We Need To Test On Animals (resources) ~ Your Vegan Fallacy Is

Fallacy

We need to test cosmetics, medicines, and other products on animals in order to make certain they are safe for humans.

Response

The primary ethical considerations we must address when examining the necessity of vivisection are the right of animals to be free of experimentation for human purposes and the value of tests performed upon them. In the case of cosmetics testing, it is both selfish and cruel to insist that animals suffer and die for the sake of vanity. A similar argument can be made for household products, which are not necessary for human life. Moreover, there are many effective alternatives to animal testing for both cosmetics and household products, which can and should be used instead.

There are also many effective alternatives to animal testing in the case of vivisection for medical and pharmaceutical purposes. This is good news, since animals have been proven time and again to be poor models for the study of human injury and disease. But if this is the case, you might ask, why are animals still used in medical and pharmaceutical research at all? One reason is momentum. The tradition of vivisection is deeply ingrained in this research such that status quo bias is a powerful factor in perpetuating it. Another reason is money. Researchers receive grant money based on the number of papers they publish in scientific literature, and it is both easier and faster to use animals as test subjects than it is to undertake human-based research. Finally, while the FDA has often failed to show that the results of animal tests can be extrapolated to humans, companies still use animals in testing in order to protect themselves in the case of a lawsuit. This means that unreliable animal tests are giving rise to unreliable medical and pharmaceutical results, which result in unreliable treatments and medications that are themselves excused by the legal system because of the unreliable animal tests underpinning them. It is altogether a vicious circle that could be eliminated with a more sensible approach to medical and pharmaceutical research that does not involve animals at all.

Issue Responses

PCRM:

Tail of Toxics - Improving Chemical Safety Without Animals

Please watch and share this animation about the flaws of animal tests, and see the modern testing paradigm that will produce safer chemicals and a healthier environment. One of the most important steps we can all take to speed up the transition to safer, more humane science is spreading awareness and information. Please share the Tail of Toxics video and take action at www.TailofToxics.org.

Source:

Tail of Toxins

Tail of Toxics - Improving Chemical Safety Without Animals

Content from the PCRM has been explicitly marked as "publicly embeddable" for use via YouTube, and we're grateful to be allowed to include that work on this site.

Bite Size Vegan:

Vivisection

is animal testing effective? is it scientifically viable? can research on animals save human lives? if so, then vivisection would only be opposable on moral and ethical grounds...not scientific ones.

Does Animal Testing Save Lives?

Source:

Is Animal Testing Effective & Does It Save Lives?

Does Animal Testing Save Lives? (GRAPHIC)

Why We Test On Animals (Still!)

Source:

Why the F*ck Are We Still Testing On Animals?

Why We Test On Animals (Still!)

This Could KILL You! | How Animal Testing Harms Humans

Source:

The Human Cost of Animal Testing

This Could KILL You! | How Animal Testing Harms Humans

Are There Alternatives to Animal Testing?

Source:

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Are There Alternatives to Animal Testing?

Emily Moran Barwick has graciously provided permission to share her work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact her via her website.

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau:

Compassionate Bathroom

Many companies boast that their personal care and household products are "cruelty-free" and "not tested on animals," a label more and more consumers are seeking. Today's episode addresses the fact that neither the FDA nor the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulate cosmetics/personal care and household products, respectively, require animal testing to ensure the safety of their products. In other words, there is no law that mandates animal testing for cosmetics and household products. Learn about the common animal tests used to test safety, the alternatives that are slowly replacing these tests, and some fabulous companies whose products deserve a place in every compassionate person's bathroom. (This episode is part of our "Compassionate Series," which features favorite companies/organizations/products/experts in the context of the topic. Enjoy!)

Compassionate Bathroom by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau's content has been explicitly marked as "publicly embeddable" by her on SoundCloud and YouTube, and we're grateful to be allowed to include her work on this site.

Vegan Street:

Your Beautiful Skin

Source:

Your Beautiful Skin

yourbeautifulskin-lg.jpg

Marla Rose and John Beske have graciously provided permission to share their work on this site. If you wish to sucure like permission of your own project, you can contact them via the social media links listed on their website.

