Nicholas. Firstly allow me to impress upon you that I am a stoic supporter of alternatives to animal testing and I am neither a hypocrite, nor daft – I am in fact, informed. Which is what this group is all about – informing people.
You mention that there are no alternatives to animal tests and I am very happy to tell you that you are wrong on that score.
Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, as well as modifying animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress. Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon.
To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include:
- An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(6)
- The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test, which uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
- Human skin model tests such as the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for * The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
- The use of a clinical patch test in human volunteers, which can confirm that a chemical will not cause irritation or allergic skin reactions.(8)
For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit “http://ecvam.jrc.it/” and “http://www.stopanimaltests.com/”
I would also recommend you visit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine website “http://www.pcrm.org/” and in particular their position paper on animal testing “http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/position.html” Here you should learn about the efficiacy of non animal testing in medical applications.. as well as the ethical issues which need to be considered.
We are no longer living in the dark ages where we need to experiment endlessly on living creatures to gain knowledge. With the information already at hand, and with greater awareness that animals are actually biologically very different from humans we need to, and have already developed alternatives.
Many animal tests have produced incorrect findings – for example, did you know that an echidna can eat vast quanitities of opium and prusic acid without any harm.. translate that finding over to humans and the results are very different! For more interesting anatomical differences between the animals we test on and humans please visit this page “http://www.vivisectionfraud.com/futility.html” and others at the same website.
In closing, I would like to suggest that you try to refrain from being insulting or condenscending when talking about issues that you are not fully informed on. To become a persuasive debator, you really do need to do your research before you hit the keyboard. If a group is formed to help an exploited sub-group of civilization, you can usually bet your bank balance that they have done so for good reason, that there is evidence that these things are happening and need to be changed (and actually CAN be changed).
I do hope you check the links I have posted and read some more about vivisection issues. I used to think we needed vivisection too and am now very glad to learn that there are alternatives that I can follow and support. There are already MANY brands of personal and household products available that do not test on animals.. and those are the ones you should be choosing – without fear of burning your face off ;)
Good luck on your educational journey. And a big THUMBS UP to my fellow members of this and many likeminded groups.
For the Animals (and the misrepresented)…
Maree
message
