hophead

Rabbits immobilized in wooden stocks with ulcers in their
eyes; baby seals being clubbed over the head, and the infamous shock
treatment. Broach the subject with an individual and odds are that
they have witnessed footage of one or all of the aforementioned
practices and are appalled by the cruelty. Appalled yes, willing to
stand up and voice their thoughts... not often. There is one
significant reason for this unwillingness by some to stand up for the
rights of our fellow inhabitants of this planet, personal convenience.
We are systematically cutting down the last forest that provides their
shelter to farm cattle; we dump toxic chemicals and sewage into the
waters in which they live; we wear the tusks of the last few of their
species on our arms, and we pour cosmetic products into their eyes,
rectums or vaginas to determine the harmful effects they might cause
on humans, even though the physiological differentiation between
humans and the animals they use is durastic. On a daily basis most
people do not see their own degree of unintentional support towards
this global dilemma, but when compiled on paper one must question how
mankind can, with conscience, commit these acts which shame us as
human beings. Animals possess the same kinds of feelings and emotions
as human beings, and without anesthesia, they are subjected to the
pain as well. Mankind often fails to give animals the respect and
rights they deserve, they are treated as lifeless, unfeeling
scientific specimens and items that we may manipulate at our own
convenience and for vanity's sake.

Laboratory research involving animals is cruel and merciless
treatment of helpless creatures. No law requires that cosmetics and
household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, by six o'clock
this evening, hundreds of animals will have had their eyes, skin or
gastrointestinal systems unnecessarily burned or destroyed (Sequoia,
27). Two of the most famous animal tests are the Draize, or eye
irritancy test and the LD50, Lethal Dose 50. The Draize test is
performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits, such as the Florida
White, because they are cheap, docile, and are not "equipped" with
tear ducts to wash away the chemicals. During the test the rabbits are
immobilized in a stock with only their head protruding and a solid or
liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of the rabbit; substances
vary from mascara to aftershave and even oven cleaner. The rabbits
eyes are clipped open and observed at intervals of 1, 24, 48, 72 and
168 hours. It is important to note that, during this test, anesthesia
is rarely used. Reactions include inflammation, ulceration, rupture of
the eyeball, corrosion and bleeding. Some of these studies continue
for weeks, and all the while no measures are made to reduce suffering
or treat the rabbits.

Survival, however, will only lead to an entirely new set of
tests, such as the skin irritancy or the LD50. Lethal Dose 50 refers
to the lethal dose that is required to kill 50% of all animals in a
test group of 40-200. Animals are force fed substances through a
stomach tube, forced to inhale a substance, or have the substance
applied to their rectum or vagina. These tests continue until half of
the test animals die. During these tests animals will often endure
excruciating pain, convulsions, loss of motor function, seizures,
vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from every open orifice in the body.
Any animals who somehow manage to survive these particular tests are
subsequently destroyed (Sequoia, 29). There is also a Lethal Dose 100
test that determines the amount of a test substance required to kill
100% of the test animals. Ironically, results of these tests are
rarely, if ever, used in situation of actual human poisoning.

The skin irritancy test, similar to the eye irritancy test, is
where an animal, most commonly a rodent, has a highly concentrated
solution of a chemical in question applied to their skin. Their skin
is then observed for signs of irritancy, such as redness and
blistering. In some cases, the irritation can be so bad that the
product actually burns through the skin.

Not only are these tests cruel, but the results are unreliable
and unnecessary as scientific evidence. As with the aforementioned
Draize test; rabbits eyes are not the same as human eyes - there are
profound differences, mainly the absence of tear ducts. In addition,
different species react differently to various substances; substances
that fail to damage a rabbits eyes may be toxic to a human. For
example, nicotine is lethal to humans at 0.9mg/kg, but lethal dose
value of nicotine in dogs are a staggering 9.2mg/kg, in pigeons
75mg/kg, and in rats, 53mg/kg (PETA Factsheet). Another example,
results from experiences which exposed a variety of animal species to
cigarette smoke led researchers to believe that smoking did not cause
cancer. Because of this, warning labels on packs were delayed for
years and cigarette manufacturers still use animal data to question
the harmful effects of their products. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn,
Zomax, Suprol and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in
humans, including death, that they were removed from the market,
though animal experimentation had predicted them all to be safe. One
of the few studies that examined the differences in species reactions,
found only that 5-25% correlation between harmful effects in people
and the results of animal experiments (Heywood, R.). The question of
why such tests continue must be raised. The truth of the matter is
easy, traditional and readily funded. Whatever the reason may be,
animal research has accorded a certain level of prestige; this has
important economic implications, and funding agencies often favour
these projects (Sequoia, 85). In essence, it can all be traced back to
the notion of convenience raised earlier in our research - mankind has
a tendency to seek out the fastest and easiest way to formulate an
answer, for the cheapest cost. Sadly, it seems animals may not be
entirely saved from this tendency just yet.

