tagged w/ PCRM
-
.
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government Announces Plan to Replace Animals in Toxicity Testing
December 20, 2011
.
The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration just announced a joint effort to use high-throughput robotics—instead of animals—to test 10,000 chemicals and drugs for potential toxicity. I’ve asked PCRM’s Chad Sandusky, Ph.D., to provide details:
Current testing is largely based on experiments on animals—rodents, rabbits, dogs—and uses methods that are cruel, time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases use thousands of animals in a single test. For example, a reproductive toxicity study uses 2,600 animals and requires a minimum of two years at a cost of $380,000. PCRM toxicologists and government affairs staff have pushed government and industry scientists to implement nonanimal methods.
The new method was developed after the National Research Council issued a mandate (often referred to as Tox21) several years ago to replace antiquated animal-based (in vivo) toxicity testing with testing using mostly human cells and tissues. At PCRM’s toxicology department, we are convinced this will offer not only a dramatic reduction in animal use, but also a faster and cheaper approach to safety testing.
While Congress has been drafting revisions to the law that regulates chemicals (known as the Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA), we’ve met with congressional offices to make sure that new nonanimal methods are required as they become more widely available. We’ve successfully gained support for these important changes, so animal testing will be greatly reduced—and eventually eliminated—when the bill is passed.
To learn more about how replacing animals in toxicity testing with this technology will make the world a safer place for people—and for the millions of animals now used in these cruel tests—visit www.ReformToxicityTesting.org
.
.
..
PCRM | PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE...
.
.
Government... more
-
-
-
Too much milk?
Studies abound, but there's no clear conclusion as to whether milk is good or bad for us.
By Chris Woolston
Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
PART ONE…
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
One or two cups? That's not as much as the USDA recommends but more than many milk critics could possibly stomach.
Of the foods that have their own tier on the pyramid, dairy products catch a lot of grief. A PETA website says that "dairy products are a health hazard" that are linked to "allergies, constipation, obesity, heart disease, cancer and other disease." For a topper, the site says that milk is often contaminated with cow's blood and pus.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has always singled out milk as a particularly dangerous part of the typical western diet. The PCRM website says that saturated fats in dairy products increase the risk of heart disease. It also says that the natural hormones in milk encourage cancer of the breast, prostate and ovaries. Turning popular wisdom on its head, the organization says that dairy products won't help prevent osteoporosis, the bone-thinning disease. The website highlights the Nurses Health Study, a 12-year examination of more than 77,000 women published in 1997 that found no link between reported dairy intake and the incidence of broken bones.
CONTINUED…Too much milk?
Studies abound, but there's no clear conclusion as to whether... more
-
-
NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
New Chemical-Testing Bills are Big Step Forward for Consumer Safety and Animal Protection
But PCRM Toxicologists Say Reforms Should Require Nonanimal Tests
WASHINGTON—Senate and House bills introduced today to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt crucial reforms that protect human health and the environment and develop more nonanimal chemical tests. But the bill does not give the EPA much-needed authority to require the use of these tests, experts for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine say.
Both bills overhaul the 34-year-old TSCA by tightening regulations on chemicals used to produce industrial and consumer goods, including toys and cleaning products. But, says PCRM toxicologist Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H., the bills do not go far enough to address a key safety issue: the limitations of animal-based toxicity tests now used to evaluate a chemical’s potential risks to public health and the environment. The bills also need to provide financial and logistical support to implement the approach outlined in the National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.” The NRC report endorsed tests based on human cells and cell components instead of animals.
The bills compel the EPA to develop more nonanimal methods and to adopt an integrated testing strategy approach. To ensure that the NRC report is fully implemented, companies should be required to use nonanimal tests as they become available.
“The application of animal-testing results to real-world human health issues can be extremely difficult,” Sullivan said. “Furthermore, using animal tests to evaluate every chemical on the market would be costly, inefficient, and virtually impossible given the huge number of chemicals involved. The best way to protect human health and the environment is to replace animal tests with more modern methods, and these bills are a good start at making that happen.”
