Testing: Animals are routinely cut open, poisoned, and forced to live in barren
steel cages for years, although studies show that because of vast
physiological variations between species, human reactions to illnesses
and drugs are completely different from those of other animals. The main animal tests carried out for
toiletries and cosmetics include tests for substance irritants, skin
sensitivity, photo sensitivity, and toxicity tests. The effects on
animals can range from mildly unpleasant to extremely unpleasant,
depending on the substance tested and the type of test done.
What is Class B Animal Abuse? Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in the trade. These include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers are reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as "bunching". The customers of animal dealers are universities, medical and veterinary schools, and companies that provide contract animal-testing services. Here is a link to all business that hold a Class B license: See link below: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/reports/B_cert_holders.txt
It's pretty sad that we even have a report like this....
Full Report: Unrelieved Pain in Laboratory Experimentation on Animals; The 20 Worst Facilities in the U.S. Stop Animal Exploitation NOW!
S. A. E. N.
Unrelieved Pain in Laboratory Experimentation on Animals; The 20 Worst Facilities in the U.S.
By Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T.,
Executive Director, SAEN
One of the main purposes of the Animal Welfare Act is to “to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment.” The prevention of pain through the use of adequate anesthesia is clearly a commonly accepted part of the concept of “humane treatment.” In fact, the Animal Welfare Act goes on to state that it is necessary for “animal care, treatment, and practices in experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic, tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia.” It was clearly the intent of the framers of this law that pain relief is a necessary part of the use of animals in experimentation.
|20 Most Painful Animal Labs|
|Pig||/Pig||Farm||Pain #||Used||Pain %||#||%||Points|
|Aberdeen Proving Ground (MD)||6,547||93||6,640||7,929||83.7||19||20||39|
|Utah State University (UT)||28||4,572||4,600||5,874||78.3||16||19||35|
|Emergent Biodefense (MI)||7,187||7,187||13,192||54.5||20||13||33|
|Diamond Animal Health (IA)||3,198||3,198||4,686||68.2||15||16||31|
|Colorado Serum Company (CO)||1,238||388||1,626||2,807||57.9||9||15||24|
|University of Utah (UT)||1,504||1,504||2,675||56.2||8||14||22|
|Lee Laboratories (GA)||1,792||1,792||3,402||52.7||10||10||20|
|Meriel Limited (GA)||4||14||2,258||2,276||6,525||34.9||13||6||19|
|Parkinson's Institute (CA)||56||56||74||75.7||18||18|
|Fort Dodge (IA)||98||85||6,078||6,261||28,883||21.7||18||18|
|U of North TX Hlth Sci (TX)||394||394||560||70.4||17||17|
|Batelle Memorial Institute (OH)||4||1,369||102||295||424||74||2,268||7,514||30.2||12||2||14|
|U of Texas, Galveston (TX)||323||173||112||608||1,134||53.6||1||12||13|
|Elan Pharmaceuticals (CA)||695||695||1,312||53.0||2||11||13|
|Army Inst Inf Dis (MD)||621||321||200||191||1,333||3,568||37.4||6||7||13|
|Boehringer Ingelheim Anml Hlth (MO)||2,235||2,235||11,640||19.2||11||11|
|Novartis (Genomics) (CA)||384||384||990||38.8||8||8|
|20 lab Totals||297||154||20,659||28,052||2,524||773||0||75||143||52,677||157,262|
These 20 labs average 2,633 animals per lab experiencing painful experimentation without pain relief of any kind. To read lots more: http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-20110208-unrelievedpain.html#Appendix_1
SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING ?
Boycott cosmetic companies that test on animals.
Also, a company saying "we don't test our cosmetic on animals", might not be testing the prepared cosmetic, but tests the ingredients. Or, it might get someone else to do the testing for them, or it may buy animal-tested ingredients.
When in doubt, trust the PETA's Shopping Guide for Caring Consumers.
- Let the companies know why you are boycotting them.
To save time, prepare your statement and save it as a text file on your hard disk. Copy-paste it into feedback forms. You may do one per day, or even per week, to keep it from swamping you.
