ANIMAL RESEARCH T A K E S LIVES
- Humans and Animals BOTH Suffer
<< previous page | next page >>
contents | Chapter 20 index | index
That ARSL is aimed at the lowest intelligence is made clear in this section as its comments on cosmetic testing are so ill-constructed and erroneous as to be unworthy of serious consideration. For example on page 15:
"Research is being funded in the USA to find a reliable alternative [to the Draize test] but until one is found, Draize testing will continue for human safety reasons... At present the only way to conduct those tests is by using animals."
Had the writers of ARSL read NZAVS Submission in Support of NZAVS Petition to Abolish Vivisection 1989, and the Submissions supporting its previous Petition in 1984, or had they attended the phoney 'Hearings', they could have been saved the trouble of writing comments which will be recognised as blatantly false by a great many enlightened people.
The Draize Test (the application to animals' eyes of the test substance, wherein the normally docile and silent rabbit screams in agony and is sometimes blinded), is usually carried out in contract laboratories which are far removed from the manufacturers of the product. This vivisection by remote control is one of the world's biggest businesses and those employed in it receive regular and lucrative incomes. Behind the scenes in these places millions of animals are on a daily basis suffering degradation and horrific death under the false guise of protection for human beings, when in reality the real motive is a relentless pursuit of profits in an industry so gigantic it controls governments.
ARSL's condoning, even promoting the Draize test reveals its authors' complicity in perpetuating the myth that such procedures are scientifically valid. It also insults the mentality of a growing number of people who are aware that extrapolations between rabbits and human beings cannot be made as the one bears no resemblance to the other. In addition, many people are aware that the current obsession to support the major cosmetic companies to search for 'alternatives' is trickery. Valid methods of testing have ALWAYS existed and the discriminating purchaser has for decades had access to cosmetics which were never, either in their formulae or in the finished product, tested on animals. Innoxa, Beauty Without Cruelty, Blackmores, Weleda spring to mind and others are being marketed at a fast rate as new companies realise the value of the "not tested on animals" label.
If the law-makers insist on "animal testing" as ARSL claims then every means possible should be employed to demolish that law, the express purpose of which is not to bring a safe product to the consumer but to enable producers to say in a court of law in case of adverse effects, that they have "fulfilled all the necessary tests".
| "It must be emphasised that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species." (Report of the Medical Research Council, 1956-7, pages 45-46.) |
On page 16 of ARSL is repeated:
"To protect consumers, all new cosmetic, toiletry and fragrance products must by law be tested for safety before sale... At present, the only way to conduct these tests is by using animals."
This is incorrect.1 Beauty Without Cruelty (U.S.A.) New York, report in The Compassionate Shopper, Fall 1991 that the 200 and more companies using plant-based products which have NEVER been tested on animals are thriving, whereas 65 large cosmetic or household product companies still test on animals.
ARSL claims that "customers will not be placed at risk" however because of fraudulent animal-testing that is precisely what is happening. Customers are at risk. In December 1990 the Wellington Evening Post in a bold-headlined article titled "Suspect Suncream Removed From Sale" gave a report that 12 suncreams and moisturisers, 11 of which are sold in New Zealand, have been withdrawn from sale in Australia after claims that their ingredients may promote cancer. "Cancer Society medical director Peter Dady advised caution about the results of laboratory tests in which animals were subjected to doses of the product." The Evening Post, 9 January 1991, reported the products had been recalled from the market in New Zealand.
| "History has shown that in the long run all dictators fail; and also for the dictatorial empire of the pharmaceutical speculation, built on the sufferings of animals needlessly tortured in the laboratories and on the sufferings of human beings, victims of iatrogenic (medically-induced) diseases, the day of redde rationem (final reckoning) is bound to come." (Giornale d'Italie, February 20 1983.) |
For any who believe the lies of ARSL despite the massive evidence against the authenticity of animal tests a Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, founded in 1984 in Washington, D.C. issued in 1988 a Declaration of Concern and Support, which demanded an end to animal-testing of consumer products on the grounds that such tests are neither scientific nor humane. It was signed by countless prominent members of the medical profession, including the following, along with some samples of their statements:
|
This information is taken from: Hans Ruesch, One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection.
FOOTNOTE
1. In USA there is no law stating cosmetics and household products must be tested on animals. The Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Authority merely stipulates that some kind of safety test is carried out. Like the publishers of ARSL for reasons of complicity it lobbies for tests involving animals.
On June 10 1992 the European Parliament voted 244 to 2 to support revised amendments to the EC Cosmetics Directive which would result in a ban of all cosmetics tests on animals from 1998. At the final decision in November these Ministers veered away from a vote to ban outright all animal testing and voted that cosmetics tests be banned from January 1 1998 ONLY if "alternative" testing methods have been developed.
This ban would have prohibited imports into the European Community of cosmetics from outside countries such as the USA if the products were tested on animals. For this reason the US Cosmetic, Toiletries and Fragrance Association CFTA sent an emergency delegation to the EC to lobby for continued animal testing. In addition, Japan will not in some cases accept cosmetics that have not been tested on animals. At the final analysis only Germany and Denmark supported a ban.
It is important that readers understand that this issue is not about the safety of products but about the continuance of industries which can now hang the "BUSINESS AS USUAL" sign outside their doors. Not only the lucrative contract "testing" labs but the many other powerful vested interests... see Chapter 1, the Vivisection Industry. This is all the more reason why we must recognise and admire the agenda of the doctors against vivisection in Italy who have founded a Scientific Committee (with Prof. Croce as President) in OPPOSITION TO ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION BEING SUBORDINATE TO FINDING "ALTERNATIVES" TO ANIMALS.
Financial Times, November 4 1992; Reuters International Securities Report, November 1 1992; PeTA Cruelty Free Shopping Guide, 1992; The Campaigner, October/November 1992.
(Meanwhile the entire page 7 of UK's Sunday Express, December 13 1992, is devoted to a major article titled "AGONY OF CHILDREN IN SKIN CREAMS SCANDAL" which gives details of "tens of thousands of people, mainly children, throughout Britain who are suffering terrible side effects" of steroid-based skin creams for eczema. There is no mention however that the products were all declared "safe" after testing on animals by manufacturer Glaxo.)
27 December 1990
By Jay Louisson, Health Reporter
Withdrawal of the products in Australia was recommended last week by Consumer Affairs Minister Senator Tate, The Australian newspaper reported. Spokesmen for the companies said the products had been "vol-...
9 January 1991
Sunscreens and moisturisers linked with the development of skin cancer have been voluntarily recalled.
Health Department scientist Dr Trevor Nisbet said the New Zealand companies that market-...