Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Beastly Practice

    Uploaded by

    Fabiana Teixeira de Castro
    5 views5 pages
    artigo da revista The Ecologist

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    artigo da revista The Ecologist

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views5 pages

    Beastly Practice

    Uploaded by

    Fabiana Teixeira de Castro
    artigo da revista The Ecologist

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    RI BEASTLY “Itmay be cruel, but it can help us understand the human condition, runs the argument for animal testing. Absolute rubbish, says Alix Fano, who explains why testing rodents doesn’t protect humans from toxic chemicals. has no gal ladder, il give bi 10 100 young each year, can synthesize Vitamin Cn its body, and oul be up t thee i> tion times more eanecr-pome than a human, ‘That creature lea mouse, and it ie use for scientific research into Anang a cue fr eat Here s some more recent information. Just as people reat cifer- cently to chemicals depending on various factors, animal test results vary widely according tothe species, sex. age, diet, stress level, and strain ofthe animal. For example, N2-fuocenylaceariae has caused badder cancer in mae and female Sonar ats, liver cancer in male, and breast cancer in female Wistar al, and intestinal cancer in male fang female Peebeld rats Benzldine has caused bladder cancer in humans and dogs, ver and mammary tumours in ats. “The apparently obvious cancion from thisis that laboratory ai mals do tot have anything like the same biology a8 humans. Yet jf athough animal toxicity tests have never been scientifically validat- [fed to dctermine whether they can effectively proettoxlely for { humans, a mind boggling aray of animal-based data now fil tox 4 cology manuals, textbooks, and computer databases. US regulators Tis fe yeas, sunableto vomit, 24 mr ecotocsst, YOU 30 No 3, Ar 2000 have used these data to establish environmental heath standards though the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the (now defunct) Delaney Aet of 1958, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Safe Drinking ‘Winer Act of 1974 and the Food Quality Protection Act af 1996, ‘Some of the conclusions dann from ankmal experimentation an make quite hari reading. Take, for example, the tudes on arse ang its potential for causing cancer. While numerous epidemiolog cal studles have proven that arsenic causes cance in uma, ton cologists now acknowledge that arsenic rately if ever, causes cance? Iinanimals Rats, for example, are remarkably rexstant to the che iealand develop none ofthe iinesses ~ liver, bladder, Kidney, and skin cancer ~ observe in humans. Only when researchers have gone 19 reat lenges ~ implanting high doses of arsenic compounds in rs Stomachs, under the skin of newbom mice, and into the tracheas of hamsters ~ have stomach and lung cancers eventually been produced, ‘Animal ests with arsenic began i 1911 and arestll ongoing tay. ‘why? Have they prevented humans from being exposed to arsenic? Infact, no. In February 2000, the Natural Resources Delence Council (NRDO), an environmental advocacy group, released a report which reveled - PRACTICE i in £4 ‘ ssues so severely ato prevent cieinogenic response that might ‘otherwise have occurred, oF It can s0 overload and change metabol- fe processes as to cause a eateinogenie response that might not have ‘occurred. The reasoning behind dosing animals with quantitles of ‘hemfcals that are [relevant to natural human (or animal) con tions is that these methods wil more reliably produce acute toxke effects, Including tumours, in statistically sigificant numbers. But ‘the majority of humans do not die from acute poisoning. Rare toxl- cities are what all alot of people, and these could be detected in tightly monitored human stdies. ‘Data from animal tests are als influenced by the method chosen to expote the animal to a chemical. in one study with methylene chloride, chronic inhalation studies produced increased lung and ver tumours in rodent, whereas dking study failed to produce any tumours. Ironically, putting doses of test chemical in food o¢ waters one of the moze common methods used by toxicologists to expose animals to chemicals But rats readily associat food with il nese sind wl avoid a food if they have been ll ater eating it How much an animal eats or drinks ~as well asthe aniesl's age, genetics, and metabolism ~ can Influence the outcome ofan experiment, ‘Some scientists claim that animal studies have shown how compounds lke hormones can increase the tsk of cancerin animals But they fal to mention that ei culating levels of oestrogen