Animal Testing:
February 11, 2002
The Winnipeg Humane Society (WHS) has adopted a policy of opposing the use of
animals in the testing of consumer products including cosmetics and household
items such as soaps, cleaners, etc.
The WHS does not oppose the use of animals in research that seeks to improve
the health and well-being of people, provided that this research adheres
to the principles of the "three R's": 1. Replacement: attempts are made
to find alternatives to the use of animals in the experiments; 2. Reduction:
every effort is made to use as few animals as possible; 3. Refinement:
the
choice of species of animal to be used should be of the lowest level of
sentience possible so that the experiment may succeed.
In 1999 over 1.7 million animals were subjected to testing in Canada, which
includes only the 169 research facilities that are members of the Canadian
Council
on Animal Care (CCAC.) This figure represents mostly government and
related institutions such as Universities and excludes testing performed
on animals for such purposes as the testing of cosmetic and household products. Testing that is done on animals to purportedly assess the safety of consumer products often involves inflicting extreme pain through burning, cutting, and injecting harmful chemicals in the eyes, throat, and open wounds. Often these tests are performed over several days or weeks and without any form of anaesthetic.
Doubts also exist among experts as to the effectiveness of testing on animals
to try to determine a product's effect on people. After all, every animal
species, including the primates that are most similar to humans, have very
basic differences in their physical makeup. One obvious example is that
of rodents, the most often used animal in consumer product experiments: rodents
only live for two or three years while humans average life span is around
75 years. This long life span has allowed humans to develop more of a defence
against cancer than that of rodents, who are far more susceptible.
The issue is perhaps best summed up by Dr. Frank Barile of the Toxicology Department of the City University
of New York, "It is generally accepted that correlations [between animal
test results and human safety] are not good... due to species differences."
By adhering to the three R's, institutions and companies should work
to minimize and eliminate animal testing through the use of alternatives.
Researchers should
also be vigilant in determining the efficacy of the testing they are
performing on animals.
As consumers, we can have an effect on the actions of companies that
produce consumer products, and we already have. Hundreds of consumer
product makers
now place the "leaping bunny" [found at http://www.leapingbunny.org/ symbol on their products to indicate that no animal tests were done in
research or production
of the product. This begs the question: if so many makers of shampoo,
makeup, soaps, etc. are able to produce their products without animal
tests, why do other
manufacturers claim that they must perform these tests to protect their customers.
A list of companies that do not test on animals and those that do can be found
on the Internet at http://www.stopanimaltests.com/c-ccons.html.
