| WRR
Home > About Us >
Our Services > Advocacy
> Testing & Research
 Testing
& Research
Tortured for Business
by the National
Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)
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. Long before they appear on the shelves
of your local supermarket, these products have gone through
a long and complex testing process that leaves millions of
animals mutilated, burned, poisoned and gassed in outmoded
and unnecessary tests.
The manufacturers of cosmetics and household
products claim that they perform tests on animals to ensure
the safety of their products under customary use or possible
abuse when in reality it is to limit the company's liability
to its customers in case of a lawsuit.
It is believed that the law requires animal
testing on cosmetics. This is untrue. Animal testing on cosmetics
is not required by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
However, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) does urge companies to conduct whatever toxicological
tests are appropriate to substantiate the safety of their
products. As a result, millions of rabbits and other animals
continue to be the innocent victims of painful eye and skin
irritancy tests.
 Toxic
products that have been tested on animals such as permanent
wave solutions, oven cleaners, soaps and detergents are regularly
introduced into the marketplace. That's because no amount
of animal testing can change the fact that many of these products
are harmful if ingested or used in a way not intended by the
manufacturer. Animal testing merely determines the level of
toxicity. Despite the fact that they have been animal-tested,
these products are no less deadly if a person eats or drinks
them accidentally.
Cosmetics and personal care products that
are also intended to treat or prevent disease, or affect the
structure or functions of the human body such as antiperspirants
and fluoride toothpaste are considered drugs. These products
must comply with the drug requirements of the FDA. Animals
are almost always utilized as the test models.
Today, in response to pressure from the public
and animal advocacy groups, many large consumer product companies
have discontinued animal testing in favor of nonanimal alternatives.
Still, animal testing remains an accepted practice for many
of the largest companies, despite its serious limitations
in assuring the health and safety of American consumers.
The above article is reprinted with the
permission of the National
Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS).
 …And
in Research
by the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine
The primary purpose of medical research is
to promote human health, and the most direct research methods
focus on the study of human populations, individuals, and
tissues. Animal research has been used as an alternative method
when the study of humans is deemed impractical or unethical,
or when animal biology is of primary interest, and animals
are frequently used in biological and medical research, in
the testing of drugs and commercial products, and in educational
exercises in the sciences. While the number of animals used
in the United States is not known, estimates range into several
tens of millions annually.
Ethical concerns are raised by the use of
animals in experimental studies, particularly when they are
subjected to painful procedures or toxic exposures. These
concerns are accentuated by recent studies showing marked
stress responses in animals undergoing routine laboratory
procedures. For example, routine handling, venipuncture, and
gavage (the administration of test compounds through an oral
tube) elicit striking elevations in pulse, blood pressure,
and steroid hormone release that can persist for an hour or
more after the event. Similarly, routine features of the laboratory
environment — isolation, confinement, social disruption,
noise, and restrictions on physical movement — have
been shown to be noxious for animals. Together, these bodies
of evidence indicate that even routine experiments that appear
to be minimally invasive can be highly stressful for the animal
subjects, and this finding applies to commonly used rodent
species as well as larger and less frequently used animals.
Stress effects are relevant to humane concerns as well as
to the interpretation of scientific findings. Research on
immune function, endocrine and cardiovascular disorders, neoplasms,
developmental defects, and psychological phenomena are particularly
vulnerable to stress effects.
 Ethical
concerns have propelled the exploration of methods that replace
animal use. However, such methods may also have scientific
advantages related to cost or applicability to human disease.
For example, toxicologists seeking more accurate or reliable
methods have turned to cellular screening tests for many applications
and have realized substantial savings in the process. Trauma
training, once conducted almost universally using animals,
is now commonly taught with simulators that are cheaper and
are designed to more closely mimic critical aspects of patient
care.
It is incumbent on scientists and institutions
using animals for research, testing, or educational purposes
to actively investigate and implement alternatives. The federal
Animal Welfare Act regulations require that research personnel
be trained in methods of searching for alternatives to animal
use, and the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals encourages efforts to develop and use scientifically
valid alternatives to animal research…
The process of replacing animals in research,
testing, and education is supported by studies showing that
routine laboratory procedures and typical laboratory environments
are more stressful for animals than is commonly appreciated.
Nonetheless, the challenges of replacing animals are often
considerable, raising major scientific, economic, and regulatory
issues.
The exploration and implementation of nonanimal
methods should be a priority for investigators and research
institutions and should take advantage of a wide variety of
viewpoints to ensure progress toward scientific, human health,
and animal protection goals.
The above article is reprinted with the
permission of the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine.
|
