Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.

Defend Animals From Environmental Defense

Written by PETA | August 6, 2007

rat_inhalation.jpgSadly, this headline isn’t a joke. To say that our history with the so called environmental group Environmental Defense (ED) is sordid is a bit of an understatement. Let’s just say that it more than ruffles our feathers that ED reps sit on all sorts of gov’t panels and always advocate for more animal tests—and against first seeing what previous info there may be on whether people are even exposed to a substance. It also didn’t sit too well with us when PETA reps were walking the halls of the EPA pleading for anyone to look at methods to replace lethal dose testing and ED told us to our face that they were not interested in the alternative method. And it really got under our skin when ED fought tooth and nail against our push (eventually successful) to incorporate some non-animal toxicity testing methods into the HPV program instead of injecting animals with toxic substances into their abdomen.

To say that ED is notorious for pushing animal testing is also an understatement, so I guess it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that the group is once again calling for a massive animal-testing program despite clear evidence that animal testing does not protect human or environmental health. Now this organization has set its sights on the new field of nanotechnology and, together with chemical giant DuPont, has designed a testing strategy for nanomaterials that relies heavily on crude and cruel animal tests.

It’s incredibly ironic to me that people involved in a field as cutting-edge as nanotechnology are pushing for the same old animal tests that failed to predict the hazards of asbestos, mercury, benzene, chromium, arsenic, and tobacco smoke, to name just a few. ED should look at the many human-relevant non-animal testing methods available now and use a step-by-step approach to testing. Since even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admits that 92 percent of drugs that pass animal experiments fail in clinical trials in humans—and since animal tests are expected to fail even more miserably with nanomaterials because their minute size does not allow efficient tracking in animals—ED’s position is indefensible.

Notable scientists specializing in nanomaterials safety research are pushing for the use of existing in vitro (non-animal) test methods and the further development of additional ones. A recent landmark report is pushing for the same. But ED remains oblivious to the recommendations of prominent scientists and refuses to recognize that experiments on animals have severe limitations—both ethical and scientific.

And this is where you come in. Click here to take ED’s online survey and tell them what you think about their pushing cruel animal tests. You can also click here to take action from our site.

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • Heather says:

    This is really surprising and sad. I really don’t see how animal testing will do anything to preserve the environment. Animals are not the ones messing it up! Couldn’t their time and money be more wisely used?

  • K says:

    I took the survey and gave them a piece of my mind! politely of course

  • William says:

    Wow. As a recent environmental studies alumnus from Western Michigan University I am going to inform our whole department about Environmental Defense’s antinature attitude.

  • Lucas Solowey says:

    I took the survey and gave them hellpolitely but direct it makes me sick to see these groups supporting animal cruelty. its hypocritical! p.s if you guys ever need my help on eco campaigns..i did study with a top environmentalist group

  • Steve says:

    I took the survey and don’t see how ED can even compare itself to the other bona fide environmentalwildlife groups like WWF Audubon Sierra Club etc. The scary thing is that when you go to their website there isn’t anything that jumps out at you about their position on animal testing. A wolf in sheep’s clothing if you’ll pardon the analogy. Many people must support them without realizing what they do behind the scenes.

  • Ariel says:

    to ANONYMOUS When there is BIG money involved and especially when our govt. participates in “sweetheart” deals with “people” like that which is often unfortunately yes they can and do get away with it…even though there are alternative methods. $$$$$$$$$ is their ONLY goal and they couldn’t care less about the public’s criticism. So that’s why us animal rights’ activists have to do what we can not only to primarily help the animals but also to voice our outrage at our tax dollars being used for those barbaric archaic methods that are totally inaccurate. ED and our govt. likes to believe that Americans are stupid and doesn’t have any power! Money talks the loudest BUT there is more power in numbers!

  • Susannah says:

    I just took the survey. I can see that ED truly cares about animals just sbout as much as USDA does!

  • Anonymous says:

    Can they really get away with this when there are alternative testing methods available?!! I am heartsick to think they can especially in the face of so much CRITICISM!

  • Sarah says:

    This is SICK! People need to stop these abusive freaks. And I plan on being one of those people. People need to realize that there are other ways to test than on animals.

  • Ariel says:

    I read ED’s survey but did not participate in it. I think it is slimey and deceptive. Sure those issues are highly important to us but the way ED presents their survey it seems like they want the public to give them approval for the atrocities that they do without telling the whole story. Very sneaky! Now on to the “take action” click.

  • millie says:

    What a horrible ghastly cruel inhuman sadistic backwards terible barbaric beastly tyrannical unmerciful vicious callous coldhearted malevolent bunch of thugs.

  • Jason Levy says:

    Environmental Defense is sick!

  • Wil says:

    This is one of the saddest posts on your blog. I’m taking the survey.. Thanks for all you do!

  • Brianna Fritchey says:

    Just today I convinced my sister that it was finally time to clear out her emails and there were dozens of things from ED asking for her money to support animal testing! We didn’t even sign up to recieve anything from them so I guess they’re pretty desperate to get money for their useless tests.