and progesterone ditfer as much as threefold between rodents and humans. Veterinarians have seen elevated hor- ‘mone levels in rabbits for up t0 24 hours ater the animals were moved from one room to ‘question the value of animal-o-hum extrapolations and the vast databases ‘ofanimal toxicity data. It hasalso been noted that the artifical laboratory environment, with its cold metal ‘cages, strllse food, water, and bed- dling, fluorescent lighting, tempera ture conttols, and the pain of ‘experimentation, iso stressful fr the animals as to be causing them to dev- flop cancer and other effets whieh ‘wotld mot be observed outside the laboratory ‘TesTING TIMES Beginning in early October 1998, the EPA announced three contro versal animal-bosed toxicity testing programmes. The High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge programme calls for toxlety testing of 2,800 chemicals imported or manufactured in amounts of one million pounds per year. Devised in closed-door meetings between the EPA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and the Environmental Defence Fund without public notice of Congzesional oversight, the programme is slated to cost $700mn to Implement,» $itmn to administer, and would poison some 1.3 mle, lion animals In the second programme, the Endocrine Disruptor Sereering Programme (EDSP),sxty thousand chemicals ae to be testedon tens of millions of animals to determine whether and how eh rupt the human hormonal system, despite crucial diferences in mans’ and animals” endoctine systems, Ceculating level of oestrogen and progesterone differ as much BD sstnreeoud between rodents and humans, a8 mene 8) tioned erore: and reproductive geneticist Jimmy Spearow foune! that the CD-I mouse strain, favoured by toxicologists hecause it produces lage liters, is 16 limes mote imumune to the effect of endactine disrupt {ng chemicals than other mouse strains Toxicologst john Giesy,a member ofthe National Academy of Sciences, has sald Jes ‘unbelievably stupid and a waste of resources’ to legislate endocrine testing given the high level of uncertainty sur rowoding the endociine discuption theory ‘A east 20,000 animals ate slated to be Killed inthe third programme, the EPAS Child Hesith Testing Programme (CHTP) which requires 10 separate animal tests for each ‘chemical incading the barhare LDSO test to allogely sses8 the special impacts of industrial chemicals on children’. The EPA has refused to disclose the list of chemicals t plans to test, pethaps feat {ng the same sort of exticist it received forts HPV and endoctin sistuptor programmes Various groups, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRMD, have proposed an alternative to the FPAS animal testing plan, It would tequite the agency to take concrete action to elim: rate of reduce chemicals ike lead, mercury, and pesticides already know to be highly toxic to childcen, The agency bas refused to.consier the proposal, preferring instead to focus on setting ‘safe’ dose of chemicals fr children in alt, wats, food, and breast milk® ‘uta pamphlet published by the National Cancer Insitute states, there fs no acequate evidence that there Isa safe level of exposure ae a es] Some ofthe differences between humans and rats that question the ‘+ Ratscanrottoeratemoe than 15 minutesof ect sunlight. Many frm ‘workers and labourers spend long hours working and sweating inthe ‘Sun. whichmay enhance the toxic elects of pesticides onthe skin. ‘Rats dont nave seat glands tke humans do, and lose mo stre most- Iy through tet paw pads and hel tals. ‘Inhumans, tone meteialsiike chlorinated hyeocerbors become stores infaty tissues ne body and canbecometricas they ae metabolised. Rats have a much Fighe actly ofthe s desaturase enzyme system, 3 ar ofthe boas machinery for processing fats, which inuences the validity of rodent-based tests for human: way they store and absorb chemicals. The torclogst Joseph Rodicks| States thatmetabolim ferences can be extreme sé may bethe most Important facta accounting for diferences in response to chemical ‘only. ‘Rats have no gallbladder, whereasin humans the gallbladder storesblle whichis eleasedint the smallintstine andes sigeston In contrast oman, odents ae healthier when continually pregnant td can pro- ce up to x00 offspring a yea. Thee placenta nasa diferent stractre and furtin from the human placenta and absorbs on diferent cinogen... In addition, low exposure that might be safe for one person might cause cancer in another Some people are chemically intolerant 35 evidenced by a condition called Multiple Chiermical Sensitivity, which affects about 30 percent of Americans. So how does the EPA establish allegedly ‘sae’ coses of chemicals for children, ot for anyone? ‘One EPA document explains: To predict the rik fof cancer] for humans, the oral doses used in animal studies are cocrected for d= ferences in animal and human size and surface atea which has een sccounted for by the cube oot ofthe ratio ofthe animal to human weight‘ Escentilly, animal data are churned through complex mathematical formulae, adjusted by some arbitrary numerical fac imum Contaminant Leves, ‘Acceptable Daly intakes’ and ‘Permissible Exposure Levels’ = num- bers representing the amount of chemicals in al, water, and food that 4 human can Ingest over a lifetime with allegedly litle risk of becoming il In reality, weak envizoamental laws and lax enforcement ensure that animalaerived safety standards are ignored. We ate surrounded by pollution which animal tests have clearly filed to prevent Chemicals are left on the marke, or used legally even after they have caused cancer and alter elfe’s in humans and animals, rendering the existing safety standards for chemicals sees, Mote importantly, all safety standards ate set for individual chem cals and ignore that we aze all exposed to thousands of chemicals in combination in ‘our ait, water and food.” TAILS OF EXPOSURE Teeny * Animals exposed to high doses of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) ~ homicals used extensively in Rouseneld and industal products — developed iver and kidney damage, turouts, gastric disorders, bron his miscariages, skin lesions ard hormonal changes. Despite this, inthe early 5708, the General Electric Company was allowed to legally relense mare tan a milion pounds ef PCBS nt the Hudson River, and 4900 pounds of PCBS wore discharged ino the Great Lakes in x99 wth the EPHs blessing. Athough PCBs were banned in 1976, an EPA report release in 998 eveied they were sil present in the Hudson River. + 0n 3 September o99, New York City officals approved aerial raving eight milion cizens with the restcteduse pestcde malathion to allegedly contol an outbreak the mosauto-borne West tle vrs, a ‘iniswhien hace foureldery people. Tne PAS determined that malathion s acutely toxic to marimas and has listed it 25a possible hhumancarcirogen;and the World Heath Orgarsatlonhasretused toset “Se limits forthe pesticide, New York State and federal ts prohibit spraying malathion over bodies ot water, tnough ey aa alegediy lnsiracted helicopter pis to spray veto ive ‘Tuer patation an organoshosphate nseeiie (00 manufactured by CCheminova, has been in use for ver 20 years to conto a varity of Insects on agua cops, Dozens of LD50, cancer, inhalation and reproductive tory tests on pregnant animals have been performed ‘with methy parathion. Humans exposed tothe chemical have expert enced syptoms like depression, heassches, sexiness, memo"y ipa ‘ment, blurred vision, abdominal ems, tighinessn the ches, nausea 1 seems unlikely that we 6 ctfcts of chemical pollution. add layers of complexity and confusion to what is uncertain proces ‘MONEY TALKS Asin so many other branches of public policy, money is power and ‘governments have a habit of backing the ideas of whoever pays the most tax. Clearly, companies have relied oa. animal testing pro srammes to make chemicals acceptable to regulators, attractive £0 consumers - and to protect themselves from costly Ilgation. Cos. benefit decisions have ensured that most chemicals remain on the market, regardless of whether they have caused cancer and other effects in humans and animals, Animal testing has become the pri- ‘pal component ofa regulatory system that, in making concessions to industry, has lost sight ofits mandate to protect human health, ‘And humans have become the ultimate ‘guinea pigs in an increas ingly polluted world Unfortunately, a number of mainstream cnet ronmental groups, such asthe Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace, stl believe that animal tests have effective ly protected public health and the frvironment and led to. chemiea But the aray of chen ieals that humans have become exposed to, since anima testing programmes were institution alized in the 19206, has grown expo: rentaly: and only small handful af a and weakness - symptoms that go undetected in animals. in August 1999, he EPA announced that it wosld cancel the chemicals use on all fruit nd some vegetales with aview to potectngehien under new rules establshedby the Food Quality Protection Actof 996, Butit would Blow methyl parathions continued appiation, ‘= Foidemiologialstucies of humans wxposed to csi ~ byproducts of Industria combustion, and chlorination processes ~ have provided os hive evidence of cancer reuroioglcal damage andbirthde'ets, The EPA hos dubbed conina