- Spread the word.
- Inform your friends and family. A good way (maybe the best) of doing this is inviting them to see a youtube video. Search for animal testing... and play it. You can leave the room if (like me) you are too sensitive to watch that. Effect is almost always guaranteed, many people break down and swear on the spot to boycott animal-tested products.
- Blog it, post it on a forum thread, mention it in an e-mail. As long as you don't spam, use the power of the internet to get the word through.
- If you are a teacher, lecturer, movie-maker, journalist, or have any job where you have a platform to communicate with a large number of people, use it !
- You can put up posters !
- More ideas on the bottom of this page on PETA's site.
Animal testing is the scientific experimentation on non-human animals. This includes drug, cosmetic, household cleaner, and other various product tests on animals. This includes pouring, rubbing, or sprinkling onto an animals skin. Sometimes an animal is injected with or force fed the necessary item to be tested. Most animals, after undergoing various and often cases painful side effects, are not given proper veterinary care. 50 to 100 million animals suffer annually through this. A major amount are affected by disease or insanity from extremely unnatural conditions and die during their term at the lab. Unfortunately, scientists require the healthiest and most temper-mental dogs and cats to go through the tests; the ones that are likeliest to be adopted.
Animal Testing on 25-100 Million Animals:
More than 25 million vertebrate animals are used in testing in the United States each year—including monkeys, chimpanzees, beagles and other dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, birds, farm animals, and still other sentient beings. After the experiments conclude, essentially all of the animals who have survived the research are killed. When invertebrate animals are considered, the estimated number rises to as high as 100 million. Despite all this suffering in the name of determining safety for humans, as of 2002, more than 50 drugs tested on animals and approved by the FDA as safe had been taken off the market or relabeled because they had caused serious illnesses and death in humans. The FDA itself estimated in 2006 that 92 percent of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human clinical trials.
# Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
# Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
# Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.
Class B Dog and Cat Dealers Are No Friends to the Animals
In the shadowy world of Class B dog and cat dealers, an animal’s life can be harsh and unrelenting. Animals may suffer from crowded and unsanitary conditions, poor food, and insufficient water. Veterinary care may be nonexistent. They may not even survive their time in a Class B dealer’s hands.
So who are Class B dog and cat dealers? They're brokers who acquire animals from a variety of sources—including "pounds," flea markets, and newspaper ads—and then sell them to research institutions or veterinary schools. Class B dealers are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which mandates minimum care and handling standards for animals in a variety of environments. But these dealers, putting profits before pooches, are regularly cited for violating the AWA and have long been a cause for concern for many.
Forty years later, despite some improvements, the current regulations for Class B dealers are clearly not enough.
What’s more, the USDA, which shares a concern about the treatment of animals at Class B kennels, just does not have the staff or funding to keep tabs on these dealers. The federal agency is charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, which includes the regulation of Class B dealers, but it has been monstrously difficult for the USDA to track all the activities involved in obtaining and caring for the animals. According to AWI, dealers will often find out when an USDA inspector plans to visit and will “clean up” or hide any violations before the inspector arrives.To read more about this:
Beagles and the Horrors of Animal Testing
Most dogs used in animal testing are actually bred to be scientific "guinea pigs", never having seen the outside world except for being transported from one facility to another; there are specific companies that specialize in breeding animals for testing purposes. The experiments in which Beagles are used are many and varied and include highly important biological research, applied environmental science and human and animal medicine; they have been used in experimental surgical and dental procedures as well as toxicology tests. In the US, they are also used for cosmetic testing while this practice is banned in the European Union. The FDA has also been known to use Beagles in the testing of certain chemical substances and food toxins.
Animal rights groups and other journalists have infiltrated testing and breeding facilities and have reported on the cruel treatment of Beagles before and during experimental procedures. Reports and videos claim that facility personnel beat the dogs, punching them and kicking them, scream at the dogs, deprive the dogs of food and water, etc. Facility personnel strongly deny these claims, stating that animal rights groups have an interest in exaggerating the conditions of the facilities to make scientists out to be monsters. The subject of animal testing remains controversial, as many agree that the testing of products and procedures on animals forms an important step in the development of means and measures to safeguard human health, as well as the health of the environment. Many doctors point out that animal testing has also led to improvements in veterinary medicine, benefiting animals themselves.
