|
| RESTRAINED RESEARCH RABBITS |
|
|
| FOR DRAIZE SKIN IRRITANCY TEST |
Domestic rabbits, as well as other animals, are used as subjects
to tests the effects of potentially harmful substances and products by the cosmetic, personal care, and household manufacturing
industries. The ability of animal tests to predict human safety has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
That means that these products are not necessarily safe for you. There have been valid, non-animal alternative methods developed
yet the results of testing on animals are accepted without validation even though companies are not legally required to test
products on animals. They do it to protect themselves against product liability suits.
THE DRAIZE EYE IRRITANCY
TEST
Generally, 3 to 6 animals are restrained so that they are unable to resist irritation or injury. A liquid
or powder test substance is placed in one eye of each of the animals. The opposite eye serves as a control. The animal may
be allowed to blink or their eyelids are held together. Their eyes are evaluated after one to three days and some continue
to be evaluated up to three weeks. They are given no medical care or pain medication and are usually killed at the end of
the experiment.
THE DRAIZE SKIN IRRITANCY TEST
The skin of the animal is shaved and highly
concentrated solutions are applied to the bare skin. The skin is then examined for signs of redness, blistering or burns.
Some burns are third degree, that is burned the whole way through the skin.
| WANT THE POSTER? |
|
|
| CLICK THE PHOTO TO ORDER. |
WHAT
YOU CAN DO:
BUY / CONSUME CRUELTY FREE
Buy cruelty free cosmetics and cleaning products. Read the labels. Make
sure that the product and none of the ingredients used to make the product were tested on animals. Use these links for guidance:
Contact the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics here for a free shopping guide at www.leapingbunny.org or call
1-888-546-2242.
In Defense of Animals has a campaign against Proctor & Gamble (P & G) because of their product testing on animals, especially
rabbits. Click here to see how you can help.
Animals in product testing: Who is and is not testing on animals? The National Anti-Vivisection Society has a search option
to help you select humane products.
Click here for 500 companies that don't test on rabbits or any other animals.
A) Actonel,,
Adidas,, Aim,, Ajax,, Always,, Arm&Hammer,, Armor All,, Arrid,, Aussie,, Asacol,, Aveeno,, Axe
B) Baby Magic,, Bain de Soleil,, Banana Boat,, Ben Gay,, Bic,, Biotherm,, Bounce,, Bounty,, Boyle-Midway,,
Braun,, Brillo,, Brita
C) Cacharel,, Calvin Klein,, Camay,, Cascade,, Charmin,, Chesebrough-Pond,, Church&Dwight,, Clairol,,
Clean &Clear,, Clorox,, Close-up,, Colgate,, Cottonelle,, Coty,, Coppertone,,
CornSilk,,Cover Girl,, Crest
D) Daily Defense,, Dantrium,, Davidoff,, Dawn,, Del Laboratories,, Desitin,, Dial Corporation,, Didronel,, Dove,, Downy,, Drano,, Dreft,, Dr. Scholl’s,,
Duracell,,
E) Easy Off,, Edge,, Era,, Erno Lazlo,, Eukanuba,,
F) Fab,, Faberge,, Fantastik,, Febreze,,
Fiber Sure,, Finesse,, Fixodent,,Folgers,,Formula409,, Fresh Step
G) Gain,, Garnier,, Giorgio,, Giorgio Armani,, Gillette ,, Glad,, Glade,, Gleem,, Glow
H) Head and Shoulders,,Healing Garden,, Helene Curtis Industries,, Helena Rubinstein,, Herbal Essences,,
Hills Pet Nutrition ,, Home Café,, Hugo,,
I) Iams,, Infusium ,, Ivory
J) Johnson&Johnson,, Joop,, Jovan,, Joy
K) Kandoo,, Kenneth Cole,, Kimberly Clark Corp,, Kleenex,, Kotex
L) LaCross,, Lady’s Choice,, Lancaster,, Lancome,, Lever Bros,,
L’Oreal ,, Liquid Plumber,, Listerine,, Lubriderm,, Luvs,, Lysol
M) Macrobid,, Marc Jacob,, Matrix Essentials,, Max Factor,, Maybelline,, Mead,, Melaleuca,, Mennen
Co,, Mentadent,, Metamucil,, Millstone,, Mop&Glo,, Mr. Clean,,
