Skip to Main Content

Million Baby Crawl–What Does It Mean for Animals?

Written by PETA | October 29, 2009
petpost.co.nz / CC
Mouse

There’s a lot of buzz right now about proposed legislation designed to revise decades-old regulations of toxic chemicals, which could be wonderful news. Unfortunately, language in the proposed bill—known as the “Kid Safe Chemicals Act”—would protect neither children nor the environment, and it would spell death via poisoning for a staggering number of animals

There is a major P.R. push for this legislation, in the form of a new campaign that you may have heard of—the Million Baby Crawl. This campaign comes from none other than the longtime cruelty-free company Seventh Generation.

We have alerted Seventh Generation to the problems associated with its campaign and hope to work with the company to get better science and animal protection language inserted into the Kid Safe Chemicals Act.

Great strides have been made in biology and toxicology during the past few decades that provide a better understanding of chemicals’ hazards without relying on cruel and misleading animal tests. Non-animal test methods are faster and cheaper, so more information about more chemicals can be obtained quicker than through animal testing. Modernization of the underlying science is a crucial piece of any new chemical-management legislation, and it’s critical that any new legislation promote the use and further development of modern, humane test methods.

Make no mistake: We are all in favor of protecting kids’ health and the environment, but the current method of testing chemicals—poisoning and killing thousands of animals per chemical—provides data that just isn’t useful. And considering that there are more than 80,000 chemicals that would undergo testing if this proposed legislation passes, that’s an astronomical number of animals!

Who cares about the millions of animals who will suffer and die in these tests? We know you do!

Sign up here if you are interested in doing more. Updates will follow.

Written by Karin Bennett

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.

  • lynda downie says:

    Ruth I think you misread Jude’s post. He’s clearly on the side of animal rights groups. Other than that great posts by both you and him.

  • Marley says:

    Thanks PETA for spreading the word about toxicity testing. I am really disappointed that Seventh Generation isn’t being transparent about what it is they’re promoting. We all have Seventh Generation products in our cupboards and view them to be a cruetyfree company and they probably like many people didn’t realize that the campaign they are launching will result in animal testing. Who doesn’t want healthy babies!?! As a scientist and advocate for alternatives to animal tests though I know that mandating more chemical testingof the kind being advocated by the Safer Chemicals coalitionwill kill millions of animals. Whether it’ll make us or our babies safer is an open question. It’s more likely that we’ll learn a whole lot about what these chemicals can do to rats birds rabbits and dogs than humans. I firmly support PETA and hope that Seventh Generation and the Safer Chemicals coalition includes their concerns in all of the discussions they are having and in the final billor I’ll be calling my legislators and purging my cupboards.

  • Ruth Prizak says:

    People who believe that human babies are not tiny rats should understand that humanrelevant nonanimal test methods will be better for babies AND for animals than the antiquated cruel animal methods that are still part and parcel of the new legislation. This is not a question of animals vs. babies but of good science vs. bad science of science that is relevant to humans vs. tests that have been used for centuries and haven’t done ANYTHING to protect humans to date. Why in the world anyone would want to keep doing the same thing over and over again e.g. testing chemicals on animals and expecting different results e.g. actual regulation or banning of dangerous substances is beyond me. The EPA has killed millions of animals testing known dangerous substances like lead and mercury on animals repeatedly but how many dangerous substances have they actually banned? I think they tried to ban asbestos and maybe one other pretty poor track record if you ask me which can be laid directly at the feet of the agency being so addicted to animal tests whose results can be manipulated any way you want them to be. How odd JudeR to accuse animal groups who want humane and sophisticated test methods whose results actually have a chance of protecting humans of being in the pocket of big business that charge sounds like April Fool’s to me!

  • Jude R says:

    Alligators with shrinking penises frogs with both sex organs cats with messed up thyroids peregine falcons and Orcas full of brominated flame retardants the list of species and effects from toxic chemicals goes on and on. The chemical industry that profits from the sale of chemicals and that tests animals over and over again in their own labs just to justify keeping dangerous chemicals on the market must be reformed with strong new limits. It’s not enviros who want to protect the status quo and keep it business as usual at corporate animal testing labs. Completely ignoring in the post how the American Chemistry Council and their big member groups are fighting to stop real reform that would protect animals is either a weird Halloween trick or an early Christmas gift to Big Chemical.

