berco@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Julie Bercovici) (11/14/86)
Hi again.
I was overwhelmed by the responsed I recieved concerning my posting
about the use of animals in testing. There have been so many requests
for the list of companies that I have decided to post it. It should
be right behind this posting. Several people have asked some very
legitimate questions about animal testing and I'll try to answer them
the best that I can. I am no expert in law, biology, zoology or
anything else. I just read the literature sent to me and talk
to people who may be in the know. PETA has a newsletter which contains
the answers to the most frequently asked questions. In summary these
are:
Q.Isn't Animal testing of consumer products a law or required by the FDA?
A.No. No animal test are required by law or regulation. Companies use
animal testing to cover themselves if sued rather than putting warning
labels on products. It doesn't make much sense to me either.
Q.What other ways could they test their products?
A. 1. Enough is known about toxicity in humans to put the information into
computers and let the computers tell us if a substance or mixture
would be toxic.
2. Cell culture (test tube) systems can be used for toxicity and irritancy.
3. Human eyes from eye banks, membranes of chicken eggs or other
organ culture systems can be used.
These are the three mentioned in the PETA newsletter, more may exist.
All of these methods have been developed and tested yet the industry
is reluctant to use them.
Q.What can one person do:
A.Actually every consumer has some clout. Buying only cruelty free products,
and spreading the word to other people who care will hit the bad guys where
it hurts the most. Calling them to tell them what you are doing and why
is important. Bringing the problem to the attention of the media is a
way to reach thousands of people who care but don't know.
Join PETA or other animal rights organization.
The Humane Product Testing Act (H.R. 1877) is now before congress. Write
to your representive and tell them you support it.
This pretty much covers the questions I have been asked. If you have
any more feel free to contact me.
Thanks
Julieross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) (11/18/86)
It's to bad this got cross posted to misc.consumers. I'll say it quick, Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. Also, would you seriously trust your life to a computer program, given current software engineering standards. Also, there is a paradox here if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born. Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism. Have an allergic reaction, Ross
smvorkoetter@watmum.UUCP (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) (11/18/86)
In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes: >Also, there is a paradox here >if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born. >Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism. B... S... More domestic animals are born every day because of people not getting them fixed and letting them run, than we know what to do with. All the strays that get rounded up get put to sleep, or, get sent to any place that wants them for testing. Companies do NOT breed test animals. If they weren't born, they wouldn't be used for testing. Please people, get your pets neutered and/or don't let them roam. (No flames about neutering and/or letting them roam, that's not the point here) P.S. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have a law that the shelters must give unwanted animals to research when requested. The Toronto Humane Society is currently doing there best to raise money and BUY these animals from other shelters that don't want to break this law. The THS then keeps them, in defiance of this law. They'd rather put them to sleep if necessary, than have them tortured.
kolling@jumbo.UUCP (11/19/86)
> Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. > Also, would you seriously trust your life to a computer program, given > current software engineering standards. There are at least two aspects to testing using animals: (1) testing cosmetics and other non-essentials, and (2) testing medicines. Possibly someone can make a case for inflicting pain and death on an animal in the latter case (although I wouldn't agree), but there is certainly no ethically acceptable case for the former. Also, even if you believe that the latter is justified, many tests on animals simply have no relevance to humans, many are unnecessary duplications, many involve much more mistreatment of animals than is necessary to get the test results. > Also, there is a paradox here > if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born. > Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism. This is a truly incredible statement. One of the major causes of animal suffering is the tremendous number of animals born who are destined to be homeless because people don't have their present animals neutered.
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (11/19/86)
> >Q.What other ways could they test their products? > >A. 1. Enough is known about toxicity in humans to put the information into > > computers and let the computers tell us if a substance or mixture > > would be toxic. > Sci.med: Is knowledge of toxins and biochemistry really that advanced? > Is this just another expression of the myth "Computers can do Anything > when given a lot of Data"? The truth is that if anyone ever tells you that they can absolutely predict the function of its molecule from its structure, laugh in his face. Take the following two examples. By a structure-function relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly safe - in rabbits, and in humans beyond 20 weeks gestation. No one ever suspected that it would be such a potent teratogen for a short period in embryogenesis. The FDA never approved it for use in the US, but the tragedy in Europe was of immense proportions. It inhibited the growth of the proximal limb bud, but who could have ever predicted? Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound. It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable. Rats and certain strains of mice can literally eat it by the pound, but just a few millionths of a gram will kill a guinea pig (or is it a gerbil). This is not to say that certain animal testing isn't excessive, but the shear fact that biology is stranger than nature will ensure that it will never be possible to eliminate it completely. -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Well that's my story, not that it matters..."
