DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementing Alternatives to Animal Testing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementing Alternatives to Animal Testing Why do methods get stuck? The process of implementing alternatives for authorisations. Failure to keep up with updates to regulatory use is complicated by a number the pharmacopoeias and other medical legislation Implementing alternatives of factors; regulatory reassurance usually has, in our experience, been one reason why needs to be given for each specific alternative some of these tests are still commissioned. method for each specific sector (e.g. cosmetics, to animal testing pharmaceuticals or chemicals), several regulatory Finally, there needs to be improvements in the bodies may need to be involved and legislative harmonisation of testing requirements between The RAT (Replace Animal Tests) list and other documents may need to be updated. EU and non-EU countries. We believe that Failure by regulatory bodies to recognise these companies and regulators should not permit Over the last 30 years there have been great as skin irritation, acute toxicity and various batch steps and take responsibility for them has, in our animal testing for regions that do not accept the developments in the replacement of tests on safety tests have taken years to be completely opinion, been a major reason for some of the alternative if the alternative has been recognised animals for regulatory purposes. Alternatives accepted and in many cases the animal test is delay in the implementation of these methods. in at least one region and there is no scientific have been developed that can now replace still being conducted for regulatory purposes. reason why the other region should not accept it. wholly, or in part, a number of animal tests for Everyone will agree that this is something that Companies may also need to perform in-house several product sectors. should be avoided, both in the interests of validation studies - particularly for alternatives to animal welfare and good regulatory science, as batch tests and will need to update their market However, our experience has been that these alternative methods are usually cheaper, faster methods can become ‘stuck’ in the process and and more accurate than the animal tests they can take much longer to actually replace animals replace. What regulators can do than most people think. Our experience is that there are a number of Ensure there is a mechanism for continual dialogue on the acceptability of these In recent years alternatives to animal tests such reasons why methods may become ‘stuck’. For alternatives between the regulatory agencies in your region that are responsible Communicate for chemicals, medicines, pesticide, biocides, cosmetics and food as well as those responsible for authorising animal experiments. example, companies may need reassurance from their relevant regulatory authority that these methods Identify and map the reasons for the continued use of these tests and take action will be acceptable for regulatory purposes. Failure to provide this reassurance, or delay in doing so, can Analyse where possible. mean that animal tests are still conducted when an alternative method is actually scientifically acceptable and available. Additional validation on a product by product basis may be required for alternatives for Promote Make sure those that use animals are aware of these alternatives or waiving options. quality control testing and there may be insufficient motivation for companies to do this. Furthermore, lack of communication between regulatory sectors can mean that information about the What companies can do availability and acceptability of new alternative methods simply falls through the gaps. We have created the RAT list to draw regulatory and industrial attention to this issue. We have selected just Perform in–house validation of the alternative for your product, where necessary Validate 10 animal tests that are still being conducted in Europe despite evidence that they are either redundant or and update your licences. have valid replacements. We have estimated that half a million animals are being used in these tests in Analyse Proactively evaluate the need for animal testing and take your results to the regulators. Make sure those that throughout your business there is awareness of - and Use Cruelty Free International commitment to use - these alternatives or waiving options. Europe alone despite the fact that EU law (Directive them moving again. 2010/63) states that “Member States shall ensure Cruelty Free International is the leading that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory organisation working to create a world where For change to happen it is important that a desire to minimise animal testing is matched with actual method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of nobody wants or believes we need to experiment policy and resource. Both regulators and companies need to invest in people who will look out for live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure”. on animals. and assess alternatives as they come on board, as well as the science to ensure that new alternatives continue to be developed. We highlight where these 10 tests are ‘stuck’ in We are widely respected as an authority on the process and provide some practical solutions animal testing issues and are frequently called that regulators and companies can employ to get on by governments, the media, corporations and Cruelty Free International www.CrueltyFreeInternational.org Website: www.CrueltyFreeInternational.