Are You Boycotting Procter & Gamble Yet? Time to Start.
When I started becoming more aware of animal issues, there was one mammoth corporation I learned about–and learned to watch out for and avoid–immediately: Procter & Gamble. In the world of unnecessary, cruel testing on animals, P&G is one of the bad guys. And oh, are they everywhere. If you aren’t boycotting P&G yet, it’s time to start–and when better to start than this Saturday, May 16, the day of global boycott and action called for by Uncaged (UK) and In Defense of Animals?
Please see the boycott lists at Uncaged and at IDA’s P&G Kills site for which products to avoid (you can also go straight to P&G’s own Web site for their product list). There are dozens of brands and products to cross off your list, all of them very well known. I hope that you’re doing your best to purchase only cruelty-free products anyway–products labeled as not tested on animals and products without animal ingredients–but even if you’re not all the way there yet, kicking the ubiquitous P&G out of your life can go a long way toward giving those cruel animal-tested products the boot too. And for this year’s day of boycott and action, Uncaged and IDA are focusing on P&G brand Herbal Hurtful Essences as an example of what goes on in P&G laboratories. From IDA:
Despite claims from corporate giant Procter & Gamble (P&G) that it tests products on animals only as a last resort and only when required by law, published scientific papers show that P&G took an already approved ingredient in Herbal Essences shampoo – butylparaben – and force-fed it in massive doses to pregnant animals.
Evidence uncovered by the British animal rights group Uncaged shows that P&G force-fed butylparaben – a preservative used for decades in personal care products – to pregnant rats to see if it harms their developing offspring.
The experiment killed 1,300 animals (100 pregnant mothers and their 1,200 newborns) subjecting the mothers to stressful force-feeding for approximately three weeks, after which they were killed in carbon dioxide gas chambers. Experimenters then removed the slowly dying babies from their mothers’ bodies and killed them.
These tests are not required by any law, and detailed information on this ingredient has been widely available for many years.
We all know dogs or cats who were adopted from an animal shelter or rescued by a kind person. But some pets aren’t as fortunate and wind up in the terrifying world of “Class B” dealers, who buy up animals, transport them to holding facilities and then onto laboratories for use in harmful experiments in an often long and stressful journey.
There are currently ten Class B dealers in the U.S. (although one has a suspended license and is not likely to resume activity) who round up thousands of dogs and cats each year and sell them to research facilities. They obtain these pets from flea markets, auctions, shelters, and other so-called "random sources," including from shady middle-men known as bunchers, who often resort to outright theft of pets and misrepresentation when responding to free-to-good-home ads. Undercover investigations by animal protection organizations and inspections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which licenses Class B dealers) have revealed heartbreaking conditions at Class B dealer facilities, such as undernourished, sick dogs and cats living in filth amidst dead animals, receiving little if any veterinary care, and being abused by handlers.
You Can Help
Contact research facilities that purchase dogs and cats from Class B dealers and demand that they stop allowing this cruel practice to continue. Take action »
Watch The Video
"Dealing Dogs," a shocking HBO documentary, exposes the inhumanity that can take place on Class B dealer properties. Check out a scene from the film.
Learn more about dogs and cats who become victims of Class B animal dealers and end up in research laboratories.Learn More »
The Ugly Truth about Botox
Uncovered: a major BUAV undercover investigation exposes the reality of life and death inside one UK laboratory.
The BUAV has carried out an undercover investigation inside a major UK animal laboratory and discovered the ugly truth about botox animal testing. Our investigator found that at Wickham Laboratories in Hampshire around 74,000 mice a year are being subjected to cruel poisoning tests for botox. Botox is licensed in the UK as a medical treatment, but it is more commonly known for its ‘off-label’ cosmetic use. This means that mice can still legally be used in botox tests, even though using animals to test cosmetic products has been banned in the UK since 1997. The BUAV discovered that this poisoning test causes appalling suffering to mice – suffering that can be easily avoided if this cruel animal test is banned and replaced with a test tube alternative.
