Skip to Main Content

U.S. lags waaaaaay behind Europe on animal testing

Written by PETA | April 15, 2008

The Washington Post has just released an investigation into the shocking lack of progress that exists in U.S. government policies on animal experimentation. The Washington Post began its own investigation after PETA presented evidence of government negligence. As the article points out, hundreds of millions of animals in this country are still being killed in gruesome ways to test substances like Botox, even though there are modern, non-animal methods available. Part of the problem is a categorical failure by the agency that’s charged with reducing the use of animals in toxicity testing—the folks over at ICCVAM (who I’ve talked about a bit before on this blog)—to actually do their jobs. As the Post article puts it:

“The controversy over the Botox test highlights the slow pace of government efforts to replace or reduce the large numbers of animals used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers and consumer firms to ensure that their products are safe for people. A decade after Congress created a panel to spur the development of non-animal tests, only four such tests have been approved out of 185 reviews, according to the panel’s records.”

During the same period of time, ICCVAM’s European counterpart has recommended more than two dozen non-animal tests, and the U.S. continues to lag well behind Europe in adopting modern alternatives to animal testing, which—in addition to causing unnecessary suffering and death for countless animals—poses a significant threat to human health.

There is a bit of good news, though, in the form of a landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences, which indicates that the United States may finally be ready to start catching up to other nations by adopting modern testing methods. But this isn’t going to happen while groups like ICCVAM are allowed to stand in the way. We’re currently calling for a congressional investigation into ICCVAM’s negligence, and asking that a new entity be created to oversee the implementation of the NAS recommendations. If you’d like to help out by contacting your members of Congress about this issue, you can do so through the webform here.

And definitely check out the Post article. This issue is monumentally important, but doesn’t get a lot of ink, so it’s great to see a publication like The Washington Post giving it its due.

Commenting is closed.
  • Hastaroth says:

    I just saw this post andwhile I doubt the person posting as Kurt K will see my replytwo years after he wrote this hideous postI’ll reply to him anyway.Well100 of all medical advances come out after FINAL CLINICAL TESTING ON HUMANS and there have been numerous cases where experimentation on animals proved useless because the results from animaml testing could not be extrapolated on humans. Moreoverthe logic that says “animals are used for the welfare of humans” is selfishambitious and horrible.Would “Kurt K” want to be used in experiments by some extraterrestral intelligent species and without his own consentabove all who would produce to him the excuse that “you are being used to develop medical advances who will save our species”?I guess no. Andlast but not leasthis argument that “if we stop using this resourcewe can kiss goodbye any future advances” is equally sick and silly.

  • Alissa says:

    i think animal testing scuks and is wrong!!!

  • Kurt K says:

    I hope to God that when some of you on this post gets sick and statistics say one of you will you better turn down most if not all medical treatment that will be given to you! Furthermore if a family member gets sick are you going to turn them away from medical treatment? 90 of all medical advances come from animal experimentation. If we stop using this resourse we can kiss goodbye any future advances! I will be willing to bet if one of your family members gets sick and has a chance of dying that little mouse will seem less significant!

  • Jaymielynne Corey says:

    As far as saying I agree with Dr. Breen I mistakenly wrote the wrong name. I meant I agree with lynda downie. I don’t even know what Dr. Breen meant. Sorry about that. Also thank you bug4peace for your comments and support of what I said. As you and lynda downie said so many people seem to be afraid to stand up for animals. In so much of our culture to care deeply about animals especially animals that people call food is still scoffed at. I believe the humans of our planet have this mindset of suspending their morality when it comes to animals. It is similar to how black people were treated as slaves and the horrible abuse and murders during the 1960’s. White churchgoing Godfearing people would uphold ethical moral standards towards their fellow white man but their ethics and morals would be suspended when it came to black people. This suspension of their morality is how most people are able to continue to eat meat and turn their backs to the horrible suffering that animals endure on factory farms in research entertainment breeding etc. I could go on forever. I think the species man is the most dangerous animal on the planet and has the greatest capacity for cruelty and harm. Animals are not cruel they don’t torture they just do what they do and deserve the same treatment rights and respect the humans enjoy. They deserve to enjoy this planet and live a life free of pain and to live and care for their families. I’ll never understand how people call themselves religious or Christian but don’t care a thing about the plight of animals. This world is the home of the animals too.