sasaki@endor.UUCP (11/19/86)
> B... S... More domestic animals are born every day because of people > not getting them fixed and letting them run, than we know what to do > with. All the strays that get rounded up get put to sleep, or, get > sent to any place that wants them for testing. Companies do NOT > breed test animals... Yes, it is true that many domestic animals are destroyed because of inconsiderate and unthinking owners. No, it is not true that test animals don't get bred. There are companies that breed animals, mostly for medical research. Mostly they breed and sell rodents and rabbits. Many also bread dogs and cats, pigs, and primates of various types. It is also true that much research is done using animals from animal shelters and pounds, but most research (at least in the Boston area) is done using specially bred and raised animals. Animals from shelters and pounds come from uncertain backgrounds and are often of questionable health, usually not suitable for controlled research. I am not here to justify any of this, just wanted to make the point that animals are bred for testing, and that capitalistic principles are alive and thriving in this market. ---------------- Marty Sasaki uucp: harvard!sasaki Strategic Information arpa: sasaki@harvard.harvard.edu 80 Blanchard Road bitnet: sasaki@harvunxh Burlington, MA 01803 phone: 617-273-5500
wiebe@ut-ngp.UUCP (11/19/86)
In article <677@husc6.UUCP>, sasaki@endor.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki) writes: > .... No, it is not true that test > animals don't get bred. There are companies that breed animals, mostly > for medical research. Mostly they breed and sell rodents and rabbits. > Many also breed dogs and cats, pigs, and primates of various types. I'd like to second this, with a few details: Much animal research, in experimental psychology as well as medicine, becomes a great deal more fruitful if the population of animals tested is very homogeneous, so that sources of error variance are minimized. (There's less noise in the background, so to speak, so the effect sought is much more clear.) Many mice and rats, in particular, are bred from very purified gene pools, meaning the exact characteristics of each animal are very very predictable: they are far more alike than anybody else except identical twins. In fact, they're almost as identical as identical twins; over the hundreds of generations, gene variability has been almost eliminated. This is very useful in a lot of kinds of research. BTW, in this process, "maze-smart" rats have been bred which, apparently genetically, are better at running a maze than ordinary rats! In fact, would you believe that their extra ability is not just ordinary higher intelligence; their extra ability seems to be SPECIFIC to just *that* maze and no other. With other mazes, they do no better nor worse than other rats. (You can, with these rats, and theoretically probably with any living creature, breed for any characteristic you wish to emphasize, simply by mating only those who are high in that characteristic.) -- Anne Hill Wiebe (wiebe@ngp.cc.utexas.edu, or !ihnp4!ut-ngp!wiebe, or !allegra!ut-ngp!wiebe)
jbs@rti-sel.UUCP (11/19/86)
In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes: >Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. Better no animals (people included) when other alternatives are available and accurate. I'd like to see if YOU could put acid in an animal's eyes and then sit there and watch it squirm as its eyeballs burn away. Sure, there are some times when it's unavoidable to use animals. But I can't see how putting Draino in the eyes of 100 mice does anybody any good. I can hear it now - "Yup, Vern, looks like we was right! Draino burns the little suckers! Listen to 'em squealin'! Here - gimme another bottle."
