Written by PETA
People have been safely using toothpaste, dish soap, and other household products for generations, but that didn’t stop REACH, the European Union's massive chemical-testing program, from torturing and killing about 200,000 animals in tests on the ingredients in these products, among many other chemicals. A recent report by the agency that oversees REACH reveals that companies are ignoring the requirement to use every available alternative to experimenting on animals and are instead putting thousands of animals through suffering that most people wouldn't wish on their worst enemy.
According to the U.K.'s Daily Mail, "Among these 'unnecessary' tests were 188 studies on eye irritation carried out on rabbits; 336 skin sensitisation studies on guinea pigs or mice; 254 short-term toxicity tests on fish; and 33 genetic toxicity tests on mice."
PETA U.K. is calling out the government officials responsible for enforcing REACH by placing this ad in an influential European politics magazine, The Parliament, and asking Europeans to write to the European Commission.
In related news, PETA and its international affiliates have written to the European Chemicals Agency, which oversees REACH, demanding a moratorium on reproductive toxicity testing until a newly approved refinement―that can spare hundreds of thousands of animals―is in place.
In the meantime, you can help animals on both sides of the pond by buying only cruelty-free products. Visit the PETA Living page for lists of companies that do and don’t test on animals.
Written by Lindsay Pollard-Post
The agency that oversees the largest animal testing program of all time has just announced new guidelines that mean that the number of animals who could fall victim to toxicity testing during the course of the program has dropped—by 4.5 million!
This news from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) comes in response to a detailed letter PETA initiated in cooperation with other animal protection groups. That letter was written after we learned from a chemical manufacturer that under the E.U.'s new Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) Regulation, a number of duplicative tests were going to be conducted.
PETA, along with PETA Europe, the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, Eurogroup for Animals, HSI Europe, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, voiced concerns about the likelihood that companies would conduct duplicative animal tests for some types of toxicity when registering their chemicals under REACH. The letter explained how the redundant testing could be avoided.
ECHA was quick to issue a news release and a factsheet instructing chemical companies not to conduct initial toxicity screenings if they are planning to conduct more comprehensive tests during the later stages of REACH. Based on ECHA's own figures, 6,000 chemicals may fall under the relevant information requirements, and because up to 735 animals may be used for the initial toxicity screening for each chemical tested, ECHA's response has the potential to save the lives of 4.5 million animals.
There's still much work to be done, as REACH will still cause massive animal suffering. But you can bet your (vegan) boots that our next step will be to do everything possible to make sure that companies follow ECHA's new guidelines so that as many animals as possible will be spared.
Written by Shawna Flavell
you have a general question for PETA and would like a response, please e-mail Info@peta.org. If you need to report cruelty to
an animal, please click
here. If you are reporting an animal in imminent danger and know where to find the
animal and if the abuse is taking place right now, please call your local
police department. If the police are unresponsive, please call PETA
immediately at 757-622-7382 and press 2.
Follow PETA on Twitter!
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? Read more.