Written by Heather Faraid Drennan
It never hurts to brush up on answers to questions about animal issues—even seasoned protesters can get a stumper from passersby now and then. See if you know the answers to the following five questions that often pop up in discussions about animal rights:
What's wrong with eggs and dairy products from "free-range" animals? There are no standards for what "free-range" means, so animals on such farms may still spend most of their time in filthy, crowded sheds. Cruel practices such as searing off hens' beaks with a hot blade and relegating male calves to veal crates occur, and when the animals stop producing enough eggs or milk, they are sent to the same slaughterhouses as factory-farmed animals.
If we don't test on animals, what other methods are available? Computer simulations, cell cultures, human cadavers, and clinical trials are just some of the many options researchers can use instead of animal testing to obtain more accurate and cost-effective results.
davedehtre|cc by 2.0
What's wrong with wearing wool? In Australia—where most of the world's merino wool comes from—sheep have been bred to have excessively wrinkled skin in order to produce more wool. The wrinkles collect moisture, which attracts flies, so many farmers resort to "mulesing," a gruesome and cruel procedure in which huge chunks of skin and flesh are cut from lambs' backsides in a crude attempt to prevent flystrike.
Should we put endangered animals in zoos? Endangered animals bred in zoos are rarely released into the wild. Instead, they will spend their lives "warehoused" in cramped enclosures that cannot come close to replicating their natural habitats. As a result, many develop stereotypic behaviors such as pacing, rocking from side to side, and self-mutilation. The only humane and effective way to combat extinction is to protect animals' habitats.
What's wrong with using a choke or prong collar on my dog? As their names imply, choke and prong collars inflict discomfort and pain, and they can severely injure dogs' necks and throats. Far safer and more humane options are no-pull harnesses and halters like the Easy Walk, Halti, or even a standard figure-H harness. For cruelty-free dog-training tips, check out celebrity dog trainer Tamar Geller's video series for PETA.
Have another animal rights question that you've always wondered about? Visit PETA's Frequently Asked Questions page.
Written by Alisa Mullins
In a move that has been a decade in the making, pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk has announced that it will no longer use animals in quality-control tests of each batch of the biological products—including vaccines—that it manufactures. This move will spare more than 700 animals every year.
Scientists in PETA's Regulatory Testing Division (RTD) have been working for years to promote the implementation of non-animal methods for vaccine batch–testing and recently published an article in the science journal Animals highlighting the multipronged approach that they have used to save thousands of animals' lives.
Of the approximately 10 million animals used annually to produce vaccines, about 80 percent are used in horrifyingly painful testing that is conducted for each batch of vaccines, so it is easy to understand why RTD's work is critically important.
Among the successes detailed in the journal article was pushing industry to take full advantage of available alternatives to the use of hamsters and other animals for testing the leptospirosis vaccine. PETA also tackled erysipelas testing and achieved an exciting victory when the U.S. Department of Agriculture replaced the protocol for testing on pigs with the non-animal method.
RTD continues to hammer away at other gruesome government-mandated experiments, including the one for rabies batch potency–testing, which requires injecting hundreds of mice with the rabies virus—for each batch of rabies vaccine. The injections go through the animals' skulls and directly into their brains. Half of the animals receive a protective vaccine, while the others do not. Most of the unprotected mice die painfully and slowly from convulsions, loss of muscle control, and eventual suffocation.
Not only are the tests for vaccine potency typically very painful, drawn out, and lethal for animals, regulators also agree that they are not as effective as modern methods of testing vaccine strength and safety. Better, more precise tests have been developed but have not yet been validated for use.
You can help support RTD's efforts to pressure government agencies to validate effective, sophisticated alternatives to animal tests by donating today.
Written by PETA
PETA's "do test" and "don't test" lists have been an essential part of shopping for millions of people for nearly three decades—and in all those years, we've never made a change to the way we list companies: They either conduct (or pay someone to conduct) painful skin, eye, and other poisoning tests on animals, or they don't.
© Jessica Florence
Now, for the first time ever, we are launching a new category, called "Working for Regulatory Change." This new category recognizes manufacturers that only conduct tests on animals that are required by law and work hard to develop and lobby for the validation of non-animal tests. The requirements for making the list are as tough as boot camp. In addition to refusing to conduct any tests on animals that are not required by law and devoting substantial support and human hours toward the acceptance of non-animal methods, companies must lift the veil of secrecy and talk openly with PETA about what tests they conduct on which species and how many animals are used. And they have to do it every year.
