animal testing

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Local Organizations: ADAV

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

The Animal Defense and Anti-Vivisection Society of BC was founded almost a hundred years ago (sorry, I forget the exact date) to oppose the use of animals in scientific experiments.

They are still around and still focused on stopping the bad science of animal testing and animal experimentation, in addition to promotion of kindness towards animals in all areas.

If you are interested in working on anti-vivisection issues in the Vancouver area, you may want to get in touch with them. They are always looking for volunteers for leafleting and tabling events, especially since so much animal testing is conducted in and around Vancouver (VGH, UBC, SFU, etc).

From their website:

The problem of animal experimentation is complex, many-sided and hard to fathom. The cruel and deadly use of animals has been legalised by politicians, justified by church institutions, described as unavoidable by science and industry, accepted without criticism by too many people not interested in the sufferings of others, and defended in every way by all those who gain profit from it. — Werner Hartinger, MD, Surgeon. ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAW, SCIENCE, INDUSTRY AND POLITICAL REALITY.

The challenge of animal testing

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

I often get requests from friends & co-workers to pledge them in some walk or run or bikeride that they are doing to benefit a health charity. I love to see people involved and trying to make a difference.

The only problem is, I can’t support them.

I do support their desire and their efforts to find a cure for cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, or any number of other horrible diseases. I also support their efforts to make change, to try to improve the world.

What I can’t support is the use of animals in research to try to find these cures.

On the most basic level I can’t support this because I don’t think that we can ethically justify causing so many animals to suffer in the hopes of helping some humans. The suffering is too great, the chances of it working are way too small.

Also, animal-based research is really becoming seen as inefficient, a waste of resources, and more of a business than any real effort to help people.

A recent article in the Daily Mail, written by a supporter of vivisection, speaks to this issue.

I do not dispute for one moment that some animal experiments are vital to medical progress. But for solid scientific reasons, I do question whether the sheer extent of such tests in modern medical science is necessary.

Many medical researchers will agree with me. Put simply, as often as not, testing drugs on animals very often gives misleading results that can endanger human health.

This is not an extreme viewpoint. New Scientist magazine recently described the results of animal medical experiments as ‘no more informative than tossing a coin’. I would not go that far myself, but I do believe that vivisection is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, lethal.

In Canada there are very few health charities that do not fund animal testing. Those that do are simply wasting their donors money by pouring it down the drain by funding research that has not helped and likely will not help. Animal testing really is bad science, and it’s time we started demanding that our health charities stop funding a system that isn’t getting us anywhere and start working for real solutions using new methods and more accurate testing.

Governments in Europe have started work to approve new non-animal-based tests for toxicity tests, which are a huge portion of animal testing. Wikipedia has some information about animal testing and alternatives. Most of the alternatives are toxicity tests, for which the majority of animals are used.

If you donate to a health charity, demand that they justify the use of our money. Ask them to tell you how it is being used and ask them to ensure that it is being used in the most efficient manner possible. We donate our money to them because we trust them, but if they are putting millions of dollars each year into faulty, archaic animal tests, should we really be trusting them?

It’s not worth all the suffering.

What would animal rights look like?

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

What if we were to grant rights to animals? All of them, not just chimpanzees or whales and dolphins….

What about my rights?

What about my rights?

Let’s say we grant the right to life and the right to freedom to the animals who share the planet with us. What would we be doing differently? How would this affect our everyday life?

I’ve been really curious about this question for some time. We spend a lot of time working to promote animal rights, but do we have a clear idea of what this would actually mean if fully implemented?

Well, right off the bat we’d all be vegan. No more stealing milk and eggs and flesh from animals. The grains and soy and water that are now used to raise animals would be used to grow food for humans, with much more efficiency. Animals would no longer get dumped in the trash because they are too small or “surplus.”

The land with soil that we can’t utilize for crops would be returned to wildlife. We would have to go to great lengths to ensure that our farming does not impact habitat or animal lives. This might mean enclosed farming or indoor farming.

In place of manure we would be utilizing green manure systems, composting, seaweed, etc. All methods would be veganic. These methods are currently being practiced by various farms around Europe and North America.

Quite likely most of the animals that we now raise for food would no longer exist, unless in sanctuary-type settings. They have been bred to a point that they will likely not be able to survive on their own. Some of them, chickens for example, don’t actually exist in the wild. During the transition period they would have to be cared for in sanctuaries until they all eventually die.

We would no longer use animals for entertainment – unless perhaps filmed from a distance. No more of Disney’s staged “wildlife” films. No more rodeos. We would not be taking our children to “learn” about animals at zoos or aquariums. Instead, children could learn about them via films or even by taking carefully planned trips to where the animals live.

