My conclusion is that it is a "Catch 22" situation and whilst I know experimentation on animals will continue for the foreseeable future, I have made my own decision.
I'm against animal testing and I will not support any organisation or charity that carries out experiments on animals, even if the research is to save human life.
I'm not so heartless that I don't cry when people lose loved ones or see their loved ones suffer. The pain and suffering of innocent people is also heartbreaking, but the reason I choose to be 100% against all animal testing is that the poor animals don't know what's happening to them, they don't understand, they just feel the pain. We at least are free, can understand that we're dying or suffering and take consolation from the people we love. We have support and love all around us and those who are religious have their faith. The poor laboratory animals are all alone. They are prisoners serving a life sentence and being tortured for crimes they did not commit.
My resolution is to boycott all products tested on animals, including pharmaceutics. I'm researching alternative therapies.
The "Catch 22" is that although I have made my choice, I know it will not stop animal testing. I even have to accept that my own beloved dogs will need veterinary care and drugs that have been tested on animals. Part of the contract when rescuing animals from a charity is to ensure they receive veterinary care when ill or injured. I will fulfill that obligation but with a heavy heart.
So, although there's no happy ending to this part of my blog, this whole journey has made me reassess my outlook on life to the extent that I have decided to pursue holistic therapies in an attempt to develop my own "sixth sense", something I believe animals still possess but we have lost as we have evolved, choosing instead technology and science.
As a result, I looked at doing a distance learning course and starting my own business offering people alternative therapies to assist them in their lives. Then the obvious hit me: I would much rather help animals, so have found a course that will enable me to become a holistic animal therapist and go on to do canine massage therapy. It will take 3 years.
This holistic approach will surprise many who know me, but it proves that if I can be open-minded and explore new avenues, other most unlikely people may be open-minded enough to switch to the cause for the ethical treatment of animals.
My animal welfare blog will continue (time-permitting), investigating the welfare of animals in the food industry and highlighting the cruelty that is factory-farming. Firstly, I have to arrange a visit to Laverstoke Park abattoir and watch my dinner die ......
To be continued .......
Friday, 1 February 2013
Part 1: The Evidence
In my own investigations into the use of animal testing for the purpose of medical advancement, I've been reading through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, which was implemented in the United Kingdom and other Member States from 1 January 2013.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) regulates procedures that are carried out on protected animals‘ for scientific research and testing that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
Protected animals are vertebrates and cephalopods. There must be an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review board who should consult with a named veterinary surgeon.
The principles of the "3 R's" (see below) must be followed.
There is a lot more to the Act, which can be read using this link.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/animal-research/
I've read through Cancer Research UK's pages:
Progress would not have been possible without animal research.
Testing on animals is an unavoidable part of their efforts to beat cancer and it is a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs are tested on animals before they're given to patients to make sure they're safe to use.
They don't fund any research on monkeys, dogs or cats.
Nearly all testing focuses on mice, fruit flies, microscopic worms and zebra fish.
Mice are remarkably similar to humans in terms of their genetic make-up.
The 3 Rs -
1. Reduce the no. of animals used
2. Refine the research so that animal welfare is improved
3. Replace the use of animals wherever possible.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/
I've read The Royal Society's pages:
"Virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research on animals"
The Royal Society endorses the 3 Rs.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/
Animal Aid:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/campaigns/experiments//281//
There are a lot of things that come under the umbrella of animal-testing, things like putting a flea collar on a beagle and watching the live fleas for 15 minutes to the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50), which is the dosage necessary to kill 50% of the animals tested after a specified test duration. Some seem quite innocent, others are horrible.
I've read pros and cons, organisations for and against, and I've made my decision.
Please read my next blog ....... Part 2: The Verdict
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) regulates procedures that are carried out on protected animals‘ for scientific research and testing that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
Protected animals are vertebrates and cephalopods. There must be an Animal Welfare and Ethical Review board who should consult with a named veterinary surgeon.
The principles of the "3 R's" (see below) must be followed.
There is a lot more to the Act, which can be read using this link.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/animal-research/
I've read through Cancer Research UK's pages:
Progress would not have been possible without animal research.
Testing on animals is an unavoidable part of their efforts to beat cancer and it is a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs are tested on animals before they're given to patients to make sure they're safe to use.
They don't fund any research on monkeys, dogs or cats.
Nearly all testing focuses on mice, fruit flies, microscopic worms and zebra fish.
Mice are remarkably similar to humans in terms of their genetic make-up.