  • bug4peace says:

    JaymielynnCorey i ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agree with you. i really dont get how people can just not care about animals feelings. they think humans are so superior but we are animals just like them. thank god for animal rights organizations. it amazes me that humans think we are the smartest and the best and really i dont think so at all. people say things like “eww they actually eat dogs” and things like that and it makes no sense. dogs pigs they are both smart loving pets. no difference to me. i am veg and would never eat either one when i read abouthow some animals are treated it makes me want to puke. its sick. i could never hurt any animal. animal testing makes NO sense. and when people say that they are helping the world and doing the best they can and then they arent even veg? no sense. i hate how most americans think that we are the best but clearly from what ive read on this post we are definetly waaaaaaaaayyyyy behind. thank you PETA and all the other animal rights organizations out there that are helping the world. p.s. has anyone heard if aretha franklin accepted that offer from PETA or is she still wearing furs?

  • Craig says:

    I don’t know about the rest of you but I feel terrible for that little mouse in the headline image. How would one of you “researchers” like to have one whole side of your face swollen like this mouse. That mouse obviously fees MISERABLE! I can see myself writing a script to a movie where a person is SO fed up with the glacial pace which industry weens it’s self from animal testing that heshe starts doing these experiments on the researchers. Should make a great horror movie and bring more awareness to the plight of these innocent beings trapped in labs.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    Oh sure Jack. This is just a ploy to toot your own British horn. LOL I’m just kidding with you Jack. Gotta have some excuse to tease you for your Britishness. I’m not sure what has happened to the U.S. that we have gone so far downhill in the ethics department. Europe has put us to shame by banning declawing China has put us to shame by banning plastic bags. Now this. In all seriousness it’s frightening to live in a country that is so influential and yet so sinister. I think our status as superpower has just about come to an end anyway. Between the recession and our international debt we’re a sinking ship.

  • Dr.Breen says:

    JamielynnCorie HUUUUUUUUUH?

  • kelly says:

    Why does it seem that every unemployable idiot in the country works for the government? No way excuse me. They are employable. They are dropping their pants for free for the interests of private industry although free is debateable

  • ellac says:

    why should animals always have to ‘suffer on behalf’ of humans.. and this goes for everything where they are exploited for.. far too many to mention.. in any case isn’t there a limit where pharmaceutical or medicinal products can be tested for?.. enough is enough. it just feels so.. so unfair and unjust.. come on US you’re lagging behind Europe.. start putting this priority right.. ie. animal welfare.. yes it DOES !! matter..

  • JaymielynneCorey says:

    Yes I agree with Dr. Breen. There is so little ever mentioned about the animal suffering! It’s always about cost safety to humans comfort level of the researchers! etc. I can’t understand a world that is so full of savages humans barely out of the jungle. Mice and rats are mammals just like humans. Just because they are small they still feel all the emotions and physical pain humans do. Can you imagine being stuck in something where just your head is sticking out and being helpless to stop some monster from dripping chemicals into your eyes. The pain is unimaginable! People try to act as if they are supreme elite beings above caring about the suffering of small animals. They are not special or elite they are curel heartless selfish monsters. I often think of writing a book entitled The Monster Man. I can’t imagine ever being able to carry out this horrible testing on any creature or human! I’m sick of our culture’s shameful attitude about animals where it’s controversial to care and speak up for animals so just suspend your morality when it comes to animals! Our nation is still in the dark ages. Laws need to be passed to protect all animals from this inhumane torture. Thank heaven for Peta and all the organizations who are working on creating laws to protect all animals. Otherwise these monsters will never stop the cruelty.

  • lynda downie says:

    It’s great news that the Washington Post printed this article! In the case of the report by the Nt’l Academy of Sciences I couldn’t help but notice that the main objections to animal testing were questions of relevance time and money. No mention of the suffering of the animals.

  • Dr.Breen says:

    hmmm this reminds me of the YouTube user “glazlad”