With such tough standards to meet, it's not too surprising that only one company is on the "Working for Regulatory Change" list so far: Colgate-Palmolive. Colgate has been transparent with the public and with PETA about what it does and why, and the company has had a moratorium on all tests on animals for its adult personal-care product line for more than a decade. In its last reporting year, Colgate conducted no tests on animals at all.
We'd never suggest buying products from companies that test on animals, but we also recognize that some companies have never spent one corporate dime on developing and validating non-animal test methods. We challenge these companies to follow Colgate's example and stop hiding and start working for an end to all tests on animals.
Written by Michelle Sherrow
The following was first published on Animal Writes: PETA UK's Blog
Looks pretty good, doesn't it? Almost 100 PETA U.K. supporters took part in an eye-catching photo opportunity in London Saturday to demand that the government not adopt lower standards of protection for animals in laboratories when it incorporates the E.U.'s new directive regulating animal experiments later this year. If the government adopts the directive without changes, all animals will be affected. But dogs and cats in particular would become far more likely to be used in experiments because they would lose the special protections that Britain has given them for more than 25 years.
"Britons don't want more cats and dogs experimented on or more suffering for the millions of other animals used in laboratories. They want fewer animals used and less pain," said PETA U.K. policy adviser Alistair Currie. "We are calling on the public to send a clear message to the government that the citizens will not accept the laws that protect British animals to fall to the level of the EU's lowest common denominator."
A big thanks to all the fantastic PETA U.K. supporters who sent that message loud and clear.
What inspired the makers of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which opens in theaters everywhere today, to create what MTV calls "perhaps the most expensive PSA against animal testing ever filmed"? The film's writers and producers, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, told us in this exclusive interview about the real-life apes who convinced them that their story must be told:
How did your involvement with this movie come about?
Rick had clipped out news articles about chimps raised in human homes and wondered if there was a good story there for a movie. After staring at the articles for a while, he realized that he was looking at a reboot idea for "Planet of the Apes"! We took the idea to Fox and that was the beginning.
Were you aware of the various ways in which great apes are mistreated by humans before you started work on this script? Did you learn anything that really opened your eyes about this issue while doing your research for the film?
Before we started writing the script, we did a lot of research about great apes and chimpanzees in particular. And yes, we were absolutely horrified by the various ways in which great apes are mistreated by humans. As our story came together, it was informed by this information, which indeed helped us galvanize the entire plot.
As you were working on the script, were you concerned that the studio might elect to use live apes for the production? How did you handle that issue?
From the very beginning, we knew that live apes could never be used in the making of this movie—it would be going against one of the major themes of our story. Much to our relief, everyone was on board with this point of view—[Director] Rupert Wyatt, Peter Chernin, and Dylan Clark (our producing partners), as well as the executives at Fox.
Do you feel that technology has gotten to the point where Hollywood can now use computer-generated imagery (CGI) instead of wild animals on set?
We are extremely excited about the fact that technology is getting to the point where Hollywood can rely on CGI instead of real animals on sets. And this technology is quickly improving. It's only going to become more efficient and affordable over time.
What do you feel this film says about humankind's relationship with animals? What are you hoping that people may take away from this film?
Our central theme was always that man's hubris could lead to his downfall—that man should not play God. This obviously extends to his relationship with animals. James Franco's character—and his incredibly nuanced performance—underscores the notion that abuse can sometimes happen even with the best of intentions.
What projects are you working on next?
We've just turned in a film re-write for a big time-travel action movie at Sony. We're currently pitching television ideas that we're very excited about.
When you think of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), do you envision a group that pushes animal testing and endorses the Canadian seal slaughter and the shooting of elephants for sport? Chances are you don't, because the dirty secrets of the WWF are well-concealed behind a cuddly panda bear logo.
But German producer Wilfried Huismann is about to turn that "eco-façade" on its head. In his film Silence of the Pandas, he exposes what he dubs "the dark side" of the mammoth organization. WWF has become so large, says Huismann, by partnering with wealthy corporations that plaster its famous logo on their products as an endorsement in exchange for sizeable donations. Even while WWF purports to protect the environment, it promotes companies that are destroying it.
And we haven't even mentioned the animals WWF leaves in its wake. By pressuring government agencies to require even more animal tests, WWF's lobbying led to the establishment of what will be one of the largest animal-testing programs of all time. But what else would you expect from an organization founded by trophy hunters?
Like many people, I once was fooled by the warm and fuzzy commercials of pandas frolicking in the mist and made a donation to WWF. Now that I've learned what my money supported, the only green this meanie gets from me is when I throw its solicitations in my recycle bin.
