In UK, Health Food Fads Spark Huge Rise in Animal Testing

LONDON - The trend for healthier eating has led to an increase of more than 300% in the number of laboratory experiments conducted on animals for food additives, sweeteners and health supplements over the past year.

Home Office figures showed an increase from 862 to 4,038 experiments from 2005 to 2006.

The disclosure will ignite an ethical debate about the way animals have become victims of the fad for health foods. Animal welfare groups said many of the tests are unnecessary or could be performed on humans.

The experiments often involve using painful procedures and artificially induced injuries to research the effects of food.

In a test at Glasgow University, rodents were fed raspberry juice and then killed to see where the juice had gone in their kidneys, liver and brains. At Hammersmith hospital, west London, rats were force-fed fish supplements, while at Glasgow Caledonian University they had the food supplement ginkgo biloba injected into their paws.

At Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, rats were fed a diet containing 20% raw, lightly cooked or fully cooked cabbage for two weeks. The animals were killed to examine the effects of the diet on their liver and colon. The researchers had already carried out a human study on the effects on the gut of eating cooked cabbage.

Other experiments included feeding a health drink to rats to see whether they ate more chocolate, vanilla or asparagus flavour.

Although most food tests are performed on rodents, rabbits, guinea pigs and dogs are also used.

In experiments in the United States, Teavigo, a purified green tea extract, available by mail order in Britain, was rubbed onto the shaved backs of guinea pigs and rabbits and put in the eyes of live rabbits.

Dogs force-fed huge doses of Teavigo - which is marketed as “green tea in its purest form” and a choice for “health-conscious consumers” - died or had to be put down.

Gerhard Gans, director of regulatory affairs at DSM Nutritional Products, which produces Teavigo, said: “In some cases it is necessary to use dogs, they are in some aspects more similar to humans than rats . . . where it is possible to use alternative methods validated by the authorities we will use [them].”

Home Office statistics show that in addition to the experiments for additives there was a 30% increase to 7,477 tests on animals for other foods from 2005-6.

A spokesman said the tests on food are needed to meet regulatory requirements.

Michelle Thew, chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: “The rise in testing of food on animals in the race to find the next lucrative ‘super-food’ is a hidden scandal. People are unaware of the animal suffering behind the headlines.”

Additional reporting: Roger Waite

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

30 Comments so far

kelmer December 30th, 2007 11:52 am

Vivisection is a big scam used by sadistic scientists who just want to stay employed, and as a flimsy legal defense by companies in the event of a problem.

As Gary Francione observes, the defense of vivisection is schizophrenic(ironic since science always claims to be based on reason and logic) animal testing is justified because animals are like us, but they dont have rights because they arent like us.There is no split between mind and body here since scientists use non human animals for both mental and physical torture.

Biological scientists are mostly scam artists who need to come up with something to stay employed–so they constantly must conjure up experiments to keep working–and animal tests are the way to do it. And they ALWAYS ALWAYS say that these tests are important and will have benefits. They are told to emphasize bogus benefits in grad school.

Only with vivisection do you find the false moral defense that the justification for the experiments is the proposed benefits. That is a statement of wishful intent, not a moral defense. It is like a thief, when asked why he steals, saying: because of the benefits.

The basic moral failure of vivisection arguments is that it says it is ok to harm one in the hope of helping another (i.e. providing housing for a homeless man by kicking a family out of their house, then calling the act altruistic). But the emphasis should be on hope–since you can take the non human out of human testing, but you still need humans(as thalidomide showed). To say one can cure human diseases by using a non human species is like saying you can cure giraffe illnesses by using elephants.

Plus–when you attack scientists they try to use the fire and brimstone defense–arguing that the world would be plunged into terror and misery if it wasnt for them(yeah–like it isnt already? if things were so bad during the black plague why did civilization survive?). Scientists are like entrail readers in Ancient Rome. Eevery week you hear about another promising breakthrough–and yet they havent been able to sure cancer in 200 years of effort.

Someone really needs to write a book examining the sadistic impulse in the modern scientist. Whether its Marrion Sims and his torture of black slaves, Mengele and his torture of jews, or BF Skinner and his torture of rats, there is definitely something at work here psychologically.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:11 pm

Kelmer,
I am sorry that I disagree with you,
I’d love for all science to be so simple, so morally black and white, that we can simply condemn it and halt the manufacture of life saving drugs. I understand concern, and avoiding waste, on trivial things, yes, but to condemn all scientists, is a show of ignorance and intolerance.

“Sadistic impulse of modern science?” Science is a problem based effort, in my mind it showcases all scales of human ingenuity, as well as all shades of our ability to do wrong.

Your thalidomide example? That wasn’t some intentional effort to harm animals and ignore the results, and there were just as many scientists screaming parada as there were supporting it. Also, I don’t know what courses in biology you’ve taken, but one of the first things addressed is “what is science, and why are there scientists” I think you’d have to be out of your mind to condemn all scientists, including those who are involved in toxicology and animal testing. A friend of mine is a toxicologist, and he was really upset about how vilified he is, along with other scientists. He works for a chemical company, and is responsible for testing on consumer products, which have thousands of different chemical make ups each of which requires testing before it can be put on the market. Are you to suggest that instead of using mice he should be testing on human beings? (who would be more likely to be poor and destitute than well off, if your interest is in fairness)

“Plus–when you attack scientists they try to use the fire and brimstone defense–arguing that the world would be plunged into terror and misery if it wasnt for them”
I doubt that, but they might point out how nice it is that we have disease control, modern medicine, technology, food safety, electricity etc. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Without science the failure of the rest of our society would be further compounded. I believe that living without technology is possible, desirable even, but I would not demand that for others.

in 200 years we haven’t cured cancer? Science not working fast enough for you to value it?
I know there are thousands of people working non stop on these, but you even mock their efforts, saying hearing about promising breakthroughs is garbage. It is a no win with you isn’t it, they are tirelessly fighting it, and in doing so helping in all sorts of ways, if you’d just look at what they’re doing. Scientific American, read it. for example, a method to cure cancer by repairing the circulation into tumors (so you could administer anti-cancer drugs) that can help with vascular issues like macular degeneration, and cadiovascular disease.

Effective experimentation is dependent on a lot of things, including sharing and funding. Sharing information and past techniques and patterns, and securing the proper funding so that new methods and materials can be utilized. Not one article on new treatments or medicines that I have read did without both of those things.

you claim a psychological understanding of scientists based on a few profoundly disturbed people, so called scientists. you wave a flag, promulgate your ability to see through the ‘false moral defense.’

Scientists as liars and thieves. No.
I understand the emotional impact, having animals dying and suffering unnecessarily is terrible, that’s why scientists follow the most humane methods possible, and don’t carry out uncontrolled tests, or harm animals for no reason. I value the argument against animal testing, but find fault when it comes to how you get treatment for human diseases.

You also assert that testing on animals to treat human disease is absurd. This shows maybe a lack of scientific background on your part. Humans, as animals, have a lot in common, and the majority of our human systems carry over into animals, why maybe there is justification in their ethical treatment. When we need to test a given human function we usually choose the animal which most reflects this, starting from the bottom. If fruit fies, or Daphnia can reflect the changes we are looking for, that is where the scientists will start.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:19 pm

Consider tuberculosis,
Tuberculosis is a global health emergency, and the areas hardest hit are in the developing world. This poverty and inadequacy of healthcare exacerbating factors, these along with HIV/AIDS increasing contraction and mortality of TB have made it the second leading infectious cause of death. Most people who don’t have HIV are not infected when exposed to TB, but the already weakened immune system makes it more prevalent in those individuals who do have HIV. Of those infected, ninety percent develop a noncontagious dormant form of TB, worldwide there are two billion people who have this, it can reactivate decades later under certain circumstances such as a suppressed immune system. This prevalence is a big problem if the drugs used to treat the disease stop being as effective. Research and Development of TB had declined after the initiation of effective treatments, but by the nineteen eighties there was cause for great concern. The HIV crisis played a part in encouraging the current TB emergency. There are many obstacles in treating TB, “WHO recommends a treatment regimen for active, drug-susceptible TB consisting of four antibiotics-isoniazid, refampicin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide-taken for two months, followed by isoniazid and rifampicin for another four.” This regimen helps rid the body of so-called hidden bacteria, meaning it helps prevent that one straggler from coming back decades later. Inherently problematic is when this initial treatment fails because the bacteria have become resistant to any of the drugs, this first level of resistance is called multi-drug-resistant MDR TB. Increasingly common in China, India and the former Soviet Union, it can be combated, “albeit sometimes less than 60% of the time-by taking one of more of a group of second-line drugs, some with serious side effects for up to two years. The third type of TB is XDR, extensively drug resistant. Another obstacle is trying to treat people who were more susceptible to TB because of HIV, which has its own drug regimen and so the scientists must combat drug-drug reactions.