probable human carcnogea” Tests nabs nam ster, mice, rats, moneys, chickens inks and gues pigs wth ion produced 5,000 8.o0e‘old diferesces in LDso values in diferent Specs, and more than 300old variations n diferent sain ofthe Same species (rodents), leacing the EPA to describe tne range of responses as ‘damatic’ nd enormous. Despite tis, animal data iver tumours in fem ats), rather than existing human da, were used worldwide to establish standards of acceptable isk for human dlodn exposure. Humans now cary cio levels huncreds of times over the acceptable cancer risk, a defined 2y EPA ‘A nlarch 399 US Congressional report revealed that Los Angeles rs dents were breathing levels of toxic pollution hundreds of tines higher than standards set by the federal Clean Alt At. That yea, the agency acrid that ‘italy every American inales Sy unsafe levels of| 1 east eight cancer-causing chemicals’. These include Benzene, cho- reform, formaldehyde and rrethylere chlrie ~ ll utbed aim) es inogens inthe 39705. of chemicals have ever been banned. Some of these, hike DI, and DES, continue tobe used legally: and mixtures of carcinogens, Uke Peas erst in our environment with unknown conse 4 (On a philosophical level, animal testing Is part of the same life estroying parodign: that environs to oppose, Kis Ccommercaised exploitation i ts most brutal orm. Exposing tens of ‘milions of animals, dozens of animal speces, to unimaginable pain and suffering under the pretext of protecting public health, while simultaneously allowing the continued procsction and release of ‘thousands of potsons into the environment isunethicaland unsound public policy. @ Ali Fano fe the ator of Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health ‘and Environmental Policy published by Zod Books, UKE. Martin's Sela ag - multitude of on-arima auch cheaply and accurately for every toric effet under the sun" ‘Swedish toncologistSjon Eka, who tested over 75 chemicals in uma cls vio) and validated the tests in 67 etre laboratories, found that Inv tests were more accurate than animal tess in pred ing human tox. He believes that battery ofcel-based test, using @ variety ofhuman celltypes, could predict unto goper centof tec alow infor the speedy removal oftonic substances rom the marke, instead of writing see whether or not hey cause cancer, developmental or ater fects in animals Into tests are also much cheaper, costing S100 per chemical com pares to $amre fran animal test and esuts can be obtained i) armat- {erof hours, compared te between two and 0 years orn animaltest. ankdtion tonto tests, there are lvng tissue equhalents (such as ti ficial skin and corneas), phosphorescent bacteria which can detect che ea tants, ight based biosensors which can messi ceil injry and ‘recovery, and computer based structure act elaionships, suchas the MetabolExoet and HaardExpert, DEREK, COMPACT and TOPKAT systems, lini feed matnematical mode's of chemicals molecular structures tts ‘computers to predict tsi. Simi, physiologically bases bosineic ‘mode's (PBBKS ansate ologiealeltensnips into mathematialequs As tough as coconuts.. As good-lo See Na ae Cero er) ents Re aoe feat ar parent rod eee peste atone king as its origins... yee Further Triighth AnnualReport on. Caicinogens._ Naina rah tangle ane Noh Caron, 1998 2 Natwal Reais Delonas © re Release, February 4, 3 eft jos Tess. Chemical & Brginerng News. 2 Noverb Mose Winter 3000 poe 2 Znlingst No Sue Haven. F Magazine Sepreber/October 1998, pp.36-1. 8 Aen iy Deining Water trvronmental Proven agency, Otter of 9 fran ‘Ryan, Kosovo's Wounded Environment. & Aasazine September 1 Now Hea This Now Ses 4 Marth 2000 3 1 See wmichse, nwonisetcint com, wwvmulicasscom; wwwlons pudrugcom: wim paraesin cor witwcorgano pees. tions, and canbe used to study metabolism and excretion ates fr chem leis a5 wel as determine the clationship between dose and eect, at 08 of cericls much lower than those used in rodent stud es inal, imoroved analical, dlagrostic and sampiing technique, such asmagnetc resonance imaging and biomarkers, have allowed physicians and scientists to greatly increase the amount of information they cn col iccerom human belngs. Fer example, fluorescent racers andvideo imag, inghave allowed incustia hygienists 0 messure farm workers exposure te pesticides. Unfortunately, claced mindedness, bureaucracy 2nd inertia have pre vented these methods om Seng wiely used inte regulator arena In}une 3999 aller year of pressure, the US governments neragency Commitee forthevalidstion of Aermstve Metnocs rally recommended ‘he acceptance ofthe Cmositex insta assay for assessing skin corr svi reslacinge crue test n which

    You might also like