HISTORIC EVENT: Listen to Justin Goodman of White Coat Waste Project explain that VA have stopped testing on cats

The X video interview pretty much explains it all. White Coat Waste Project (WCW) is a charitable campaigning group in America. Their objective is to stop the waste of tax dollars on cruel and unnecessary animal experiments including experiments on domestic cats conducted by various government agencies including in this instance by the Department of Veterans Affairs, I guess to improve knowledge on rehabilitating military vets who've been injured in conflicts. 

Goodwin says that American politicians in general want to stop these experiments. WCW have campaigned and lobbied for a long time and this is a break through. They hope for more success with other agencies.

Animal testing should be a thing of the past. It does not sit well with modern thinking about animal welfare. The vast majority of the public - I would argue - also want an end to it.

"This is a monumental moment because this marks the complete end to dog and cat testing at the VA. This is the first federal agency that has completely eliminated dog and cat testing and now we are hoping we can get other agencies and get Congress to follow suit and do it elsewhere," says Justin Goodman with White Coat Waste Project.

HISTORIC EVENT: Listen to @JustinRGoodman with @WhiteCoatWaste about discovering the @DeptVetAffairs was about to start experimenting on cats again. How a huge public push & federal lawmakers coming together aided in halting the research. pic.twitter.com/dzxWzK0eRE

— Scott Taylor : 7 News - WJLA TV (@ScottTaylorTV) August 7, 2024

U.S. Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York, co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, pushed to end the VA experiments.

I think taxpayers would be very upset to know their money is being used not on just unnecessary experiments but on inhumane ones that really torture these poor innocent animals," added U.S. Representative Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY).

Justin Goodman is the Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Public Policy at White Coat Waste Project (WCW).

Associated: White Coat Waste Project campaign success. Congress votes to defund Pentagon’s dog and cat experiments.

If you'd like to learn more about the work of WCW and their successes, CLICK HERE.

There are a number of federal agencies that continue to do this so we need to make sure every agency uses these alternative methods to protect animals and as I said early to protect the taxpayer," says U.S. Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA).

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

3D device to end the need for drug and chemical safety testing on animals

The truth be told, it could be quite strongly argued that there has been little or no need for animal testing for some time because of effective alternatives but this latest development further hammers the nail in the coffin of animal testing and I hope those organisations who insist on animal testing read it. It truly is time that animal testing is stopped permanently worldwide.

Image of device: University of Edinburgh. Overall image: MikeB.

Putting aside the story about this 3D device, in the modern world, it is impossible to justify animal testing. I don't think humans have the right to be cruel to animals to benefit their health. It's the wrong approach to take. At its core, it is immoral. But, then again, I'm an animal advocate and a lot of people would disagree with me; those who are insensitive to animal rights and their sentience.

That's enough of my complaining. Scientists have developed a 3D-printed device. It replicates how drugs move through the body. It could end the need for animal testing when testing for drug and chemical safety.

Dr Adriana Tavares of the University’s Centre for Cardiovascular Science (CVS), said:

"This device shows really strong potential to reduce the large number of animals that are used worldwide for testing drugs and other compounds, particularly in the early stages, where only two per cent of compounds progress through the discovery pipeline."

The research took place at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. This is one of the world's leading universities and last year the top university in the UK.

It's described by The Times as a "pioneering body-on-chip device". It uses 3D replicas of the human heart, brain, liver, lungs and kidney.

These organs are connected by channels which mimic the human circulatory system. Through this system medicines can be pumped.

As I understand it, the device is made through printed chip compartments and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning. This transmits radioactive compounds into the chips to send a signal to an extremely sensitive camera. It sounds very technical.

It is believed that the device will offer scientists a better and more effective way to study how drugs react in the human body and thereby preclude the need to animal test.

The inventor of the device, Liam Carr, told The Guardian newspaper that the PET imagery let medical staff check on the flow of drugs to ensure that it was even.

"This device is the first to be designed specifically for measuring drug distribution, with an even flow paired with organ compartments that are large enough to sample drug uptake for mathematical modelling."

