ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION:
THE HIDDEN
CAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION?
ABSOLUTELY!
Have
you ever wondered why the air we breath, the food we eat, the
water we drink, and the ground we walk on are contaminated? The
highly suppressed answer is simple: Also known as vivisection,
animal experimentation is the hidden cause of environmental
pollution and public health problems. Animal research is an
unscientific methodology for chemical assessment. The
non-conclusive, erroneous nature of animal testing creates a
smoke screen--an alibi which permits the continued manufacture of
all kinds of toxic and hazardous chemicals. Vivisection conveys a
false illusion of safety, but all it ensures is a continued
demand for ever "newer" and "improved"
poisons which end up polluting our planet.
HOW IS
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION GENERATED?
Each year, tens of millions of various types of chemical
products are manufactured for commercial, industrial,
agricultural, military, household, and personal use around the
world. Although the exact number is unknown, it is estimated that
as many as 70 million different types of toxic and hazardous
products are used just by U.S. industries each year.1 Pesticides alone make up
40,000 different formulations.2 prescription
drugs add up to over 205,000 different types.
It is these chemicals that contaminate our air,
soil, streams, oceans, and underground water supplies, as well as
our food and bodies. They do so while they are being
manufactured, as they are used, and when they are disposed of.
They pollute the air when chemicals escape into the atmosphere
from factory stacks during the process of production, use, and
disposal. They pollute streams when industries release
contaminated waters into stormwater channels and when chemicals
are intentionally poured down street gutters, or are washed into
them by rain. Chemicals pollute the ocean waters when streams
empty into them, and when chemicals flushed down sewer pipes are
released into the ocean. They pollute the ground and underground
water supplies when chemicals are intentionally poured onto soil,
such as with pesticide application onto agricultural land, when
they leak out of broken pipelines and underground storage tanks,
and when chemicals thrown out with garbage leach out of the
landfills.
THE ROLE OF
VIVISECTION
In order to make these poisons acceptable to the public, the
chemical, pharmaceutical, and petroleum empires take refuge in
vivisection. Look around you, in your home and your workplace
there are scores of chemical products that have been proclaimed
"safe" and/or "acceptable" for our use. Have
you ever wondered where these safety assurances come from? These
"safety" assurances have all been fabricated in
vivisectionist laboratories.3 Rats,
mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, squirrels, gerbils, rabbits, fish,
toads, frogs, lizards, insects, dogs, cats, monkeys, apes, wild
birds, quails, pigeons, turkeys, ducks, chickens, cows, goats,
and horses are among the animals used. Numerous types of toxicity
tests (LD, LC, LDLo, TDLo, TCLo, MTD, etc.) are performed under
the banner of toxicity testing. Other research includes skin and
eye irritancy tests (the infamous Draize Test), carcinogenicity
(cancer) and mutagenicity (genetic mutation) studies,
teratogenicity (birth defects) and reproductive toxicity studies,
hepatotoxicity (liver damage) and nephrotoxicity (kidney damage)
studies, neurotoxicity studies, etc.
From these studies, staggering amounts of ambiguous,
contradictory, and invalid data are compiled which allows the
"scientists" to draw their "scientific"
conclusions. For example, if they want to "prove" that
a particular chemical is not a carcinogen, all they have to do is
present the evidence from those animal tests that supports this
view. On the other hand, if they wish to prove that the same
chemical is a carcinogen, they produce other laboratory tests
that show the product to be carcinogenic. This is what Dr. Bruce
Ames, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences Center at the University of California at Berkeley has
to report: "Of 392 chemicals in our database tested in both
rats and mice, 226 were carcinogens in at least one test, but 96
of these were positive in the mouse and negative in the rat or
vice versa." Dr. Ames continues: "Conversely, important
human carcinogens may not be detected in standard tests in
rodents; this was true for a long time for both tobacco smoke and
alcohol, the two largest identified causes of neoplastic death in
the United States."4
A simple analysis of Dr. Ames' findings proves that, for all
practical purposes, there is a 50:50 chance that a mouse
carcinogen would be a rat carcinogen as well -- this amounts to
the flip of a coin. This means that there is absolutely no
correlation between the rat and the mouse. If there is no
correlation between two such "closely" related animals,
there certainly can never be one between the rat and the dog, or
the dog and the cat, let alone any correlation between any of
these animals and the human animal.
It is not surprising that thousands of "known"
animal carcinogens are routinely used and/or found in our
drinking water, food, and the chemical products we use.
