I was saddened to learn that the number of animals used in (inhumane) animal experiments in the European Union increased by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005 — that’s an increase of 339,279 animals. France leads the European countries in number of (inhumane) experiments at 2.2 billion animals used in 2005 (though that’s apparently down 40% from France’s 1990 number, which is a very good thing). Austria wins the most humane European Union member country title with only 167 animals used in any experiments in 2005 — apparently Austria has banned cosmetic animal testing entirely, and has a strong commitment to decreasing medical animal testing — Austria has even instituted some sort of governmental/legal commitment to promote the development of alternative methods in scientific research.
Overall, 12.1 million animals died in laboratory experiments in the European Union in 2005. As you can see in the chart (sorry it’s so small — you’ll have to click on it to read it — the wordpress photo editor isn’t working today apparently) — rodents and rabbits made up 78% of the total, with mice being the most commonly used rodent (53%) followed by rats at 19%. The second most used group was cold-blooded animals (which surprised me — I didn’t realize that many reptiles were tortured in experiments) — at 15%. The third biggest group of animals was birds at 5% of the total (birds?!). Horses/donkeys/pigs/goats/sheep/cattle made up 1.1% of the total. Non-human primates made up 0.1% of the total. No great apes were used in any experiments (yay!). Other animals that were used were: hamsters, ferrets, gerbils, old world jerboas, chinchillas, beavers, ground squirrels, aremenio, foxes, badgers, seals, otters, fitchew, boars, bats and shrews, llamas, moles, European bison and red deer, coturnix japonica and bob-white quail, poultry species, zebra finches, canaries, parakeets, parrots, and farmed avian species.
Most of these animals — 60% — were used in experiments that will eventually help human medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry, and “fundamental biology” studies. 15.3% were used in production and quality control of products and devices for human medicine, veterinary medicine, and dentistry. 8% were used for toxicological and safety evaluations. 5.5% were used for testing cosmetics and toiletries.
I’m not going to argue against any of these inhumane experiments, much as I dislike them, because most of them will save human lives — other than to say that I hope they will save human lives and not be wasted, and I hope scientists are strenuously looking for other ways to perform these experiments using in vitro techniques instead of live animals. (Except for the 5.5% of the animals that were used for testing cosmetics or toiletries — I think those are awful, and I’m glad they will be stopped when the ban on animal testing goes into effect in 2013.)
But what really bugs me is the language of this report. I’ve tried to replicate the exact language as it appeared in the report in my descriptions above — no animals were “hurt” or “killed” they were instead “used,” and no acknowledgment of their sacrifice is made. (I’d like to apologize to the writers of this report for attacking their language — I suspect the writers were forced to use this kind of language to be taken seriously in the scientific community — and to be fair I’d like to state for the record that I think this is a beautifully written report that is far, far easier to read than many of the animal testing things I’ve read lately, and it’s a great resource for people who are against animal testing.)
But anyway, these 12.1 million animals (unwillingly) sacrificed their well-being and lives for the betterment of (human) science. Yet no humans have thanked them, or acknowledged the suffering they go through to make our lives better. This really makes me feel like we’re really ungrateful as a society. I wish we had views towards animals more like what I imagine some Native American cultures have — at least, I’ve heard some Native American cultures support hunting and eating animals, but they then thank the animals for their sacrifice and express gratitude to the animals for providing them with sustenance (just to be clear, I think veganism would be even better, but I do prefer gratitude to no gratitude). I found at least one Cherokee legend that describes this sort of attitude on this firstpeople.us website. Isn’t that a much more graceful way to live? Rather than “using” animals and pretending no sacrifice was involved?
Tags : animal testing, austria, birds, cherokee, chinchillas, eu, ferrets, france, hamsters, mice, rabbits, rats, reptiles, rodents
Categories : against animal testing, cruelty free
RSS feed for comments on this post
PearlA
December 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Maybe I should change my statement regarding the EU (from yesterday) to … “some of the EU” ???
>5.5% were used for testing cosmetics and toiletries.
Maybe I can find some comfort in that? That the lowest percentage is for the “vanity products”? Any idea what the numbers were like back in the nineties or eighties? I’d be interested to see how the numbers have dropped for cosmetics testing over the decades. My guess would be that it’s been quite dramatic. Do you have any statistics on anything like that?
>The third biggest group of animals was birds at 5% of the total (birds?!).
I bet I can explain that. Birds have an air-sac system that works differently from mammal lungs. As a result, birds are far more sensitive to airborne toxins. Fumes that will make a human sick, will kill a bird first. You’ve heard how they used to take birds down into mines and caves to test for poisonous gases? You’ve heard of “taking the canary down into the mine”? This is why. The bird was being used as an early warning system against poisonous gas, due to the more sensitive biology of ‘birdie lungs’.
We have pet parrots (in my defense though, over half of them were rescues/adoptions from previously neglectful homes). One of the first rules of keeping parrots is that you’re *NOT* supposed to use nonstick cookware. The reason is that at high temperatures, the nonstick coating gives off fumes that can kill the birds. I’m entirely serious … look up parrots and nonstick coating on google and you’ll see how dangerous it can be to the birds. Another thing is fumes from glues and paints. If you have to have any home improvements done, you’re supposed to do them in warm weather, when you can ventilate the house for days.