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

White Coat Waste Project stops American taxpayer funding of Putin's Cat Lab (and more)

This is a cross post. It's important. The brilliant White Coat Waste Project (WCW) are an incredibly important organisation. They work independently and they lobby the US government to change their incomprehensible ways. They call it 'madness' that Americans through their taxes fund cruel animal experiments abroad. They are correct. It is mad on several levels.

And isn't just any old foreign country. The American government has been funding through the Department of Defence (DOD) and via a disgraced Wuhan lab funder, EcoHealth Alliance, experiments on the coronavirus found in bats discovered in a mineshaft in the north of China.

RELATED: Stronger evidence that COVID-19 started at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

On my research, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been involved in military biowarfare testing. They have connections to the military. This novel coronavirus was discovered in bats. It killed people early on and it seems that it was decided to develop it as a biowarfare agent. 

And it is now believed by many that the Covid-19 pandemic started at the Wuhan lab. And to think that via EcoHealth Alliance American taxpayers were funding this laboratory.

It is madness as WCW state. But through tireless campaigning and lobbying, WCW have achieved a very important milestone. They have convinced the US government to stop this funding.

White Coat Waste Project stops American taxpayer funding of cruel animal experiments in foreign countries. Image: WCW.

RELATED: White Coat Waste Project pressured Biden administration into defunding Russian animal experiments.

The American taxpayer was also funding cruel tests on cats in Russia for, as I understand it, military purposes. Clearly, this went under the radar from the perspective of the American public. Through WCW the ridiculousness of this funding was exposed and through tireless campaigning they have stopped it.

I received an email from WCW which states that the US House panel that funds the Department of Defence (DOD) has passed its 2024 spending bill which includes key language that WCW wanted to see in the bill and which cuts DOD funding to the Wuhan animal lab and other laboratories in China, Russia and other adversarial nations.

And the bill also cats funding for other animal experiments and virus hunting as they call it or other projects in China.

The WCW campaign documented at least 32 animal testing laboratories in Russia and China which were receiving funding from American taxpayers.

Also, following their efforts, the NIH (National Institutes of Health) has recently disqualified the Wuhan animal lab and all animal lives in Russia from taxpayer funding.

If and when the bill is passed by the full US House and becomes law later in 2023 the then statute will disqualify all labs across China and Russia from Pentagon funding as well.

WCW worked with House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Members Reps. Chris Stewart (R-UT) and Dave Joyce (R-OH) to include this important measure in the bill. They commented as follows:

Statement from Justin Goodman, Senior Vice President, White Coat Waste Project:

“Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for foreign enemies’ animal experimentation labs, and we’re proud of the progress we’re making to find, expose and defund this waste and abuse in Wuhan and beyond. If signed into law, this bill would prohibit the Pentagon from sending tax dollars to white coats in dozens of animal labs run by China, Russia and other adversarial nations. Our Worldwide Waste campaign first exposed how the DOD, NIH, USAID, and other federal agencies recklessly ship billions of tax dollars to unaccountable foreign animal labs, including how EcoHealth funneled funds to the Wuhan lab for dangerous gain-of-function animal experiments that likely caused COVID and how taxpayer unwittingly funded a Kremlin-linked lab crippling cats. The solution is simple: Stop the money. Stop the madness!”

Statement from Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT)

“Our foreign adversaries, particularly China, have proven they should not and cannot be trusted with American taxpayer dollars to conduct laboratory research and experiments. Cutting American funding to research labs in adversarial nations that pose a threat to our national security should never be a partisan issue. I’d like to thank my colleagues who have recognized the importance of this effort.”

Animal rights quotes and some thoughts

I think we should make up our own animal rights quotes. Here is one I just made up: "Animal cruelty leads to human cruelty. Hurting animals hurts humankind in the long run" - Michael Broad (webmaster PoC).

Animal advocate. Image: Pixabay.

OK, it's not that good but it makes the point. Here are some "professional" animal rights quotes:

The first one is a very well-known quote. It has been quoted hundreds of thousands of times and rightly so. To emphasise what I have stated below, I don't think that the human race can be described as civilised until we all respect animals. We have a long way to go. That is abundantly clear. 

Animal rights. Image: Pixabay.