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (11/19/86)
1. Do you honestly believe that a non-human animal will serve as a warning that people might suffer allergic reactions to a particular cosmetic? I don't think the medical community has absolute confidence in such things with *human* testing as allergies can be rare. You presume that these animal tests actually yield valid, useful results that protect you. I think the point is that this is highly questionable and that the companies are only doing these tests because they are relatively cheap and, if necessary, sound good in court later. Remember, cosmetics manufacturers don't fabricate products out of new, untried chemicals in general, that would put them into the realm of drug testing and for obvious reasons they usually avoid that (cost, acceptance.) I think what we are talking about here is the typical case where they throw together some lanolin, perfume, food coloring and aloe gel and dump it in some animal's eye just to have it on record that they did (I wonder how much their insurance carriers are behind this?) Bad science, a bunch of flunky bio majors just 9-5ing it in the back room for their $28K+benefits. 2. Re: If the animals are not used for testing, they will not be born... Better to not have been born than born to be constrained in a cage and have random chemicals dumped in your eyes. Would the same apply to people? What if we convinced women who were about to abort to have the child instead and donate it to a slave class? Anyhow, I'm mixed. I've worked in labs where animals were used, by and large it's pretty disgusting and the folks involved get very callous (years of practice denying the obvious.) I don't think I would support complete, unconditional bans, but I would definitely get behind anything that looks into it and demands justification for use of live animals and can police practices, I saw some pretty disgusting things that none of you would likely tolerate (eg. a person going through dog after dog just to show off some surgical technique to a lot of people who couldn't all be there at the same time.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
msb@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (11/20/86)
Stefan M. Vorkoetter (smvorkoetter@watmum.UUCP) writes: > P.S. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have a law that the shelters must give > unwanted animals to research when requested. The Toronto Humane > Society is currently doing their best to raise money and BUY these > animals from other shelters that don't want to break this law. The > THS then keeps them, in defiance of this law. For the benefit of those who aren't in the range of Toronto newspapers... the Toronto Humane Society was recently, um, taken over by a group of animal rights activists. I haven't been following the details, but the most recent stage was a proxy-vote battle that ended with the Society's board of directors reduced from 16 members to 5, and at least 4 of the 5 survivors having been founders of activist groups. It appears likely that the activists wanted to change the course of the Society from within in order to get their hands on its financial resources, which include such things as inheritances and I think tax money also. Since this has shifted from what-products-to-choose to the rights of stray pets and other animals, I am adding talk.politics.misc to the list of newsgroups, and deleting net.veg, misc.consumers, and soc.women from the followup-to list. Please confine further postings to their proper places, where I won't see them. Mark Brader
hutch@volkstation.UUCP (11/20/86)
In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes: >It's to bad this got cross posted to misc.consumers. I'll say it quick, >Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. >Also, would you seriously trust your life to a computer program, given >current software engineering standards. Also, there is a paradox here >if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born. >Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism. > > Have an allergic reaction, > Ross Before anyone believes this crap, they should investigate a little more closely. The original article listed those companies which engage in routine, UN-NECESSARY testing of cosmetics, household products, and so forth, on animals. It is obvious even to someone like Ross that if you put clorox in your eyes it will hurt them. Therefore, is it necessary to demonstrate that fact by routinely putting clorox in the eyes of test animals? Then why did Clorox feel it necessary to do this? Ross, if you are so severely susceptible to allergic reactions that you feel it is justified to animal-test products which can be demonstrated by simple laboratory chemical tests as hazardous, then I suggest you follow the same procedure adopted by the two other similarly afflicted people: go live in Mt Shasta California, in a safe-house with absolutely NO modern manufactured products in it. Hutch
campbell@maynard.UUCP (11/20/86)
In article <674@watmum.UUCP> smvorkoetter@watmum.UUCP (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) writes: > ... Companies do NOT breed test animals. >If they weren't born, they wouldn't be used for testing. Rubbish. There's a *huge* establishment about thirty miles from here called "Charles River Breeding Laboratories". My brother used to work there. They breed laboratory animals -- mostly white rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys -- in enormous numbers for the research market. These animals clearly wouldn't be born if they weren't bred for testing. -- Larry Campbell MCI: LCAMPBELL The Boston Software Works, Inc. UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu (617) 367-6846 DOMAINIZED ADDRESS (for the adventurous): campbell@maynard.BSW.COM
andy@Shasta.UUCP (11/20/86)
If you want to stop animal testing, then get the consumer protection and liability laws changed. Make the customer, not the manufacturer, take the responsibilty for damages caused by violating safety instructions. (The other alternative is to not buy new products; keep buying what you used as a kid. If you won't do either of these things but still object to animal testing, you're blaming the mirror for what it reflects.) Animal testing is not cheap (even when it is bad science); the cosmetic companies would rather spend that money on advertising. Give them the choice. (Animal testing is used to defend cosmetic companies in court. A good lawyer will clean up on a company that says "we tested our shampoo on eggs".) Product testing on human eyes from eye banks is dubious at best. Suitable organs are used for cornea transplants and the like. Testing with them instead of bunnies trades bunny eyes for blind people. -andy ps - The results of animal testing are available to companies that don't do it. If you sue one of the "pure" companies, they'll defend themselves using animal test results. -- Andy Freeman UUCP: ...!decwrl!shasta!andy forwards to ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
jbs@hropus.UUCP (11/20/86)
Does this topic really belong in net.pets???