As a sidenote, I’ll also mention that the stuff in nonstick coating isn’t exactly good for humans either. DuPont got in trouble with the EPA some years back because they were caught shredding documents that showed that they *knew* nonstick chemicals can be dangerous to humans too. Remember when Philip Morris got in trouble for shredding documents? It was similar to that, and the EPA caught them. So the manufacturers do know, but it has not become widespread knowledge. (Obviously, to protect profits.) Indeed, a lot of people don’t even know that the nonstick fumes can kill birds.
You see, nonstick coating, and plastics, are both polymer based. At high temperatures, polymers can leech out of their substrate, and emerge as fumes or leech into food being cooked on that substrate. I can say that knowledgably, because you might not know this, but I actually have a Ph.D. in physics from Lehigh University (1996). My research/thesis topic was “The Statistical Mechanics of Polymers at an Interface” … in other words, how polymers move around the surface of their substrate. My research involved how they laid down on, or ’stuck out from’, their surface, depending on temperature and pressure. ……. The moral of the story (and note, I didn’t have to do any animal testing to tell you this), is that if you can avoid heating your food in plastics, or even nonstick, please do. This is why I don’t use nonstick, and try to heat our foods in pyrex or glass when using the microwave. I do store food in plastics, but the important thing is not to *heat* in plastic.
(Another tidbit on the subject … Febreeze and Glade scented candles are also being reported as causing parrot deaths. And that has multiple ramifications. For one thing, with all the animal testing they supposedly do, it hasn’t stopped pet parrots from dying. If the animal testing is so “good”, then why are people losing beloved pets? See what I’m getting at? What I’m saying is that all that testing they did appears to have been *useless*. If you go by the ‘canary down the mine’ theory, then these fumes are dangerous to *us* too. Not only are beloved pet birds dying, but in doing so, they seem to be warning us that it’s dangerous for us too. So what, then, was the good of any testing that the companies did? The testing appears to have been useless, and our own birds are literally dying in the process of warning us of the dangers in our own homes! I hope I’m phrasing this in an understandable way. It’s wrong, and utterly ridiculous, in so many ways. This is why we keep chemicals to a minimum in this house. Some basic clorox and basic lysol, but that’s it. Scented things aren’t allowed in our house, and we espeically ban any types of aerosols.)
>at least, I’ve heard some Native American cultures support hunting and eating animals, but they then thank the animals for their sacrifice and express gratitude to the animals for providing them with sustenance
That is true. If memory serves me correctly, something like that is even shown at the beginning of the Last of the Mochicans film. Things like that were documented, I believe, in writings of early American settlers.
Again, sorry the ramble.
Emily
December 17th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Oh I should have mentioned — there have definitely been a lot of improvements in the numbers of animals used in cosmetics experiments! I’m sure I’ve seen information on that somewhere. It is really comforting to think that scientists have had so much success decreasing the numbers.
Thanks for enlightening me about birds’ air sac systems — so that’s why animal experiments use so many birds — I had heard about canaries in coal mines, I just didn’t realize all birds were so useful for airborne toxicological purposes. It all makes so much sense! Though I really hope scientists stop using live birds to test for airborne toxins. (Especially if, as you suggest, live birds are ineffective — I had no idea Febreze and Glade were killing parrots in peoples’ homes despite the fact that they were probably tested in laboratories on live birds.)
That’s actually very interesting that all the animal testing scientists are doing on live birds — 5% of all animals used after all — has proven to be ineffective for air fresheners like Febreze and Glade. Assuming laboratory tests with birds don’t automatically allow for at least a few birds to be impaired by the experiment, that would mean that the tests scientists are running are maybe either too short-term to show how Febreze will affect parrots in the long runs, too simplistic to show how Febreze interacts with other chemicals in peoples’ houses, or detrimental to such a small percentage of parrots that no laboratory test would be large enough to discover. Hmm . . .
Wow, you wrote a PhD thesis on polymers? How fascinating! I’ve always been a little suspicious of teflon, but I definitely will not buy any in the future — thanks for explaining its dangers to me!
Wow, the Native American respect for animals is shown at the beginning of Last of the Mohicans? I’d completely forgotten that. That is an excellent movie
Kimber
January 14th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I can’t agree with you more that we are an ungrateful race of beings, and our disregard for all forms of life–no matter how small or seemingly unworthy of our gratitude–is inexcusable. I just started reading your blog, and it’s nice to find someone else who thinks the state of animal cruelty is horrendous! So many people either don’t know about what goes on or choose to ignore it, and the culture of making people concerned with animal welfare seem “crazy” is really sad. Why does it have to be wrong for people to have compassion for all living things? Anyway, enough of my rant; I look forward to future posts!
Emily
January 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Hi Kimber,
Welcome! I’m so glad you agree with me — and I’m psyched that you’re reading my blog!
Natasha
April 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
It’s disgusting how animals are treated in this world. I hate people more and more each day.
Here in Canada an animal in a lab suffering in agony dies every 17 SECONDS!
Emily
April 21st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Every 17 seconds? That is appalling. Nice fact to know though
6 Responses