The invasion of Ukraine by Putin's forces has resulted in horrifically uncivilised human behaviour towards both people and animals by the Russians. In contrast, the Ukrainian defenders appear to be very gentle and respectful of stray dogs and cats.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi

It is so right because the treatment of living creatures who are vulnerable or at the mercy of people in authority and/or power indicates the quality of the society and the calibre of the people who in power. For animals all people are in power all people have dominion over them. The bible as I recall endorses that view which is wrong. The bible is wrong in many respects. Please read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

So, it is an animal quote that actually applies to all living creatures including people who are vulnerable. These are usually the poorer people, people more likely to be abused and used by the stronger, alpha male types.

Bodega cat insists on equal rights with humans and why not? 
Photo: Facebook @thebodegacats.

A society that cares properly for the most vulnerable - and companion animals are vulnerable in a human dominated world - is one that has become truly civilised. The world is not civilised, not even western nations are civilised. Over 2 million feral cats are needlessly and deliberately killed in the USA every year. They don't pass the Gandhi test I am afraid.

RELATED: Dr Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: “Animals don’t have rights”.

I was reminded, incidentally, that Gandhi was no saint himself. He was human but he knew how to make a good quote! And he knew animal and human rights.

"Life is life's greatest gift. Guard the life of another creature as you would your own because it is your own. On life's scale of values, the smallest is no less precious to the creature who owns it than the largest..." - Lloyd Biggle Jr.

I have not heard this animal rights quote before. Actually, it is not necessarily an animal rights quote, more commonsense.

The thing is this: if we kill and abuse animals, we are hurting nature and nature is the world. We are killing a part of us indirectly. We are hurting ourselves slowly and indirectly. If we do something bad to an animal, we are damaging ourselves psychologically I believe. If we do the opposite and do good, we build our self-esteem. We create a better world inside our heads and outside in our small way.

"True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it." - Milan Kundera, (Czech Novelist)

"Most people have forgotten how to live with living creatures, with living systems and that, in turn, is the reason why man, whenever he comes into contact with nature, threatens to kill the natural system in which and from which he lives." - Konrad Lorenz, (Naturalist)

In general, the world has forgotten how to live with nature. We have forgotten that we don't own the planet but are guardians of it. We live on it and yet we destroy it. Abusing animal rights is a small manifestation of our inability to think sustainably and how to live harmoniously with nature. By nature, I mean all living creatures and the landscape on which we live.

Sometimes I believe that we hate ourselves so much that we are destroying the planet as a way of destroying ourselves.

One area where animal rights are routinely abused wholly legally is in the area of animal testing. This is a controversial area. But if we have any sensitivity to animal rights, animal testing is repugnant. It is distasteful and obviously wrong. Why are we more important than animals? In terms of world health, we are less important than all other animals because we are the greatest threat to the world. As I said we are destroying it. Animals don't destroy the world. They live in harmony with nature and the planet.

"Atrocities are no less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called 'medical research." - George Bernard Shaw, (Irish Playright and Critic)

It would seem that some progress has been made in the area of animal rights....

Eleanor Roosevelt with family dog

"It seems to me of great importance to teach children respect for life. Towards this end, experiments on living animals in classrooms should be stopped. To encourage cruelty in the name of science can only destroy the finer emotions of affection and sympathy, and breed an unfeeling callousness in the young towards suffering in all living creatures." - Eleanor Roosevelt, (former First Lady of the United States of America)

Eleanor Roosevelt lived October 11, 1884 – November 7, 1962. Am I correct is presuming that in the United States, conducting live animal experiments has been banned in the classroom? God, I hope so. It is disgusting.

It is particularly important that children learn to respect other living creatures, to respect nature and other people. Martha Kane working in Malta as a cat rescuer gives talks to school children for this particular purpose.

I hope you enjoyed these animal rights quotes. Please add your own animal rights quote by leaving a comment.

Postscript: I might be an extreme animal advocate but I believe that the human-animal is not superior to any animal. I believe that we are all equal whether we are humans or animals. Obviously, we are not because in the human world very few people think that but I also believe that it would be a better world if people thought like me. There would be much less animal cruelty. Little animal exploitation. A much lower human population and so on. Human population growth is almost a disease on the planet. It is destroying the planet. And if you destroy animals, you also destroy humans and the planet. We need to live in harmony. There needs to be far more respect for animals both wild and domestic. We have a legacy of Christianity in large parts of the world which more or less states that humans have dominion over animals. Not a good concept.

