I can’t figure out how to embed this video, but AAVS alerted me to the fact that there’s this GREAT clip of Professor Zee Upton talking about her in vitro skin equivalent that’s being used for wound research, and which has great potential for cosmetic testing.  It’s an animal-free testing model, which was created with human skin cells, so it provides more relevant results for humans, in addition to being more ethical.  It’s really fantastic!

Click here to watch the video of Professor Zee Upton describing her in vitro skin equivlent.

This isn’t a real “Dear Emily” question.  It’s a comment I received from a post I wrote a while ago on veterinary experimentation — Veterinary Students: Merchants of Death? I feel like it summarizes my thoughts on veterinary experimentation very well.

I should also state for the record — various people have accused me of bashing the veterinary profession.  I don’t think I am — I think I’m looking at it from a rational perspective, but if you think I’m bashing it, you’re quite welcome to feel that way. :)  My mom is a veterinarian (Hi Mom!), and I almost went to veterinary school, so I think I have more of a critical understanding of veterinary medicine than many people do, and I do tend to attack its weak spots more stridently than other people do (and I’m just argumentative by nature!).  I debate this sort of stuff with my mom at the dinner table all the time.  Also I’ve met a lot of very conservative veterinarians who really don’t care about animal rights (not that they’re not nice people who aren’t deeply devoted to the animals in their care — they just vigorously oppose animal activism of any kind and think animals are here to feed us and provide us with research subjects) — and they’ve made me really question the common belief that veterinarians have animal welfare at heart.  You know large animal veterinary medicine?  The job description of large animal medicine is literally fattening up animals for slaughter.  (I don’t think large animal veterinarians are bad people — I can’t tell you how many nice large animal veterinarians I’ve met who really enjoy visiting the sheep and cows in their care — they’ll tell me about their favorite cow, I kid you not.  They just don’t see the problem with slaughtering animals eventually.  It’s an interesting mindset full of contradictions.)

I also think that once more members of the veterinary community adopt a more animal welfare centric lifestyle, there will be a revolution in animal welfare in this country.  Who better to drive improvements in animal welfare, after all?  If you are a veterinarian, and you’re interested in animal welfare, there’s a conference in November on it– Swimming With the Tide—Animal Welfare in Veterinary Medical Education and Research.  You should also join the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association.

Anyway, here is the comment and my response:

I just wanted to comment on/clarify something about this issue. Although I am sure some individuals actually hurt the animals in order to do surgeries, this is not always the case. For example, after speaking to faculty and students at Iowa State Vet school, I learned that they only use animals that have been injured or are sick already. They absolutely do not injure the animals just for the sake of learning/research. In order to learn surgeries with bone issues, they use PVC pipes and things like that.
Also, Emily referred to torture situations and compared these surgeries with those and I think that that comparison is inaccurate. These animals (at least at Iowa State) are not tortured. They are taken in by the school and cared for when the humane society is going to euthanize them. Then, they are put under like they are going into real surgery (which means they can’t feel anything, since when I have been put under for surgery it is painless, and you wake up and just feel like you forgot the last couple of hours). The surgery is done exactly as it would be done in a real vet clinic as if they animal would be woken up again. Then the anesthetic is increased. So the animal feels no more pain then they would have if they would have just been put to sleep. And they have the chance of living a bit longer and being cared for and played with by the students. They also have the chance of being adopted by the students.

I agree with the fact that this is a very controversial subject. And my heart has some problems with it as well. But I think it is important to at least understand what is happening, and not try to make it sound like these vet schools are torturing these dogs. I am by no means saying these surgeries are “okay” but people should be properly informed before they decide on their own opinion.

My response:

I’m glad you agree that this is a controversial subject, and I’m so GLAD to hear your heart has some problems with it as well. I also agree with you that it is important to at least understand what is happening. However, I disagree with you that these vet schools aren’t torturing these dogs.

