tagged w/ Animal Testing
***Go to the link to send an email to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center***
For more than 20 years, Odessa Animal Control in Odessa, Texas, has been selling cats to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) for use in cruel medical training exercises. In the exercises, hard plastic tubes are repeatedly forced down cats' throats and needles are stabbed into their chests; the animals are then killed.***Go to the link to send an email to Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center***... more
For six months, an undercover investigator worked in an Ohio lab where beagles were force-fed Oxycontin, a drug that had already been tested on animals and had been on the market in the U.S. for decades. The tests were conducted ostensibly to satisfy Japanese regulatory requirements.For six months, an undercover investigator worked in an Ohio lab where beagles were... more
Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on animals’ but are not so keen to admit that they still use animal-tested ingredients. In these crude poisoning tests, chemicals are force-fed to animals, injected into them, dripped into their eyes and rubbed into their raw skin. Here is an overview that explains how to recognise the companies that try to give the impression they are cruelty-free, when they're not!
Cosmetics companies can, broadly speaking, be divided into three categories with regard to their animal testing policies.
Chemical-producing companies that test on animals themselves or pay researchers to carry out animal tests on their behalf e.g.
Johnson & Johnson
Procter & Gamble
They tend to be larger companies and often have a raft of different cosmetic brands, for example 'Dove' and 'Organics' are Unilever brands. 'Herbal Essences' and 'Max Factor' are P&G brands. 'Garnier' and 'Lancome' are L'Oreal brands, the Body Shop are now owned by L'Oreal too. So rule number one is always look to see who the parent company is.
The second category are cosmetics companies that tend not to test on animals themselves but continue to buy, use and benefit financially from chemical ingredients that have recently been tested on animals by their suppliers. Many cosmetic brands fall into this category e.g.
Most of them are very clever at deceiving the public with the claims they make about animal testing.
The final category consists of companies that adhere to a Fixed Cut Off Date scheme. This means that the company will not buy or use ingredients that have been tested on animals by themselves or their suppliers after a set date (e.g. 1995). This is the only method by which manufacturers can send a clear message to their suppliers and the rest of the industry that the company is not prepared to profit from animal tested ingredients. Most animal testing for cosmetics takes place on "new to the world" chemicals. There are already thousands of chemicals with a proven safety record available.
You may be wondering why these companies are so keen to have access to new chemicals, especially when the majority of consumers are against animal testing for cosmetics? Well it's so they can market their products as ‘new’ and ‘improved’ - basically so they can make more money. For example P&G claim that their Olay Regenerist moisturizer beautifully regenerates skins’ appearance - thanks to their new Amino-Peptide Complex. And that their Total Effects moisturizer contains an exclusive VitaNiacin formula (the science part!). P&G and others are filling their products with all sorts of new chemical ingredients. It's to boost their marketing hype and P&G are recognised as world leaders. These companies are taking a gamble on the fact that most consumers assume that cosmetics are no longer tested on animals or are unable to see through their cleverly worded ‘animal testing policies’.
There's more, so click on the link.Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on... more
I'm a huge proponent of animal rights despite the fact that I have not yet taken the plunge into an entirely vegetarian diet. Perhaps I might be perceived as a hypocrite, but the following guide is written with all camps in mind -- it's my hope that if you've ever been slightly curious about how to make a difference in the lives of animals, this "how to" will help you to recognize that it's within your power http://www.causecast.org/news_items/9440-how-to-promote-animal-rights (plus you don't have to burn down buildings or pour fake blood on fur coats to pull it off).I'm a huge proponent of animal rights despite the fact that I have not yet taken... more
A northwest Missouri hospital is switching to high-tech mannequins for medical training classes after an animal rights group protested its use of live cats.A northwest Missouri hospital is switching to high-tech mannequins for medical... more
For years, actresses, reality TV stars, even porn stars have been stripped down and sexed up for PETA, all in hopes of protecting the rights and the lives of animals everywhere.
In this photo gallery we see why PETA’s slogan might as well be “Exploiting Animals, Bad. Exploiting Women, Good.” http://stilettorevolt.com/?p=982For years, actresses, reality TV stars, even porn stars have been stripped down and... more
Animal rights group PETA has posted a new online game designed to spotlight the use of animals in breast cancer research.