Vegan Sidekick:

Justifying Vivisection

We have to test on animals to make medical advances

Source:

We have to test on animals to make medical advances

Many people like to make the argument that X people will die unless we experiment on Y animals, therefore it's justified as human life is more important, and if you outlaw animal testing then you have essentially just killed X people.

It isn't as simple as that, because actually animal testing has alternatives. Companies like http://www.drhadwentrust.org are working to continue medical research, without having to torture, exploit and kill animals.

There is another question - is animal testing even useful to us, as we are very different to animals? Read more here to learn more: huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animal-experimentatio_b_3997568.html

But would you use medicine to save your life?

Source:

But would you use medicine to save your life?

I don't know because I've never been in that situation, but it is highly likely that I would, yes. Putting me in a position where I would actually die, means that my decision making is going to be based around survival, probably to the exclusion of others entirely. Put a gun to my head, I might do anything which I'd otherwise say is unethical, to avoid being shot. That does not make the action ethical outside those circumstances.

On another note, if a cure already exists, then not using it on principle because of the way it was discovered, it's questionable in terms of its effect on anything. It might make a good final statement before you die from the condition if you could get news coverage, but ultimately I think it's understandable to take that cure to save your life because of the situation.

But, if we look at it in terms of ongoing research on these animals, if you have a condition and at the time there is no cure - would you volunteer your companion animals to be tortured and then killed as part of the research? Or would you say, they are nothing to do with it, and you'd rather accept your situation than have them experience hell so you can potentially find a cure? I know that I wouldn't want it to happen. But luckily, it is not an either/or situation because there are alternatives to animal testing like drhadwentrust.org.

Vegan Sidekick has graciously provided permission to share his work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact him via his website.

SPOMM Vegan Chats:

Thoughts On Vivisection

+Viva Sanctions: "We don't see epidemics of polio, whooping cough, or smallpox because countless animals suffered and died. If you must accept the blame for the testing, then do you also accept the kudos? Does the benefit to society outweigh the harm done to the animals, or is harm and benefit apples and oranges?"

In earnest, the societal benefits from animal testing turns out to be more myth than reality, +Viva Sanctions. Animals make very poor analogs for developing treatments of human diseases and ailments. The reason they're used so extensively in a contemporary setting has everything to do with bureaucracy and little to do with science. If you're interested, the AAVS provides a resource page on this which allows one to drill down in to all manner of interesting discussions on the topics: goo.gl/0IH4Be

However, the issue of animal testing is a minuscule problem compared to that of "food animals". Worldwide, around 100 million animals are killed by vivisection each year, while around 150 billion animals are killed to be eaten each year. In other words, the issue of animal testing accounts for around 0.066% of the problem, and there are already people who are very effectively working to solve it. But even if the issue of vivisection were something we couldn't get away from for health reasons (which isn't the case, so just for pretend), this problem wouldn't interfere with the fact that humans absolutely don't need to kill and eat animals. Put differently, just because one "bad thing" is happening in the world isn't a reason that another "bad thing" must persist, right?

+Viva Sanctions: "Again, you have a lot of good points. Vivisection is imperfect and can lead to misleading or even fatal results. I expect animal testing to be almost entirely replaced by advanced computer simulations in the next decade or so if for no other reason than computer simulation arrays will cost less and will be more extensive. It hurts to see some of the things that have been done to animals to make the products we use and the medicines we consume - vivisection is not pretty and it is typically far from humane.

"However, it has yielded just about everything around us. Without the benefit of computer modeling or modern scientific tools, vivisection was a critical component in our understanding of how biology works. Ironically , the vivisection of animals has contributed greatly to the advance of veterinary medicine.

"I know that it is inhumane, I know that it is distasteful, and I know that the results are frequently useless when you try to translate the findings from animal testing onto human use. However, I do believe that vivisection has been pivotal in our advancement. Dismissing or ignoring the contributions of this kind of research makes the suffering and sacrifice of all of those animals seem totally meaningless - it wasn't."