Prominent feline geneticist wants more animal testing on cats

NEWS AND COMMENT: I think that this is a troubling story. We are told by the New York Post that a prominent feline geneticist, Leslie Lyons of the Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery at the University of Missouri, wants more animal testing on cats because they have shared characteristics to humans in their DNA's "dark matter".

Prominent feline geneticist wants more animal testing on cats. Photo: in public domain.

DNA dark matter refers to an estimated 95% of our DNA which is nearly identical to all other animals. The experts had thought that it wasn't important to study it because it contains superfluous genetic information but recent studies have indicated that it holds important factors in our development.

And Leslie Lyons says that cats are predisposed to certain genetic diseases which is related to dysfunctional genetic dark matter. As humans also inherit diseases it may help to do animal tests on cats to help understand how medicine can remove this predisposition to genetic diseases.

One reason she suggests that cats should be used more in animal testing is that monkeys can be expensive whereas cats are cheaper. She says that cats' "affordability and docile nature" make them an ideal lab animal.

I think I'll stop there and say that I disagree very strongly with her, not because she's selecting out domestic cats as lab animals to be messed around with causing suffering and distress, but because she obviously supports animal testing. She appears to be saying that cats are more expendable than monkeys because they are cheaper.

She is valuing animals not by their intrinsic value but by the monetary value. This almost hints at the possibility that she has forgotten that cats are sentient beings.

A veterinarian and someone associated with veterinary surgery, I believe, should not be promoting animal testing. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic but all veterinarians should be criticising animal testing. This is because they should all be supporting animal welfare of the highest quality. Animal testing undermines animal welfare. It supports human welfare at the expense of animals.

There is a strong case nowadays to do away with animal testing entirely because we have pretty well reached the stage where scientists can replicate animal testing without using animals. No matter how strongly you feel about supporting animal testing you can never remove from that thought process the hard fact that it is immoral. It is unethical and arguably it goes against the veterinarian's oath.

Syndaver makes synthetic cadavers precluding the need to use the real thing

In what I consider to be a major step forward in animal welfare, Syndaver is an American business which makes synthetic cadavers both animal and human which precludes the need to use the real thing to train veterinarians and doctors. It will also I hope in the long term preclude the need for students at schools to dissect domestic cats. Yes, this does happen and it does cause some controversy.

Syndaver canine. Screenshot.

Syndaver, I would suggest, is also a business that provides a stepping stone towards eliminating the need for animal testing. If anything can be done to prevent animal testing so much the better. Animal testing is about improving human health and it is naturally controversial. Science can create synthetic animals or parts of animals nowadays and I would hope that in the not too distant future these products will become sophisticated enough to close the animal testing laboratories.

In the video you see a Syndaver synthetic canine but it could just as well be a feline. The same principles apply and the same welfare concepts apply. And anatomically correct replica of dog can change the way veterinarians learn their craft. And anatomically correct piece of human anatomy created artificially can change the way humans relate to cats and other animals with respect to testing new medicines and testing commercial products.

It is impossible to justify the testing of cosmetics on animals. It still happens reflecting the disdain that commercial enterprises sometimes have for nature and non-human animals. A lot of people just don't get it. And me writing about it is utterly boring to a large percentage of people. I find this sad because we have to adjust our relationship with animals just as we have to adjust our lifestyle and a fundamental level in order to substantially reduce our carbon footprint.

There are some big changes afoot. We can't go on as we are but it is like turning around an oil tanker in the Suez Canal! It's almost impossible but it will happen.

Donating to Some UK Medical Charities Can Mean That You Support Experiments on Animals

I'm sure that most people are unaware of this. Many people donate money to some of the UK's leading medical charities such as Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. Both of the charities mentioned fund experiments on animals. There are others.

The Victims of Charity website helps us understand and empowers people to challenge recent examples of charity-supported experiments on animals.