  • carla says:

    We as human are no more important than animals. Anyone who think this … well.. you don’t know what I think of them!!!!!

  • Antoine says:

    Well its official Kalamata is not only an olive but also a troll. Kalamata it was Socrates who said that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” and you seem to think that you know everything….why not LEARN about a different viewpoint than your own and see what it does to your mind. Perhaps you should be open to the perspective that even if animal tests were useful which they are not but even if THEY WERE they are wrong and unethical. Not too long ago the government did tests on poor black populations on the retarded and the insane and the nazis did tests on prisoners in the camps. The Chinese even today do tests on prisoners and use them for organ transplant. Are these “effective” methods that yield results? Of course they are but they are unethical. So if you acknowledge that such tests on UNWILLING members of the human population are unethical the only way that you can justify doing tests on monkeys rats or cats is by holding a prejudice against their species. ie “Because they are just cats!” and that is not a valid scientific or philosophical argument….it is a prejudicial jusgement that is not deduced logically. in other words There is no way to prove it. You could replace the predicate “cat” with “small men with mustaches” and have the same thought a prejudiced one. Suggested reading the classic Peter Singer book “Animal Liberation” like you he is an utilatarian so you will like his reasoning but unlike you he actually has a mind that he is willing to use Or you could say that because animals belong to another species they are excluded from our compassion instinct a driving force that compels us to protect our own species etcand so it is okay to do with them as we please they do not matter as we do because they are different their difference is what excludes them. But then the catch 22 is if they are different why are you testing on them to help humans? the results of any tests will help their own species not humans. Suggested reading here “Animal Rights” by Tom Regan. And before you write me off and refuse to read these books because you don’t “believe” in animal rights… Remember Kalamata you don’t know about animal rights so how do you know if you agree with the philsophy or not? One should never say that one does not agree with a certain philosophy unless one has actually read and understood that philosophy so until you UNDERSTAND animal rights you can not say that you do not agree with it. And obviously you are interested in animal rights because you keep trolling the PETA blog. Instead of speaking from a place of ignorance inform yourself who knows you just might learn something. And of course the final suggested reading which I suggested before when you trolled other PETA blogs “Animal Experimentation A Harvest of Shame” by Dr Moneim A Fadali. Killing is wrong and those who tell you that an evil is “necessary” are evil period. Good people know that no evil is ever “necessary.”

  • jon says:

    so why are we fighting seventh generation? shouldn’t we be cool with this?

  • jon says:

    Really I am all Peta but we should applaud moves in the right direction.

  • Liz says:

    Isn’t Seventh Generation cruelty free to animals? Your article is very misleading. I think what you are trying to say is it would be nice if 7th Gen would do a campaign to raise awareness about animal testing…babies are the priority for them now who can argue with that?

  • Karen says:

    This is very disappointing. I have been buying Seventh Generation products for years and will completely stop supporting them if they are not responsive to PETA’s concerns. Animals should not have to suffer and die as a result of outdated testing procedures.

  • Hannah Beechey says:

    What makes our species or its suffering more important than others?

  • olga giotoula says:

    Oh no! Lets stop all this horror!!Lets stop them!

  • Kalama Halamezad says:

    “Modernization of the underlying science is a crucial piece of any new chemicalmanagement legislation and it’s critical that any new legislation promote the use and further development of modern humane test methods” Finally a statement I can agree with put in a posting that doesn’t directly declare animal testing as entirely useless. In vitro methods are usually cheaper and faster but the FDA still doesn’t recognize them as ‘more accurate’ for all aspects of toxicity. They can be relatively good for studying specific mechanisms of toxicity but fail entirely to predict many systemic aspects of toxicity just like animal models do. The FDA considers animal testing coupled with triedandtrue dish techniques to be the most accurate predictor of toxicity currently in existence. It also recognizes that new biomarkers and analytical techniques for both animal and nonanimal models need to be developed to increase the accuracy of toxicity testing and that unnecessaryexcessive use of animal models should definitely be avoided. I support the minimization of the role of animal testing but total abolition at this time would probably bode badly for the crawling babies.

Connect With PETA

Subscribe