Chloroform is one such carcinogen, a by-product of useable water
supply chlorination. Pesticides declared carcinogenic following
animal tests, and yet routinely sprayed on crops, is another
example.5
Triethanolamine, an ingredient in many laundry detergents and
Perchloroethylene, the commonly used dry cleaning agent, are
amongst the countless "animal carcinogens" which we
consume.
An interesting distortion of the system surfaces when,
occasionally, a carcinogenic product is marketed with a
"warning" label. An example of this is the case of a
most popular artificial sweetener, Sweet'N Low, which bears the
following label: "Use of This Product May Be Hazardous To
Your Health. This product Contains Saccharin Which Has Been
Determined To Cause Cancer In Laboratory Animals." Of
course, it should be pointed out that saccharin is regulated in
California as a carcinogen. The supporting evidence for such a
regulation: cancer in bladders of male rats as a result of
ingestion of saccharin at doses equivalent to human consumption
of 800 to 1,000 cans of diet soda per day for an entire lifetime.6 Incredibly, many similar
"research projects" are conducted all over the world
with concentrations of test chemicals which exceed those consumed
by humans by a factor of more than one million.7
Not only does overdosing contribute to the
fallacy of vivisection, but the issue of interspecies variation
makes all types of vivisection inherently erroneous. Since each
species of animal is a different biochemical entity, it follows
that each species will react differently to various substances,
not only from another species of animal, but also from the human
animal. Even two "closely" related animals such as the
rat and the mouse react differently from each other. Variations
on the order of magnitude of many thousands are commonplace
between different species.8
The principle of interspecies variation is not the exception, but
rather the rule. The Egyptians knew about interspecies variation
thousands of years ago. In order to find out whether the
Pharaoh's food was poisoned, they would first feed it, not to the
rat, but to the cook. In fact, almost every toxicological book,
report, or article published today inevitably addresses
"scientists'" serious concerns over the issue of
interspecies variation. Yet, practitioners of "modern"
science and medicine have chosen to ignore, defy, and/or conceal
their own observations and findings, as well as the most basic
laws of nature which govern the endless biochemical differences
between different forms of life.
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS
The fraud of animal research extends beyond the process of
chemical production and marketing and applies to the entire field
of "environmental protection." Risk assessment studies,
aimed at proving or disproving the dangers associated with toxic
emissions from an incinerator into the air, discharge of
wastewater from a sewage treatment plant into the ocean,
discharge of chemicals from an industrial plant into a creek, or
application of pesticides on crops, are examples of environmental
research where vivisection is routinely used to justify varying
and contradictory conclusions--depending on the vested interests
of those who foot the bill. Other cases of environmental laws and
policies which involve vivisection, are the government
established/enforced safe drinking water standards, safe air
quality limits, safe worker exposure levels (TLV's, PEL's, TWA's,
and STEL's), regulation of pesticides, and the requirements of
Material Safety Data Sheets for tens of millions of industrial
chemicals.
Unfortunately, far from safeguarding the public and the
environment, these "safety" measures make it very safe
and very legal for polluters to pollute -- so long as they do so
within the boundaries of the law. The reason is as follows: In
order for any regulation to protect the public and the
environment, it must be founded on sound scientific grounds. The
scientific community claims to accept this basic premise. In
fact, it is often in conflict with the regulatory community
because it claims that instead of establishing regulations based
on scientific knowledge, regulators establish them based on
economic considerations (i.e., cost to industry for compliance
with the laws). However, what the scientific community fails to
admit is that what it calls "science," is nothing but
fiction. And, since today's environmental laws are based on
unscientific data obtained from erroneous animal tests, the
tragic result is that far from protecting the public and the
environment, such laws and regulations protect the industry and
allow the existence of carcinogens, teratogens, and toxicants of
all sorts in our food, air, water, home, and workplace.
Clearly, policies genuinely intended to protect
the environment and the public would have to be based on true
science. Thus, eliminating reliance on animal research and
banning the production of tens of millions of poisons, while
responsibly controlling the use of those absolutely
"essential" ones to which humankind has managed to
addict itself. It is amazing how such research and policies are
instigated and supported by self-proclaimed
"environmental" and "green" institutions and,
in general, by the "environmental movement."
THE PROBLEM
The problem is that there is an intentionally created vicious
cycle that supports many interest groups. These groups, which are
all interrelated, consist of the following: the chemical empire,
the petroleum empire, the pharmaceutical empire, the food
industry, the tobacco industry, the research institutes, the
"health" institutes, the military, the government, and
even the so-called environmental movement. In other words, one
group creates the problem, one group claims to be assessing and
studying the problem, and yet another one pretends to be fighting
and solving the problem.
Animal research is presented to the public as a scientific
methodology for the assessment of chemicals. Manufacturers claim
that they identify chemical hazards through animal testing.