I've mentioned the British Heart Foundation. This charity has supported a catalogue of repulsive experiments including dogs and pigs being deliberately given heart attacks, pregnant sheep being surgically mutilated and partially suffocated, and rats being deprived of oxygen for two weeks.

The Cure Parkinson's Trust has co-funded an experiment in which marmoset monkeys were brain-damaged by a toxic chemical overdosed with a Parkinson's disease bug to induce debilitating side-effects. They were also given ecstasy or a derivative of it.

The Alzheimer's Society has co-funded research in which mice were genetically altered to suffer from a crude version of Alzheimer's disease and they were subjected to highly stressful behavioural tests such as being forced to swim around in a pool of water looking for an escape route.

The Cancer Research UK charity has co-funded experiments in which genetically modified mice without fur were injected with human cancer cells and forced to endure the growth of a tumour inside them for three weeks before some of them were treated. Other rodents were poisoned for around six months with an industrial chemical to induce the development of cancer.

People should be aware of of the above information. When people give to charity a lot of them would be horrified to know that they are funding cruel animal experiments.

There are many organisations that only fund non-animal human-relevant research. To find out the names of these charities and to find out about the policies of charities on vivisection you can go to the animalaid.org.uk website and I also urge you to visit the victimsofcharity.org website.

In writing this short article I have quoted sometimes verbatim from a pamphlet given to me by a representative of the victims for charity and animal aid websites. I do so in order to pass on the message. The pamphlet certainly enlightened me. I hope this helps.

Animal Testing and European Directive (Directive 2010/63/EU)

I have seen the petition on the Care2 petition website. It is headlined, "Stop the UK Government from legalising the use of stray pets in lab experiments!" The petition basically says that the new legislation (law) created by the Commission of the European Union (EU) will have a detrimental impact on stray pets, and on animals generally, who are used in animal testing in the UK.

The new law is in the form of a directive. This is legislation that the institutions of the EU create and then hands out to members of the European Union who are then obliged to incorporate what is European law into national law. The UK is part of the EU.

When Europe creates new law on animal testing it is important for people who are concerned about animal welfare. Most of these people want animal testing stopped completely or a least controlled and restricted more severely and efficiently. It is an opportunity to improve animal welfare law. By "improve" I mean to reduce and restrict animal testing.

My personal view is that animal testing should be stopped completely. We have no right to harm animals and cause pain and suffering to them for our benefit. If stopping animal testing results in more humans suffering health problems, then I accept that.

EU directives are complicated and I am not sure that the author of the petition has it correct. In any case I have checked Directive 2010/63/EU and the section that refers to stray and feral cats. It is reproduced below and you can make your own minds up. I think the problem is that the new law does not go far enough to protect animals used in laboratories.

However, in general the declared purpose of Directive 2010/63/EU is to update the previous directive (1986 Directive 86/609/EEC). They say the aim is:

 "to strengthen legislation, and improve the welfare of those animals still needed to be used, as well as to firmly anchor the principle of the Three Rs, to Replace, Reduce and Refine the use of animals, in EU legislation."

Both directives are concerned with the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

Some selected sections are:

Principle of replacement, reduction and refinement

1. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.

2. Member States shall ensure that the number of animals used in projects is reduced to a minimum without compromising the objectives of the project.

And for stray and feral cats the directive states:

Article 11

Stray and feral animals of domestic species

1. Stray and feral animals of domestic species shall not be used in procedures.

2. The competent authorities may only grant exemptions from paragraph 1 subject to the following conditions:

(a) there is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; and

(b) there is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.

I think the problem that concerns people is:

1. That the introduction of new EU legislation was an opportunity to curb animal testing and the opportunity has been missed despite the fact the legislators say they have tightened the law and;
2. The implementation of this EU law is down to the governments of the countries in the EU. How it is done concerns people because there appears to be a certain amount of leeway. Big business will take the opportunity to loosen control of animal testing where possible. There is considerable lobbying going on because the big companies are eager to retain animal testing and to stop further restrictions being implemented.

You can read more on these pages if you wish:

• Animal Welfare in UK Laboratories Under Threat
• European Commission Environment
• The new directive referred to on this page (PDF file will download).