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @CrueltyFreeIntl Tel: +44 (0) 20 7700 4888 Test and number Options for What needs to of animals used Description of test replacement happen The RAT list annually Eye irritation The substance is left in one rabbit’s eye for Eyes from dead hens Regulators need to promote – Rabbits at least one hour before it may be washed and cows can be used in the alternatives and ensure out. The eyes are then examined for signs validated tests to identify licences are not issued for Test and number What needs to 2,080 rabbits were used in eye of irritation and damage over 3 days. If there severe irritants and non- testing unless absolutely of animals used Description of test Options for replacement are no signs of severe irritation in the initial irritants. Reconstituted necessary. happen irritation tests across Europe in annually 2011. test, two more rabbits are used. Rabbits are human eye models have forced to suffer restraint whilst being dosed also now been accepted. Companies need to ensure Sector: C and examined and can experience painful they use the alternatives Pyrogen test Rabbits are restrained in boxes for up This has been replaced by a test Regulators need to ensure damage in their eyes that can cause blindness. and continue to develop the – Rabbits to eight hours per test, with food and which uses blood from horseshoe that the rabbit test is no being methods for mild irritation. water restriction prior to this. Rabbits crabs, and more recently with a conducted when the relevant 3,167 pyrogen tests were can suffer a fever reaction (in the rare more sensitive test based on cryo- pharmacopeia specifies occasion the batch is contaminated), preserved human blood. otherwise. Skin irritation The product is rubbed onto a 6cm area of a The test can now be Regulators need to promote done in the UK alone in 2014. rabbit’s shaved skin on their backs and held completely replaced with the alternatives and ensure Across the EU the number and damage to ears from repeated – Rabbits injections. Temperature probes are Companies need to be in place with a bandage for four hours. The reconstituted human skin licences are not issued for is thought to be around rabbit is then examined for signs of skin models, which are validated testing unless absolutely 200,000. inserted deep into their rectums during encouraged to validate the 3,151 rabbits were used in skin the test. Rabbits may be housed singly human blood test for their irritation tests across Europe in damage for 14 days. If there are no signs of and widely accepted. They necessary. irritation in the initial test, two more rabbits are more predictive than the Sector: HP, VP during their lives and are typically re- product and update their 2011. used several times. licence. are used in a ‘confirmatory test’. Rabbits are rabbit test. Companies need to ensure Sector: C singly housed and can suffer from painful skin they use the alternatives. reactions and rashes. Botulinum toxin test This is an LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) test Some toxin manufacturers have Regulators need to ask all – Mice aimed at determining the dose that kills now developed a cell-based test companies to validate the cell- exactly half of the animals used. The to replace the batch test, but they based test. Skin sensitisation In the GPMT guinea pigs are injected six times The GPMT was replaced by Regulators need to promote in their backs with a substance that increases the LLNA in 1999; but the the alternatives and ensure 220,544 mice were used in mice are injected into their abdomens continue to use the mouse test for – Guinea pigs & mice their body’s immune response to the test LLNA itself is now replaced. licences are not issued for LD50 tests in Europe in 2011 with the botulinum toxin and over the other purposes. Companies need to be chemical. Six and then 20 days later the test Chemical based (DPRA) and testing unless absolutely alone. A large proportion of next three days become increasingly encouraged to validate 15,214 guinea pigs were used chemical is rubbed onto their shaved skin. The cell based tests (ARE-Nrf2 necessary. these tests were botulinum paralysed. If left, mice in the higher the cell-based test for their in guinea pig maximisation test animal is observed daily for allergic reactions -KeratinoSens) have been toxin (botox). dose groups will suffocate to death product. (GPMT) and 16,846 mice were within approximately three days.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consideration of Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals for Research and Teaching
    Division of Laboratory Animal Resources Consideration of Alternatives to the Use of Live Animals For Research and Teaching From the ETSU Animal Study Protocol form: The search for alternatives refers to the three Rs described in the book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (1959) by Russell and Burch. The 3Rs are reduction in the number of animals used, refinement of techniques and procedures to reduce pain or distress, and replacement of animals with non-animal techniques or use of less-sentient species. Refinement: The use of analgesics and analgesia, the use of remote telemetry to increase the quality and quantity of data gathered, and humane endpoints for the animals are examples of refinements. Reduction: The use of shared control groups, preliminary screening in non-animal systems, innovative statistical packages or a consultation with a statistician are examples of reduction alternatives. Replacement: Alternatives such as in vitro, cell culture, tissue culture, models, simulations, etc. are examples of replacement. This is also where you might look for any non-mammalian animal models—fish or invertebrates, for example—that would still give you the data you need. The AWIC (Animal Welfare Information Center) recommends alternative searches be performed in 2 phases. Phase 1 considers reduction and refinement and the recommendation is NOT to use the word "alternative" unless the particular area of research happens to be an area in which there has been considerable work in developing alternatives (e.g. Toxicology and education). This phase should get after no unnecessary duplication, appropriate animal numbers, the best pain-relieving agents and other methods that may serve to minimize or limit pain and distress.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty Free International