The 3 Rs -
1. Reduce the no. of animals used
2. Refine the research so that animal welfare is improved
3. Replace the use of animals wherever possible.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/
I've read The Royal Society's pages:
"Virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research on animals"
The Royal Society endorses the 3 Rs.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/
Animal Aid:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/campaigns/experiments//281//
There are a lot of things that come under the umbrella of animal-testing, things like putting a flea collar on a beagle and watching the live fleas for 15 minutes to the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50), which is the dosage necessary to kill 50% of the animals tested after a specified test duration. Some seem quite innocent, others are horrible.
I've read pros and cons, organisations for and against, and I've made my decision.
Please read my next blog ....... Part 2: The Verdict
Friday, 25 January 2013
Let the controversy begin .....
OK - I've been trying to avoid this one because I know for a fact it will stir up many emotions in many people.
Medicine, charities and research.
The pharmaceutical industry, Cancer Research UK, Age UK (merger of Age Concern, Research into Aging and Help the Aged), Animal Health Trust, British Heart Foundation, to name a few, ALL conduct or fund testing on animals.
Look out for my 2 posts -
Part 1: The Evidence
Part 2: The Verdict
Part 1 will be references to all the material I've researched for and against animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry and in the name of medicine. I'll objectively summarise these to the best of my ability, but the references are there should you wish to read them.
Part 2 will be my own conclusion and why I've reached that verdict. I would ask you to respect my decision and I'd welcome your own views (reasoned opinions please, name-calling will do nothing to support your views).
This will take a while .........
Medicine, charities and research.
The pharmaceutical industry, Cancer Research UK, Age UK (merger of Age Concern, Research into Aging and Help the Aged), Animal Health Trust, British Heart Foundation, to name a few, ALL conduct or fund testing on animals.
Look out for my 2 posts -
Part 1: The Evidence
Part 2: The Verdict
Part 1 will be references to all the material I've researched for and against animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry and in the name of medicine. I'll objectively summarise these to the best of my ability, but the references are there should you wish to read them.
Part 2 will be my own conclusion and why I've reached that verdict. I would ask you to respect my decision and I'd welcome your own views (reasoned opinions please, name-calling will do nothing to support your views).
This will take a while .........
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Laverstoke Update ...
Their second response:
(I had asked if I were to bring my own animals for slaughter, how much of the process would I be able to see?).
"Hi Phyl
I'm definitely going to pursue this as part of my research on the feasibility of keeping a couple of pigs (thank you +Robert Blakemore) and will try to talk Ian into accompanying me to watch an animal being slaughtered.
Watch this space .......
(I had asked if I were to bring my own animals for slaughter, how much of the process would I be able to see?).
"Hi Phyl
We have trained animal welfare officers in the lairage and we have a full internal technical team that audit them. We also have the MHS Vet on site daily to do anti mortem inspection.
You are welcome to watch the process. We have a viewing gallery that you can watch from which is above the lairage and abattoir so you can see the whole process."
I'm definitely going to pursue this as part of my research on the feasibility of keeping a couple of pigs (thank you +Robert Blakemore) and will try to talk Ian into accompanying me to watch an animal being slaughtered.
Watch this space .......
China
It would appear that major companies who had or wished to stop testing on animals have been forced to restart or continue animal-testing in order to sell their products in China in compliance with the Chinese government's legislation on beauty and household products.
As a result, some companies have been stripped of their "leaping bunny" logo (which signifies cruelty-free products).
The good news is, Chinese scientists are being helped to switch to in vitro cosmetics testing methods (i.e. non-animal) and the Chinese government is being persuaded to accept the results of these tests in place of the animal tests it currently requires.
Further reading:
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/tags/animal+testing/default.aspx
Although I feel PETA are a bit guilty of showing only the bad things when it comes to animals in the food industy and fail to point people in the direction of good animal welfare practice (and constantly try to get you to commit to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle), when it comes to their work to stop animal testing on cosmetics, toiletries and household products, they have done a fabulous job.
Let's hope too that we will follow Israel's example and ban the sale of any product that has been tested on animals.
There is hope ........
As a result, some companies have been stripped of their "leaping bunny" logo (which signifies cruelty-free products).
The good news is, Chinese scientists are being helped to switch to in vitro cosmetics testing methods (i.e. non-animal) and the Chinese government is being persuaded to accept the results of these tests in place of the animal tests it currently requires.