Cons of Animal Testing

One objective of animal testing is to establish clinical procedures that are of benefit to humans. What if it was found that in the course of 20 reviews of animal testing, in general, only two of those reviews concluded that animal models (as opposed to alternative methods of testing) led to clinical procedures that met the objective.

Animal testing. Photo: Pixabay.

In other words what if it was established that animal testing had a success rate of 10% in respect of this objective. If that were the case even hardened pro-animal testers would have to question the morality and ethics of the process because even people who are in favour of it must see that it is at the very least borderline acceptable from an ethical and moral standpoint.

The only justification for animal testing is that it has a substantial positive impact on the health of people.

Well, it does not. The fact is that in only 10% of the reviews did the authors of the review consider that animal testing had served its purpose and met its objectives in respect of clinical procedures beneficial to people. That information comes from the most comprehensive review by Andrew Knight in his book: The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments - ISBN-10: 0230243924.

Armed with that information it is difficult to justify it on a simple cost effectiveness basis forgetting about the dubious morality. There are better ways to improve clinical procedures that are more cost effective. In respect of product testing, apparently, the differences in physiology between the animals tested upon and that of humans is sufficient to make the results less than reliable on many occasions - it is inefficient and sometimes ineffective.

If you are anti-animal testing you would not need to argue so fine a point. To us it is simply immoral and unethical to cause pain, suffering and death to animals for our benefit. After all we are human animals and we are becoming more aware that the differences between the human animal and other animals are not as great as we first thought. They can feel pain and emotion and we are discovering they might be self-conscious. Some animals show startlingly high levels of intelligence.

The testing of animals is probably still practised because it is cheaper than using, for example, computer simulations. It might be cheaper to carry out but its inefficiency makes it more expensive.

If you weighed the pain and suffering of all the 9.9 million "instances of animal use" in the countries of the European Union in 2008, would it be in balance with the health benefits to Europeans? I suspect the pain side of the scale would be much heavier.

Note: the quote is from Jane Goodhall's article in the Times of March 17th 2012.

See also cosmetics animal testing and animal testing statistics.

A Ban on Testing of Household Products on Animals

In the UK we seem to be gradually, oh so gradually, going in the right direction in respect of animal testing. At one time testing cosmetics on animals was allowed. That seems barbaric and ridiculous now. Cosmetic testing was effectively banned in the UK in 1998 because the government refused to issue licenses. That paved the way for a Europe wide ban in 2003.

Note, though, that cosmetics that have been tested on animals because they are in circulation or manufactured elsewhere are not banned in the EU.

Now the government in the UK has commited to banning testing household products such as washing up liquid, glue, nappoes (!), paint, bleaches, cleaners, fly and wasp sprays etc. on animals.

There are alternative ways to test without harming animals. Animals are force fed high doses of substances or the substances are rubbed on their skin. It is quite horrible and totally unacceptable. A ban is overdue.

See: Animal testing for cosmetics and animal testing in cosmetics and cosmetics animal testing.



From A Ban on Testing of Household Products on Animals to Home Page

Cats and Dogs to Live Longer

The strange and perpetual desire for people to live longer has thrown up its latest possibilities, which are going to be tested on dogs and cats perhaps. It's just another form of animal testing it seems to me.

Iams Cat Food

Nothing to do with Iams Cat Food!
Photo by seanmcgrath (Flickr)
Great cat portrait

We should not buy Iams cat food because Procter and Gamble (P&C) own Iams and P&C conduct animal testing on cats and dogs in pet food research. These tests are cruel and harmful to the animals, it is said. Any animal testing even at its most benign is cruel as far as I am concerned and it should all be banned.

There is no need to animal test to improve pet food. What is extraordinary is that although I abhor animal testing of all kinds and particularly for cosmetics and pet food, I have two packets of Iams dry cat food in the kitchen that I bought online. It is a question of availability and convenience for us. The big manufacturers seem to be the ones that are most likely to be guilty of animal testing and it is their products that are the easiest to buy.

However, I am ashamed of myself. I will not buy Iams cat food again. In any case my cats are not that fond of it. They prefer Hills dry cat food. I buy Hills light for them. But do Hills animal test? Probably.

How do I know that Iams animal test? There are a number of trusted websites that have detailed information about it.