N) Nair,, Naturistic,, Neoteric Cosmetics,, Neutrogena,,
New
Dana Perfumes,, New York Color,, Noxell,, Noxzema,,
O) OFF!,, Ogilvie,, Olay Co/ Oil of Olay,, Old English,, Old Spice,, Oral B,, Oust
P) Pampers,, Palmolive,, Pantene,, Pearl Drops,, Pert Plus,, Pfizer,, Physique,, Pine-Sol,, Plax,,
Pringles,, Puffs,, Playtex Products,, Pledge,, Ponds,, Post-It (3M),, Procter & Gamble,,
Pull-Ups,, Purex
R) Ralph Lauren Fragrances,, Reckitt Benckiser,, Redken,, Renuzit,, Resolve,, Richardson-Vicks,, Rimmel,, Roc
S) Safeguard,, Sally Hansen,, Salon Selectives,, Schering-
Plough,, S.C. Johnson,, Scope,, Scotch (3M),, Scott Paper,,scrubbing bubbles,, Secret,, Shout,, Skintimate,, Soft Scrub,,
SoftSoap Enterprise,, Soft Sheen,, S.O.S,,
Speed Stick,, Splenda,, Spray’N Wash,, Stetson,, Suave,, Sure,, Swifer,,
T) Tampax,, Thermacare,, Thermasilk,, 3M,, Tide,, Tilex
U) Unilever
V) Vaseline,, Veet,, Vichy,, Viks,,
Visine
W) Windex,, Woolite
Z) Zest,, Ziploc
Every year millions of rabbits, dogs, cats and monkeys
are blinded, gassed, poisoned and killed in laboratories by these companies so that they can stick a ‘new and improved’ label on their products.
Newer, alternative methods of testing exist: (Cell Culture
Testing , Episkin, Microfluidic Chips, Incubated Eggs)
These companies resist progress because the crude nature of animal testing
allows them to market many products that might be determined to be too toxic if cell culture tests were to be conducted.
TAKE ACTION
We lagomorphs lovers are the only voice our beloved rabbits have so we must speak up
for them. Here are some suggestions:
Get a free "Guide to Compassionate
Shopping" (see link above) and purchase products from companies that do not test on animals. Mention to the sales staff
that you are buying it because it isnot tested on animals.
Write to companies that test on animals and let them know
why you are not buying their products.
Write to companies that do not test on animals and let them know that is why you switched
to their products.
Ask the places you shop to stop carrying brands that are manufactured by companies that do not have
cruelty-free policies.
Ask your hair stylist if s/he uses cruelty-free hair products at their salons.
Inform
others about the senseless cruelty involved in product testing using animals.
Write letters to the editor about animal
testing, problems with rabbits' legal status, or any other misuse of rabbits.
Do not donate to charitable organizations
that financially support animal testing.
INVEST/DONATE
CRUELTY FREE
Click here for a list of cruelty free charities.
Click here to read about how you can live cruelty free.
COMPLAIN ABOUT USELESS ANIMAL TESTING
Media Release 11 Dec. 2006
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS UNDER SCRUTINY:
recent scientific studies demonstrate poor predictivity for human medical outcomes.
Animal experiments have long
been the subject of controversy. Although many claims have been made either way, until recently large-scale scientific studies
of their efficacy in advancing human health have been rare. Since 2004, however, several such studies have been published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and presented at international scientific conferences, at which some have received awards.
The results have been remarkably consistent: the stress laboratory animals experience is greater than commonly understood,
and experiments on them contribute far less to the advancement of human medical progress than advocates often claim. The abstracts
and, usually, complete texts of these published studies, as well as published reviews of non-animal experimental models, and
relevant governmental reports, are freely downloadable from www.AnimalExperimentFacts.info, which was launched today.