Breasts, Not Tests is a Whack-a-Mole clone. Players click on cleavage shots and try to avoid clicking the animals and, oddly enough, fruits that appear. As play progresses, tiles vanish with ever-increasing speed. High scores can unlock rewards such as wallpaper and banners.
So what message is PETA pushing with Breasts, Not Tests? From the game's web page:
"We all know that breast cancer is a serious disease that affects most of us in some way (either personally or through someone we know), but did you know that it also affects animals?
It's true. Monkeys, rats, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals often suffer and die because of horrific tests that are conducted in the name of breast cancer "research." Besides being cruel, the "research" is also ineffective..."
I hate giving PETA attention, but exchanging the freedom of an animal for the life of a human is a fair trade in my opinion.
What do you think?Animal rights group PETA has posted a new online game designed to spotlight the use of... more
If you care anything about primates, hypocrisy or justice, you’re going to want to read this blog entry from Priscilla Feral, President of Friends of Animals.
In a nutshell, PeTA is, for the third time, again suing Primarily Primates, Inc., a non-profit animal sanctuary in San Antonio, Texas that is managed by Friends of Animals (FoA) and operates solely to house and rehabilitate various non-native animals, such as primates, birds and an African lion.
These animals are typically the throwaways from pet trade and biomedical research facilities and without PPI’s intervention would have had an uncertain future – if any at all.
After two unsuccessful lawsuits, both of which were dismissed for unsubstantiated claims, one would think PeTA would not only examine its own agenda for legitimacy, but seriously reconsider wasting further donation dollars on giddy court cases. But, as Feral writes in her blog;
“As a $30 million per year organization, PETA can afford to file all the frivolous lawsuits it wants, hire as many lawyers as it wants, and make all of the frivolous arguments it wants. However, PETA is hard-pressed to explain how this lawsuit helps any of the animals in PPI’s care…”
The mission statement of Friends of Animals is to ‘cultivate a respectful view of nonhuman animals, free-living and domestic.’ They engage in nationwide spay and neuter campaigns, strongly support veganism and are staunch advocates for animal care, activism and compassion. Funny, but according to PeTA’s PR machines, they do, too.
So, we’ll be watching this case closely in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we hope you will send a letter to PeTA expressing your outrage that donation dollars are being spent on eating one of their own.
I have always been a strong supporter of PETA. I have also supported Friends of Animals and many other organizations that promote animal rights, animal welfare legislation and environmental ethics. So, readining a post like this is disturbing.
I can't imagine where PETA would expect them to go. It would think the primates are in the best place possible. If this news is true, it would be disappointing on many levels...If you care anything about primates, hypocrisy or justice, you’re going to want... more
Rabbits are used for testing of many products humans use such as makeup, and house hold chemicals. This animal testing causes extreme pain, and torture. Some rabbits become blind, killed,or skinned,ect. The experiments of animals are cruel and not safe. Although some people might not have sympathy for animals being tested, they should still care because that is a hazard to humans.Testing human products on animals is a bad idea since they are a different species and what won't hurt them does not mean it can't hurt humans. This has to do with toxicology, which is the study of effects from poison. Testing on animals is not safe for us because we react different to chemicals than animals do. SO HELP STOP ANIMAL TESTING!
websites to go to:
peta.orgRabbits are used for testing of many products humans use such as makeup, and house... more
“Dying to Learn: Exposing the Supply and Use of Dogs and Cats in Higher Education” documents the hidden practices of colleges and universities in which unscrupulous Class B dealers, who obtain animals from shelters, sell former pets to education facilities, where these animals are used, and often killed, for dissection and live surgeries in teaching laboratories.
It traces the route that brings dogs like Cruella, a shepherd-mix from Michigan, to an unhappy end at university teaching labs.
The result of a two-year investigation of animal acquisition and use at 92 public colleges and universities in the U.S, “Dying to Learn” reveals that 52% are using live and dead dogs and cats for teaching, despite the availability of viable alternatives.
The report also dentifies specific schools that are obtaining animals from unethical sources.
Cruella's story: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/cruella.html
Download report in full: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/dyingToLearn.pdf
What you can do to help the animals: http://www.dyingtolearn.org/takeaction.html“Dying to Learn: Exposing the Supply and Use of Dogs and Cats in Higher... more
A National Academies report released Friday concludes that researchers have no need to deal with “random source” dealers of laboratory dogs.