There are many people working to combat this problem, alliances between pharmaceutical companies, scientists, academics, government and industry officials Philanthropists all operating to try to help the people this is affecting. Their goals are to get “better diagnostics, more effective vaccines, and oral drugs with limited side effects that can shorten treatment, combat resistant strains, work with HIV drugs, and treat latent infection.” These will, by making the regimen more consistent efficient and easier to follow, hopefully cause a decrease in infection, the development of resistant strains and fatalities because of those. Whether the current ambitions are attainable or not, the community is gaining something that will be a great tool, knowledge, they are learning specifically about how vaccines are made, what factors are involved and the great efforts that can be made to the benefit of people. Science is dependent on people working together, which is why it is so tragic that R&D had been “neglected not only by pharmaceutical companies, but also by granting agencies…the stock of basic knowledge we can build on to select our targets and understand the biology of the disease is very much less than in other areas, such as cancer, where we can count on the work of thousands. So we must work with partners in academia to catch up.” The scientists have been studying millions of compounds, and are developing several possible drugs which are being researched heavily. They are comparing the effectiveness and recoil of each of them, and determining which could be studied further and how. They developed drugs that will replace parts of the existing regimen and make it more efficient. Statistical analysis plays a huge role in whether drugs are fit or not, and part of the issue is that the current therapies success rate is 95% and in order to determine if there is a significant change, huge trials are necessary, with restrictions and complications to an extreme.

The drugs are developed looking at what they target, and how they’d react with antiretroviral drugs. All of these new drugs are developed through an increasingly intimate understanding of how TB works. These are true scientists, and the test of their success will ultimately be life and death. Before a treatment can be deemed effective, it must be convincing enough to get all the effected populations, industries and governments to change their programs. The never ending issue of money comes back into play when you get past the funding needed for research and consider what it costs to get these new therapies to those affected.

Even after funding and resource sharing between those mentioned in the above alliance, the drug must still be manufactured, marketed and distributed, the limited incentives (due to necessity of low priced goods) makes it a burden to sell or make. To take part in this more selfless than most of the pharmaceutical practices we discuss, and may help to even out the field in that regard. I did not know about latent TB or the scale by which the world is effected. I never would have imagined that two billion people have the latent TB, or that it could come back and activate decades later. I also didn’t know the extent of treatment required in any of the situations. The effort going into fixing this problem is remarkable. The specifics of the drugs being researched is really neat too, because they target different parts of the TB, and so have different effects. They are looking at destroying proteins and interfering with mycolic acid production, stopping the ATP synthesis of only the unwanted bacteria, and growth inhibitors in cell wall synthesis. The need to communicate is highly evident, it shows how not having information available to researchers sets things back severely. This brings to mind the value of journals, for disseminating information and ideas and enabling people to innovate without having to repeat the same mistakes. The way they are researching is very conscientious also, with people based in the environment and culture affected the disease, as well as considering healthcare circumstances, the conditions under which the treatment is administered. This growing theme of being connected, and looking at things from a wide perspective is part of what makes this endeavor just a bit more possible. “No single entity has enough resources on its own, and we realize it is going to take the best efforts on all our parts to be successful.” Gail H. Cassell. Aligned with the unity in life abroad, science also depends on teamwork, innovation and communication.

Here, for you is an example of guidelines for experiments involving animals : http://iacuc.ucsd.edu/PDF_References/Guidelines.pdf

WTF December 30th, 2007 1:31 pm

@ren ren
Thank you for cutting and pasting all the same regurgitated garbage that meat-eaters spew. And cut the crap on guidelines for experiments involving animals. You probably think that the Geneva Convention is a sacred document, other than it legitimizes war.

Your problem is arrogance. Arrogance that leads you to believe that you are better than animals. Arrogance that your life is worth more than animals. Arrogance that allows you to rape and pillage our planet. Arrogance that that is indistinguishable from believing that you are better than other humans. Arrogance that leads to your support of war.

One word you need to discover. Compassion.

Paul M December 30th, 2007 1:35 pm

So, some rats get fed cabbage and then killed. Big hairy deal.

Here’s a question - do you eat meat? At all? Do you eat eggs? Wear wool (look up “mulesing”)?

As for the hysterical anti-science stuff, people have this weird idea that knowledge can be found simply by making shit up and believing it hard enough. Of the three great traditions (Theism, Mysticism, Science), only science has always been about settling questions of fact by enquiring directly of nature herself.

That means, if you want to know the LD50 of X, then that involves giving the dogs enough X to kill half of them. Sorry.

Oh - it’s cheering that you will shrug off the black death so lightly. If it was your child dying, you’d be happy to slaughter a roomful of animals if it would save them. I bet that you are not a parent.

At least mother nature will deal with fools like you. Once the number of unvaccinated people reaches a critical concentration, a plague will run though them and wipe them all out. I think mumps, in particular, sterilizes adults.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:42 pm

WTF

I wrote what I “copied and pasted” but you’re right, that I didn’t type it out on here for a half hour, it is also posted at another site, so maybe that’s where you got the idea.

I am not violent, nor a supporter of war.
though I appreciate your concern on my humility. I worry about that too.

You probably think that the Geneva Convention is a sacred document, other than it legitimizes war.
No, I don’t hold any documents sacred.
I think the constitution and bible have the same flaw, they are substantial documents, and so you can prove whatever you want using them. That’s how john yoo and other nutcases justify torturing Humans.

I am not claiming any sort of innocence in any regard, and wish to all things worthwhile that we could be at peace, and not exploit so much, but here sitting in my middle class home, at my expensive environment killing computer, I could see the hypocrisy in that.

I support wholeheartedly efforts to reduce waste, people who strive for intelligent approaches to problems like animal testing, but they have to be that, intelligent approaches. I love that peta works to stop things like what the KFC suppliers did, or making fur coats out of stray animals, but the way you go about an issue is important too. the ends don’t always justify the means.

coco December 30th, 2007 3:33 pm

WTF

unfortunately, COMPASSION, is not a word nowadays in most people’s vocabulary. but what i find strange about all this ‘increased’ laboratory testing for healthier eating is that healthy foods should not contain additives, sweetners, supplements. wouldn’t you agree? so how come there is this ‘increase’? doesn’t make sense in my mind. but i’m sure the big corporations churning out these ‘fad’ foods will no doubt have an answer. i am vegan and hate it when people like PAUL M make stupid comments about the testing on animals. and a lot of our diseases that could wipe out mankind and that have no adequate vaccinations for are brought about by the carnivores desire to eat cheap dead animals. ie: mad cows disease, avian flu, foot and mouth disease, salmonella. and these diseases which have only recently manifested themselves are brought about by greed. and not greed in a hungry sense, but greed from the factory farms that torture and abuse these defenseless animals. let PAUL M take a look at some of the videos taken by PETA activists and then come back and say: so some rats get fed cabbage and then killed. big hairy deal. oh and by the way PAUL M it is only the male of the species who become sterile after contracting mumps.

anne faith December 30th, 2007 5:46 pm

Another vegan here, and no, I don’t wear wool either. All it took was watching a few PETA videos. It was very hard to watch but one of the most important things I’ve ever done. On a daily basis, we humans are engaged in the mass murder and torture of innocent animals and don’t lose a wink of sleep over it. As for laboratory tests on animals, like this article says, many of these tests are completely unnecessary, because non-human animals are too dissimilar to produce meaningful results. Check out the IAMS video on PETA’s website to see what that company’s testing lab does to beagles. I agree with WTF - before you say it’s no big deal to kill these animals, watch a couple of PETA videos. You can start with this one: http://www.petatv.com and click on the video “Meet Your Meat.” If you still have no problem with killing animals, you’re either in massive denial or you’re just plain heartless.

