A member of Animal Liberation Victoria wrote to the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme to inform them that they should not do animal experiments. Upon receiving a reply which said that they had to animal tests to protect us, I also responded as per below. Needless to say no response to this was received from NICNAS. When you challenge vivisectors claims you see that they don't have a leg to stand on...morally or scientifically.
Dr Marion Healy,
GPO Box 58,
Sydney, NSW, 2001 Thursday, 11/2/10
Dear Dr. Healy,
Thankyou for your reply (dated 4th Feb. 2010) to a letter from Miss Gillian Bowen in regard to the testing of cosmetics on animals. I have read your reply. I agree entirely that the protection of Australian people and the environment are of paramount importance and that the community should expect this. For this reason the best methods of testing the toxicity of chemicals and cosmetics and the toxicity and efficacy of pharmaceuticals should be employed. I agree that ”The information submitted for a new ingredient needs to cover the relevant health effects and be sufficient to determine safety” as you expressed.
So please refer me to the evidence (in the form of double blind trials, randomised animal to human data comparisons, statistics based on a statistically significant random sample of chemicals, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics indicating a high correlation between human and animal data, total data from pharmaceutical/chemical companies or any independent trial of animal experiments for example) indicating that animal testing/experiments are a real scientific method, i.e. that there is a high correlation of the effects of cosmetics/chemicals/ pharmaceuticals between animals and humans. You may even refer to data fulfilling this criteria from chimpanzees, the animal with the highest correlation to humans. To quote Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, “The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between animal and human data is somewhere between 5% and 25%”. There are many similar quotes and the statistics from drug companies, comparison of human and veterinary medicine, the approximately 30,000 diseases humans now suffer from (despite or because of the testing of over a million artificial substances on animals), the failure for any diseases to be cured (despite or because of the approx. 100 million animals a year killed in medical ‘research’) and common sense also lead me to believe that human medicine cannot be based on animals. “Lethal Laws” by Alix Fano is a very scathing indictment of the inability of animals to predict the effects of substances on humans and the vast damage to humans and the environment it causes. Strychnine, cyanide, arsenic, hemlock, botulin, benzene, asbestos, DDT, HIV infected blood and cigarette smoke (to name a few) all pass animal tests. The only health I can see being protected by animal tests is the financial health of drug/chem. co’s who have historically and still gain legal protection thereby and whose products would not pass a valid test (which have existed for many years). Valid tests will not pass the ‘testing’ procedure for validation as their results are compared to animal rather than human data for validation therefore unless they are as invalid as vivisection they will be deemed to have failed. Some useful websites are www.curedisease.net www.pcrm.org www.dlrm.org www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
There are many other groups of doctors and scientists admitting that human medicine cannot be reliably based on animals.
Species difference makes it impossible to transfer results between any two species, not from a mouse to a rat or a monkey to a human. To quote Johnson and Johnson (toiletries manufacturer) “The rabbit eye is structurally and physiologically different to the human eye.” The inability to produce tears, second eyelid and different corneal depth make it so. The inexpensiveness of buying, breeding and keeping rabbits and their availability and placid nature have more to do with its use for eye and skin irritancy than any correlation to humans. (same for rodents). I realise that I have raised the issue of animal experimentation (vivisection) broadly and this gives you much to respond to so I will be content for you to restrict your response to the testing of cosmetics if you prefer.
Unless you can produce bona fide evidence that human health is being protected by animal experiments please desist from giving the impression that it does so and that we do not have real scientific methods (often called ‘alternatives’). In the absence of such evidence and in light of the good evidence that human cell cultures and others (for cosmetics) and micro-dosing and others (for pharmaceuticals) are real scientific methods which produce results applicable to humans I look forward to an announcement from your organization that you will demand the use of real scientific methods and the immediate cessation of animal testing.