Express Story

The first is Uncaged.co.uk. This is a well known and respected website. This is the relevant page: Iams test on animals.

The other site that I would like to mention is IamsCruelty.com. Yes, this is an entire website dedicated to animal testing by Iams! This is a link: Animals suffer at Iams.

Iams cruel animal testing was reported on by the Sunday Express (journalist: Lucy Johnson).

So we have good evidence. Knowing this we really must steel ourselves and not buy Iams cat food.

There are many alternatives. Which pet food manufacturers do not animal test? The Iams Cruelty.com website list the companies/businesses that they are confident do not animal test. This is the link: Brands that do no test on animals.

Hills are not listed as not testing! Well, if that is the case I'll have to change. The list relates to north American brands by the way.

One of the best canned cat foods on my reckoning is Newmans. Newman’s Own Organics are a brand who don't animal test apparently. Maybe we should buy Newmans?

The best dry cat food in America on my assessment is Innova EVO Dry Cat Food. Do they animal test? As far as I can tell, Natura Pet Products are the parent company. Neither Natura nor Innova are on the list of pet food manufacturers who IamsCruely.com can say for sure do not animal test. On that basis they animal test.

This is confirmed on another site: The Natura Pet Products policy on animal testing.

They say they prefer to animal test. The company "believes strongly in the importance of nutritional testing". But they are concerned animal testers and the testing in non-invasive and they say it only includes animals eating their products.

That said, the animals are in a facility, albeit a nice facility. They live unnatural lives and are probably stressed at least at some point and their lives are unnatural which is diametrically opposite to the brand name, "Natura Pet Products" indicating "natural pet products".

It is a shame that Natura Pet Products animal test because their Innova brand dry cat food is pretty well universally acclaimed as the best.

It seems that it is not that easy to avoid buying from an animal testing company. We should make the effort, however. Don't by Iams cat food, please. You can't feed your cat knowing that another cat in a cage in a nasty research facility has been tested on and is probably frightened and possibly abused. Note: legally no wrong has been done in animal testing to improve pet food.

Iams Cat Food -- Associated Pages:

• Facts on Animal Testing
• Purina Pet Cat Food - involved in animal testing.
• Animal Testing Facts | Product Labelling
• Animal Testing for Cosmetics
• Animal Testing in Cosmetics

From Iams Cat Food to Home Page

Note: the rational for publishing the picture of the Sunday Times under fair use is that it is very small and has no impact on the commerce of the Sunday Express, indeed it promotes it.

Tiger Farms

Are tiger farms bad? If we stand back and just get a gut feel for this question, a lot (a majority, I would say) of us would think tiger farms are hideous. How can we take the most popular wild animal in the world and farm it!? How can we turn such a proud and precious animal into farm livestock? It sounds disgusting. "To me it is disgusting," Valmik Thapar (a prominent conservationist) thunders. "It's not civil to have tiger farms; it's not part of anyone's dream." (I have quoted Mr Thapar and I am sure he will allow it).

But if we put away all sentiment it could be argued that tiger farms are a good idea at least on first impressions.

Farms like these are selling tiger bone wine and other products. The photograph (which I have selectively cropped), is by International Tiger Coalition. People are free to use this image on condition that they provide a credit. I can feel the stress these tigers are feeling cooped up like this, wholly unnaturally.

If the tiger has been poached to extinction (nearly) or its habitat and prey eroded to the point where it shares land with people to the demise of the tiger and a few people, then tiger farms are one way, on the face of it, to reduce poaching and preserve this big cat in the wild. And the unsentimental will say, "what is the difference between a tiger and a rabbit?" Both are wild animals and both are used for the pleasure of mankind, in one way or another. So why aren't we shouting from the rooftops about the rabbit or the horse, which is eaten by some people.

The reason why a gut feel is, in fact, the right feel is because tiger farms are a complete fraud and a sham. If they are meant to be a means to help preserve the wild tiger, they don't work. It is even more basic than that, it is simply about money, nothing else, making money from tigers in a cruel and uncaring way.