caroler December 30th, 2007 6:30 pm

Paul M:
Since when is LD-50 good science? See the following for actual research and analysis on the topic: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/56/2/253.
The OECD stopped using the test in 2000 and has replaced it with a more calibrated approach that doesn’t waste nearly as many animal lives. Thoughtful researchers and regulators are developing methods of reducing animal testing: http://www.forschung3r.ch/data/3r_bro_e.pdf. In every case you mention (meat, wool, eggs, research), there are compassionate ways of raising and caring for animals and for reducing their use. If we believe that life is sacred, that should extend to animal life and inform all our decisions, even though life necessarily feeds on life. The challenge is to use our brains to meet our needs compassionately and intelligently. Far too many people, especially on the right, think everything is black and white, and can never see a third way that is better than the other two (Notice that Bush does this over and over again; limiting our choices to two bad alternatives, such as “bomb Iran or WWIII?” It’s deliberate and it’s how you talk to little children). And who needs most of the crap these corporations are testing in the first place? When it comes to nutrition, the rules are pretty simple: a major portion of the human diet should be plant foods, organic is best, and all things in moderation. Testing is only deemed necessary because we have to regulate the amount of poison corporations are ALLOWED to use in their products - below the limit that will kill us or make us sick. The result of all these allowable poisons is a greater and greater body burden of toxic chemicals in our bloodstreams (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/22/body.burden/index.html), so if you care about your kids, you should eat organic and use organic mattresses, cleaners, etc. (obviously, animal testing has FAILED to protect us from this threat; on the contrary, it has been falsely reassuring because of its reductionist approach and the impossibility of testing for every potential symbiotic effect). So, don’t give me this crap about needing to sacrifice roomfuls of animals to save your kids from your own ignorance. Follow the money and figure it out. More and more people are doing so and buying biodegradable cleaners, organic food, etc. With supplements, we’re dealing with ingredients that are not poisonous per se, but that could be if taken in large concentrations. So, the answer is simple: don’t use them! The benefits of green tea are in drinking the tea, not in consuming pills of concentrated “active ingredient” in green tea. But there is money to be made in peddling magic pills and so animals continue to suffer. We have got plenty of work to do on the compassion end as the PETA videos make abundantly clear. Keep visiting CD, and hopefully the brainwashing will clear up!

WTF December 30th, 2007 7:01 pm

Paul M clearly has no clue how to live sustainably, and healthily. The latter is accomplished by staying clear of fools such as himself. Unvaccinated as I am, I am not immune to all diseases, but by not living in the city and limiting my intake of food “additives”, I guarantee that I lead as good a life as anyone. OK, I admit, I did have my wisdom teeth and tonsils removed, but at the age of 61, I still have all my teeth with no fillings, and I need no reading aids. I ride my bike into town every 2 days, 5 miles and an elevation change of 1,000′ each way.

Modern life, for all its advances, makes people weak in soul and body, dependent upon constructs invented by technological advance and greedy corporations. Remember, the BIGGEST factor in life expectancy extension is hygiene and clean, fresh water. Not drugs, not surgical procedures, not nursing homes. Paul M has clearly fallen for the latter scam. His arrogance has poisoned his spirit.

blessthebeasts December 30th, 2007 8:18 pm

As coco pointed out, these tests have nothing to do with advancing health, only to make more profits for these blood-sucking corporations. IAMS is another example of cruelty masquerading as concern for health. On the eve of 2008 we are stuck in 1984.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 8:23 pm

WTF
I appreciate your lifestyle, and I too think it is the way to go, but not everybody can do that. Some people are born with legitimate health issues that make that sort of lifestyle impossible.
On veganism A friend of mine who does not eat meat for religious reasons, had a chronic illness prior to my meeting him, which totally depleted his body, and his father who is a physician (and also a good man) prescribed that he eat meat, and prior to this determined that it was the only way. This is an extreme example, but not the only one.

I live in a relatively small town, no more than three or so miles across, and so I walk wherever it is I want to go. I don’t own a car, and I consolidate my travels.

For the world’s future, I try to be optimistic, but that does not mean I cannot see the downward spiral we are in. We have, so far as I am aware, far exceeded the carrying capacity for our population. I don’t see justice in going around killing people, but I am aware that there are some changes that will need to be made if we want to survive without needless suffering. I don’t know what the right answer is, and so I leave the real people-effecting decisions to those individuals who I think are smarter or longer-sighted than I am.

I know I personally would not want to live a meaningless and wasteful life, and if I find myself in a position where I am mostly taking and not giving anything in return, well I don’t plan to live much longer. Not a depressing thing, just a personal (and only personal) decision on my part, that I could never ask others to make.

I don’t think the right for others to receive medical care should be up to me, as a denier. I would rather help people, and provide for them in any way I can, than play god by killing them, denying them. It is most definitely a heavy burden, and that is why if I were a holy person, I would pray that such a decision is the right way to go.

I look at deer, when I think about populations, and eating meat. We created an environment so unnatural that no animal really has a place anymore. We’ve been breeding animals for our own purposes, cutting down natural flora to serve our agriculture, for thousands of years. The deer, if left in say michigan, unmonitored, will be wiped out by cars and disease, and starvation. Hunters (who often kill as mercifully as possible) keep the population in control, follow permits, and often donate any excess meat to the poor.

WTF said:
. Remember, the BIGGEST factor in life expectancy extension is hygiene and clean, fresh water. Not drugs, not surgical procedures, not nursing homes. Paul M has clearly fallen for the latter scam. His arrogance has poisoned his spirit.

I don’t believe in wasting energy on stuff that isn’t necessary, I don’t think people need to be taking vitamins if they eat well, for example. I don’t believe mass manufacturing is a good idea, and hate the throw away consumer products, that are usually heavy in plastics and other such chemical based- thousand year degradation type products that nobody really knows to recycle, even after making the bad decision in buying them. But here I am on a computer.
I know a lot of people have had life saving surgery, that wasn’t too demanding on the environment. and what about those cancer patients, requiring all sorts of doctors visits, chemotherapy, and helium depleting costly scans, what about them? don’t they deserve medical treatment?

besides, lots of stuff is destroyed and poisoned to help grow the food products needed to feed the human population (though we don’t feed everybody) not all stuff can be organic. Fertilizers make possible a lot of what our prosperity is today, but misused they poison horrifying amounts of ecosystem.

What I’m trying to say, is that in anything we do we have to recognize a duality, and if possible make efforts to counter it.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 8:33 pm

bless the beasts.
as a human and animal,
I understand where your feelings are.
I know it is tough, seeing waste,
seeing violence (and there are a lot of ways we humans are violent) but there is no black and white.
a lot of those blood sucking corporations are made up of loving thoughtful Compassionate. yeah, compassionate people. whose goals are not unlike your own.
I hate the profiteering you speak of. I hate seeing more medicines made to treat ED than to treat malaria, AIDS and cancer. But in this goddamned reality, (one we should fight with all we have) it is those who have the money who control what happens. It is not the poor ignorant fast food eating, inefficient car driving, waste making american who is at fault. They either don’t know better, or don’t have a choice. If all you have is a bridge card, you’ll buy food that is high-cal, cheap, and can stay in your coffin sized freezer, not organic vegetables.
It is a shame, but before I go donating money to PETA to throw paint, I’ll try to help them to do better for themselves. It is a cycle you know, and you’re right on one part. There are vicious people profiting in a lot of it. They want the poor to be fat with poverty, lining their pockets with every poor quality thing they try to buy, the wal-mart lifestyles, and the demands on health and resources surrounding that.

foamweapons December 30th, 2007 10:46 pm

As a green tea enthusiast, I’m appalled at the lack of respect for those awesome little leaves. What did that tea do… that it deserves to be ground up and injected into the eyes of animals? Nothing.

People need to learn to treat their tea leaves with respect, and pamper them with a nice warm bath no hotter than 180 degrees. Anything else is just uncivilized.

Oh yeah, I guess the animals could be treated better too.

WTF December 30th, 2007 10:53 pm

@ren ren
I think I understand more about you now.

I appreciated your story of a vegan friend who “had to eat meat”. Mohandas Ghandi has a similar story when his child fell ill, and a physician prescribed meat. Ghandi resisted as the child became weaker and weaker. Ghandi relented and fed his child a few meals of cow milk. The child survived. Ghandi, however, admitted that his selfishness went against all his principles and was tormented by this memory for the rest of his life.

There is a place for western healthcare; it has shown its usefulness in emergency-care situations. Alas, medical practitioners are only too eager to prescribe the latest and greatest, when no intervention is required. An example of over-medication is antibiotics, too-often prescribed, too-often poorly monitored by the patient, introducing humanity to a swath of mutated bugs we have never seen before, and ones that our healthcare system is too inept to deal with. The result, 10s of 1000s more animals must die to find the next penicillin. Needlessly.

There are some people who may argue that they need intervention. Often, it is due to an unfortunate suite of genes. Other times, the result of a catastrophic accident. But who are we to say that these people should live, when a thousand-fold more will die in Africa because they do not have access to basic sanitation of clean water? No animal testing required there. Charles Darwin has an answer. So too did the ancient Spartans. Am I callous? Perhaps. Am I heartless? Maybe, but read on.

The larger problem is that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. And here in the west we are overcome with an even greater sickness; selfishness. As stated in the above paragraph, westerners will queue for unnecessary procedures and drugs while thousands more die. The diseases of selfishness and arrogance kill many more people than any modern plague. Humanity must rediscover its spirituality and help each other first, not ME.

