Expert: Robin Flynn - 3/30/2006

Question
Im doing a senior paper on basically cruelty to animals that are being used for testing purposes. I need to know everything that you know to help me out. Any facts or statistics that you have, anything would help. Thank you

Answer
HI Amanda,

This is  a very general question but I will do my best to scrape the surface and provide some stats.  Please look over the info and if you need to ask any additional  qts I would be happy to answer them.

Ten Fast Facts about Cosmetics and Household Product Testing
1.   The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products.
2.   Sufficient existing safety data, as well as in vitro (test tube) alternatives, make animal testing for cosmetics and household products unnecessary.
3.   Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U.S. laboratories every year.
4.   Common animal tests currently used for cosmetics and household products include the Draize eye irritancy test, oral toxicity tests, and skin irritancy tests.
5.   Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as “pound seizure”). HBO just aried a great documentary called Dealing Dogs, "Four years in the making, DEALING DOGS follows the undercover  investigation of Martin Creek Kennel by the animal rights group Last
Chance for Animals. A young man who goes by the name of "Pete" in the  film wore a hidden camera while he worked a low- level job hosing  kennels at the dog dealer. Over the course of six months, Pete secretly  filmed activities at Martin Creek Kennel, including the beating and
shooting of dogs, and recorded footage of animals that were left to  languish in their kennels and suffered from malnourishment,  life-threatening disease and injury, among other abuses. Dog corpses  are shown piled up on the property and in trenches after being  butchered for their organs."
6.   Animals used in product testing most commonly include guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. Animal subjects can also include cats, ferrets, birds, and nonhuman primates, to name a few.
7.   Claims about animal testing on packaging and labels of cosmetics and household products are not regulated. Statements such as “not tested on animals” or “cruelty-free” can be deceptive, and require further inquiry.
8.   Shop with confidence and compassion by only purchasing products from companies approved by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) — the Leaping Bunny program. This is the only international standard that ensures that both products and ingredients did not involve new animal testing.
9.   Animal testing can occur anywhere within the manufacturing process, including final (or finished) products, ingredient suppliers, associated manufacturers, and contract testing laboratories.
10.   Animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in a number of European Union (EU) countries and a complete EU-wide ban is on the way.


In regards to product testing: In general there are 3 main animal tests used on millions of animals each year: (1) the Eye Irritancy Testing which is also called the Draize test, which forces chemicals into the eyes of fully conscious, restrained rabbits. No pain relievers or anesthetics of any kind are used. The extreme pain often causes them to struggle so severely that they break their own backs—dying in agony needlessly. (2) The Skin Irritancy Testing, which places corrosive chemicals onto the shaved/raw skin of rabbits and guinea pigs. The caustic nature of these substances causes severe injuries to the animals. Gaping wounds and bleeding are common. (3) And  Oral Toxicity Testing, the LD50, which force-feeds strong chemicals to fully conscious animals for 14-28 days until they die.  Animal testing doesn't make products safe. For example, according to animal tests, cigarette smoke, asbestos, arsenic, benzene, and glass fibers were all found to be safe to ingest. Many household products, all tested on animals, are unsafe for us and our environment.

And inaccuracies in cancer-causing tests occur up to 70% of the time. Animal testing only provides a legal defense for companies whose products could still harm humans. Test results are used to win lawsuits, not protect people. Some of these tests are over 50 years old and have never been required to be scientifically validated. There are over 500 companies that do not use animals in testing and all of these products are safe. There is a misconception that products need to be tested in order to be safe.

Some Statistics:
(1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'. BY the way HLS is a horrible company who have a long track record for animal cruelty-please visit  http://www.shac.net/
(3) 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumors in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
(8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal test results are discarded as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetised animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83% of substances are metabolised by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients in hospital are there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalized by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organization study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organization, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors' congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defense Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.

2 questions that I hear quite often:
Would you rather scientists test new drugs on people?
  They already do. When a newly released drug hits the market, regardless of how many animal tests have been done, those individuals who first use it are 'human guinea pigs'. Animal tests are not a good indicator of what will occur in humans. The General Accounting Office reviewed the drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985. Of these, 52% were found to be more dangerous than pre-market animal studies had indicated, with adverse side effects including permanent disability and death.
  The undeniable fact of the matter is that different animals vary in their response to drugs. The drug Fialuridine, designed to treat hepatitis, was shown to be safe in tests with dogs, woodchucks, monkeys and other animals, but a number of fatalities resulted from pre-market clinical screening with humans. Penicillin, the archetypal 'miracle drug', is fatal to guinea pigs, but has saved countless human lives. The drugs Oraflex, Selacryn, Zomax, Suprol, and Meritol produced such adverse side effects in humans that they were removed from the market, though animal experiments had predicted all of them to be safe. The list goes on and on.
  The pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, sought to determine the accuracy of lifetime rodent tests (exposing rodents to low levels of potentially hazardous substances over the course of years) for carcinogenicity. Using animals to test various chemicals already known to cause cancer in humans, they obtained the correct result in less than half of the cases. They would have been better off tossing a coin....
  Ironically, many patients have been denied access to experimental drugs because they have not yet been tested on animals. Numerous AIDS patients have had to sue the government to try new drugs. Famous physician Henry Heimlich had to go to China to conduct human clinical trials for a potential therapy for AIDS. People with AIDS don't have the luxury to wait for approval through the enormously time consuming animal-testing procedures required by the FDA.
  We must seek a greater understanding of the nature of the mechanisms of drugs on a cellular and molecular level if we are to have insights into the probable results. Through the increased use of modern methodologies such as in vitro assays, tissue cultures, computer modeling, and extensive molecular biological analysis, we can come to a better understanding of what effect various drugs will have on humans. Then we can all cease to be 'guinea pigs'.

Aren't animals in laboratories protected by laws?
  The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966 and subsequently amended in 1970, 1976 and 1985. It sets standards for the housing, handling, feeding and transportation of experimental animals [in America], but places no limitations whatsoever on the actual experimental conditions and procedures which may be utilized. The following provision allows vivisectors to do as they please: 'Nothing in these rules, regulations, or standards shall affect or interfere with the design, outline, or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility'.
  In 1985, Congress passed an amendment which merely required dogs to be exercised and primates provided with an environment conducive to their psychological well-being. Pressure from vivisectors forced the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue ineffective regulations which did not fulfill the intent of the law. Compliance is now at the discretion of the institution conducting the research.
  The USDA, which is charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act in America, has excluded mice, rats, birds, and farm animals (who comprise 85-90% of all animals in research and testing) from even minimal protection. Although a federal judge found this exclusion to be illegal, there is still no clear indication when new USDA regulations will be enacted.
  The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), under the direction of the USDA, is supposed to inspect animal dealers and research facilities, and enforce the AWA. In 1992 and 1995, APHIS was itself inspected by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which issued scathing reports documenting APHIS' inability to accomplish this task. Two particularly relevent passages include: '...APHIS cannot ensure humane care and treatment at all facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act', and 'APHIS does not have the authority, under current legislation, to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act'.

Some ADDITIONAL links:
http://www.pandgkills.com/

http://www.pcrm.org/  This is  a group that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research

http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/faq.html
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx
http://vetgate.ac.uk/browse/cabi/4cf176ed69b0c196b47fde2bc89dca93.html
http://www.marchofcrimes.com/

Richelle compiled these sites for another asking a similar question, they might help.
http://experts.about.com/q/Animal-Rights-2716/animal-testing-1.htm

Cheers!
Robin