Oh - don't get me wrong: I wholly agree that the horrific things which have been done to animals in the name of science have certainly advanced our medical knowledge in ways that would otherwise not have been achievable, and this creates a bit of a quandary for those who are troubled by the origins of these findings but are interested in using them. It's also noteworthy that we all face the same ethical problem with the great advancements in medical knowledge that Josef Mengele, et al., provided us (ref: goo.gl/dMR2no). Whatever the source the medical knowledge, I cannot help but agree with you that the results from nonconsensual "vivisection has been pivotal in our advancement".

As an aside, +Viva Sanctions, I'm tempted to quibble over use of the word "sacrifice" when you write that "dismissing or ignoring the contributions of this kind of research makes the suffering and sacrifice of all of those animals seem totally meaningless"; the word "sacrifice" is often used by some folks to romanticize a notion that these individuals are willingly giving their lives for the greater good (which is all so much silliness). However, I don't believe that this was the meaning you intended, so I think I understand and agree with your position here as well. =o)

—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—

This post is one in a series in which excerpts of discussions on veganism from other threads are reposted (or paraphrased) for the sake of expanding the conversation. As always, your thoughts and questions are welcome. See the full collection via the #spommveganchats hash (or perhaps with a more robust search, such as goo.gl/JoxZC ).

(for anyone requiring/desiring more context, the original conversation can be found at goo.gl/FWaf1K )

#vegan #vivisection #animalrights

Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran has provided permission to share his work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact him via his website.

Vegan Street:

Relics

Source:

Relics

relics-animaltesting-lg.jpg

the vegan scholar:

Should Vegans Use Animal Tested Products?

Source:

Should Vegans Use Animal Tested Products?

The basic definition of veganism is pretty straight forward. We avoid eating or using animal products because we don't want them to suffer. We don't agree with their exploitation. But there are some caveats - some issues that don't quite fit within this basic definition. What about palm oil, for example? It's not an animal product, so technically it's vegan, but its production can cause animal suffering. Or, for the purpose of this article, what about animal tested products? If they don't contain animal-based ingredients, animal tested products are technically vegan, but they're definitely not ethical. And there are many different types of animal products to consider: cosmetics, medicine, household cleaners, soaps and toothpastes... where should vegans draw the line?

Let's start with cosmetics. From what I've heard, seen, and read, it's obvious that many people are against animal testing for cosmetic purposes. The PETA campaigns featuring tortured bunnies, cats and monkeys are shared far and wide. Most cosmetics brands will clearly label their packaging to illustrate their "against animal testing" status. Even the most popular makeup brands, such as Maybelline (once notorious for using animal testing) now advertise themselves as adamantly against this cruel practice. But there's more to it than this - things you wouldn't immediately notice - things that are hidden pretty deep.

When questioned about their stance on animal testing, Maybelline's representatives will state that they're totally against it unless there is a legal requirement set in place. The exact phrasing is as follows: exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes. We can't know exactly what this means, but it does sound suspicious. Some have suggested that Maybelline may outsource its product testing to countries where regulatory authorities demand animal testing. Caveats like this must be taken into consideration when discussing this complex ethical issue.

"Essentially, avoiding animal tested cosmetics isn't too difficult, and it's something vegans should definitely strive to do."

Essentially, avoiding animal tested cosmetics isn't too difficult, and it's something vegans should definitely strive to do. Veganism is about avoiding animal exploitation, and testing on animals purely to create cosmetic products is a really horrible form of exploitation. So, let's avoid supporting this practice by only purchasing products clearly labelled as "cruelty-free".

Animal tested household cleaners, soaps and toothpastes are also fairly easy to avoid. Finding these items in a cruelty-free form isn't as easy as finding cruelty-free cosmetics, since they're usually not clearly labelled as such, but it isn't difficult. There are plenty of expansive lists of cruelty-free cleaners, soaps and toothpastes listed online. This list from PETA may be useful.

It's terrible that these innocent creatures are forced to suffer - but what if there are no alternatives?