    Cruelty Free International Sector: Household and Personal Care Region: Based in the United Kingdom, operates globally Cruelty Free International certifies brands producing cosmetics, personal care, household and cleaning products that do all they can to remove animal testing from their supply chains ('cruelty- free') and comply with the Leaping Bunny certification criteria. Cruelty Free International’s sustainability claim is the Leaping Bunny logo on products, which aims to allow shoppers to make more informed choices. Cruelty Free International and its partners have, so far, certified over 1000 brands around the world. Mindset Life Cycle Thinking: The claim focuses on the product manufacturing stage (i.e. the relevant phase where animal testing would occur). A supplier monitoring system must be implemented to monitor the claim, to ensure that the brand has not carried out, commissioned or been party to experiments on animals during the manufacturing of a product throughout its supply chain (including its raw materials and ingredients), whilst an independent and rigorous audit is conducted within the first 12 months of certification, and then every three years. Hotspots Analysis Approach: As a single-issue certification scheme, Cruelty Free International does not aim to assess all relevant impacts of the products it certifies and has therefore not undertaken a hotspots analysis. Cruelty Free International focuses on monitoring and enforcing high cruelty free standards throughout a brand’s manufacturing of a product. Mainstreaming Sustainability: Cruelty Free International encourages certified brands to apply the cruelty free logic to other products in their portfolio. Partnerships with ethical and cruelty free brands are also designed to support a brand's external sustainability and advocacy strategies and internal objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Implications for Humans in Light of the Poor Predictive Value of Animal Models
    International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2014, 5, 966-1005 Published Online August 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijcm http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2014.516129 The Ethical Implications for Humans in Light of the Poor Predictive Value of Animal Models Ray Greek Americans For Medical Advancement, Goleta, USA Email: [email protected] Received 11 June 2014; revised 10 July 2014; accepted 9 August 2014 Copyright © 2014 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract The notion that animals could be used as predictive models in science has been influenced by rel- atively recent developments in the fields of complexity science, evolutionary and developmental biology, genetics, and evolutionary biology in general. Combined with empirical evidence, which has led scientists in drug development to acknowledge that a new, nonanimal model is needed, a theory—not a hypothesis—has been formed to explain why animals function well as models for humans at lower levels of organization but are unable to predict outcomes at higher levels of or- ganization. Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT) places the empirical evidence in the context of a scientific theory and thus, from a scientific perspective, the issue of where animals can and can- not be used in science has arguably been settled. Yet, some in various areas of science or science- related fields continue to demand that more evidence be offered before the use of animal models in medical research and testing be abandoned on scientific grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Delivery of Sirna to Solid Tumors by Super Carbonate Apatite
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Innovative Delivery of siRNA to Solid Tumors by Super Carbonate Apatite Xin Wu1,2, Hirofumi Yamamoto1*, Hiroyuki Nakanishi3, Yuki Yamamoto3, Akira Inoue1, Mitsuyoshi Tei1, Hajime Hirose1, Mamoru Uemura1, Junichi Nishimura1, Taishi Hata1, Ichiro Takemasa1, Tsunekazu Mizushima1, Sharif Hossain4,5, Toshihiro Akaike4,5, Nariaki Matsuura6, Yuichiro Doki1, Masaki Mori1 1 Department of Surgery, Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Suita, Japan, 2 Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan, 3 Nakanishi Gastroenterological Research Institute, Sakai, Japan, 4 Department of Biomolecular Engineering, Graduate School of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama, Japan, 5 Biomaterials Center for Regenerative Medical Engineering, Foundation for Advancement of International Science, Tsukuba, Japan, 6 Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan * [email protected] Abstract RNA interference (RNAi) technology is currently being tested in clinical trials for a limited OPEN ACCESS number of diseases. However, systemic delivery of small interfering RNA (siRNA) to solid tumors has not yet been achieved in clinics. Here, we introduce an in vivo pH-sensitive de- Citation: Wu X, Yamamoto H, Nakanishi H, livery system for siRNA using super carbonate apatite (sCA) nanoparticles, which is the Yamamoto Y, Inoue A, Tei M, et al. (2015) Innovative Delivery of siRNA to Solid Tumors by Super smallest class of nanocarrier. These carriers consist simply of inorganic ions and accumu- Carbonate Apatite. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0116022. late specifically in tumors, yet they cause no serious adverse events in mice and monkeys. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116022 Intravenously administered sCA-siRNA abundantly accumulated in the cytoplasm of tumor Academic Editor: Sung Wan Kim, University of cells at 4 h, indicating quick achievement of endosomal escape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2016 The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation Courtney G. Lee Pacifc McGeorge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Animal Law Commons Recommended Citation Courtney G. Lee, The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation, 95 Neb. L. Rev. 194 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Courtney G. Lee* The Animal Welfare Act at Fifty: Problems and Possibilities in Animal Testing Regulation TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 195 II. Background of the Animal Welfare Act ................ 196 A. Enactment and Evolution.......................... 196 B. Early Amendments ................................ 197 C. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985 .............................................. 198 D. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees .... 201 E. IACUC Effectiveness .............................. 203 III. Coverage of the AWA .................................. 205 A. What Is an “Animal” under the AWA? .............