You can help us enforce a ban. Please take action now and help the BUAV expose the ugly truth about Botox.
Want our newsletter?http://www.buav.org/
Puppy Mill - 600 dogs found, 125 seized Williford, AR
Kennels near Hardy in Northeast Arkansas is owned
by a man animal rights groups call the most notorious class-B animal
dealer in the county. In August, the Feds confiscated more than 100 dogs
from C.C. Baird's Martin Creek Kennels. Agents took the animals to
Little Rock to the state fairgrounds before sending them on to Humane
Societies and Animal Rights groups in Arkansas and across the country.
Three of the dogs ended up in foster care in Crittenden County. "He's
had a very bad injury to his eye and he's got scars all over his face."
The other dog is still thin but friendly. Julanne Ingram, president of
the Humane Society of Eastern Arkansas,
says an alarm went off in her head when a friend called and told her the
dogs came from C.C. Baird's Martin Creek kennels. "The instant I heard
his name I knew what the situation was because he has been charged
before -he's been convicted."
In that August raid, agents from the United States Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Attorney's office in Little Rock, armed with a warrant, spent almost a week checking out more than 600 dogs. They found reason to seize 125 of the dogs. Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorney said, "There were veterinarians on hand at the time of the search and they examined each dog and some of them because of the state of their health they were seized others didn't have appropriate documentation at the site that established the person there's legal right to have those dogs. So they were taken." Cummins says Baird is being investigated for violations of the Animal Welfare Act and other criminal statutes. Cummins says the confiscated animals are one of the largest groups ever seized by the feds. The U.S.D.A. issued Baird's Class-B license. It allows him to legally sell animals to research labs. The big question many have is where does he get the dogs.
Animal rights groups like Last Chance for Animals say C.C. Baird abuses his animals, and they claim to have the undercover video to prove it. The group also accuses Baird of buying stolen animals, pets for 10 to 20 dollars a piece. They say he sells them for research, getting as much as 800 dollars an animal. As a result of Last Chance for Animal's (LCA) undercover investigation, USDA licensed Class B dealer C.C. Baird, owner of Martin Creek Kennels in Arkansas, was charged with hundreds of violations by the USDA for the inhumane treatment of animals at his facility. http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/1811/AR/US/
If you wish to find additional contact information for people to write to, visit the Last Chance for Animals website.
This is just one of the many videos that can be found on the internet that show animal testing. This video shows the testing that goes on being funded by Mars chocolate. For more information about this see here
Another large food chain is KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken). More information on this can be found here
Food that we eat is part of a food chain, just like a lion in Africa
eating a gazelle, and I am not a veggie at all, but the meat that I buy I
always try to make sure is free range poultry, eggs, or killed in the
most humane way, even if it means it costs more on my credit card! I
know it is not the same as being a vegetarian, but I do try and do my
bit. Fast food restaurants are notorious for animal cruelty behind the
large consumption of meat they use. I do eat the occasional Burger King,
but them and McDonalds are both now selling PETA
negotiated meat, so they are no longer selling cruelty based meat in
their restaurants, but after seeing the KFC film above I am never eating
Animal Shelter Manager Had "Off the Books" Arrangement With Animal Dealer
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service asking them to permanently revoke Michael Sargeant's Class B license
Stating that “the humane treatment of animals is a core value that should be recognized and embraced by any person or business that is in contact with animals, no matter what point in the life cycle such contact occurs,” California Senator Dean Florez has called for an investigation into Michael Sargeant’s handling of animal carcasses, specifically regarding citizen reports of dead horses behind Sargeant's Wholesale Biological in Bakersfield, the carcasses reportedly covered loosely by plastic and being “dipped in formaldehyde.”
Read Senator Florez’ press release and take action by sending a polite letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service asking them to permanently revoke the Class B license of Michael J. Sargeant. Send an automatic email below.
If you are a California resident, you may send a personalized thank-you email to Senator Florez, thanking him for his prompt attention to this matter and for recognizing his constituents as people who expect animals in their communities to be treated with respect and compassion.
May 15, Update :
Acquitted of animal abuse charges by a jury on April 1, 2009, former Tulare County animal shelter manager William Harmon was convicted on September 24, 2008 of two felony counts of accepting bribes, a felony count of embezzlement and the misdemeanor charge of accepting an unlawful gratuity. On May 12, 2009, Harmon was sentenced to 290 days in jail and 3 years probation.
Michael Sargeant was originally charged with two felony bribery charges, but on May 13, 2009, he pled no contest to one misdemeanor count of engaging in anti-competitive practices. He was sentenced to two days in jail (already served), three years of formal probation and a $150
Cruelty Of Animal Testing - Analysis Of Animal Testing And Alternatives
Rabbits immobilized in wooden stocks with ulcers in their eyes; baby seals being clubbed over the head, and the infamous shock treatment. Broach the subject with an individual and odds are that they have witnessed footage of one or all of the aforementioned practices and are appalled by the cruelty. Appalled yes, willing to stand up and voice their thoughts... not often. There is one significant reason for this unwillingness by some to stand up for the rights of our fellow inhabitants of this planet, personal convenience.
We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the waters in which they live; we wear the tusks of the last few of their species on our arms, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes, rectums or vaginas to determine the harmful effects they might cause on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between humans and the animals they use is durastic.
On a daily basis most people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the pain as well. Mankind often fails to give animals the respect and rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling scientific specimens and items that we may manipulate at our own convenience and for vanity's sake.
Laboratory research involving animals is cruel and merciless treatment of helpless creatures. No law requires that cosmetics and household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, by six o'clock this evening, hundreds of animals will have had their eyes, skin or gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed.
PROBLEMS WITH ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Using animals for medical experimentation, product testing, and education is a controversial subject that often leads to heated debate. While the issues are complex, the suffering involved in animal experimentation is painfully obvious. Today, tens of millions of animals are used each year in federally and privately funded experiments. An estimated 90 percent of all animals used in research are rats and mice, though many other species are also used, including guinea pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and farm animals. The majority of state animal cruelty laws in the U.S. specifically exclude animals used in experiments. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the only federal law to require basic standards of care, housing, and treatment of laboratory animals. However, the AWA excludes birds, mice, and rats bred for use in research, who represent approximately 95 percent of animals used in experiments. Like all animals, these mice and rats share the capacity to suffer fear and pain.
Many animal advocates oppose animal experimentation (vivisection) on ethical grounds, believing that it is morally wrong to harm one species in hopes of benefiting another. Beyond this ethical position, there are serious scientific and health issues involved as well. Animal experimentation has led us down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting attention and funds from more applicable scientific techniques. In reality, animal research never guarantees that medications and other products will be safe and effective for humans. All drugs that have been pulled off the market because they caused severe illness or death in human patients were previously tested on other animals. The practice of animal experimentation and testing continues not because it is the most accurate or reliable means of research, but rather because of tradition, peer pressure, and enormous promotion from those with strong vested interests.
Check out these sites for more information…
- The Scientific Argument Against Animal Experimentation
Appalled by the cruelty of animal experimentation, many people object to the practice on ethical grounds. Yet there is another compelling reason to stop animal experimentation: the use of animals as models for humans in biomedical research is hopelessly flawed and has often worked to the detriment of human health.
- Where Is the
Evidence that Animal Research Benefits Humans?
British Medical Journal, Volume 328, pp. 514–517, February 28, 2004
Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view.
- Why Scientists Defend Animal Research
Why do researchers continue to conduct and defend animal experiments in light of insurmountable evidence, even from within the scientific community, that it provides meaningless results? The answers are many and varied, but they all lead down the same path: money.
- Animals in Product Testing
Every year, thousands of new cosmetic, personal care and household products are introduced into the marketplace. Virtually all of them have been animal-tested at various stages of their development... leaving millions of animals mutilated, burned, poisoned, and gassed in outmoded and unnecessary tests.
- Animals in Education
Millions of animals are dissected or killed each year in schools and universities. Cats, frogs, fetal pigs, grasshoppers, mink, earthworms, rats, mice, dogs, pigeons, and turtles are just some of the species used. Many animals are subjected to cruelty and suffering in the process of becoming "dissection specimens".
ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
The development of non-animal alternatives in research and testing has grown dramatically in the past 20 years and is widely recognized as a legitimate and important area of basic and applied scientific investigation. The use of alternative techniques leads not only to more reliable scientific conclusions, but also to a more humane approach that, in many cases, can replace live animal use completely. The three categories of alternative techniques in research and testing are commonly known as the "Three R's" — reduction, refinement, and replacement.
Every day, scientists in laboratories around the world conduct important scientific research utilizing methods that do not involve animal experiments in any way.
Before releasing a product on the market, manufacturers must establish the parameters of its safety to those who will come into contact with it. However, there are many ways to test a substance's potential harmful effects without exposing it to a living animal.
Animalearn is dedicated to assisting educators and students find non-animal methods to teach and learn science-related subjects.
- Johns Hopkins University — Center for Alternatives to
Working with scientists to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.
- Altweb — Alternatives to Animal Testing
An international clearinghouse of resources, information, & news on alternatives.
October 20, 2009 — Negotiation Is Over
Simulposted with Thomas Paine’s Corner.
“They attacked all of neuroscience when they attacked me” -David Jentsch (October 19, 2009 in Chicago)
When David Jenstch attacks
helpless animals, he demands that all of us defend his victims. -TPC/NIO
(October 20, 2009)
by Camille Marino
I had originally posted the above video thinking it was a presentation from Monday, as this science blog suggests. But Tom Holder corrected me in the comments section. This video has actually been promoted by the Speaking of Research website for over a year. We must infer, therefore, that this represents the optimal arguments they have available. Thank you for clearing that up, Tom.
Caught on Tape in the Above Video, Tom Holder’s Assine Arguments
1) He implies that since dogs and cats comprise less than 1% of lab animals, the other 99% do not matter. Sorry, Tom, the only inconsequential forms of life are vivisectors and their advocates.
2) He defends the crimes of “researchers” by explaining that factory farming has a higher body count. Nice try, Tom. You will not divert our attention by pointing to other abusers. We’re interested in you.
3) When it comes to pain, Holder asserts, with a glaring lack of empathy, that 37% of animals imprisoned in labs may feel pain, but it is of little consequence to the terrorist network’s spokesperson . He continues by trivializing the “ONLY” 7% that are intentionally subjected to pain. I would suggest that if the entire Pro-Test/Speaking of Research network were subdued, mercilessly mutilated, and murdered, it would account for a fraction of 1% of the population. There’s a statistic for your next presentation.
4) Tom Holder makes the astounding claim that managing pain makes a victim’s life “MORE ENJOYABLE”. Yet, Tom still refuses to volunteer for the pleasurable experience.
5) He explains that since computer technology cannot tell us how a drug will react in a human, we need to torture animals. Tom, you are a deceitful little man. Results extrapolated from nonhuman species injure, maim and kill people. Clinical trials with human subjects currently produce the most reliable data.
6) He actually whines that torturing animals is expensive. It might be far more expensive, Tom, when people begin to understand that you are a vile human promoting atrocities against the innocent & disenfranchised.
South East MEP Supports 1.5 Million-Strong Petition To Tackle Animal Testing
Green Party MEP for South East England Dr Caroline Lucas will submit a 1.5 million strong petition to 10 Downing Street today (Thursday 2nd July) at 12.30pm, calling on the Government to develop a ‘road map’ to move towards the end of animal testing.
The Euro-MP and Green Party leader will be part of an all-party delegation organised by animal welfare group Uncaged, which has collected the signatures to comprise what is understood to be the largest animal welfare petition in British history.