ross@ulowell.UUCP (11/21/86)
In article <1083@rti-sel.UUCP> jbs@rti-sel.UUCP (Joe Simpson) writes: >In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes: >>Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. > >Better no animals (people included) when other alternatives are available >and accurate. I'd like to see if YOU could put acid in an animal's eyes >and then sit there and watch it squirm as its eyeballs burn away. > Sure, there are some times when it's unavoidable to use animals. But I >can't see how putting Draino in the eyes of 100 mice does anybody any good. >I can hear it now - "Yup, Vern, looks like we was right! Draino burns the >little suckers! Listen to 'em squealin'! Here - gimme another bottle." You give me no credit. I will concede that I was wrong based on some things. I had assumed that we were talking about necessary products or products that people use every day. Cosmetics are a big, and in my opinion wasteful, industry. But it is not going to go away. Better to test on an animal than humans. I have trouble believing that any company would do unecessary testing; what is being argued here it seems is what is necessary. Obviously Draino is going to hurt most life forms of this planet, and therefore it is not necessary to test for it. But, how can we be sure that the new brand X contact lens cleaner is going to hurt a human or not. [context switch] A rabbit in contact lenses? :-) [context switch] This is the type of testing I am refering to. Ross
de@moscom.UUCP (11/21/86)
>Companies do NOT breed test animals. >If they weren't born, they wouldn't be used for testing. This is not entirely true. While some strays are used for testing, there is a large industry that provides test animals to industry. A white mouse or rat that is used to test drugs must be germ free, so that the reactions tested will be those of the drug, not some outside cause. The environments in which these animals are raised is highly controlled, with airlocks, special foods, emergency power sources, etc. This is not a justification of the use of animals for testing. Some tests are unnecessary or overly cruel, but many are the choice between them testing an animal bred for that purpose and testing on me. I choose the animal. >Please people get your pets neutered and/or don't let them roam. Good point anyway. -- rochester \ David Esan | moscom ! de ritcv/
jsnyder@uw-june.UUCP (11/21/86)
In article <794@hropus.UUCP> jbs@hropus.UUCP (jbs) writes: >Does this topic really belong in net.pets??? The obvious answer is NO, unless consumer products labs start kidnapping our PETS for their nefarious purposes.
gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP (11/21/86)
In article<674@watmun.UUCP>, Stephen M. Vorkoetter writes: > Companies do NOT breed test animals. > If they weren't born, they wouldn't be used for testing. Test animals are used for very specific purposes. The Primary reason that test animals are breed specifically for research is to insure that all test animals are as genetically similar as possible. This insures that differences in response between the animals exposed to the experimental compound and the unexposed animals IS due to the test agent rather than to genetic differences between animals. For this reason, genetically identical animals are often used to test the toxicity, carcinogenicity (cancer causing abillity), and mutaginicity(abillity to cause genetic changes) of experimental drugs. In our labs animals are treated with dignity. Although I, personally, dislike the UNNECESSARY use of animals for testing, I feel that it is far better than the alternative. There are some questions that can only be answered with the used of animals. I would far rather have an animal die because of exposure to a toxic substance than to have a single human die because the toxic effects of that substance remained uninvestigated because of lack of testing within the animal system. Kathi Gagen Dept. of Biological Sciences Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP ....osu-eddie!bgsuvax!gagen
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (11/23/86)
In article <794@hropus.UUCP>, jbs@hropus.UUCP (jbs) writes: >Does this topic really belong in net.pets??? Even if it does, why is it in net.veg?!? -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy
simsong@mit-amt.UUCP (11/23/86)
Can we please take this discussion off of net.veg? CLAIMER: This message reflects the views of thousands of other people who have already stopped reading net.veg.
anderson@watdcsu.UUCP (11/25/86)
I am thinking about getting a Land Turtle, any comments for or against?
laura@hoptoad.UUCP (11/26/86)
In article <2796@watdcsu.UUCP> anderson@watdcsu.UUCP (G.Anderson - Computing Services) writes: >I am thinking about getting a Land Turtle, any comments for or against? You are in Waterloo, where turtles hibernate when it gets cold. Make sure you keep your turtle warm and out of draughts. Otherwise he can get into a hibernate/thaw/hinbernate cycle which results in him starving to death since he can't wake up enough to eat. Turtle shit really stinks. Turtles are hard to get out of small tight warm places they crawl into -- like right underneath the radiator. Make sure you can always retrieve your turtle when you let him lose in your apartment. Otherwise you will lose him and find him only after he has shit all over your best clothes. Turtle shit really stinks. Aside from that -- they are very nice beasties. -- If you take a risk and fail it doesn't necessarily mean that you made a mistake. -- David desJardins Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa