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.

(Updated 2/10/11)

            SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING ?

• Boycott cosmetic companies that test on animals.
  

• Let the companies know why you are boycotting them.

• 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.
• http://eternalvoyageur.xanga.com/639829212/animal-testing-----what-you-can-do-about-it/

               Animal Testing

              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.

The Ugly Truth about Botox

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?

Puppy Mill - 600 dogs found, 125 seized Williford, AR (US)

County: Sharp

Charges: Felony CTA, Felony Non-CTA Disposition: Convicted
Defendants/Suspects:
» Chester Clinton Baird, Jr » Patsy M Baird » Jeannette Baird » Patricia Baird

Martin Creek 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.

                                      Animal Testing and Cruelty

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 there again.

http://beefandstuff.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/animal-testing/

Animal Shelter Manager Had "Off the Books" Arrangement With Animal Dealer

Cruelty Of Animal Testing - Analysis Of Animal Testing And Alternatives

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.

• Research Alternatives
  Every day, scientists in laboratories around the world conduct important scientific research utilizing methods that do not involve animal experiments in any way.

• Testing Alternatives
  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
  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 Animal Testing
  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.
• 
  
• http://www.uga.edu/sos/experiments.html
  

Tom Holder’s Astounding Inanities — Caught on Tape

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.

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/10/speaking_of_research_at_sfn.php

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." 

http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/2009/07/02/south-east-mep-supports-15-million-strong-petition-to-tackle-animal-testing/

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:

Government 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.

Tour a Research a Lab
Contains Graphic Photos...

Blinding Rabbits for Beauty
Why you should choose cosmetics that are not tested on animals.

University Labs
What's happening to animals, including dogs, during class and why are students speaking out about it?

The 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.

Pet Food Companies and Animal Testing
Is your dog food company causing pain?

IAMS Testing Lab Undercover Report
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.
Source:
www.peta-online.org

http://www.mydog8it.com/cruelty.htm

Many manufacturers of personal care and household items still test their products on animals, despite the growing number of alternative methods for evaluating product safety. The following list contains all such companies known and their associated brand names. This list originally was compiled from two primary references (cited at the bottom of this page). In addition, it is updated as new information is made available to us.