Random source, or class B dealers are those that procure and sell dogs and cats from the general animal population to laboratories, rounding up dogs and cats from animal shelters, auctions, private individuals and other “random sources.” Class A dealers are those that sell animals bred for a life in the laboratory.
The report comes in response to a request by Congress through the National Institutes of Health for an evaluation of the need to use random source dogs and cats in NIH-funded research.
The report states that “despite new enforcement guidelines and intensified inspection efforts, not all origins of (Class B) animals are or can be traced. The USDA simply cannot assure that stolen or lost pets will not enter research laboratories via the Class B dealer system.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture licenses Class B dealers.
The findings in the report — mostly praised by both the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) — could provide momentum in Congress to eliminate Class B dealers, whose numbers have been rapidly shrinking.
According to the report, 20 percent of cats and dogs used in research were obtained from Class B dealers in 2002; by 2008, only 3 percent were.
One of the alternative sources suggested in the report — which stopped short of ruling out the use of random source animals entirely – is for researchers to buy animals directly from pounds and shelters.
“AAVS is extremely disappointed, however, that the Committee fell short of recommending entirely against the use of random source animals, including former pets, in NIH research. The Committee suggests that if the use of random source animals is deemed necessary, one option is that NIH research laboratories actually go directly to animal pounds and shelters to acquire cats and dogs for experiments.
The AAVS says that approach, known as pound seizure, could led to problems, with laboratories focusing on poor and overcrowded shelters, and shelters that cooperated losing public trust.
“A shelter (or) pound that releases animals directly to research facilities will lose the public’s trust, and this could decrease the number of animals brought to the shelter … and increase the number of abandoned animals,” the AAVS said. “AAVS encourages Congress to eliminate Class B dealers and to address the public’s concerns about former pets ending up in research by prohibiting the provision of random source animals for research.”
The report failed to consider other means of scientific study that do not involve the invasive or harmful use of cats and dogs, AAVS said — even though such alternative methods are receiving increasing attention.
AAVS’s educational division, Animalearn ( http://www.animalearn.org/home.php) recently released a report, Dying to Learn: Exposing the supply and use of dogs and cats in higher education. To view and download the report, visit http://www.dyingtolearn.org/.A National Academies report released Friday concludes that researchers have no need to... more
No Federal Violations for Boiled Monkey Death - Everett Judge Refuses to Allow Prosecution in Scalded Monkey Case
She was a cynomolgus monkey, also known as a crab-eating macaque or a long-tailed macaque. Whatever name you prefer, her horrifying, gruesome death followed a brief life that itself was surely lonely, frightening, and painful.
There were no trees, no gusts of wind, no natural smells, sounds, and sights, no family or companionship, no joy or wonder in her daily existence. Instead there was a tiny, barren space, with walls, ceiling, and floor made of cold metal wires. Instead there was terror.
Instead there were likely injections and restraints and intentionally inflicted pain and isolation. And there was to be far more of that, as humans tested drugs on her--and in a lab with a history of abuse and cruelty at that.
But then even before they were done with her, she was killed, and in the worst way. She died horrifically in the same cage in which she lived so sadly. She gripped the cage bars as 180 degree water and caustic, burning chemicals rained down forcefully all over her trapped body, boiling her ALIVE, melding the skin of her tortured body to the cage, permanently fusing her fingers to the metal bars that she gripped in terror and excruciating pain like we will never know.
There is no doubt that she screamed. God, how she must have screamed.
They had to peel her dead body from the cage.
To those of you out there who don't understand why animal rights activists are sometimes so angry, who think we have nothing to be angry about, who don't understand how we can cry over animals we've never met, who prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and insist that the way we use animals is fine and that animals don't suffer at our hands because, after all, we have laws to prevent and punish animal abuse, or who condemn the open or covert rescue of animals from labs, to all of you--please pay attention.
Incidents such as this, in which animals are not just abused but tortured--these 'incidents' are not rare -- WE, the general public, are informed only by mistake or by undercover work --when informed, OUR society chooses not to listen to such uncomfortable and disgraceful acts of inhumanity -- these are among our reasons for being angry.
