“The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving…”

7 Things You Didn't Know About PeTA

1. PeTA has stated repeatedly that their goal is “total animal liberation.” This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no hunting, no farming, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.
2. PeTA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.
3. PeTA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to violent animal-rights groups called SHAC and ALF.
4. PeTA has used their contributors tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front and the Animal Liberation Front, FBI-certified domestic terrorist groups responsible for fire bombs and death threats.
5. PeTA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They are totally opposed to traditional farming methods.
6. PeTA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals. PeTA kills animals.
7. PeTA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases.
source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com

As it turns out, in many cases an animal model is like having no model at all. A 2-year cancer study–which involves 800-1000 rats and mice, costs about $1million, and involves administering a chemical to the animals every day of their life for 2 years–has been shown to predict actual carginogenicity of a chemical in humans about 50% of the time. Might as well flip a coin and save ourselves the trouble.

Some scientists at the EPA and FDA don't want to change the way chemicals and drugs are tested because they're lazy–it's too hard to change the way they've been doing things for the last 50 years–so they block progress and refuse to fund alternatives development. The way we regulate chemicals and drugs now is not protecting us, and non-animal, human-based methods would do better. Instead, these agencies leave it to non-profits like PETA, who has given nearly $1million in the last few years towards the development of cell culture and computer simulation methods. Those of you that say PETA isn't constructive or doesn't do anything effective simply don't know what you're talking about.

There is clearly a lot of misinformation around this issue, which is why PETA and Michael should be applauded for getting us talking about it.

Michael,

If you support PETA, you are supporting terrorists. There is no excuse. Shame on you.

Even better if they are still making noise.

Feeling about PETA aside, the organization's decades-old position against the scientific validity of toxicity testing on animals (and in favor of in vitro and computational methods) was recently substantiated by the U.S.'s National Research Council (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11970) which stated that “Current [animal-based toxicity] tests…provide little information on modes and mechanisms of action…and little or no information for assessing variability in human susceptibility.” The NRC concluded “that a transformative paradigm shift [toward non-animal test methods] is needed to achieve the design criteria set out in the committee's interim report:… (2) to reduce the cost and time of testing, (3) to use fewer animals and cause minimal suffering in the animals used, and (4) to develop a more robust scientific basis for assessing health effects.” Based on these concerns, the NRC advocated for a new approach to toxicity testing based on exclusively “computational biology and a comprehensive array of in vitro tests based on human biology.”

Animal testing only persists because of archaic tradition, not because it is actually good science or helps to protect humans from harm. Time and again, human tissue-based tests have come out on top of whole animal tests in their ability to accurately predicting all kinds of adverse events (pyrogenicity, carcinogenicity and tumerogenicity, etc) from chemical exposure in humans.

So, we can either follow the path laid out by scientists who are interested in valid, ethical research methods or we can take the lead from people who say things like “I am a life-long supporter and member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals).” I'll choose Plan A.

As someone that works in a science related job I can say that animal research is integral to the basic understanding of biology/etc., that in many cases the results don't pan out in humans because we are different and that there is a strong (and growing) opinion amongst scientists that most product testing on animals is nearly worthless from a scientific point of view.

There is a strong debate amongst the community on how we should proceed because so often the testing gives very little insight into how dangerous it is for humans (unless there is a very well detailed understanding how how the product affects the animal and how the differences between humans and animals play out for those specific basic pathways…but that is rare). I am very close to the opinion that a lot of the testing is merely cruel and unnecessary, while simultaneously acknowledging that at this point I don't see many alternatives.

This is something that I disagree with PETA on when it comes to strategy — they should be proactive in supporting the development of technologies that give a better idea of how dangerous a product is to humans and then animal testing would stop. Instead they just focus on the animal testing and get the responses above.

You are asking people to support a domestic terrorist group (PETA) in their quest to prevent a government organization from mandating essential testing on products.

Think this all the way through. Shall we stop testing products? If we outlaw commercial products, what’s to stop entrepreneurial individuals from making their own in an unregulated environment? How safe do you think those would be?

If you believe in testing but not with animals, what should we use? How about Third World children?

Spend your time/effort/money on groups that are worth supporting. The ASPCA comes to mind. Concentrate your outrage on people who torture and kill animals by neglect or for sick pleasure and stop demonizing good people whose only concern is the safety of products for you and your children.

And there are real world reasons for testing on multiple animals. Arsenic is not very near as toxic to some animals as it is to humans.

I guess the PETA/Green types will use the lack of animal testing to oppose the approval of new substances. Ban the test and then complain that there is no testing data. A perfect plan for the Luddites on the left.