Because evaluating every industrial chemical using animal tests could take decades, the bills’ provisions to streamline and modernize testing methods mean better protection for people and wildlife. “We hope that these important reforms remain intact as these bills move forward,” says Nancy Beck, Ph.D., PCRM scientific and policy adviser.
For more information or to interview a PCRM scientist, contact Vaishali Honawar at 202-527-7339 or vhonawar@pcrm.org.
Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.NEWS RELEASE
April 15, 2010
PCRM - Physicians Committee for Responsible... more
-
-
From Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine... a 21-day VEGAN kickstart, beginning 1 January 2010.From Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine... a 21-day VEGAN kickstart,... more
-
-
***Go to the link & click on TAKE ACTION to send an email to Philip Boudjouk, Ph.D. (NDSU’s vice president for research) to urge him to end the use of animals in NDSU’s ATLS program***
Pigs at North Dakota State University didn’t have anything to be thankful this November. PCRM asked Gov. John Hoeven to help permanently pardon pigs from the university’s trauma training course last month. But despite this request—and thousands of dollars in fines for previous animal welfare violations—live pigs at the university had tubes and needles inserted into their chest cavities and hearts.
In a letter sent to Hoeven, PCRM cardiologist John Pippin, M.D., asked for an immediate end to the school’s use of live animals in its Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) program. He also asked for an investigation into North Dakota State University’s (NDSU) more than 30 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act.
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture reports, these violations involved at least six instances of poor sanitation. One report stated: “NDSU failed to properly clean primary enclosures as evidenced by the accumulation and excessive build up of hair, urine (there was streams of urine emanating onto the floor) and sediment on the cages.”***Go to the link & click on TAKE ACTION to send an email to Philip Boudjouk,... more
-
-
ajrmy
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
**Go to the link and click on Take Action to send a message to NASA's Administrator **
A nonprofit physicians organization is confronting NASA over the space agency’s plan to expose squirrel monkeys to radiation in an attempt to understand the effects of interplanetary travel. In a federal petition for administrative action filed Nov. 5, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) seeks to compel the government to halt the monkey experiments because they violate the NASA Principles for the Ethical Care and Use of Animals, also known as the Sundowner Report. The space agency has not used monkeys for radiobiology research in decades.
“Irradiating monkeys would be one giant leap backward for NASA,” says Hope Ferdowsian, M.D., M.P.H., PCRM’s director of research policy. “The proposed experiments are cruel, unnecessary, and lack scientific merit. There are better, more humane ways of understanding the potential dangers of interplanetary travel to humans. Scientific progress can only proceed with a strong ethical foundation.”
The experiments—proposed by researcher Jack Bergman of McLean Hospital in Boston—would involve irradiating monkeys and testing them to see how they perform on various tasks. Bergman has used squirrel monkeys for 15 years in addiction experiments, which have involved applying electric shocks, withholding food, and completely immobilizing the animals in restraint chairs for extended periods.**Go to the link and click on Take Action to send a message to NASA's... more
-
-
ajrmy
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
It’s one of the last facilities in the country still using animals in Advanced Trauma Life Support courses. But in an October demonstration, more than 50 Boston-area residents, PCRM physicians, and even a few Massachusetts General Hospital employees let the hospital know that it can’t continue to kill sheep. During the event, PCRM also delivered a petition signed by more than 9,000 people who want the hospital to use superior nonanimal training methods.
Outside of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), demonstrators carried a banner reading, “MGH: Training Doctors or Teaching Cruelty?” Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) training at MGH involves cutting into live, anesthetized sheep and practicing procedures such as inserting a tube and needle into the animals’ chest cavities and cutting into their throats. After the training session, the animals are killed. The animals are also subjected to the trauma of confinement, shipping, and preparation for surgery.