Finally, I do have health issues that I deal with by using native herbs. I have a medicinal garden of over 50 native plant species that I share with shamans, who in turn, educate me in ways to coexist with the Earth. Easterners call it kharma.

ren ren December 30th, 2007 11:35 pm

“The larger problem is that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. And here in the west we are overcome with an even greater sickness; selfishness. As stated in the above paragraph, westerners will queue for unnecessary procedures and drugs while thousands more die. The diseases of selfishness and arrogance kill many more people than any modern plague.”

WTF

I am glad that we can find agreement.
I do not like to have conflict with people,
left unresolved, even anonymously.

I know of the western arrogance, the selfishness, as I am a product of it, guilty of it. Beyond vietnam, describes well what I mean by that, it is something I refer to more often maybe than I should, as it too has its flaws.

I mean to, by speaking with people, gain from them a perspective that I could not create alone. Sometimes, as I experienced with you, and likely you with me, there is discomfort, or misunderstanding. I realize a lot of that is probably on my part, as I am not always very clear. For that reason, I thank you for sharing, especially, because that discomfort can discourage honest effort in contributing conversation and to my understanding.

Peace Czar December 31st, 2007 12:23 am

What a crock of shit these tests are. Animal testing, especially in these capacities, is a black market of horror cloaked in the legitimacy of science.

And what will these tests indicate for human health? Very fucking little.

Before anyone thinks I’m brash and uninformed, I wrote a research paper on animal testing back in college and have read about the subject thoroughly. But at the end of the day, I don’t have the energy to read such lengthy comments. Perhaps tomorrow.

PAUL M:

What type of scatterbrained thickhead are you? Your ignorant rambling comments don’t even make sense, aside from being pointlessly contrarian and of zero substance.

Let’s give you and a bunch of your friends the LD-50 test. We’ll shove pills down your throats until half of you suffer toxic deaths. Then we know what a “lethal dose” is. You call that empirical science? Ridiculous.

nobodyofimportance December 31st, 2007 4:53 am

this stuff just breaks my heart, vegetarian and have been since I read diet for a new america half a life time ago. That picture is horrible it looks like my little man max

blessthebeasts December 31st, 2007 11:06 pm

ren ren–appreciate your thoughtful comments. I agree that the corporate franken-food industry wants to keep us fat and unhealthy but I think people have to take more responsibility for what they consume. Whenever I (rarely) go into a “regular” grocery store I am appalled at what people have piled into their carts: processed foods aplenty, soda, alot of liquor, very little “real” food! Alot of stores are offering organics too, but it usually sits and rots because it’s a little more expensive. You get what you pay for, I always say!
I also agree that healthy food has to be made more available to the poor. I usually shop at the downtown farmers market which has a program to provide the inner-city poor access to fresh produce which they can purchase with food stamps. Too many poor neighborhoods don’t even have grocery stores, just convenience stores. Again, the profit motive benefits the rich, but does nothing for the poor. It’s just not working.

ren ren January 1st, 2008 2:32 am

As would be evident in my activities today, I am no stranger to poor food and other habits (see liquor)

but I see it as a poor Choice on my part, where others don’t have any feasible alternatives, like the produce programme you mentioned.

lpenek January 1st, 2008 3:50 am

Thalidomide was a global catastrophe because it was not tested for teratogenicisty in animals, not because animal testing was incapable of detecting it. Actually, thalidomide is a useful example, because it was billed as a mild sedative and anti-emetic for, among other things, morning sickness. The question that this article–and thalidomide– raises is when is a drug developed and used, shall we say, “frivolously,” and when does it have a legitimate and perhaps life-saving use. Ironically thalidomide has gone on to be used effectively for just such reasons, to treat multiple myeloma, leprosy and cancer.
One important thing to note is that regulatory agencies like the FDA require animal testing for these food additives. So any food company that wants to introduce a piece of junk food including ingredients X,Y, and Z must complete the animal tests before using them.
My second point is that I believe people that espouse equality amongst all animals are being disingenuous to a large degree. You can’t tell me that if it were a choice between your son or daughter and a mouse that you wouldn’t bring the hammer down (on the mouse). I would submit that if you disagree with this you’re as much a schmuck as a frivolous researcher who injects doughnut fill into a mouse so Kraft can make more cream puffs. The fact is we place a premium on human life, and other animals come second. This doesn’t, and shouldn’t, allow us to open the floodgates to gratuitous animal experimentation.
Let me tell a story that might be illustrative.
I used to work at the house of a older man and his wife. He told me that he and his wife had spotted a rattlesnake that basked in the sun about 10 feet down the slop of his house. His wife was terrified of it and couldn’t stop thinking of it. In addition his grandkids often visited and used to run around the grounds of the house and play. Because his eyes were bad, this guy asked me whether I would shoot it with his shotgun. Now, killing a snake or any creature is distasteful to me, but the bottom line is that this animal was a threat to this guy’s family. I took careful aim and the snake died instantly. I hated doing it, but it gets back to the schmuck factor. Had I refused what would have happened? First of all, this man’s grandkids could well have been in danger. Second, he would have tried to shoot it anyway and with poor eyes he probably would have only wounded it and its death would have been slow and painful.
You may be saying that this case is qualitatively different than using animal life in research. Not really. What I’m saying is we humans will decide upon the fate of other animal life (hopefully judiciously) when it comes down to it, and we will place ourselves first.
Think about the mouse and your baby, and think about the schmuck factor.

ren ren January 1st, 2008 10:20 am

thanks ipenek,
a bit of background like you gave, and a good example can make a big difference.

brings it back into human terms if you will.

WTF January 1st, 2008 11:04 am

@ipenek

You reek of the smuck factor yourself.

Your example of thalidomide was useful. A drug billed as a mild sedative and anti-emetic has no place in society. People only too readily reach for the fast-track cure for minor aches and pains. There are age-old native cures, tested over hundreds of generations that offer equal relief. Need a mild sedative? Brew some tea from the bark of graviola. Morning sickness? Crush fresh cilantro and add a few drops of the liquid to a green tea. Astralagus is also extremely successful. Arrogance and selfishness requires instant gratification.

There are over 3,000 botanicals that are effective in cancer treatments. Some are very effective. But sometimes our time on the plane must end, and we should accept it gratefully.

Rattlesnakes basking in the sun are a sign that they have eaten. As such, they are slow and stupid, and can be easily picked up by the tail, placed into a sack, and removed from the area. I live with many snakes in the NM mountains. Understanding animals is the first step to living peaceably with them.

Your statement ..if it were a choice between your son or daughter and a mouse.. is specious and fallacious. No human life is dependent upon the life of a single mouse, so don’t make it sound so.

blessthebeasts January 1st, 2008 5:17 pm

ren ren–why don’t you be the change you desire and start a program for nutrition for the poor? That’s what we did in Phoenix. Sitting around getting wasted and pigging out isn’t going to help matters.

lpenek January 1st, 2008 5:29 pm

WTF -
I completely agree regarding quick fix drugs, etc., but only because of the experimentation required by law for additives, ingredients, etc. People are free to consume what they want, and you’re free to disagree.

Regarding the schmuck factor. Sounds like you know your rattlesnakes. Too bad you weren’t available. I can pretty much guarantee we wouldn’t have gotten the man’s wife to pick it up by the tail and put it in a sack — let alone drive it somewhere and extricate it.

No human life is dependent upon the life of a single mouse, so don’t make it sound so.

Not completely true. A monoclonal antibody to create a custom-tailored drug can come from a single sacrificed mouse. Admittedly this isn’t done on a routine basis due to cost, and more than a single mouse would certainly be used. The point is moot anyway since I said “a” mouse only to get the point across. I’m quite sure you and I would sacrifice a whole cage or more to save a loved one.

blessthebeasts January 1st, 2008 6:41 pm

In my town, Animal Control will come out and relocate a rattlesnake. And generally, they don’t hang around humans for very long; they’re usually just passing through.
By the way, the point of the article was that the majority of these tests are unnecessary, certainly not a matter of life and death.

lpenek January 1st, 2008 8:39 pm

blessthebeasts - I agree with your last point and have included that throughout my comments as I’m sure you’ve noticed; ren ren has also. Maybe we should leave it at that.

ren ren January 1st, 2008 11:16 pm

Ipenek (yes, thank you)

blessthebeasts
I appreciate your comment,
criticism is important.

the things I talk about here,
are not things just to discuss.
I am head of a small political group,
an action group, but we have a lot of
obstacles to overcome, and a lot more
work to do.

the dynamics of my area are toxic, at best,
and I hope to work in spite of that.
a small example would be that the poor here are convinced that they are prosperous (while they use their ebt cards), or on their way to prosperity, largely because of their militant-ignorant preachers. It is a small and strange perspective maybe, but that is a facet of this problem I know to be real.. it is true of a close friend of mine. I ask whether there should be more available for them, for the babies (and unfortunately there is a steady supply) in their household, and they say that no their church would provide if they are in need. Well, damn it, they’re in need.