Further reading:
http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/tags/animal+testing/default.aspx
Although I feel PETA are a bit guilty of showing only the bad things when it comes to animals in the food industy and fail to point people in the direction of good animal welfare practice (and constantly try to get you to commit to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle), when it comes to their work to stop animal testing on cosmetics, toiletries and household products, they have done a fabulous job.
Let's hope too that we will follow Israel's example and ban the sale of any product that has been tested on animals.
There is hope ........
Nature is cruel .....
During a conversation and my attempt to highlight how cruel and unnecessary it is to test on animals, I was met with the response "but nature is cruel".
Visions of wildlife documentaries came to mind of whales killing seals, poor baby wildebeest being separated from their mothers and brought down by lions or even worse, being eaten alive by hyenas. Elephant calves dying of thirst during a drought. I even witnessed a horrible incident involving my own pet dogs where Luki's ill-fitting muzzle came off when she took a tumble while she and Finn were chasing a young deer and Luki brought the deer down. She had clamped her jaws round the back of its neck in an attempt to strangle it (had she got it by the throat she may well have succeeded). The horrible noises the young deer was making in its feeble attempt to escape and cling on to its life. Had Ian and I not managed to get to it on time, that poor little deer would have died. Luckily we did and it ran off without a mark on its neck. (We have since replaced the muzzle and don't allow both dogs off the lead together, otherwise they do go off hunting).
Yes, it would appear nature is cruel. Nature is also a force outside our control.
For a split second I saw an argument FOR humans testing on animals ..... i.e. we have been allowed by nature to evolve and develop into what we are, and as a result of "progress" we have become a race that conducts horrible experiments on lesser species, which results in immeasurable pain, suffering, maiming and killing, in the name of beauty, hygiene, nice clean homes, etc. Call it evolution if you like.
That argument was soon thwarted when I compared why animals kill animals and why humans kill/maim animals. Animals kill animals to survive, in the animal testing industry, we kill animals not to survive, but to make ourselves look better, smell nicer, spend less time and effort cleaning our homes. That is not justifiable. That is vanity and laziness. And considering there are plenty of products on the market that do the same job cruelty-free*, it is downright sadistic.
Not only that, in nature, animals act instinctively. Going back to my dog Luki and the deer, she was acting instinctively, clamping her jaws around what should have been its throat, waiting for it to die, her front legs were wrapped round its body, holding on to it. I was surprised when I momentarily marvelled at the visceral behaviour she was displaying, almost like a proud lioness watching her youngster kill for the first time! Survival of the fittest.
You can forgive cruelty in nature for the sole reason that each creature is acting instinctively in a bid to survive.
We humans have lost all animalistic instincts as we've evolved, we do not act instinctively in a bid to survive and we can't be forgiven for deliberately and knowingly inflicting pain on animals in the name of vanity and hygiene. We don't need to look good to survive. We don't even need to eat meat to survive (as a carnivore, I'm struggling to commit to that or to put a case together to support that), but that's another blog!
"Nature is cruel" is therefore no reason to ignore, accept or condone animal testing. In my opinion it's saying you don't care enough to make some small changes to your shopping list and I can't understand how anyone, who has followed my blog, can continue to buy products from companies that routinely test# on animals. Can you?
* http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/shopper
# See "China" blog.
Visions of wildlife documentaries came to mind of whales killing seals, poor baby wildebeest being separated from their mothers and brought down by lions or even worse, being eaten alive by hyenas. Elephant calves dying of thirst during a drought. I even witnessed a horrible incident involving my own pet dogs where Luki's ill-fitting muzzle came off when she took a tumble while she and Finn were chasing a young deer and Luki brought the deer down. She had clamped her jaws round the back of its neck in an attempt to strangle it (had she got it by the throat she may well have succeeded). The horrible noises the young deer was making in its feeble attempt to escape and cling on to its life. Had Ian and I not managed to get to it on time, that poor little deer would have died. Luckily we did and it ran off without a mark on its neck. (We have since replaced the muzzle and don't allow both dogs off the lead together, otherwise they do go off hunting).
Yes, it would appear nature is cruel. Nature is also a force outside our control.
For a split second I saw an argument FOR humans testing on animals ..... i.e. we have been allowed by nature to evolve and develop into what we are, and as a result of "progress" we have become a race that conducts horrible experiments on lesser species, which results in immeasurable pain, suffering, maiming and killing, in the name of beauty, hygiene, nice clean homes, etc. Call it evolution if you like.