Likely our architecture and transportation systems would be different. We would have to build to preserve habitat to the greatest extent possible, not just when it’s convenient or good public relations. This would mean keeping to the smallest footprint possible, and including animals and their habitat in our plans.

I picture buildings that are a part of the landscape, that allow for animals to migrate through our cities and towns. Instead of right lines scored against the earth, our building would follow natural patterns. We would have to observe and fully understand the impact of new construction on the lives of any inhabitants before building.

Highways or trains could be elevated or underground. I doubt that we would have cars as we know them now. Possibly electric cars, solar powered maybe.  One thing that would be definite is that our environmental efforts would have to be real, because damaging the environment would be the same as dumping garbage in someone’s house. Real care would have to be used to ensure no harm is done.

Quite likely we would lead simpler lives, with fewer posessions, traveling less, consuming less. This would be no utopian system, but we would act with more consciousness of the impacts, and extended impacts, of our actions.

Scientific research would be different, and I would bet more efficient and quite improved. Instead of expending so much energy on ineffectual animal tests (and developing the animal models required for those tests), researchers would be have to develop working alternative systems for testing. Of course, we would never think of conducting any tests of consmetics or household cleaners on animals. We probably wouldn’t even be using a lot of those potentially toxic chemicals anyway, due to the risk of negative impact on the environment.

This is less of a concrete view of what the world would look like if animals had rights than I had wanted it to be. It is difficult to be that speculative, especially with the state of animal rights today.

What I think is quite clear is that we wouldn’t really have to give up much, except for our pointless pleasures, the things that used to be considered gluttony. We would actually have to take care of the world around us, instead of burning it out like we’re doing now. We are certainly capable of living more harmoniously with the other inhabitants of this planet than we are now.

Our Boycott Procter & Gamble event

Saturday, May 16th, 2009
The view from across the street

The view from across the street

We held an event today in honour of International Boycott Procter & Gamble Day. In case you don’t know, Procter & Gamble is a giant company that conducts huge amounts of testing on animals. Much of this testing is on cosmetics, soaps, cleaners, toothpaste, etc. Almost nothing that P&G makes can be considered a necessity.

For more information, check out the In Defense of Animals website.

There are many alternative products that are not tested on animals. Have a look at Peta’s list of companies that don’t test on animals. Also look at AAVS’s list of companies that have signed on to their Leaping Bunny program and don’t conduct animal tests, commission any animal tests, or test ingredients on animals.

We had a fantastic turnout to the event, with 19 volunteers! Joanne did a great job with slogans for the signs. I love the Ivory one. We gave away over 500 leaflets and had a very positive response from passers-by. Plus the weather was nice so it was a really good day!

picture-018

Awesome team!

picture-020

Anne, Andrea, and Layne

Me and Roger

Roger & Me

Leafleting the people walking by

Leafleting the people walking by

And more leafleting

And more leafleting

Links from around the web

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Here are some links from around the web that you might find interesting.

Audubon magazine has a fantastic article about the environmental impacts of meat-eating.

So why in the world am I a dedicated vegetarian? Why is meat, including sumptuous pork, a complete stranger to my fork at home and away? The answer is simple: I have an 11-year-old son whose future—like yours and mine—is rapidly unraveling due to global warming. And what we put on our plates can directly accelerate or decelerate the heating trend.

No one can call themselves an environmentalist if they’re still tucking into the steak or chicken wings.

Read the whole article here:
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html

The latest post on Animal Person has some interesting thoughts on non-human language, and includes the cutest video EVER:
http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2009/01/on-the-communication-of-sentient-nonhumans.html

A darkly humorous look at what an animal might think of being slaughtered by a small farmer:
Thank God we were slaughtered by a local farmer instead of one of those big, impersonal corporations!

Ok, I guess I must have been living under a rock for a while, but I never realized Gene Baur had a blog. How crazy is that? Here’s his latest post, as always thoughtful and articulate:
http://www.genebaur.com/blogengine.net/post/2009/01/Big-Problems-e28093-Simple-Solutions.aspx
(If only we could all be as smart and well-spoken as Gene.)

This next article has been popping up on blogs all over the internet. It’s from Newsweek, and it’s about how hunting is altering or reversing evolution, making the weak and sickly MORE likely to survive than the big strong animals. Because we keep killing all the big strong ones and we don’t kill the weak ones. We’re smart that way.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709/page/1

Here’s a nice piece on activism. I know a lot of the time when I’m out doing any sort of outreach I get angry a lot. Mostly because people just aren’t changing as soon as I want them to. Changing my perspective could change how I interact with other people and could make me more effective.
http://loveallbeings.org/blog/activism-as-being-not-doing/

Lastly, this isn’t an article or a blog post, but rather a whole website: Altweb: Alternatives to Animal Testing. It’s sponsored by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. For those of you who are working on issues of animal testing, this could be a good resource.

That’s it for today. Enjoy!