It is an american tradition, so far as I understand, to eat poorly, live poorly, and not coincidentally, die poor. This helps the people who have power in my town maintain that power, and help make people like me marginalized, and the populations of poor and employed, stable if not growing.

But you’re right, in the spirit of progress and resistance, there should be something done, there must be something done, and that it should start with me, if it so badly needs to happen. I am not trying to be defeatist with the above example, but I know there to be serious precautions needed in a lot of these activities.

The poor are ostracized and pushed to the outskirts.. there recently have been a series of bank robberies committed by a homeless woman, in my general area. there is no inquiry into why she robbed the first one, or any other of what to me seem like natural questions.

could you tell me more maybe about the program you’re talking about?

blessthebeasts January 2nd, 2008 6:10 pm

ren ren–check out foodconnect.org. It is a local non-profit, but you can sign up for a newsletter there. There are many obstacles, but we have made progress. Education and opportunity are what’s needed to reach out to the poor and break the cycle. Good luck and good health to you.

ren ren January 2nd, 2008 7:46 pm

thank you, and also with you.

kelmer December 30th, 2007 11:52 am

Vivisection is a big scam used by sadistic scientists who just want to stay employed, and as a flimsy legal defense by companies in the event of a problem.

As Gary Francione observes, the defense of vivisection is schizophrenic(ironic since science always claims to be based on reason and logic) animal testing is justified because animals are like us, but they dont have rights because they arent like us.There is no split between mind and body here since scientists use non human animals for both mental and physical torture.

Biological scientists are mostly scam artists who need to come up with something to stay employed–so they constantly must conjure up experiments to keep working–and animal tests are the way to do it. And they ALWAYS ALWAYS say that these tests are important and will have benefits. They are told to emphasize bogus benefits in grad school.

Only with vivisection do you find the false moral defense that the justification for the experiments is the proposed benefits. That is a statement of wishful intent, not a moral defense. It is like a thief, when asked why he steals, saying: because of the benefits.

The basic moral failure of vivisection arguments is that it says it is ok to harm one in the hope of helping another (i.e. providing housing for a homeless man by kicking a family out of their house, then calling the act altruistic). But the emphasis should be on hope–since you can take the non human out of human testing, but you still need humans(as thalidomide showed). To say one can cure human diseases by using a non human species is like saying you can cure giraffe illnesses by using elephants.

Plus–when you attack scientists they try to use the fire and brimstone defense–arguing that the world would be plunged into terror and misery if it wasnt for them(yeah–like it isnt already? if things were so bad during the black plague why did civilization survive?). Scientists are like entrail readers in Ancient Rome. Eevery week you hear about another promising breakthrough–and yet they havent been able to sure cancer in 200 years of effort.

Someone really needs to write a book examining the sadistic impulse in the modern scientist. Whether its Marrion Sims and his torture of black slaves, Mengele and his torture of jews, or BF Skinner and his torture of rats, there is definitely something at work here psychologically.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:11 pm

Kelmer,
I am sorry that I disagree with you,
I’d love for all science to be so simple, so morally black and white, that we can simply condemn it and halt the manufacture of life saving drugs. I understand concern, and avoiding waste, on trivial things, yes, but to condemn all scientists, is a show of ignorance and intolerance.

“Sadistic impulse of modern science?” Science is a problem based effort, in my mind it showcases all scales of human ingenuity, as well as all shades of our ability to do wrong.

Your thalidomide example? That wasn’t some intentional effort to harm animals and ignore the results, and there were just as many scientists screaming parada as there were supporting it. Also, I don’t know what courses in biology you’ve taken, but one of the first things addressed is “what is science, and why are there scientists” I think you’d have to be out of your mind to condemn all scientists, including those who are involved in toxicology and animal testing. A friend of mine is a toxicologist, and he was really upset about how vilified he is, along with other scientists. He works for a chemical company, and is responsible for testing on consumer products, which have thousands of different chemical make ups each of which requires testing before it can be put on the market. Are you to suggest that instead of using mice he should be testing on human beings? (who would be more likely to be poor and destitute than well off, if your interest is in fairness)

“Plus–when you attack scientists they try to use the fire and brimstone defense–arguing that the world would be plunged into terror and misery if it wasnt for them”
I doubt that, but they might point out how nice it is that we have disease control, modern medicine, technology, food safety, electricity etc. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Without science the failure of the rest of our society would be further compounded. I believe that living without technology is possible, desirable even, but I would not demand that for others.

in 200 years we haven’t cured cancer? Science not working fast enough for you to value it?
I know there are thousands of people working non stop on these, but you even mock their efforts, saying hearing about promising breakthroughs is garbage. It is a no win with you isn’t it, they are tirelessly fighting it, and in doing so helping in all sorts of ways, if you’d just look at what they’re doing. Scientific American, read it. for example, a method to cure cancer by repairing the circulation into tumors (so you could administer anti-cancer drugs) that can help with vascular issues like macular degeneration, and cadiovascular disease.

Effective experimentation is dependent on a lot of things, including sharing and funding. Sharing information and past techniques and patterns, and securing the proper funding so that new methods and materials can be utilized. Not one article on new treatments or medicines that I have read did without both of those things.

you claim a psychological understanding of scientists based on a few profoundly disturbed people, so called scientists. you wave a flag, promulgate your ability to see through the ‘false moral defense.’

Scientists as liars and thieves. No.
I understand the emotional impact, having animals dying and suffering unnecessarily is terrible, that’s why scientists follow the most humane methods possible, and don’t carry out uncontrolled tests, or harm animals for no reason. I value the argument against animal testing, but find fault when it comes to how you get treatment for human diseases.

You also assert that testing on animals to treat human disease is absurd. This shows maybe a lack of scientific background on your part. Humans, as animals, have a lot in common, and the majority of our human systems carry over into animals, why maybe there is justification in their ethical treatment. When we need to test a given human function we usually choose the animal which most reflects this, starting from the bottom. If fruit fies, or Daphnia can reflect the changes we are looking for, that is where the scientists will start.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:19 pm

Consider tuberculosis,
Tuberculosis is a global health emergency, and the areas hardest hit are in the developing world. This poverty and inadequacy of healthcare exacerbating factors, these along with HIV/AIDS increasing contraction and mortality of TB have made it the second leading infectious cause of death. Most people who don’t have HIV are not infected when exposed to TB, but the already weakened immune system makes it more prevalent in those individuals who do have HIV. Of those infected, ninety percent develop a noncontagious dormant form of TB, worldwide there are two billion people who have this, it can reactivate decades later under certain circumstances such as a suppressed immune system. This prevalence is a big problem if the drugs used to treat the disease stop being as effective. Research and Development of TB had declined after the initiation of effective treatments, but by the nineteen eighties there was cause for great concern. The HIV crisis played a part in encouraging the current TB emergency. There are many obstacles in treating TB, “WHO recommends a treatment regimen for active, drug-susceptible TB consisting of four antibiotics-isoniazid, refampicin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide-taken for two months, followed by isoniazid and rifampicin for another four.” This regimen helps rid the body of so-called hidden bacteria, meaning it helps prevent that one straggler from coming back decades later. Inherently problematic is when this initial treatment fails because the bacteria have become resistant to any of the drugs, this first level of resistance is called multi-drug-resistant MDR TB. Increasingly common in China, India and the former Soviet Union, it can be combated, “albeit sometimes less than 60% of the time-by taking one of more of a group of second-line drugs, some with serious side effects for up to two years. The third type of TB is XDR, extensively drug resistant. Another obstacle is trying to treat people who were more susceptible to TB because of HIV, which has its own drug regimen and so the scientists must combat drug-drug reactions.

There are many people working to combat this problem, alliances between pharmaceutical companies, scientists, academics, government and industry officials Philanthropists all operating to try to help the people this is affecting. Their goals are to get “better diagnostics, more effective vaccines, and oral drugs with limited side effects that can shorten treatment, combat resistant strains, work with HIV drugs, and treat latent infection.” These will, by making the regimen more consistent efficient and easier to follow, hopefully cause a decrease in infection, the development of resistant strains and fatalities because of those. Whether the current ambitions are attainable or not, the community is gaining something that will be a great tool, knowledge, they are learning specifically about how vaccines are made, what factors are involved and the great efforts that can be made to the benefit of people. Science is dependent on people working together, which is why it is so tragic that R&D had been “neglected not only by pharmaceutical companies, but also by granting agencies…the stock of basic knowledge we can build on to select our targets and understand the biology of the disease is very much less than in other areas, such as cancer, where we can count on the work of thousands. So we must work with partners in academia to catch up.” The scientists have been studying millions of compounds, and are developing several possible drugs which are being researched heavily. They are comparing the effectiveness and recoil of each of them, and determining which could be studied further and how. They developed drugs that will replace parts of the existing regimen and make it more efficient. Statistical analysis plays a huge role in whether drugs are fit or not, and part of the issue is that the current therapies success rate is 95% and in order to determine if there is a significant change, huge trials are necessary, with restrictions and complications to an extreme.