Government agencies claim that they minimize hazards through
enforcement of regulations (established through animal tests).
Health institutes claim that if we don't give them carte blanche
to conduct animal research, we and our children are destined to
die miserable deaths. They claim that civilization and progress
go hand in hand with chemical growth. They claim that without
animal research, life on planet earth is destined to cease. The
fact is that animal research is responsible for the devastation
of life on our planet, as well as the disaster caused to our
health and the collapse of our economy.9
Unfortunately, most people as well as the majority of the
environmental organizations fail to make this vital connection.
It should not be difficult to realize then that the millions
of synthetic chemicals to which we are routinely exposed, cannot
possibly be harmless to our organism. Yet, the nature and extent
of the damage is evident only after the human "guinea
pig" has been exposed to the toxicant. It is because of this
fact that,for example, an animal carcinogen may not be a human
carcinogen after all. Conversely, chemicals found safe through
animal tests routinely damage untold numbers of human beings.
Proof of this is the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) withdraws as many as 12,000 prescription
drugs (found "safe" based on many years of animal
testing prior to FDA registration) from the marketplace every
single year.
THE SOLUTION
The solution to our environmental and related health problems
does not require a return to the "dark ages" as some
may fear. Once we realize that a million animal tests are just as
worthless (and, in fact, hazardous) as one single animal test,
and once we accept the fact that animals cannot and will not warn
us, let alone protect us, against the inherent dangers of toxic
chemicals, pollution, and disease, the responsibility of
protecting humankind will fall upon ourselves.
Instead of demanding more "research" and
"study" from chemical manufacturers, instead of pushing
our government for more "regulations" and "safety
limits," and instead of trying to reverse the problem after
the fact, let us begin with ourselves in our own homes. Let us
cut down on the source of pollution by eliminating the many
poisons which we use in our everyday lives. It is said that
today's home contains more chemicals than a laboratory at the
turn of the century. So, let us begin by getting rid of all toxic
products that we have stored underneath our kitchen sink, in the
medicine cabinet, and in the garage. We can replace these
products with simple, natural, and effective solutions for our
personal and household cleaning needs (write to SUPRESS to
request Nature's Recipes).
Let us eat poison-free food out of poison-free containers. Let
us wear poison-free clothes. Let us drive poison-free cars. Let
us watch television programs which do not bombard us with
countless commercials peddling "new and improved"
poisons, day and night.
There will be a time when recycling, living green,
vegetarianism, and antivivisectionism will not be a matter of
choice, but a matter of survival. There will come the time when
progress and modernization will not be equated with the existence
of more chemicals and drugs. It is not difficult to see that the
only "progress" which the use and misuse of chemicals
has to offer is the progress toward the total destruction of our
health, economy, and planet.
Vivisection is the hidden cause of our environmental pollution
and public health problems. Let us destroy the myth and medieval
ritual of vivisection for the sake of pursuing real science, true
progress and civilization, and the assurance of a safe and
poison-free environment for ourselves and the generations to
come.
REFERENCES
1. OSHA staff estimates
that there are between 40 and 70 million Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) in use nationwide.
2. Registered by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and regulated under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
3. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; etc., the U.S. EPA
is authorized to require the animal testing of
"new" chemicals, old chemicals that are proposed
for new uses or for which there is a suspicion of adverse
health effects, and new mixtures of old or new chemicals. In
other words, any and all chemicals may be tested on animals.
4. Bruce N. Ames, Renae Magaw, Lois Swirsky Gold,
"Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards," Science
236 (1987), p. 275.
5. "Food Use Pesticides Which Have Been Evaluated For
Carcinogenicity," U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides &
Toxic Substances, Reto Engler, Ph.D., July 1992.
6. For example, see Edward J. Calabrese, "Animal
extrapolation. A look inside the toxicologist's black
box," Environmental Science & Technology 21, No. 7
(1987), p. 618.
7. For example, see Environmental Science & Technology,
p. 618.
8. For example, see Human Health Risks From Chemical
Exposure: The Great Lakes Ecosystem, R. Warren Flint and John
Vena, Lewis Publications Inc., MI, 1991, p. 34, which states,
"The toxic potencies of 2,3,7,8 TCDDD [Dioxin] and
related compounds exhibit profound interspecies variability.
For example, there is an approximately 5,000-fold difference
among laboratory mammals in the acute LD50. " 9. In
1994, the annual "health care" cost in the U.S. was
1.2 trillion dollars.
This article is a
condensed version of the original booklet entitled,
Animal Experimentation:
The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution?
Absolutely!
by Hoorik Davoudian, Vice President of The Nature of Wellness..
|