Um, interesting choice of examples — PCRM just declared a victory in forcing Iowa State to stop using healthy live animals to practice emergency procedures on. So, I don’t think they made that jump to using pipes willingly — we have PCRM to thank for stopping Iowa State from torturing live dogs.
Second point, so you’re okay with using healthy dogs as subjects for unnecessary surgeries, but you oppose my using the word “torture” for these since according to you, none of these dogs are ever allowed to wake up once they’ve started being attacked with a scalpel? I guess I can honor your opinion there — if that’s the way you feel, that’s the way you feel, and it is your right, and I don’t dispute that. Again though, I’m a little unsure of the whole they’re under anesthesia, therefore it’s painless, argument. I had a pet that died while I was on vacation, and the veterinarian told me they couldn’t keep her alive till I returned — there were no pain medications that would dull her state of pain, and that they could keep her under anesthesia at different levels of consciousness — just a little would basically keep her not moving for the MRI, a lot would almost kill her, etc.

So, I’m wondering — I always find it funny when people claim things aren’t torture or “bad” in any way if they’re done to animals — just substitute the word “human” there and suddenly they turn around. Do you feel the same way? If I took a human being, anesthetized them, performed all kinds of unnecessary procedures on them, and then killed them, would you NOT consider that torture? Or sick? Or do you think that would be good medicine? You wouldn’t worry about the anesthesia levels being high enough? (No jokes about human medicine here, please! I know there are lots of unnecessary procedures that occur there )

That is a really good point about the animals having a chance of being cared for and played with by the students — I really like to think that happens.

I think the current trend in veterinary medicine of moving away from taking unwanted dogs and performing unnecessary, though anesthetized, surgeries on them, and instead turning to shelter medicine, is the far more humane way to go. Long live shelter medicine! (I’ve been keeping up on the veterinary trends, as you can see . . .   )

Thanks for writing in,
Emily

(Do you have a cruelty-free question for me?  Email emilycrueltyfree@gmail.com)

Good news!  The PETA UK blog reports that a ban on household product animal testing, much like the current ban on cosmetic product animal testing, is in the works!  Isn’t it fantastic?

Victory!  MPs Pledge to End Animal Testing for Household Products

In a historic victory for animals, all major political parties – despite their differences, and their current, erm, ‘issues’ – have committed to ending household product testing on animals. And it’s all thanks to the hard work of our members and supporters, who put pressure on MPs via our website, and, of course, our friends at the BUAV, who led the campaign.

The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Tories and the Greens, have all promised to make the policy an ‘election pledge’ – which basically means when the elections have taken place and the new bodies are in their seats, it should be supported by all parties and become a full and permanent ban.

As with all animal testing, the science behind the testing of household products on animals is faulty, and the cruelty involved is inherent. Thousands of animals have languished and died over the years in tests for trivial household products, like washing-up liquid and even air fresheners. I mean, a clean house is one thing, but inflicting pain and taking the life of an animal for it is simply inexcusable.

We’ll keep you informed of its progress once the elections have taken place, so watch this space. In the meantime, also be vigilant as to what you buy when it’s time to don your rubber gloves and, if in doubt refer to this helpful little guide which will point you in the right direction for what’s safe for all animals and what’s not.

Oh My God!  I can’t believe it!  Apparently the Leaping Bunny Shopping Guide is now available as an iPhone application!  It’s completely free, and if you have an iPhone you can now access the guide when you’re shopping.  Now I REALLY want an iPhone . . . 

“Now, shopping from the Compassionate Shopping Guide is even easier for iPhone and iPod touch users. Download this free application to access the Guide when you’re out and about. With the flick of a finger, scroll through over 250 companies that have joined the Leaping Bunny Program, search by product category, or visit the companies’ websites. Many listings include company descriptions and logos for easy brand recognition. 

Companies listed in the Leaping Bunny Guide have pledged to not test on animals, and their ingredient suppliers make the same pledge, resulting in products that are 100% free of new animal testing. You can be sure that Leaping Bunny-approved companies are as committed to manufacturing cruelty-free products as you are to buying them!” 

Download the application today!  

I got this message from Make Animal Testing History — apparently the European Parliament did not vote in favor of restricting scientists from experimenting on monkeys for experiments with no direct application to human health, nor did it vote to phase out primate testing. The silver lining is that the Parliament did vote to set an upper limit on pain levels these poor animals will be allowed to endure during animal testing, and to extend the scope of the current laws to regulate all animal experimentation in Europe (instead of just some), and to establish centers for developing non-animal alternatives (yay!).