The drugs are developed looking at what they target, and how they’d react with antiretroviral drugs. All of these new drugs are developed through an increasingly intimate understanding of how TB works. These are true scientists, and the test of their success will ultimately be life and death. Before a treatment can be deemed effective, it must be convincing enough to get all the effected populations, industries and governments to change their programs. The never ending issue of money comes back into play when you get past the funding needed for research and consider what it costs to get these new therapies to those affected.

Even after funding and resource sharing between those mentioned in the above alliance, the drug must still be manufactured, marketed and distributed, the limited incentives (due to necessity of low priced goods) makes it a burden to sell or make. To take part in this more selfless than most of the pharmaceutical practices we discuss, and may help to even out the field in that regard. I did not know about latent TB or the scale by which the world is effected. I never would have imagined that two billion people have the latent TB, or that it could come back and activate decades later. I also didn’t know the extent of treatment required in any of the situations. The effort going into fixing this problem is remarkable. The specifics of the drugs being researched is really neat too, because they target different parts of the TB, and so have different effects. They are looking at destroying proteins and interfering with mycolic acid production, stopping the ATP synthesis of only the unwanted bacteria, and growth inhibitors in cell wall synthesis. The need to communicate is highly evident, it shows how not having information available to researchers sets things back severely. This brings to mind the value of journals, for disseminating information and ideas and enabling people to innovate without having to repeat the same mistakes. The way they are researching is very conscientious also, with people based in the environment and culture affected the disease, as well as considering healthcare circumstances, the conditions under which the treatment is administered. This growing theme of being connected, and looking at things from a wide perspective is part of what makes this endeavor just a bit more possible. “No single entity has enough resources on its own, and we realize it is going to take the best efforts on all our parts to be successful.” Gail H. Cassell. Aligned with the unity in life abroad, science also depends on teamwork, innovation and communication.

Here, for you is an example of guidelines for experiments involving animals : http://iacuc.ucsd.edu/PDF_References/Guidelines.pdf
WTF December 30th, 2007 1:31 pm

@ren ren
Thank you for cutting and pasting all the same regurgitated garbage that meat-eaters spew. And cut the crap on guidelines for experiments involving animals. You probably think that the Geneva Convention is a sacred document, other than it legitimizes war.

Your problem is arrogance. Arrogance that leads you to believe that you are better than animals. Arrogance that your life is worth more than animals. Arrogance that allows you to rape and pillage our planet. Arrogance that that is indistinguishable from believing that you are better than other humans. Arrogance that leads to your support of war.

One word you need to discover. Compassion.
Paul M December 30th, 2007 1:35 pm

So, some rats get fed cabbage and then killed. Big hairy deal.

Here’s a question - do you eat meat? At all? Do you eat eggs? Wear wool (look up “mulesing”)?

As for the hysterical anti-science stuff, people have this weird idea that knowledge can be found simply by making shit up and believing it hard enough. Of the three great traditions (Theism, Mysticism, Science), only science has always been about settling questions of fact by enquiring directly of nature herself.

That means, if you want to know the LD50 of X, then that involves giving the dogs enough X to kill half of them. Sorry.

Oh - it’s cheering that you will shrug off the black death so lightly. If it was your child dying, you’d be happy to slaughter a roomful of animals if it would save them. I bet that you are not a parent.

At least mother nature will deal with fools like you. Once the number of unvaccinated people reaches a critical concentration, a plague will run though them and wipe them all out. I think mumps, in particular, sterilizes adults.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 1:42 pm

WTF

I wrote what I “copied and pasted” but you’re right, that I didn’t type it out on here for a half hour, it is also posted at another site, so maybe that’s where you got the idea.

I am not violent, nor a supporter of war.
though I appreciate your concern on my humility. I worry about that too.

You probably think that the Geneva Convention is a sacred document, other than it legitimizes war.
No, I don’t hold any documents sacred.
I think the constitution and bible have the same flaw, they are substantial documents, and so you can prove whatever you want using them. That’s how john yoo and other nutcases justify torturing Humans.

I am not claiming any sort of innocence in any regard, and wish to all things worthwhile that we could be at peace, and not exploit so much, but here sitting in my middle class home, at my expensive environment killing computer, I could see the hypocrisy in that.

I support wholeheartedly efforts to reduce waste, people who strive for intelligent approaches to problems like animal testing, but they have to be that, intelligent approaches. I love that peta works to stop things like what the KFC suppliers did, or making fur coats out of stray animals, but the way you go about an issue is important too. the ends don’t always justify the means.
coco December 30th, 2007 3:33 pm

WTF

unfortunately, COMPASSION, is not a word nowadays in most people’s vocabulary. but what i find strange about all this ‘increased’ laboratory testing for healthier eating is that healthy foods should not contain additives, sweetners, supplements. wouldn’t you agree? so how come there is this ‘increase’? doesn’t make sense in my mind. but i’m sure the big corporations churning out these ‘fad’ foods will no doubt have an answer. i am vegan and hate it when people like PAUL M make stupid comments about the testing on animals. and a lot of our diseases that could wipe out mankind and that have no adequate vaccinations for are brought about by the carnivores desire to eat cheap dead animals. ie: mad cows disease, avian flu, foot and mouth disease, salmonella. and these diseases which have only recently manifested themselves are brought about by greed. and not greed in a hungry sense, but greed from the factory farms that torture and abuse these defenseless animals. let PAUL M take a look at some of the videos taken by PETA activists and then come back and say: so some rats get fed cabbage and then killed. big hairy deal. oh and by the way PAUL M it is only the male of the species who become sterile after contracting mumps.
anne faith December 30th, 2007 5:46 pm

Another vegan here, and no, I don’t wear wool either. All it took was watching a few PETA videos. It was very hard to watch but one of the most important things I’ve ever done. On a daily basis, we humans are engaged in the mass murder and torture of innocent animals and don’t lose a wink of sleep over it. As for laboratory tests on animals, like this article says, many of these tests are completely unnecessary, because non-human animals are too dissimilar to produce meaningful results. Check out the IAMS video on PETA’s website to see what that company’s testing lab does to beagles. I agree with WTF - before you say it’s no big deal to kill these animals, watch a couple of PETA videos. You can start with this one: http://www.petatv.com and click on the video “Meet Your Meat.” If you still have no problem with killing animals, you’re either in massive denial or you’re just plain heartless.
caroler December 30th, 2007 6:30 pm

Paul M:
Since when is LD-50 good science? See the following for actual research and analysis on the topic: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/56/2/253.
The OECD stopped using the test in 2000 and has replaced it with a more calibrated approach that doesn’t waste nearly as many animal lives. Thoughtful researchers and regulators are developing methods of reducing animal testing: http://www.forschung3r.ch/data/3r_bro_e.pdf. In every case you mention (meat, wool, eggs, research), there are compassionate ways of raising and caring for animals and for reducing their use. If we believe that life is sacred, that should extend to animal life and inform all our decisions, even though life necessarily feeds on life. The challenge is to use our brains to meet our needs compassionately and intelligently. Far too many people, especially on the right, think everything is black and white, and can never see a third way that is better than the other two (Notice that Bush does this over and over again; limiting our choices to two bad alternatives, such as “bomb Iran or WWIII?” It’s deliberate and it’s how you talk to little children). And who needs most of the crap these corporations are testing in the first place? When it comes to nutrition, the rules are pretty simple: a major portion of the human diet should be plant foods, organic is best, and all things in moderation. Testing is only deemed necessary because we have to regulate the amount of poison corporations are ALLOWED to use in their products - below the limit that will kill us or make us sick. The result of all these allowable poisons is a greater and greater body burden of toxic chemicals in our bloodstreams (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/22/body.burden/index.html), so if you care about your kids, you should eat organic and use organic mattresses, cleaners, etc. (obviously, animal testing has FAILED to protect us from this threat; on the contrary, it has been falsely reassuring because of its reductionist approach and the impossibility of testing for every potential symbiotic effect). So, don’t give me this crap about needing to sacrifice roomfuls of animals to save your kids from your own ignorance. Follow the money and figure it out. More and more people are doing so and buying biodegradable cleaners, organic food, etc. With supplements, we’re dealing with ingredients that are not poisonous per se, but that could be if taken in large concentrations. So, the answer is simple: don’t use them! The benefits of green tea are in drinking the tea, not in consuming pills of concentrated “active ingredient” in green tea. But there is money to be made in peddling magic pills and so animals continue to suffer. We have got plenty of work to do on the compassion end as the PETA videos make abundantly clear. Keep visiting CD, and hopefully the brainwashing will clear up!
WTF December 30th, 2007 7:01 pm

Paul M clearly has no clue how to live sustainably, and healthily. The latter is accomplished by staying clear of fools such as himself. Unvaccinated as I am, I am not immune to all diseases, but by not living in the city and limiting my intake of food “additives”, I guarantee that I lead as good a life as anyone. OK, I admit, I did have my wisdom teeth and tonsils removed, but at the age of 61, I still have all my teeth with no fillings, and I need no reading aids. I ride my bike into town every 2 days, 5 miles and an elevation change of 1,000′ each way.