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Animal Experiments
    The Case Against Animal Experiments Animal experiments are both unethical and unscientific. Animals in laboratories endure appalling suffering, such as being deliberately poisoned, brain-damaged and subjected to inescapable electric shocks. The pain and misery inflicted on the victims is enough, on its own, to make vivisection worthy of public condemnation. But animal “ “ experiments are also bad science, since the results they produce cannot be reliably translated to humans. They therefore offer little hope of advancing medical progress. The Case Against Animal Experiments outlines the suffering of animals used in research, before providing a clear, non-technical description of the scientific problems S E with vivisection. L I www.animalaid.org.uk C I N I M O D © How animals are used Contents Each year around four million How animals are used .......................... 1 animals are experimented on inside British laboratories. The suffering of animals in Dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, laboratories ........................................ 2 rats, rabbits and other animals Cruel experiments .................................... 2 are used, as well as hundreds A failing inspection regime ........................ 3 of thousands of genetically Secrecy and misinformation ...................... 4 modified mice. The most The GM mouse myth ................................ 4 common types of experiment The scientific case against either attempt to test how animal experiments .............................. 5 safe a substance is (toxicity Summary ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Animals for Research in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    Chapter 8 The use of animals for research in the pharmaceutical industry The ethics of research involving animals The use of animals for research in the CHAPTER 8 pharmaceutical industry Introduction THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH IN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY 8.1 The pharmaceutical industry conducts or supports approximately one third of the animal research that is undertaken in the UK. Some of this is basic research that seeks to examine normal biological processes and the nature of disease (see also Chapters 5 and 6). However, most has more specific, applied objectives and concerns the development of new medicines or vaccines, improved diagnosis or better methods of toxicity testing. Since the process of producing medicines has changed significantly over time, we begin with a brief overview of developments from the late 19th century to the present. We then describe the way medicines are currently produced in terms of eight stages. These are: discovery and selection of compounds that could be effective medicines (stages 1 and 2), characterisation of promising candidate medicines (stages 3 and 4), selecting candidate medicines and ensuring their safety (stage 5), clinical studies on humans (stages 6 to 8), and also research carried out to support the medicine once it has been marketed. For each stage we describe the way in which animals are used in the process, and give some examples of specific experiments. As in the case of research described in the previous chapters, welfare implications for the animals involved in pharmaceutical research are as diverse as the types of research and must be considered on a case by case basis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abandonment and Neglect of Hunting Dogs Jamie B
    Exigence Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 5 2018 Hunting a Home: The Abandonment and Neglect of Hunting Dogs Jamie B. Walker Germanna Community College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.vccs.edu/exigence Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Walker, J. B. (2018). Hunting a Home: The Abandonment and Neglect of Hunting Dogs. Exigence, 2 (1). Retrieved from https://commons.vccs.edu/exigence/vol2/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ VCCS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Exigence by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ VCCS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walker: Hunting a Home Introduction Hailed as an Old Dominion tradition reaching back to the English roots of the Virginia Colony, hunting with dogs seems to be as popular today as it was when George Washington participated in the 18th Century. Rabbit, fox, racoon and pheasant, to name a few, are easiest to catch or kill with the assistance of man’s best friend and her magnificent nose, and over the years deer hunting with dogs climbed to the top of the popularity list for canine sportsmen. While many lament the fate of the quarry, there exists a victim nearer to the hunter than even the deer: his dogs. Mistreatment of these working animals has been widely reported in the media (Telvock, 2013), but rarely studied in academic circles. What can be done to improve the lot of the Virginia hunting hound without squeezing the rights of the humane hunters which traditionally reach all the way back to England? Ironically, England may hold the key.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions What Types of Companies Are on the "Don't Test" List? This list includes companies that make cosmetics, personal-care products, household-cleaning products, and other common household products. All companies that are included on PETA's "don't test" list have signed our statement of assurance verifying that they and their ingredient suppliers don't conduct, commission, pay for, or allow any tests on animals for ingredients, formulations, or finished products anywhere in the world and will not do so in the future. We encourage consumers to support the companies on this list, since we know that they're committed to making products without harming animals. Companies on the "Do Test" list should be shunned until they implement a policy that prohibits animal testing. The "do test" list doesn't include companies that manufacture only products that are required by law to be tested on animals (e.g., pharmaceuticals and garden chemicals). Although PETA is opposed to all animal testing, our focus in those instances is less on the individual companies and more on the regulatory agencies that require animal testing. How Does a Company Get on PETA's Global Animal Test–Free List? In order to be listed as animal test–free by PETA's Beauty Without Bunnies program, a company or brand must submit a legally binding statement of assurance signed by its CEO verifying that it and its ingredient suppliers don't conduct, commission, pay for, or allow any tests on animals for ingredients, formulations, or finished products anywhere in the world and won't do so in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty Free International – Written Evidence (JTN0008)