You may want to start preparing some celebratory (non-animal tested) tea and (vegan) biscuits. The United Kingdom has taken a significant step toward ending tests of household products on animals. As a member of the E.U., Britain has already made it illegal to test cosmetics or their ingredients on animals, and now the government has made a commitment to ending household-product tests after consulting with companies, trade bodies, and animal protection organizations to come up with a working plan for ending the cruelty of animal testing.
In household-product tests, experimenters feed or inject animals with high doses of toxic chemicals or rub irritants into their skin. New testing methods will include laboratory-grown cultures and computer modeling.
British Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone said, "We believe it is possible to sell household products without inflicting pain and suffering on animals, and it is unacceptable that testing in this area continues."
While experiments of household products on animals might not be banned in other countries yet, they can be banned in your home. Choosing cruelty-free products gets animals one step closer to freedom from the laboratory.
Lackland Air Force Base in Texas is one of a tiny minority of facilities in the U.S. that still torments animals in outdated, cruel, and ineffective intubation training exercises for nurses and pediatric residents. Even though superior and sophisticated simulators that replicate human anatomy and physiology and that better prepare trainees to intubate children are widely used across the country, Lackland insists on abusing live ferrets instead. Trainees force hard plastic tubes down the ferrets' delicate windpipes as many as six times each session in a procedure that can cause bleeding, swelling, pain, scarring, collapsed lungs, and even death.
PETA, along with several military medical experts, has filed a complaint with the U.S. Army Medical Command and the Air Force surgeon general on the grounds that Lackland's animal intubation laboratory likely violates Joint Services Army Regulation 40-33, which requires that non-animal methods be used for training whenever they are available. More than 90 percent of U.S. pediatric residency programs like Lackland's—including those at other military facilities—use only modern infant simulators for intubation training.
Lackland's training methods show a lack of compassion for animals and provide doctors and nurses with inferior training. You can send a polite e-mail to Lackland's Brig. Gen. Leonard Patrick and ask him to end the use of animals for intubation training —for everyone's benefit.
U.K.-based Harlan Hillcrest Farm—a facility that bred thousands of beagles in deplorable conditions before selling them to be abused and killed in cruel experiments—is closing after being besieged by advocates for animals.
During their time at Harlan, dogs were confined to tiny wire mesh cages that were spray-washed just once a month. They were only allowed out of the cages for 20 minutes a week. A former animal technician at Harlan reported that workers wrote curse words on the beagles' faces, shaved pictures into their fur, and punched and kicked the dogs.
And the problems for Harlan don't end there: Last week, the company also announced that it was laying off more than 100 people at one of its Swiss facilities—which breeds and conducts cruel tests on mice, rats, rabbits, hamsters, dogs, and pigs—because business is hurting.
Bad news for Harlan is great news for animals.
While PETA and other animal organizations work to shut down laboratories and their animal suppliers one by one, you can help by buying cruelty-free products and letting companies that experiment on animals and that do business with companies like Harlan know why you won't be a customer.
PETA and its international affiliates put their money where their mouths are—or, rather, put their donors' money where the animals' mouths are, to spare animals from being force-fed and otherwise poisoned with toxic chemicals in experiments. PETA and its affiliates have now provided more than $1 million to fund the development and implementation of non-animal research methods.
One recent recipient of a grant provided by PETA through the generous support of the McGrath Family Foundation is the International QSAR Foundation, which is developing sophisticated computer models that can replace the use of animals for carcinogenicity testing. In experiments to test the cancer-causing potential of a single chemical, more than 400 animals are forced to ingest chemicals for one to two years before they are killed.
PETA U.K. has also provided funds to support skin irritation testing methods that don't use animals. The PETA U.K.–funded method is now accepted for use internationally in place of painful tests on rabbits. PETA U.K. is now funding research to validate non-animal skin allergy tests, which are commonly performed on guinea pigs and mice to test cosmetics and other chemicals. This breakthrough is especially timely since beginning in 2013, cosmetics that have been tested on animals cannot be marketed in the European Union.
Tim Mitchell, president of CeeTox, Inc., says:
This donation is important because it puts PETA and its affiliates in a unique position of not only championing the need for new non-animal tests but also providing money to help make it happen. It sets a good example for others to follow ...
Even in these economic hard times, it is critical that we continue funding the development of non-animal testing methods as a sure-fire way to get animals out of laboratories. If you would like to contribute to this effort, you can target your donation here.
If 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!