Modern life, for all its advances, makes people weak in soul and body, dependent upon constructs invented by technological advance and greedy corporations. Remember, the BIGGEST factor in life expectancy extension is hygiene and clean, fresh water. Not drugs, not surgical procedures, not nursing homes. Paul M has clearly fallen for the latter scam. His arrogance has poisoned his spirit.
blessthebeasts December 30th, 2007 8:18 pm

As coco pointed out, these tests have nothing to do with advancing health, only to make more profits for these blood-sucking corporations. IAMS is another example of cruelty masquerading as concern for health. On the eve of 2008 we are stuck in 1984.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 8:23 pm

WTF
I appreciate your lifestyle, and I too think it is the way to go, but not everybody can do that. Some people are born with legitimate health issues that make that sort of lifestyle impossible.
On veganism A friend of mine who does not eat meat for religious reasons, had a chronic illness prior to my meeting him, which totally depleted his body, and his father who is a physician (and also a good man) prescribed that he eat meat, and prior to this determined that it was the only way. This is an extreme example, but not the only one.

I live in a relatively small town, no more than three or so miles across, and so I walk wherever it is I want to go. I don’t own a car, and I consolidate my travels.

For the world’s future, I try to be optimistic, but that does not mean I cannot see the downward spiral we are in. We have, so far as I am aware, far exceeded the carrying capacity for our population. I don’t see justice in going around killing people, but I am aware that there are some changes that will need to be made if we want to survive without needless suffering. I don’t know what the right answer is, and so I leave the real people-effecting decisions to those individuals who I think are smarter or longer-sighted than I am.

I know I personally would not want to live a meaningless and wasteful life, and if I find myself in a position where I am mostly taking and not giving anything in return, well I don’t plan to live much longer. Not a depressing thing, just a personal (and only personal) decision on my part, that I could never ask others to make.

I don’t think the right for others to receive medical care should be up to me, as a denier. I would rather help people, and provide for them in any way I can, than play god by killing them, denying them. It is most definitely a heavy burden, and that is why if I were a holy person, I would pray that such a decision is the right way to go.

I look at deer, when I think about populations, and eating meat. We created an environment so unnatural that no animal really has a place anymore. We’ve been breeding animals for our own purposes, cutting down natural flora to serve our agriculture, for thousands of years. The deer, if left in say michigan, unmonitored, will be wiped out by cars and disease, and starvation. Hunters (who often kill as mercifully as possible) keep the population in control, follow permits, and often donate any excess meat to the poor.

WTF said:
. Remember, the BIGGEST factor in life expectancy extension is hygiene and clean, fresh water. Not drugs, not surgical procedures, not nursing homes. Paul M has clearly fallen for the latter scam. His arrogance has poisoned his spirit.

I don’t believe in wasting energy on stuff that isn’t necessary, I don’t think people need to be taking vitamins if they eat well, for example. I don’t believe mass manufacturing is a good idea, and hate the throw away consumer products, that are usually heavy in plastics and other such chemical based- thousand year degradation type products that nobody really knows to recycle, even after making the bad decision in buying them. But here I am on a computer.
I know a lot of people have had life saving surgery, that wasn’t too demanding on the environment. and what about those cancer patients, requiring all sorts of doctors visits, chemotherapy, and helium depleting costly scans, what about them? don’t they deserve medical treatment?

besides, lots of stuff is destroyed and poisoned to help grow the food products needed to feed the human population (though we don’t feed everybody) not all stuff can be organic. Fertilizers make possible a lot of what our prosperity is today, but misused they poison horrifying amounts of ecosystem.

What I’m trying to say, is that in anything we do we have to recognize a duality, and if possible make efforts to counter it.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 8:33 pm

bless the beasts.
as a human and animal,
I understand where your feelings are.
I know it is tough, seeing waste,
seeing violence (and there are a lot of ways we humans are violent) but there is no black and white.
a lot of those blood sucking corporations are made up of loving thoughtful Compassionate. yeah, compassionate people. whose goals are not unlike your own.
I hate the profiteering you speak of. I hate seeing more medicines made to treat ED than to treat malaria, AIDS and cancer. But in this goddamned reality, (one we should fight with all we have) it is those who have the money who control what happens. It is not the poor ignorant fast food eating, inefficient car driving, waste making american who is at fault. They either don’t know better, or don’t have a choice. If all you have is a bridge card, you’ll buy food that is high-cal, cheap, and can stay in your coffin sized freezer, not organic vegetables.
It is a shame, but before I go donating money to PETA to throw paint, I’ll try to help them to do better for themselves. It is a cycle you know, and you’re right on one part. There are vicious people profiting in a lot of it. They want the poor to be fat with poverty, lining their pockets with every poor quality thing they try to buy, the wal-mart lifestyles, and the demands on health and resources surrounding that.
foamweapons December 30th, 2007 10:46 pm

As a green tea enthusiast, I’m appalled at the lack of respect for those awesome little leaves. What did that tea do… that it deserves to be ground up and injected into the eyes of animals? Nothing.

People need to learn to treat their tea leaves with respect, and pamper them with a nice warm bath no hotter than 180 degrees. Anything else is just uncivilized.

Oh yeah, I guess the animals could be treated better too.
WTF December 30th, 2007 10:53 pm

@ren ren
I think I understand more about you now.

I appreciated your story of a vegan friend who “had to eat meat”. Mohandas Ghandi has a similar story when his child fell ill, and a physician prescribed meat. Ghandi resisted as the child became weaker and weaker. Ghandi relented and fed his child a few meals of cow milk. The child survived. Ghandi, however, admitted that his selfishness went against all his principles and was tormented by this memory for the rest of his life.

There is a place for western healthcare; it has shown its usefulness in emergency-care situations. Alas, medical practitioners are only too eager to prescribe the latest and greatest, when no intervention is required. An example of over-medication is antibiotics, too-often prescribed, too-often poorly monitored by the patient, introducing humanity to a swath of mutated bugs we have never seen before, and ones that our healthcare system is too inept to deal with. The result, 10s of 1000s more animals must die to find the next penicillin. Needlessly.

There are some people who may argue that they need intervention. Often, it is due to an unfortunate suite of genes. Other times, the result of a catastrophic accident. But who are we to say that these people should live, when a thousand-fold more will die in Africa because they do not have access to basic sanitation of clean water? No animal testing required there. Charles Darwin has an answer. So too did the ancient Spartans. Am I callous? Perhaps. Am I heartless? Maybe, but read on.

The larger problem is that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. And here in the west we are overcome with an even greater sickness; selfishness. As stated in the above paragraph, westerners will queue for unnecessary procedures and drugs while thousands more die. The diseases of selfishness and arrogance kill many more people than any modern plague. Humanity must rediscover its spirituality and help each other first, not ME.

Finally, I do have health issues that I deal with by using native herbs. I have a medicinal garden of over 50 native plant species that I share with shamans, who in turn, educate me in ways to coexist with the Earth. Easterners call it kharma.
ren ren December 30th, 2007 11:35 pm

“The larger problem is that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. And here in the west we are overcome with an even greater sickness; selfishness. As stated in the above paragraph, westerners will queue for unnecessary procedures and drugs while thousands more die. The diseases of selfishness and arrogance kill many more people than any modern plague.”

WTF

I am glad that we can find agreement.
I do not like to have conflict with people,
left unresolved, even anonymously.

I know of the western arrogance, the selfishness, as I am a product of it, guilty of it. Beyond vietnam, describes well what I mean by that, it is something I refer to more often maybe than I should, as it too has its flaws.

I mean to, by speaking with people, gain from them a perspective that I could not create alone. Sometimes, as I experienced with you, and likely you with me, there is discomfort, or misunderstanding. I realize a lot of that is probably on my part, as I am not always very clear. For that reason, I thank you for sharing, especially, because that discomfort can discourage honest effort in contributing conversation and to my understanding.
Peace Czar December 31st, 2007 12:23 am

What a crock of shit these tests are. Animal testing, especially in these capacities, is a black market of horror cloaked in the legitimacy of science.