Even with lists like PETA's available, there are still come caveats. I did some research and found that some people have challenged the authenticity of PETA's cruelty-free list. Apparently, the only requirement for a company to appear on the list is to sign an agreement with PETA stating that they don't test. But, according to this article by Cruelty Free Kitty, these companies may have suppliers that do test on animals. Make sure to read the article to find out more, and check out the rest of the site for more info on how to find genuinely cruelty-free products. Vegans should take this information into consideration when making purchases.

Now let's move on to animal tested medicine - one of the most controversial subjects surrounding veganism. As it stands, animal testing is mandatory for medication. The general consensus is that it's a "necessary evil" because no suitable alternatives are currently available. To make matters worse, medicine isn't something vegans can choose to avoid - sometimes we need it. Sometimes we'll die without it.

I could go into detail about animal testing for medicinal purposes, but I'm not a chemist or a scientist. I don't know enough about the subject. If you want to read more about why medicinal animal testing is so widespread, you can read about it here.

"According to the FDA, 'There are still many areas where animal testing is necessary and non-animal testing is not yet a scientifically valid and available option.'"

In essence, medicine must be tested before it can be used on humans, or all sorts of legal troubles could arise. People could be killed. Testing has to happen, and unfortunately, animals are the innocent victims. According to the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration), "There are still many areas where animal testing is necessary and non-animal testing is not yet a scientifically valid and available option." This is very unfortunate, but as far as I know, there isn't much vegans can do about it right now. We just have to wait until the right scientific advancements are made.

Some medicines also contain animal products (i.e. lactose in contraceptive pills), and this falls into the same category. Until there are better options available, there's not much we can do. We can try our best to stay healthy and use natural medicine as much as possible, but some people have health issues that require medication, and in my opinion, they shouldn't be made to feel guilty for using animal tested medication. If they really need to take it, they're still vegan. Veganism isn't about being perfect, it's about doing the best you can.

To sum up, I think vegans should do their best to avoid using animal tested products, especially with non-necessary items like cosmetics, dyes, and other beauty products. There are lots of cruelty-free cosmetic products available on the market, which makes things easy for the us. The same goes for household cleaning products and toothpaste - there are a lot of cruelty-free varieties available. If you have access to these products, definitely choose them over animal-tested options. If you're not lucky enough to have access, don't feel guilty, just keep doing the best you can.

In terms of medicine, I don't think you should have your vegan club membership revoked for using medication that keeps you alive and healthy, regardless of whether or not it's tested. Your life is important. Trust me, you can do a lot more for the animals when you're alive and healthy than when you're sick or dead! So keep taking that medication, and don't feel guilty. In the meantime, let's hope for better alternatives, spread awareness, and help fund scientific research to abolish animal testing for good.

The Vegan Scholar has graciously provided permission to share her work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact her via her website.

Resources

Resource:

American Anti-Vivisection Society

The mission of AAVS is to end the use of animals in science through education, advocacy, and the development of alternative methods. Founded in 1883, the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) is the first non-profit animal advocacy and educational organization in the United States dedicated to ending experimentation on animals in research, testing, and education. We work with individuals, students and parents, educators, grassroots groups, corporate and government decision makers, and members of the scientific community.

Source:

American Anti-Vivisection Society

Resource:

Dr. Hadwen Trust

Source:

Dr. Hadwen Trust

What's the solution?

The DHT funds research that proves medical research can, and should, take place without using animals
We need your support to continue to advance cruelty-free human-relevant research

It's time to prove that animal research is unnecessary

In order to replace animal use in fundamental biomedical research, we focus on funding research that is of high-quality, human-relevant and that develops approaches so that scientists will not default to using animals for biomedical research. The research projects funded by the Dr Hadwen Trust (DHT) provide evidence that non-animal techniques generate advances in biomedical research.

It's time to phase-out animal research

The complete replacement of animals used in research will not happen overnight. As well as funding, it will take commitment, collaboration, and a phased approach.

The problem many scientists face when designing alternative experimental protocols is that animal use is historically embedded as the ‘gold standard’, whether appropriate or not. There are, these days, many alternative research techniques that can be used instead of animals, but there are cases where alternatives don’t exist or they are not widely known about or that they simply aren't fit for purpose and are not used for scientific reasons.

