In March 2001, PETA contacted prominent environmental, consumer, and public health organizations in the United States and asked for their positions on the massive animal-testing programs under development by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We sent each group a cover letter and an issue paper explaining the animal protection community's concerns about the EPA's approach to chemical-testing.For example, despite killing hundreds of thousands of animals in cruel chemical toxicity tests, the EPA has not banned a single toxic industrial chemical in more than 10 years using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The chemical industry has long approved of the EPA's near-exclusive reliance on animal tests because their results are easily manipulated. In addition, required testing means that a company's products are safe from regulation for years while the products are tested and retested on animals. And, after decades of practice, industry representatives have perfected the art of arguing both sides of the animal-testing issue.Here's how they do it: If a chemical is shown to cause cancer or other harmful effects in animals, industry representatives claim that the results aren't applicable to humans. This is happening right now with the pesticide atrazine and with chemicals called phthalates (ingredients in plastic products, including children's toys). In each of these cases, companies have argued that cancers that develop in animals exposed to these chemicals would not occur in humans—and the arguments have worked. Both these chemicals remain on the market and in widespread use despite the fact that thousands of animals have died painful deaths during EPA-mandated testing.At the same time, company officials happily display the results of EPA-required studies that suggest that their chemicals are not harmful. In these cases, companies laud the predictability of animal-testing and claim that their products are safe for humans. This is exactly what happened with cigarettes for more than 20 years, as industry scientists claimed that tobacco was safe for humans because animal tests—many of which involved cutting holes in the throats of dogs and forcing them to inhale cigarette smoke—did not cause cancer in animals.The EPA's addiction to animal testing is so pervasive that even when evidence from human population studies implicates a chemical, the results are ignored by the EPA for the sake of conducting more and more animal studies. For years, population studies have shown that arsenic in drinking water causes cancer in humans. Yet the EPA dragged its feet for more than 20 years while thousands of animals were killed in tests that attempted to reproduce the effects already seen in humans.
The matter is made worse by the fact that the EPA refuses to subject animal-based test methods to the same level of scientific validation—to determine their reliability and relevance to humans—that all non-animal test methods must meet before they are accepted and used. The results of nonvalidated animal tests are scientifically useless as a basis upon which to regulate dangerous chemicals. So, the EPA's animal-testing programs do not protect either people or the environment, despite causing enormous animal suffering. Yet some environmental groups continue to call for ever-more animal-testing and defend every animal test, no matter how cruel or irrelevant.
After outlining the futility of relying on
nonvalidated animal tests to regulate dangerous chemicals, PETA asked
environmental groups to sign on to a statement calling on EPA to increase its
funding and use of non-animal test methods.
Based on the responses we received, as well as other published information, we awarded each environmental group a grade reflecting how responsible and "animal-friendly" it is.
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.