And what will these tests indicate for human health? Very fucking little.

Before anyone thinks I’m brash and uninformed, I wrote a research paper on animal testing back in college and have read about the subject thoroughly. But at the end of the day, I don’t have the energy to read such lengthy comments. Perhaps tomorrow.

PAUL M:

What type of scatterbrained thickhead are you? Your ignorant rambling comments don’t even make sense, aside from being pointlessly contrarian and of zero substance.

Let’s give you and a bunch of your friends the LD-50 test. We’ll shove pills down your throats until half of you suffer toxic deaths. Then we know what a “lethal dose” is. You call that empirical science? Ridiculous.
nobodyofimportance December 31st, 2007 4:53 am

this stuff just breaks my heart, vegetarian and have been since I read diet for a new america half a life time ago. That picture is horrible it looks like my little man max
blessthebeasts December 31st, 2007 11:06 pm

ren ren–appreciate your thoughtful comments. I agree that the corporate franken-food industry wants to keep us fat and unhealthy but I think people have to take more responsibility for what they consume. Whenever I (rarely) go into a “regular” grocery store I am appalled at what people have piled into their carts: processed foods aplenty, soda, alot of liquor, very little “real” food! Alot of stores are offering organics too, but it usually sits and rots because it’s a little more expensive. You get what you pay for, I always say!
I also agree that healthy food has to be made more available to the poor. I usually shop at the downtown farmers market which has a program to provide the inner-city poor access to fresh produce which they can purchase with food stamps. Too many poor neighborhoods don’t even have grocery stores, just convenience stores. Again, the profit motive benefits the rich, but does nothing for the poor. It’s just not working.
ren ren January 1st, 2008 2:32 am

As would be evident in my activities today, I am no stranger to poor food and other habits (see liquor)

but I see it as a poor Choice on my part, where others don’t have any feasible alternatives, like the produce programme you mentioned.
lpenek January 1st, 2008 3:50 am

Thalidomide was a global catastrophe because it was not tested for teratogenicisty in animals, not because animal testing was incapable of detecting it. Actually, thalidomide is a useful example, because it was billed as a mild sedative and anti-emetic for, among other things, morning sickness. The question that this article–and thalidomide– raises is when is a drug developed and used, shall we say, “frivolously,” and when does it have a legitimate and perhaps life-saving use. Ironically thalidomide has gone on to be used effectively for just such reasons, to treat multiple myeloma, leprosy and cancer.
One important thing to note is that regulatory agencies like the FDA require animal testing for these food additives. So any food company that wants to introduce a piece of junk food including ingredients X,Y, and Z must complete the animal tests before using them.
My second point is that I believe people that espouse equality amongst all animals are being disingenuous to a large degree. You can’t tell me that if it were a choice between your son or daughter and a mouse that you wouldn’t bring the hammer down (on the mouse). I would submit that if you disagree with this you’re as much a schmuck as a frivolous researcher who injects doughnut fill into a mouse so Kraft can make more cream puffs. The fact is we place a premium on human life, and other animals come second. This doesn’t, and shouldn’t, allow us to open the floodgates to gratuitous animal experimentation.
Let me tell a story that might be illustrative.
I used to work at the house of a older man and his wife. He told me that he and his wife had spotted a rattlesnake that basked in the sun about 10 feet down the slop of his house. His wife was terrified of it and couldn’t stop thinking of it. In addition his grandkids often visited and used to run around the grounds of the house and play. Because his eyes were bad, this guy asked me whether I would shoot it with his shotgun. Now, killing a snake or any creature is distasteful to me, but the bottom line is that this animal was a threat to this guy’s family. I took careful aim and the snake died instantly. I hated doing it, but it gets back to the schmuck factor. Had I refused what would have happened? First of all, this man’s grandkids could well have been in danger. Second, he would have tried to shoot it anyway and with poor eyes he probably would have only wounded it and its death would have been slow and painful.
You may be saying that this case is qualitatively different than using animal life in research. Not really. What I’m saying is we humans will decide upon the fate of other animal life (hopefully judiciously) when it comes down to it, and we will place ourselves first.
Think about the mouse and your baby, and think about the schmuck factor.
ren ren January 1st, 2008 10:20 am

thanks ipenek,
a bit of background like you gave, and a good example can make a big difference.

brings it back into human terms if you will.
WTF January 1st, 2008 11:04 am

@ipenek

You reek of the smuck factor yourself.

Your example of thalidomide was useful. A drug billed as a mild sedative and anti-emetic has no place in society. People only too readily reach for the fast-track cure for minor aches and pains. There are age-old native cures, tested over hundreds of generations that offer equal relief. Need a mild sedative? Brew some tea from the bark of graviola. Morning sickness? Crush fresh cilantro and add a few drops of the liquid to a green tea. Astralagus is also extremely successful. Arrogance and selfishness requires instant gratification.

There are over 3,000 botanicals that are effective in cancer treatments. Some are very effective. But sometimes our time on the plane must end, and we should accept it gratefully.

Rattlesnakes basking in the sun are a sign that they have eaten. As such, they are slow and stupid, and can be easily picked up by the tail, placed into a sack, and removed from the area. I live with many snakes in the NM mountains. Understanding animals is the first step to living peaceably with them.

Your statement ..if it were a choice between your son or daughter and a mouse.. is specious and fallacious. No human life is dependent upon the life of a single mouse, so don’t make it sound so.
blessthebeasts January 1st, 2008 5:17 pm

ren ren–why don’t you be the change you desire and start a program for nutrition for the poor? That’s what we did in Phoenix. Sitting around getting wasted and pigging out isn’t going to help matters.
lpenek January 1st, 2008 5:29 pm

WTF -
I completely agree regarding quick fix drugs, etc., but only because of the experimentation required by law for additives, ingredients, etc. People are free to consume what they want, and you’re free to disagree.

Regarding the schmuck factor. Sounds like you know your rattlesnakes. Too bad you weren’t available. I can pretty much guarantee we wouldn’t have gotten the man’s wife to pick it up by the tail and put it in a sack — let alone drive it somewhere and extricate it.

No human life is dependent upon the life of a single mouse, so don’t make it sound so.

Not completely true. A monoclonal antibody to create a custom-tailored drug can come from a single sacrificed mouse. Admittedly this isn’t done on a routine basis due to cost, and more than a single mouse would certainly be used. The point is moot anyway since I said “a” mouse only to get the point across. I’m quite sure you and I would sacrifice a whole cage or more to save a loved one.
blessthebeasts January 1st, 2008 6:41 pm

In my town, Animal Control will come out and relocate a rattlesnake. And generally, they don’t hang around humans for very long; they’re usually just passing through.
By the way, the point of the article was that the majority of these tests are unnecessary, certainly not a matter of life and death.
lpenek January 1st, 2008 8:39 pm

blessthebeasts - I agree with your last point and have included that throughout my comments as I’m sure you’ve noticed; ren ren has also. Maybe we should leave it at that.
ren ren January 1st, 2008 11:16 pm

Ipenek (yes, thank you)

blessthebeasts
I appreciate your comment,
criticism is important.

the things I talk about here,
are not things just to discuss.
I am head of a small political group,
an action group, but we have a lot of
obstacles to overcome, and a lot more
work to do.

the dynamics of my area are toxic, at best,
and I hope to work in spite of that.
a small example would be that the poor here are convinced that they are prosperous (while they use their ebt cards), or on their way to prosperity, largely because of their militant-ignorant preachers. It is a small and strange perspective maybe, but that is a facet of this problem I know to be real.. it is true of a close friend of mine. I ask whether there should be more available for them, for the babies (and unfortunately there is a steady supply) in their household, and they say that no their church would provide if they are in need. Well, damn it, they’re in need.

It is an american tradition, so far as I understand, to eat poorly, live poorly, and not coincidentally, die poor. This helps the people who have power in my town maintain that power, and help make people like me marginalized, and the populations of poor and employed, stable if not growing.

But you’re right, in the spirit of progress and resistance, there should be something done, there must be something done, and that it should start with me, if it so badly needs to happen. I am not trying to be defeatist with the above example, but I know there to be serious precautions needed in a lot of these activities.

The poor are ostracized and pushed to the outskirts.. there recently have been a series of bank robberies committed by a homeless woman, in my general area. there is no inquiry into why she robbed the first one, or any other of what to me seem like natural questions.

could you tell me more maybe about the program you’re talking about?
blessthebeasts January 2nd, 2008 6:10 pm

ren ren–check out foodconnect.org. It is a local non-profit, but you can sign up for a newsletter there. There are many obstacles, but we have made progress. Education and opportunity are what’s needed to reach out to the poor and break the cycle. Good luck and good health to you.
ren ren January 2nd, 2008 7:46 pm

thank you, and also with you.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)