliminate or significantly reduce biomedical testing on animals for 84,000 animals per year at the cost of not saving thousands upon thousands of human lives.
Regardless, the overwhelming percentage of animals suffer no pain or only momentary pain. MANY medical facilities are now using anesthesia or powerful anti-pain medications (assuming it wouldn't affect the scientific result) as a huge costs to labs; they deserve far more credit than they are given.
Sorry, I'm not sacrificing the potential cure for cancer because I don't want to hurt a rat with the experimental treatments - especially when most medical facilities are taking costly measures to reduce pain for the animal subjects as much as possible without corrupting the scientific integrity.
PS: Why don't these people lobby for the outlaw of mouse traps that kill? That's about the highest level of suffering most mice go through in labs, and many of them aren't even killed!
I agree with not testing on animals unless it's absolutely necessary and minimizing suffering as much as possible - but to significantly reduce (or even ban) animal testing is stupid. I emphasized the biomedical area, but that wasn't this article was about. So let me shift back. I'm trying to figure out what testing certain cosmetics on animals causing them insufferable pain? Rarely is their even a reaction and when there is - I'm sure you would've preferred they found that out before putting it on the shelves. Yeah, animal testing has some issues; but in a utilitarian sense the benefits dramatically outweigh any negative impact - especially since suffering is relatively minimal and labs are taking more and more steps VOLUNTARILY to minimize suffering.
Scientist in the United States HAVE tested on humans, usually minorities, such as, blacks during 1932-1972, and even children ! Here, you want to read up on it? Read this article to touch up on your history: http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html .
If it were entirely up to Pharmaceutical and chemical companies, we would not be moving from animal testing any time soon. Do you know why? Because these companies receive billions of tax dollars that only serve to hinder and prevent medical progress. Animal testing provides consumers with a false sense of security that since animals were tested, the products are safe for humans. But unfortunately and unknowingly to many scientist, I am human, not a rat!
Part of the "84,000" animals that you're talking about, include product testing. You're right, there are probably no estimates on how many human lives were saved by the suffering and dying of those animals because many of them were harmed in the making of new cosmetics, household products, and pesticides. However, there are a ton of results showing the reactions on humans differed from animal data.
Though it's nice that you "feel bad", animal testing is not all about saving lives; it's about marketing new products and profiting!
We're not talking about the cure for cancer , which has yet to exist. An experiment on a small number of animals to cure a disease that affects tens of thousands of humans is NOT what's happening with animal testing. Instead, animals are sacraficing their lives to protect companies from consumer lawsuits, for industries to obtain government funds for so-called "medical" purposes (with working tax payer dollars), to gain profit in providing the public with a false sense of security. Animals of all shapes and sizes are suffering and dying for a superficial cause!
Testing cosmetics on animals is causing unimaginable pain because-well, let me draw it out for you here:
The white-furred bunnies, lined up like test tubes, are immobilized, trapped, and defenseless inside a scientific laboratory. “Clamps lock the rabbit’s head in place. Clips keep the eyelids open” (Animals Verses Rights). A researcher, wearing a white coat with protective gloves and goggles, approaches the innocent, cotton-tailed animal. A drop of mascara composite is exposed to the “unblinking eyes” (Animals Verses Rights).
The scientist takes out her notebook and observes the damages. “Rabbits suffer from redness, bleeding, ulcers, and even blindness, and are likely killed upon completion of the experiment” (Katrinak). The rabbit’s neck or back may snap while trying to escape the ongoing burning and stinging of the eyes. As the rabbit squirms and struggles with pain and discomfort, a record of what happens to the eye tissue is then documented. The researcher may continue to evaluate the animal’s reaction to the substance for up to 3 weeks (The Truth About Vivisection: FAQ). An end result will be a product label that warns, “Safe when used as directed,” which clearly is not the case for animals within the walls of hidden laboratories.
What isn’t so luxurious about a woman’s new mascara for full lengthy lashes is what happens to animals before the product reaches stores. As she contemplates a broad selection of cosmetics and beauty products, she is like a little girl in a toy store gazing at filled shelves of dressy dolls. Just as many consumers, she unknowingly chooses a cosmetic that has been animal tested.
I'm sorry, but I would rather go without mascara all together if it meant being a part of that! Fortunately, there are many admirable companies who can sell their products without using animal testing, so horray for them! Those comapnies do not have to "minimize" suffering; they completely do away with it instead!