Vote brings new law on animal experiments one step closer This week, Members of the European Parliament voted to update the 20-year old EU law on animal experiments (Directive 86/609).             The European Commission published a number of forward-thinking proposals, but sustained lobbying by pharmaceutical and other animal research industries has had a devastating impact. While many MEPs did their best to protect animals, it is particularly disappointing that the Parliament as a whole fell short. The Parliament voted against restricting scientists’ freedom to experiment on monkeys, even for experiments with no direct application to improving human health, and against a phase-out of ‘F1′ generation primates (off-spring of wild-caught primates). However, despite these losses there is still cause for hope. MEPs did vote to set an upper limit on levels of pain animals can endure, to extend the scope of the law to regulate all (not just some) animal experiments, and to establish EU and national centres for developing non-animal alternatives. Our campaign is by no means over. The proposed new law will now be discussed by the Council of Ministers, where representatives of EU Member State governments will decide which measures they want the legislation to contain. We will continue to press for improvements that will prevent suffering and accelerate the replacement of all animal experiments - the Make Animal Testing History campaign will be taking its message to the Council of Ministers in the coming days, and we are determined to achieve a better deal for animals and humane science. “This has been an uphill struggle so far.” says Marie-Claire Macintosh for Make Animal Testing History ”The animal research industry has used every trick available to dissuade MEPs from better protecting animals used in experiments. It’s clear that EU citizens reject animal suffering and support the future of humane science so it’s vital that we don’t lose our resolve for the next stage in this campaign.” Click here for our full response in English, French, German and Spanish. Take action: march for animals in laboratories A great big thank you to every single one of you on our Make Animal Testing History virtual march, it’s great to be marching with you! At the time of writing this campaign update we have nearly 20,000 people marching which is a fantastic start. But we need thousands more if we are going to demonstrate to EU policy makers that they need to listen to our calls for humane science. Please do everything you can to promote the virtual march to friends, family, colleagues, blogs, social network pages, your local animal protection group - we need as many people marching as possible.             Join our virtual march

AAVS has a new campaign against dog and cat torture — please take action!

Animalearn has released a new report entitled “Dying to Learn: Exposing the Supply and Use of Dogs and Cats to Higher Education,” which documents the hidden practices of higher education, proving that science lab students are using former pets at major colleges and universities. It traces the route that brings dogs like Cruella, a shepherd-mix from Michigan, to an unhappy end, becoming victims of dissection, live surgeries, and other procedures, at college and university teaching labs.         A review of official documents reveals that 52% of the colleges and universities examined are using live and dead dogs and cats for teaching and training purposes in life science, veterinary, and medical education, despite the availability of viable alternatives that are being used by other schools. Of particular concern are the cats and dogs purchased from random source Class B dealers who collect animals from shelters and pounds and have demonstrated a history of committing countless violations of the Animal Welfare Act, putting the well-being of animals at serious risk.  Learn more at DyingToLearn.org!  Random source Class B dealers are shrouded by animal mistreatment and cruelty, yet they profit from the sale of animals to research and education facilities. Only Congress can put them out of business. Take Action Now to Help Outlaw Random Source Class B Dealers.  Animalearn, the educational division of AAVS, works with educators, students, and others to achieve quality humane science education without the harmful use of animals.

I admit, I’m not enjoying Fringe as much as J.J. Abrams’ other tv shows, but I still watch it because I’ll watch anything J.J. Abrams does (despite J.J. Abrams shows frequently showing violence towards animals that I have to fast-forward.  Ahem.)  However, I thought the “Unleashed” episode of Fringe was very interesting — it involves a group of animal rights supporters breaking into a lab (just like Dollhouse a few weeks ago!  It’s interesting how the same ideas occur at the same time in various tv shows.  I guess a lot of writing for television involves ripping off stories from the news?  

Anyway, I really enjoyed the depiction of these animal rights supporters as being nice people who just want to free tortured animals.  It’s SUCH a welcome change.  

However, the episode did promote the fallacy that “animal testing is necessary” the way so many television shows erroneously do.  To quote exactly, the lab scientist states that animal testing is “an unfortunate but necesssary step.  it’s better to have an animal experience an allergic reaction to a certain perfume so that you don’t have to.”  