Go read the article that first appeared early this year, http://www.kirotv.com/news/15189249/detail.html ...when a Washington news station first broke this story. Among everything else you read will be the following, which tells a not-unusual story about what happens when employees who witness cruelty, whether in a lab or a slaughterhouse, dare to speak up: they get fired, and the abuse continues.
Details of this story will shock and sadden you. Please follow links at:
'Protect Captive Primates Act' http://animalrights.change.org/actions/view/urge_senate_to_pass_captive_primate_safety_actNo Federal Violations for Boiled Monkey Death - Everett Judge Refuses to Allow... more
What else will they pass on? And what then will we pass on to our own offspring in time as a result of our eating genetically altered food? Scientists claim they did this in order to test these animals to find cures for human diseases. I personally think it is cruel to use these animals for such a purpose and deprive them of a natural life. Wouldn't it be ironic however, to be using these genetically altered monkeys to look for cures to human diseases that are actually exacerbated by eating genetically altered organisms? The cures for diseases are not in green glowing monkeys... they are found in our natural world which provides all we need to survive. Why doesn't science concentrate on that instead of altering it with unknown consequences that may breed more problems than solutions? I am all for scientific research, but not when it intrudes on the natural order of our planet.
So, is this innovative scientific research, or animal cruelty?What else will they pass on? And what then will we pass on to our own offspring in... more
"Fearful memories have a powerful grip on the brain, but researchers have developed a new technique in rats that loosens that grip and overwrites the fear response permanently.
The technique, involving exposing rats to the very thing they were primed to fear and taking advantage of a moment of weakness in memory of that fear, could eventually be used to develop clinical treatments of fears in humans, the scientists said.
Fear memories, like other bad memories, are particularly sticky in the brain compared to "good" ones. Evolution played a hand in this, the thinking goes, because fearing things that can harm us is an advantage to survival.
So the brain has a hard time letting go of these memories, as well as distinguishing rational from irrational fears. Researchers have long looked for a way to short-circuit the brain and help it delete those irrational fears.""Fearful memories have a powerful grip on the brain, but researchers have... more
When it comes to raising awareness around the world on issues that we are passionate about, its nice to see that there are other people out there who are just as passionate about other important issue too. This is an ad campaign that was recently released by NOAH a not for profit organization in Germany who is raising awareness on the problem of testing animals for human needs.
Please do take the time to view the 3 different ads that they put out and if you're so inclined swing by their website to make a small donation. http://www.noah.de/
Support the causes that are important, support one another.
Peace.When it comes to raising awareness around the world on issues that we are passionate... more
The home of a well-known University of California, Santa Cruz, molecular biologist was firebombed early on the morning of Aug. 2 with a homemade device police called "a Molotov cocktail on steroids." David Feldheim, his wife and two young children escaped the blaze by climbing out of a second-story window and descending a fire ladder as their home filled with smoke and flames.
The attack, which police branded an act of "domestic terrorism," occurred just four days after a threatening pamphlet containing Feldheim's picture and home address, along with the photos and addresses of a dozen other researchers, was found on a downtown Santa Cruz coffee house's bulletin board.
"Animal abusers everywhere beware," it read. "We know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down until you end your abuse."
Feldheim experiments on mice as part of his research into the development of brain functions related to eyesight. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that his work is important "so we can fix these connections [between the brain and the eyes] after damage due to injury or disease."
On the same day Feldheim and his family were attacked, a station wagon belonging to another Santa Cruz researcher was firebombed with a similar device. Although no group has claimed credit for either attack, Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which often posts communiqués from underground animal rights activists, defended the bombing of Feldheim's house as "necessary."
"They were trying to send a message to this guy who won't listen to reason, that if he doesn't stop hurting animals, more drastic measures would be taken," Vlasak said of the bombers.The home of a well-known University of California, Santa Cruz, molecular biologist was... more
As well as their potential for creating effective therapies for debilitating diseases, embryonic stem cells could open the door to improved pharmaceutical drug testing, according to a leading British stem cell researcher.
Mummery, a Professor of Developmental Biology at Leiden University Medical Center in The Netherlands told CNN: "It could save a lot of time and effort of taking the wrong drugs through, or it may allow drugs through which are lost at an early stage, because they affect the animal cells but don't have an effect on human cells.
"It may also allow more and better drugs to come through the first tests or flag up safety issues at an earlier stage."As well as their potential for creating effective therapies for debilitating diseases,... more