While animals still continue to be violated in laboratories, a
consciousness about our responsibility toward our relationship with
animals has begun and continued to rise. As a result of pressures from
animal advocacy groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals) and AAVS (American Anti-Vivisection Society), a number of
large corporations have ceased all animal testing in recent years.
These corporations include Avon, Amway, Benetton, Revlon and even
General Motors, who used to subject animals to crash/impact tests. In
addition, the general public has begun to lean toward and seek out
those products which are not tested on animals, in the cosmetics
industry, cruelty-free products are one of the fastest growing market
segments (Sequoia, 27). Consumers have at long-last begun to realize
that with the vast number of cosmetics and personal care products on
the market today, it is impossible for a company to rationalize animal
testing in the name of another shampoo or nail polish. In particular,
consumers have begun to cry out for more frequent employment of the
available alternatives to animal testing; some of which include cell
cultures; tissue cultures; corneas from eye banks; and sophisticated
computer and mathematical models (PETA factsheet).

The non-animal test results have in fact proved themselves
more accurate and less expensive than those involving animal cruelty
(PETA factsheet). Of note, the Avon cosmetic company has personally
endorsed EYTEX SYSTEM, an alternative to the painful Draize test
(Rollin, B.E.). All of this bespeaks some progress, but it is still
too slow and infrequent given the obvious moral and scientific fault
in the practice of animal testing. Financial benefits to the
experimenters and their suppliers, and habit are significant factors
in the continuation of animal research activity. Legal prohibition of
the Draize and LD50 tests would accelerate the alternative approaches,
to the benefit of science, animals and consumers (Rollin, B.E., 149).

Alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable, both
for cosmetics and household product tests and for "medical research."
In most cases, non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost
only a fraction of what the animal experiments they replace costs, and
are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation
difficult or impossible. Eytex, developed by InVitro International,
assesses irritancy with a protein alteration system. A vegetable
protein from the jack bean mimics the cornea's reaction when exposed
to foreign matter. The greater the irritation, the more opaque the
solution becomes. The Skintex formula, developed by the same
corporation, is made from the yellowish meat of the pumpkin rind; it
mimics the reaction of human skin to foreign substances. Both these
can be used to determine the toxicity of more than 5,000 different
materials. Tissue and cell cultures can be grown in laboratory from
single cells from human or animal tissues. NeoDerm, made by
Marrow-Tech, begins with the injection of skin cells into a sterile
plastic bag containing a biodegradable mesh. The cells attach to the
mesh and grow around it, like a vine in a garden. After the segment of
skin is sewn onto the patient, the mesh gradually dissolves.

Mathematical and computer models, based on physical and
chemical structures and properties of a substance, can be used to make
predictions about the toxicity of a substance. TOPKAT, a software
package distributed by Health Designs Inc., predicts oral toxicity and
skin and eye irritation. It is "intended to be used as a personal tool
by toxicologists, pharmacologists, synthetic and medicinal chemists,
regulators, and industrial hygienists," according to HDI (PETA
Factsheet). The Ames test involves mixing the text chemical with a
bacterial culture of Salmonelle typhimurium and adding activating
enzymes to the mixture. It was able to detect 156 of 174 (90%) animal
carcinogens and 96 out of 108 (88%) non-carcinogens (PETA Factsheet).

Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than
the animal tests they replace and improve upon. Eytex testing kits
can test three concentrations of a chemical for $99.50 (American); a
Draize test of comparable range would cost more than $1000, American
(PETA Factsheet).

There are a lot of steps the consumer can do to help and
prevent the destruction of our animals. Buy cosmetics, personal care,
and household products that have not been tested on animals, this
involves taking on the responsibility of becoming an educated and
compassionate consumer; encourage your friends and co-workers to buy
cruelty-free products. If you need backup to encourage the people you
speak with, inform them of the sickening situations involving lab
animals. Instead of buying all of your personal care products, why not
make some yourself? It's simple and inexpensive, kind to animals, and
ecologically sound. Boycott companies which test their products on
animals, and feel free to write them letting the company know why you
are boycotting them. Lists of companies who carry out these senseless
tests, and their addresses are available from organizations such as
AAVS and PETA. Contact your elected representatives and federal
agencies and demand that the validation of non-animal methods become a
high-priority.

Proven, that mankind often disregards the rights of other
living beings, times are changing for the better due to the increasing
pressure of the consumer. Society has begun to take notice of this
pressing global concern because intelligent life should not be
subjected to this form of torture. It has been estimated that animal
experimentation world-wide has decreased by 30-50% in the last 15-20
years, due to the reduction and replacement techniques (AAVS
Factsheet). From the theory of evolution and the immergence of man,
humans have to understand that this planet is not only ours, but the
animals as well. Albert Einstein once said, "Our task must be to free
ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." In essence,
the means of living a healthy and fulfilled life is to embrace and
respect all life present on this planet. There are a number of things
that mankind can do to prevent this cruelty from continuing, it is
simply a matter of taking the initiative to inform and involved
yourself and others. Every individual effort is a step towards the annihilation of animal cruelty.