It's time to invest in innovative animal-free research

The DHT exists to fund new research committed to advancing biomedical science without the use of animals. We do not consider it necessary that future, innovative research should be judged solely by comparison with historical research conducted using animals. The DHT has robust funding policies, and a stringent grant application and peer review process which reflects our commitment to fund only high-quality science that has the potential to advance biomedical research and to replace the use of animals. In addition, the DHT is focused on communicating animal replacement science, and to educating scientists to adopt animal replacement methodologies wherever possible.

Our focus is innovative, well designed, non-animal research. This makes the DHT different from the larger ‘mainstream’ national medical research charities who do not have a serious, pro-active agenda to prioritise the replacement of animals in medical research. We believe that only the complete replacement of animals will lead to technological innovation, advance medical science and provide data that is truly relevant to humans. The success of our projects is measured by monitoring the outcomes and output of the research. We monitor where the research is published, the uptake of the research by the science community, and ultimately the advances in medical research in the longer term. There are few quick wins in funding medical research, and advances are often only delivered after intensive and extensive investigation.

There is a commitment at a UK and EU level to reduce the number of animals used for research purposes. Government funding is currently directed towards funding the 3Rs (replacement, refinement and reduction of animals in research). However, the main government-funded grant making body considers the use of animal derived material to be a ‘replacement’ for live animals for research purposes.

It's time for the focus to be human-relevant research

In contrast, the DHT does not fund research that uses animals or animal cell lines/tissues because of questions surrounding the validity of translating animal cell line data to humans. Research projects funded by the DHT are reviewed by independent experts from the science community and must qualify the animal replacement potential of the research and the relevancy to the human condition. By funding these projects the DHT will advance medical research, prevent animal lives being lost and also reduce the time and expense of wasted research.

In summary, the solution to replace animal use in fundamental biomedical research is to focus on funding research that is of high-quality, human-relevant and that develops alternative approaches that scientists actively want to use rather than reverting to the default position of the animal-model. This can only be achieved by funding research projects that contribute to scientific knowledge and provide evidence that non-animal techniques will generate advances in medical research.

Resource:

Vivisection Information Network

ANIMAL TESTING AND SCIENCE - THE FACTS

Source:

Vivisection Information Network

Humor

Bizarro:

The Cost Of Beauty

Be Careful

Source:

Be Careful

becareful.gif

What Did You Expect?

Source:

What Did You Expect?

straydog.gif

Symbolic Defiance

Source:

Symbolic Defiance

locallegend.gif

Dan Piraro has graciously provided permission to share his work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact him via his website.

Bizarro:

Fun In The Lab

Low Levels Of Exposure

Source:

Low Levels Of Exposure

lowlevelsofexposure.gif

Working On The Cure

Source:

Working On The Cure

thecure.gif

Terminal Illness

Source:

Terminal Illness

terminalillness.gif

Monkey Pox

Source:

Monkey Pox

monkeypox.gif

Celebrity Testing

Source:

Celebrity Testing

celebritytesting.gif

Bad Dog

Source:

Bad Dog

baddog.gif

Studying Back

Source:

Studying Back

bizarro-rats-published.gif

Dan Piraro has graciously provided permission to share his work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact him via his website.

Bizarro:

Human Testing

The Maze Test

Source:

The Maze Test

scientist.gif

Test Subject

Source:

Test Subject

testsubject.gif

Wiggle Room

Source:

Wiggle Room

3simplerules.gif

Back To Bite Us

Source:

Back To Bite Us

biteus.gif

Finding The Cheese

Source:

Finding The Cheese

cheese.gif

Animal Doctor

Source:

Animal Doctor

bizarro-animal-doctor.gif

Close Observation

Source:

Close Observation

bizarro-close-observation.gif

Dan Piraro has graciously provided permission to share his work on this site. If you wish to secure like permission of your own project, you can contact him via his website.

Vegan Street:

What Would We Learn

whatwouldwelearnifwestudied-lg.jpg

Richie Fruitbat:

Why We Need Animal Testing!!!

Content from Richie Fruitbat has been explicitly marked as "publicly embeddable" for use via YouTube, and we're grateful to be allowed to include that work on this site.