Vivisection

I am writing concerning the issue of vivisection. As you

know, vivisection is experimentation on animals, including

non-invasive psychology research and dissection. According

to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, millions of

animals suffer and die each year in the testing of

cosmetic, personal care, and household products. Companies

poison them to death. They shave the animal's skin and

expose it to destructive substances. They place powerful

chemicals in animal's eyes. All of this is done just for a

"new and improved" cologne, dishwashing detergent, or

toothpaste. As a college student who is taking all action

that I can to help preserve the environment and help save

animals, I feel this is unacceptable in this society. Not

only are there many alternative ways to testing products,

these alternatives do not harm the environment, and have

effective and accurate results, unlike the use of

vivisection.

Just because a cosmetic, personal care, or household

product is tested on animals, that does not necessarily

mean it is safe for a human being to use. The animals that

are used to test products include, but are not limited to,

rabbits, mice, cats, dogs, horses, and monkeys. While we

live on the same planet as these animals, humans differ

greatly from them. Even when animal tests do show that

products are dangerous, this does not keep the product off

the market. The American Anti-Vivisection Society has done

immense research, and observes companies, in order find

these facts. As you know, the harmful products simply bear

warning labels telling people to call a doctor if they

swallow the product, or if contact is made with skin or

eyes. It has been found, however, that poison-control

centers rarely, if ever, turn to data from animal tests to

treat patients harmed by household products. In knowing

this, we can conclude that using animals to test products

does nothing to really help human beings or make the

product safer for them to use. When we take a new drug, we

are part of an experiment, because we differ from other

species. Drugs which have minor, or no side effects on

animals, have caused extreme reactions in humans.

Vivisection not only harms the animals that are used

mercilessly, but also does

harm to the environment. For example, 5,000 companies

provide lawn care in

the U.S. To test these pesticides, rats and mice are forced

to ingest and/or inhale compounds in long-term experiments,

to determine whether they cause cancer, birth defects,

general illness or death. The animals may bleed from their

eyes, nose, rectum or mouth, be unable to breathe,

experience convulsions, paralysis or coma, and/or suffer

from having their internal organs ulcerated, burned or

ruptured. Combined, these companies use over 8 million

pounds of pesticides. The most common of these pesticides

are classified as "probable" human carcinogens, and hurt,

rather than help, the environment. Granted, a connection

between animal research and the environment sounds like a

big stretch. However, it is known that there is actually a

very strong connection between pollution of the environment

and the use of animals to test possible pollutants. Because

of the rapidly mounting evidence that animal-based testing

of products are flawed, many scientists are now speaking

against vivisection. . Many toxicologists admit that the

assumptions behind animal testing are not valid. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questions the

relevance of animal studies. Yet, the EPA is responsible

for determining the "safety" of compounds released into our

environment, and most of the "safety" tests are performed

on animals. These animal studies endanger humans by

providing misleading and often completely useless results.

For example, a product can cause no harm on any type of

animal, but can cause great danger to humans, and vice

versa.

The Food and Drug Administration does require that certain

products, such as pharmaceuticals and eye care products, be

tested on animals. This is understandable because if these

things were not tested, they could do great harm to

humans. However, cosmetics and personal care products are

not required, nor do they need to be, tested on animals.

The main reason that companies test their products on

animals is due to money. It is very cheap to breed animals

and use them strictly to abuse their bodies and kill them.

Because it is not necessary though, this should be put to

an abrupt stop.

There are many alternatives to vivisection. Companies can

expose a product to a complex mixture of chemicals, and

then, based on chemical reactions caused by the product,

scientists are able to predict whether it would be

irritating or dangerous to human beings. Another

alternative is to grow human cells in a culture and test

products on them. This type of testing has shown great

accuracy and many scientists feels that these tests will

eventually phase out the practice of vivisection. Many

other alternatives to animal testing are currently being

developed. This is a major area of research, with the

primary incentive coming from consumer demand for cruelty-

free products.

Currently the National Institute of Environmental Health

Science is working on the validation of non-animal

alternatives to testing products. However, this institute

is lacking the funds they need to continue on, due to lack

of support, with their search for alternatives, and they

are the only government agency that is actually working

towards the validation of alternatives to vivisection. I

ask that you please support this institute and work towards

asking the government to provide more funds for such a good

cause.