That argument was soon thwarted when I compared why animals kill animals and why humans kill/maim animals. Animals kill animals to survive, in the animal testing industry, we kill animals not to survive, but to make ourselves look better, smell nicer, spend less time and effort cleaning our homes. That is not justifiable. That is vanity and laziness. And considering there are plenty of products on the market that do the same job cruelty-free*, it is downright sadistic.
Not only that, in nature, animals act instinctively. Going back to my dog Luki and the deer, she was acting instinctively, clamping her jaws around what should have been its throat, waiting for it to die, her front legs were wrapped round its body, holding on to it. I was surprised when I momentarily marvelled at the visceral behaviour she was displaying, almost like a proud lioness watching her youngster kill for the first time! Survival of the fittest.
You can forgive cruelty in nature for the sole reason that each creature is acting instinctively in a bid to survive.
We humans have lost all animalistic instincts as we've evolved, we do not act instinctively in a bid to survive and we can't be forgiven for deliberately and knowingly inflicting pain on animals in the name of vanity and hygiene. We don't need to look good to survive. We don't even need to eat meat to survive (as a carnivore, I'm struggling to commit to that or to put a case together to support that), but that's another blog!
"Nature is cruel" is therefore no reason to ignore, accept or condone animal testing. In my opinion it's saying you don't care enough to make some small changes to your shopping list and I can't understand how anyone, who has followed my blog, can continue to buy products from companies that routinely test# on animals. Can you?
* http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/shopper
# See "China" blog.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
1st reply from Laverstoke Park (abattoir)
Reply from the abattoir:
That's pretty good news, but my suspicious mind is suggesting they're perhaps hiding something because the reply is so concise. If it were my company and I was confident of my high animal welfare standards, I'd promote it a bit more, perhaps going on to explain how the CCTV footage is monitored, i.e. how often, by whom, etc. Think I'd sell it a bit more if I had nothing to hide. Therefore I've asked them to elaborate and will post their reply. I'm sooo wanting to like Laverstoke Park, but need a response from the farm too to confirm they don't debeak, dehorn or castrate without painkillers (it would appear that they don't castrate or tail-dock pigs).
The accreditations at the bottom of their email were impressive, especially since the organisation Compassion in World Farming had awarded "Good Egg", "Good Pig" and "Good Dairy" to Laverstoke Park Farm.
Watch these happy ending videos - a much welcome change to the previous links I've posted.
http://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/awards/good-egg-award/
If I'm satisfied, I will order meat online from Laverstoke Park. Yes, it's more expensive than meat from animals who have really suffered, but can you really put a price on that? I know people will argue that they can't afford it* - I certainly won't be able to afford to buy as much, but that's the answer - I just won't buy as much. Meat will become a less staple part of Ian's and my diet and I will look to vegetarian alternatives.
*Don't you just hate when people use such excuses when in reality they just don't care? Why hide behind a feeble excuse? Have the decency to say you don't really care or at least admit it's not high on your list of priorities!
So, do you care enough?
"We have always had CCTV throughout all our factories.
In the lairage for the purpose of animal welfare and in all our other factories for the purpose of food safety and quality."
That's pretty good news, but my suspicious mind is suggesting they're perhaps hiding something because the reply is so concise. If it were my company and I was confident of my high animal welfare standards, I'd promote it a bit more, perhaps going on to explain how the CCTV footage is monitored, i.e. how often, by whom, etc. Think I'd sell it a bit more if I had nothing to hide. Therefore I've asked them to elaborate and will post their reply. I'm sooo wanting to like Laverstoke Park, but need a response from the farm too to confirm they don't debeak, dehorn or castrate without painkillers (it would appear that they don't castrate or tail-dock pigs).
The accreditations at the bottom of their email were impressive, especially since the organisation Compassion in World Farming had awarded "Good Egg", "Good Pig" and "Good Dairy" to Laverstoke Park Farm.
Watch these happy ending videos - a much welcome change to the previous links I've posted.
http://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/awards/good-egg-award/
If I'm satisfied, I will order meat online from Laverstoke Park. Yes, it's more expensive than meat from animals who have really suffered, but can you really put a price on that? I know people will argue that they can't afford it* - I certainly won't be able to afford to buy as much, but that's the answer - I just won't buy as much. Meat will become a less staple part of Ian's and my diet and I will look to vegetarian alternatives.
*Don't you just hate when people use such excuses when in reality they just don't care? Why hide behind a feeble excuse? Have the decency to say you don't really care or at least admit it's not high on your list of priorities!
So, do you care enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)