At the demonstration, attended by the local ABC affiliate and The Boston Globe, doctors also delivered a letter signed by Boston-area physicians to MGH president Peter Slavin, M.D., urging a move to nonanimal methods.It’s one of the last facilities in the country still using animals in Advanced... more
-
-
ajrmy
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
*** To sign the petition, go to link & click on TAKE ACTION ***
Business news is bleak. The jobless rate is rising. Toyota’s recalling millions of cars. But in some sectors, businesses have a healthy outlook: They are helping gather signatures for PCRM’s Healthy School Lunch petition.
As Congress prepares to take up the Child Nutrition Act (CNA), which regulates the National School Lunch Program, businesses across the country are joining PCRM’s Healthy School Lunch Revolution. They are trying to improve childhood nutrition news, which is as grim as any economic headline in The Wall Street Journal.
Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced findings that just one in 10 high school students eat the recommended five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. And the percentage of overweight and obese children is now at or above 30 percent in 30 states, according to a recent report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.*** To sign the petition, go to link & click on TAKE ACTION ***
Business news... more
-
-
ajrmy
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The posters went up last week, 14 in Union Station. On each of the large displays, a thought bubble rises up from a picture of a beautiful 8-year-old: "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?"
A Washington nonprofit that advocates nutrition-policy reform paid $20,000 to get its message across and carefully maneuvered Metro's tangle of regulations to display its posters. Metro gave it a go -- but the White House did not, according to the group. Within 24 hours of the signs' appearance, the White House asked the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to take down the ads, which feature Jasmine Messiah, a vegetarian who attends a Miami-Dade County public school that, she says, offers no vegetarian or vegan lunch options.
The Physicians Committee has declined to take down the posters.
PCRM President Neal Barnard, a nutrition researcher, says he received a phone call regarding the posters Aug. 4 (a day after they went up) from Associate Counsel Karen Dunn and Deputy Associate Counsel Ian Bassin.
"They're very nice people. I like them a lot," Barnard says. "But they called and said: Please take those down, you can't mention the kids and so forth. . . . They felt that mentioning the president's children was off-limits. They said [they're] not going to allow the use of their daughters as leverage."
The fact that the poster mentions the president's children has been the main point of contention, though neither the children's names nor their images appear. That reaction doesn't come as a complete surprise; when Ty Inc. marketed dolls in January named Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia, the first lady made her objections clear, and the toy company stopped using the girls' names. The First Lady's Office declined to comment for this story.
To Frank Luntz, a Republican political consultant, the White House's response to the posters is hardly shocking.
"The children of the president are always off-limits. Always. No exceptions," Luntz says. "No ifs, ands or buts. And while it may draw short-term attention to the issue, the White House will hate the organization for it. And I assure you they will be punished. You don't mess with the president's children. It's an unwritten rule."
Luntz says that the added publicity from the White House's response will not benefit PCRM's agenda. "What matters is not whether people are aware of your campaign," he says. "What matters is your success. And if the White House hates you, then it's not successful."
"I do not think you can use the president's daughters for some cause -- good or otherwise -- that they don't play a role in," says Bonnie Angelo, a former White House correspondent for Time magazine and author of "First Families: The Impact of the White House on Their Lives."
"It's very hard for the presidential family to keep their daughters balanced in terms of getting too much exposure, and I think the Obamas have done a remarkable job of achieving that balance," Angelo says. "I think this goes beyond what's allowable."
Barnard is still in communication with the Office of the White House Counsel, which asked Barnard to remain "open" to further discussion. He says he is.
---------------------------------------
More at link.....
I agree that the children are off limits and should be off limits. But the add is not targeting the children of the White House but the Parents of said Children being fed appropriately why can't all children be fed like that?
I believe it to be fair question to ask. They are not unfairly targeted because they are not the target.The posters went up last week, 14 in Union Station. On each of the large displays, a... more
-