    Cruelty Free International – Written Evidence (JTN0008) 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Cruelty Free International is a UK-based organisation working to end animal experiments worldwide. With a history of over 100 years, our science, regulatory and legal experts work with authorities in the UK, the EU and around the world to advance humane and human-relevant science. Cruelty Free International also runs the Leaping Bunny approval programme for brands committed to cruelty free cosmetics, personal care and household products and works with hundreds of UK companies from small to large. In 2018, we delivered eight million petition signatures to the United Nations together with The Body Shop in support of a global end to the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Summary A UK-Japan free trade agreement is an opportunity for the UK government to put into action its verbal commitment to enhancing animal protection now that the country has left the European Union (EU). As our Prime Minister said in a debate in the House of Commons on 10th June 2020: “Not only will we protect animal welfare standards but, on leaving the EU, as we have, we will be able to increase our animal welfare standards.” In 1998, the UK was the first country to place restrictions in law on animal testing for cosmetics. Currently, there are no such restrictions in Japan where, for ordinary use cosmetics, it is for companies to decide which methods of testing they use and where, for so-called special use cosmetics, it is mandatory to test new ingredients on animals. In our view, any UK-Japan free trade agreement should explicitly state that the UK will not accept reliance on safety data derived from animal tests for the import of any cosmetics, whether ordinary or special use, into the UK from Japan – even if this is already the effect of the relevant UK law.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the 2020 Annual Report
    2020 Annual Report ACHIEVEMENTS FOR ANIMALS The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International work together to end the cruelest practices toward animals, rescue and care for animals in crisis, and build a stronger animal protection movement. And we can’t do it without you. How we work Ending the cruelest practices We are focused on ending the worst forms of institutionalized animal suffering— including extreme confinement of farm animals, puppy mills, the fur industry, trophy hunting, animal testing of cosmetics and the dog meat trade. Our progress is the result of our work with governments, the private sector and multinational bodies; public awareness and consumer education campaigns, public policy efforts, and more. Caring for animals in crisis We respond to large-scale cruelty cases and disasters around the world, providing rescue, hands-on care, logistics and expertise when animals are caught in crises. Our affiliated care centers heal and provide lifelong sanctuary to abused, abandoned, exploited, vulnerable and neglected animals. Building a stronger animal protection movement Through partnerships, trainings, support, collaboration and more, we’re building a more humane world by empowering and expanding the capacity of animal welfare advocates and organizations in the United States and across the globe. Together, we’ll bring about faster change for animals. Our Animal Rescue and Response team stands ready 24/7 to help animals caught in crises in the United States and around the world. Here, HSI director of global animal disaster response Kelly Donithan comforts a koala we saved after the devastating wildfires on Australia’s Kangaroo Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Are Suffering: HSUS Seeks to End Rabbit Blinding Tests
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 3-1980 Animals are Suffering: HSUS Seeks to End Rabbit Blinding Tests Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cu_reps Part of the Animal Experimentation and Research Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Other Business Commons Recommended Citation "Animals are Suffering: HSUS Seeks to End Rabbit Blinding Tests" (1980). Close Up Reports. 10. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cu_reps/10 This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. w J: 1- CLOSE-U ANIMALS Annually, 65 to 100 million animals are being used as test subjects in the laboratories of cosmetic companies, drug manu­ facturers, university and commercial research centers, and pro­ AR,E ducers of household products. The Humane Society of the United States has taken the position that much of this test­ SUFFERING~ ing is not only unreliable, but also results in unnecessary pain and death. HSUS seeks to end Cats, dogs, birds, rats, mice, monkeys, and rabbits are rabbit blinding tests just some of the animals routinely subjected to electric shocks, rubber riot control bullets, huge doses of radiation, and chemical solutions. The research industry has long held that the use of animals is the only "reliable" way we have of determining the safety of a cosmetic, drug, or household product. Over the years this belief has served to support scientists as they subjected ani- mals to many tests. The American public has seen little of the massive animal suffering that has taken place in the research labs.
    [Show full text]