The signatures have been collected from towns and cities across the UK, including several hundred thousand from across the South East. The petition is being submitted at a critical point in the historic debate over animal testing - the UK Government is currently asking for the public’s views on animal research ahead of discussions with other governments over a new European Union law. The Un-caged petition cites moral and scientific reasons to work towards eliminating animal experiments. Laboratory experiments on animals often cause severe suffering, and evidence is emerging that shows that animal tests do not reliably predict human reactions – while non-animal methods can offer greater accuracy and safety assurance. Yet despite this evidence, the number of animal experiments in Britain has actually increased since 2001 to over 3 million a year. Dr Lucas is calling for action to reverse that trend and work towards replacing animal experiments with viable non-animal alternatives. Dr Lucas MEP said:
"Indifference towards cruelty has no place in a civilised society. Yet many animals still suffer in painful and frequently misleading experiments. Now is the time for the Government to get a grip on this issue and push for a practical road map towards eliminating animal testing. Uncaged’s hugely popular petition demonstrates that the public want targeted, positive action from the Government to make animal testing history."
THEY DIED, AND YOU PAID FOR IT: COSMETIC AND UNNECESSARY ANIMAL TESTING.
Did you know US tax dollars are being spent on useless, painful experimentation on dogs and cats? In addition, animals are suffering as the result of painful testing associated with cosmetics, beauty products and even dog food. Regardless of your opinion on animal testing for medical research, we can all probably agree that animals should not be suffering for the sake of cheap mascara and shampoo, especially when there are cruelty-free options available. Click on the links below to be directed to sites with information on these topics:
Funded Animal Testing
Substances such as gasoline and lead may be poured into animals' throats or injected into their stomachs.
FDA Animal Testing
The FDA requires useless tests on animals, causing thousands of dogs, primates and rodents to suffer.
a Research a Lab
Contains Graphic Photos...
Blinding Rabbits for Beauty
Why you should choose cosmetics that are not tested on animals.
What's happening to animals, including dogs, during class and why are students speaking out about it?
True Story of a Dog Sold to a Lab
Students performed unnecessary surgery, including breaking Rodney's bones, which resulted in much pain, suffering and eventually death. This article will break your heart.
Food Companies and Animal Testing
Is your dog food company causing pain?
If you're currently buying this brand, view this report to see how your dollars are being spent.
What can you do?
Purchase products that are not tested on animals.
It's that simple! Cruelty free options available for just about any
product you imagine:
CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF ANIMAL-SAFE BRANDS
A few of our favorite cruelty-free brands include Method, Revlon, Estee Lauder, Aveda, and Kiss My Face.
Many manufacturers of personal
and household items still test their products on animals, despite
number of alternative methods for evaluating product safety. The
list contains all such companies known and their associated brand
list originally was compiled from two primary references (cited at
of this page). In addition, it is updated as new information is made
* Allergan, Inc.
* Arm & Hammer
* Bain de Soleil
* Ban Roll-on
* Banana Boat
* Bausch & Lomb
* Block Drug Co. Inc.
* Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
* Carpet Fresh
* Church & Dwight
* Clear Choice
* Commerce Drug Co.
* Consumer Value Stores
* Cover Girl
* Dana Perfumes
* Del Laboratories
* Dial Corporation
* Dow Brands
* Drackett Products Co.
* Eli Lilly & Co.
* El Sanofi Inc.
* Elizabeth Arden
* Erno Laszlo
* Final Net
* Flame Glow
* Giorgio Armani
* Glass Plus
* Helena Rubinstein
* Helene Curtis Industries
* Johnson & Johnson
* Johnson Products Co.
* Kimberly-Clark Corp
* Kiwi Brands
* Lady's Choice
* Lever Brothers
* L'Oreal USA
* Matrix Essentials
* Max Factor
* Mop & Glo
* Neutron Industries, Inc.
* Oscar de la Renta
* Parfums International
* Pearl Drops
* Pfizer, Inc.
* Playtex Corporation
* Prince Matchabelli
* Proctor & Gamble Co.
* Ralph Lauren Fragrances
* Reckitt Benckiser
* Sally Beauty Supply
* Sally Hansen
* SC Johnson & Son
* Scott Paper Co.
* SmithKline Beecham
* Stanhome Inc.
* Sterling Drug
* Sun Star
* TCB Naturals
* Vidal Sassoon
* Westwood Pharmaceuticals
* White Shoulders
* Whitehall Laboratories