I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil.— Charles W. Mayo, MD (son of the co-founder of the Mayo Clinic)

More than 250,000,000 animals are killed in Canada's labs every year, with an average of one dying every sixteen seconds. [1] They are primates, mice, rats, fish, birds, and even domestic dogs and cats. There is indeed a market for former pets in vivisection. Some are collected by “bunchers”, who steal dogs and cats from backyards or elsewhere. Other pets are picked up at animal shelters – a perfectly legal practice known as "pound seizure".

Non-Medical Testing

A public opinion poll in 1994 showed that 3 out of 4 Canadians oppose the use of animals for cosmetics testing, and that 9 out of 10 believe that companies should not be allowed to use animals for any testing if alternative methods are available.[2] More than 500 Canadian companies have opted to stop using animals to test new ingredients, choosing instead from the GRAS--a 5000 item list of ingredients that are "generally recognized as safe" by the Canadian government.[3] Interestingly enough the Food and Drug Act of Canada does not require companies to test on animals to determine the safety of cosmetics or other consumer items such as deodorant, toothpaste, or laundry detergent. It only insists that these products and their ingredients be "safe for human use". [4] In 2009, the European Union plans to ban not only animal testing for cosmetics but the sale of cosmetics which were tested outside its borders.[5]

Medical Testing

I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."-Mark Twain

Many people approve of animal testing for medical advancement, believing that it is necessary if we are to learn more about how to better treat and cure human diseases. This is not true, but the opposite might be--some suggest that reliance on animal testing is actually holding us back. Medical historians say that increased knowledge of sanitation, improved nutrition standards, and other behavioural and environmental factors are responsible for our longer lifespans and overall better health. Moreover, many of the major medical breakthroughs made in the last century were made entirely without the use of animal testing--for example, anesthesia, morphine, radium, penicillin, artificial respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans, the study of bacteriology and germ theory, the discovery of the links between cholesterol and heart disease and between smoking and cancer, and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. [6] As with cosmetics and product testing, the United Kingdom has made changes to their laws concerning medical testing. The LD50 test (which commonly uses up to 200 animals) has been banned in all but "exceptional circumstances", and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has decided that if a substance kills the first three animals it is tested on, further trials are unnecessary.  It appears, however, that despite the ban, LD50 tests are being used more often, particular in tests for Botox.[7]

Alternatives

“If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” -Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter [8] Fortunately for us, there are a wide variety of alternatives to available that make animal testing unnecessary. Cell and tissue cultures, synthetic membranes such as EpiDerm, embryonic stem cell research, new technologies such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging and sophisticated computer models, use of human skin left over from surgery, and clinical investigations of those who have already died are all cruelty-free and more reliable than attempting to compare the biology of a mouse or a dog with that of a human.[9],[10],[11]

Reliability of Animal Testing

A glance at the history of animal testing reveals that it is extremely unreliable, frequently providing results that prove to be about as trustworthy as the flip of a coin. The "Multicenter Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity" study examined the results of short term lethal dose tests conducted on mice and rats for 50 chemicals and found that at the very best, the tests were 65% predictive of human response.[12] In 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration studied 281 cases of accidental human eye exposure to 14 household products and compared them with results from pre-existing data for eye-irritancy tests for rabbits. The correlation between rabbit and human eye response was less than 50 percent.[13] Cancer tests are particularly unreliable. Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute, was quoted as saying, "The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings."[14],[15]

Companies and Charities That Do Not Test on Animals

Fortunately, there are many companies which don't test on animals to make their products, including Revlon, Abercrombie & Fitch, Nivea, Seventh Generation, Tom's of Maine, and anything from the Safeway house brand! For a more complete list, click here. Look for the Leaping Bunny logo on the cosmetics you buy, or get a free pocket guide to Cruelty-free Companies here. Likewise, there are many charities which do not utilize animal testing. Some of the more prominent ones are UNICEF and the Canadian Red Cross. Is your favourite on the list? Find out here at the Humane Charity Seal website.

References

[1] Testing, CruelScience.ca, 2004

[2] Consumer Products, CruelScience.ca, 2004

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] Franks, Tim EU bans animal testing for cosmetics BBC, 15 January 2003

[6] Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs, PETA

[7] Animal Aid, Botox and Animal Experiments, 2010

[8]“Pioneers Cut Out Animal Experiments" New Scientist, 31 Aug. 1996

[9] Michael Balls, “The Use of Scientifically-Validated In Vitro Tests for Embryotoxicity,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 3 June 2002.

[10] Michael Balls, “Statement on the Application of the Epiderm™ Human Skin Model For Skin Corrosivity Testing,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 21 March 2000

[11] Kelvin O. Lim, et al., “In Vivo Structural Brain Assessment,” The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2000

[12] National Toxicology Program and Interagency Centre for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, The MEIC Program 2005

[13] Test Method Validation, CruelScience.ca, 2004

[14]Andrew C. von Eschenbach, “The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research: A Plan and Budget Proposal for FY 2006,” National Cancer Institute, October 2004

[15] Jerome Burne, “Danger Mouse,” The Times [U.K.] 30 July 2002