Aaaargh!  Why must they promote this drivel?  Dear screenwriters: do some research please!  There is NO REASON to test allergic reactions with animals.  Especially for perfume!  Sheesh, people.  There are TONS of alternatives to animal testing.  Especially for something as non-lifesaving as perfume causing a rash.  Non-animal tests have been shown to be far less horrific, and actually BETTER than animal-testing in many situations.  Non-animal-using tests (1) mimic human responses better than animal tissue — scientists take discarded bits of skin from surgeries and “grow” it in petri dishes and then run tests on it — for all intents and purposes it reacts much more like human skin than any live rat/rabbit skin would, and animal skin is far different from human skin — human skin is bound tightly to muscle underneath it, whereas most other mammal skin slides over the underlying muscle, human skin has a few hairs on it whereas most animals have a thick coat of fur, etc., (2) non-animal-tests are much cheaper — raising genetically mutated mice to have no immune system and then house and feed them costs a LOT more money than storing petri dishes, (3) allows scientists to run hundreds more tests, leading to better results — you can test skin irritancy on a thousand petri dishes in one day, whereas you’d have to have a really huge kennel to test skin irritancy on a thousand rats in one day, and (4) more environmentally friendly — disposing of dead rat/rabbit bodies infused with hazardous waste takes up a lot of landfill space.    

Want some proof?  There’s some evidence that non-animal-testing is BETTER than animal-testing at detecting skin irritancy:

Cell Culture Beats Animal Tests for Irritancy Accuracy 
posted 4/21/08

A test method derived from cultured human skin cells is more accurate than animal tests at identifying skin irritants, according to a new report from MatTek, Inc., a Massachusetts company that develops alternatives to animal tests. While tests in rabbits misclassified 10 out of the 25 test chemicals, the company’s EpiDerm™ method detected all irritating chemicals correctly.

Another study found that EpiDerm™ and another MatTek cell model, EpiAirway™, contain the enzymes necessary to metabolize toxic chemicals in the same way that these tissues would in an intact human. EpiAirway™ is a model constructed from cells that line the human airway passages, and can be used to test chemicals for potential toxicity to the respiratory system.

So, please remember — there’s NO REASON to test perfume allergies on animals.  Non-animal-testing methods are better!  If you know any screenwriters, please email them this message from me.

MakeAnimalTestingHistory.org is holding a “virtual march” to support updating Europe’s law on animal experiments to better protect animals and increase action on non-animal alternatives.  If you live in an EU country, PLEASE join the virtual march!  You can also join if you’re non-EU — I joined!  Just for fun!  Apparently 222 other Americans have joined as well (!).  

Isn’t the whole idea of a virtual march clever?  It has a really cute animated march going on — if you click on the animated marching people, you can see their names and countries.  (Your name and animated icon if you sign up!)

Here is the proposed revision the march is in support of:

Revision of Directive 86/609

More than 115 million animals a year are used in laboratories around the world[1], with around 12 million animals used annually in the European Union alone[2].

Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, is the European legislation that regulates animal experiments. It is more than 20 years old and urgently in need of updating in order to better protect animals in laboratories and to achieve the ultimate replacement of animals with more advanced, humane alternatives. A revised law has now been proposed.

Surveys and opinion polls clearly show that the public demands better protection for animals, with 79% of EU citizens believing there is insufficient public funding at European level for the development and validation of alternative methods to replace animal experiments[3]. The new EU law must reflect this high level of public concern and apply the requirement of the Amsterdam Protocol which obliges the EU to pay full regard to the welfare of animals in its research policy.

To benefit people and animals, replacing unsatisfactory animal experiments with more relevant and reliable non-animal methods must be the ultimate goal. Revision of Directive 86/609 provides Europe with an opportunity to lead the world in the development of non-animal methods. To achieve that the EU needs a targeted and properly funded strategy that places replacement at the heart of the new legislation.

I’m still amazed at the bee-vegan inclusions on the vegan/100%-cruelty-free list.  Doesn’t anyone want to write to me about the horrors of modern beekeeping?  Seriously, I’d be interested.  If you’ve just gotten here and feel impassioned against promoting any kind of animal exploitation, you can still vote here against allowing bee-products.    

Anyway, the Leaping Bunny people have come out with a quiz!  (I love quizzes, that’s why I’m excited . . )  Anyway, go take the Leaping Bunny quiz to test your cruelty-free knowledge!

In honor of the EU banning animal testing for cosmetics, White Rabbit Beauty — the only American store that sells only 100%-cruelty-free-Leaping-Bunny-Approved products — is having a storewide sale until April 21st!  You can buy anything there and know you’re not causing any harm to any animals.  At marked down prices!  Go for it!