Also launched today is www.HumaneLearning.info. It is an unfortunate fact that biomedical education has traditionally involved the harmful use of animals. Many
millions of animals have lost their lives in attempts to teach practical skills and demonstrate scientific principles which
have, in most cases, been established for decades. However, many thousands of humane educational alternatives are now catalogued
in databases, covering every educational level and academic discipline. These include computer simulations, videos, plasticised
specimens, ethically-sourced cadavers (obtained from animals that have been euthanased for medical reasons, or that have died
naturally or in accidents), models, diagrams, self-experimentation, and supervised clinical experiences.
www.HumaneLearning.info provides:
▪ over 250 published studies describing humane teaching methods, sorted by academic discipline,
including a review of 28 studies conclusively demonstrating that students using well designed humane alternatives achieve
learning outcomes at least as good as those achieved via traditional harmful animal use;
▪ detailed submissions describing
the alternatives available in certain academic disciplines, that have successfully resulted in their introduction at some
universities;
▪ a large photo gallery of humane alternatives and harmful animal use in education;
▪ links
to free on-line alternatives,
▪ links to alternatives databases,
▪ links to alternatives libraries,
▪
links to humane education email lists;
▪ links to other humane education web sites; and,
▪ resources to
guide and assist students who wish to conscientiously object to harmful animal use in their education.
It is
my hope that these resources may assist others to successfully introduce humane alternatives to harmful animal use in their
own universities and schools, as my colleagues and I have done at several universities worldwide. It complements my existing
site www.LearningWithoutKilling.info which provides encouragement and guidance for students unwilling to harm animals during their education.
Further
information:
Andrew Knight BSc., BVMS, CertAW, MRCVS
Veterinarian and Animal Advocate
www.AnimalConsultants.org
33 REASONS WHY ANIMAL TESTING IS POINTLESS
(1)
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals.
(2) According to the former
scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25% of the time'.
(3) 95% of drugs passed
by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
(4) At least 50 drugs
on the market cause cancer in laboratory animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.
(5) Procter & Gamble
used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumors in mice. They said the animal test results
were 'of little relevance for humans'.
(6) When asked if they
agreed that animal experiments can be misleading 'because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and
humans', 88% of doctors agreed.
(7) Rats are only 37%
effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
(8) Rodents are the animals
almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (e.g.
lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two cannot be compared.
(9) Up to 90% of animal
test results are discarded, as they are inapplicable to man.
(10) The results from
animal experiments can be altered by factors such as diet and bedding. Bedding has been identified as giving cancer rates
of over 90% and almost nil in the same strain of mice at different locations.
(11) Sex differences among
laboratory animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
(12) 9% of anaesthetized
animals, intended to recover, die.
(13) An estimated 83%
of substances are metabolized by rats in a different way to humans.
(14) Attempts to sue the
manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: 'data from animals could not be extrapolated
safely to patients'.
(15) Lemon juice is a
deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.
(16) Genetically modified
animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate
without treatment.
(17) 88% of stillbirths
are caused by drugs, which are passed as being safe in animal tests, according to a study in Germany.
(18) 61% of birth defects
are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times post war levels.
(19) One in six patients
in hospital is there because of a treatment they have taken.
(20) In America, 100,000
deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalized by medical treatment.
(21) A World Health Organization
study showed children were 14 times more likely to develop measles if they had been vaccinated.
(22) 40% of patients suffer
side effects as a result of prescription treatment.
(23) Over 200,000 medicines
have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organization, only 240 are 'essential'.
(24) A German doctors'
congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
(25) The lifesaving operation
for entopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.
(26) According to the
Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great
Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of
anesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading
evidence from animal data'.
(27) Aspirin fails animal
tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe
medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
(28) In the court case
when the manufacturers of Thalidomide were being tried, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed that animal tests
could not be relied on for human medicine.
(29) Blood transfusions
were delayed 200 years by animal studies; corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
(30) Despite many Nobel
prizes being awarded to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.
(31) At least 450 methods
exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
(32) At least thirty-three
animals die in laboratories each second worldwide; in the UK, one every four seconds.
(33) The Director of Research Defense Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was
asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
|
