There is much scientific evidence documenting the failure of
animal-based toxicity tests to accurately predict human reactions to
chemicals. Such errors are not surprising, given the many differences
that exist between species in terms of their anatomy, physiology,
biochemistry, and metabolism. Such variables make the cross-species
extrapolation of test results an extremely uncertain exercise.
The following examples illustrate some of the key
shortcomings of animal-based toxicity studies:
It is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go
through chemicals in the blind way we have at the present time and reach
credible conclusions about the hazards to human health.
Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Laureate in Medicine
It is generally accepted that correlations [between animal
test results and human safety] are not good due to species
Frank Barile, Ph.D.
Department of Toxicology
City University of New York
Extensive safety testing on millions of animals will
seriously delay the acquisition of important safety information, because
many of these tests are expensive, time-consuming, and of dubious
Gill Langley, Ph.D.
Du Hadwen Trust
Animal studies of lead, mercury, and PCBs each
underestimated the levels of exposures that cause effects in humans by
100- to 10,000-fold. Regulatory decisions that rely largely on toxicity
testing in genetically similar animals under controlled laboratory
conditions will continue to fail to reflect threats to the capacities
and complexity of the human brain as well as important gene-environment
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Click here to read more about the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical testing Program.
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.