One reason why they are a sham, and dangerous to the wild tiger and not a benefit to them, is because the people who own and run these farms are lobbying the authorities (presumed CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) to allow tiger parts from the farms to be traded (in breach of CITES currently). If that is allowed, it is argued that, the trade in tiger parts will be encouraged and expanded and muddied up at a time when it is most critical and important for there to be a tightening up of CITES restrictions and not a loosening up.


Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition and thanks to Big Cat Rescue for showing these pictures on their website.

Here are some other reasons why tiger farms are bad:

• 5,000 live tigers are kept on tiger farms in China. There are about 4,000 (the figure is not certain) in the wild and 12,000 in the USA as "pets". The photograph below shows us how these farm tigers are treated at the end of their lives in very limited captivity:

Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition (cropped)

Yes I know we are disgusted by this image, those of us who have retained a sense of what is right. What you are looking at is the most popular wild animal in the world reduced to trash and meat, chilled flesh and bone, bereft of dignity. The owner of this farm was keeping what was left of the tiger bodies (you can see one has been skinned) until it becomes legal to trade in body parts. And CITES had asked, formally, China to investigate illegal sales of tiger meat at the Guilin farm. What is CITES doing asking China to investigate? This is preposterous. It is like asking the police to investigate an assault perpetrated by an officer on duty. Do we ever get a result from such an investigation? No. It is like the kind of investigation carried out by the Financial Securities Agency (FSA) in the UK (charged with monitoring the bankers) in investigating financial frauds -- forget it. It does not work. There is not enough independent and neutral control and management.

And it really is about attitude. I have yet to see someone talk about the attitude of people who find doing what is illustrated normal and acceptable. Surely this is at the root of the problem. Some people (sadly a lot of these people are in an area which is near where the tiger's habitat is) just find it acceptable to treat tigers as livestock. Actually, it is worse than that, you wouldn't treat livestock in some countries as the tiger is treated on tiger farms. I am sure that if a health and safety official visited a farm in the UK and found cattle lying around like these dead and mutilated tigers, he or she would make a formal complaint. So I conclude that the Chinese people involved in this business (not all Chinese please note - I don't want someone saying that I am racist, I am not) think of tigers as livestock on a farm. Many millions of people in the west think of tigers differently. And allowing tigers to be farmed will simply perpetuate this outdated and outmoded attitude.

The only long term answer is to educate and change attitudes and that will require the agreement of the Chinese government. To get their agreement there has to be a financial reward. The loss of the tiger in the wild is a world problem. The tiger belongs to the world and the world must find a way to save this animal.

The overriding problem, though, is that the majority of the people of the world do not know about this or if they do, they don't care sufficiently. How many people know about tiger farms? How many people ask whether tiger farms are bad? Lets guess, 2 million in the world. That represents 0.033 percent of the world's population, an infinitesimal amount and of no consequence. People generally, globally simply do not know or care enough to change things. And I am not being critical. It is just human nature.

It is shocking to realize that, "The 171 member nations of CITES made it clear last month that ‘tigers should not be bred for their parts and derivatives.'” The Chinese tiger part dealers are particularly bothered about this statement, are they? No. Some say that the Chinese have banned (in line with CITES) tiger body parts, but I for one don't believe it. The body parts of wild tigers are still being traded because no one is enforcing the CITES ban and there is too much money in the trade, which becomes more valuable as the tiger becomes rarer. Another factor: it costs 250 times more to raise a tiger in captivity than it does to poach a wild tiger. Killing wild tigers is more economically viable.


Tiger Farms - Photo by International Tiger Coalition

OK, what else is bad about tiger farms?:

1. Chinese tiger farmers say they are making a loss. This is because of the 14-year ban on domestic and international trade in tiger body parts. They want to open trade again. Question: how have they stayed in business for 14 years if they are making a loss? And if they started up within the past 14 years why did they go into the business if it was loss making. We don't believe this kind of comment do we?
2. Look at the pictures of the tigers waiting to be killed for their body parts. How do you think they feel? They are very static, very hot. They live in very small spaces. A tigers natural home range is 7-58 square miles - src: http://www.seaworld.org. This is torture waiting for (probably) a brutal death to be cut up and parts sold for the ridiculous Chinese medicine market. Why people in this day and age harbour medieval thoughts that a bit of a tiger can cure you of an illness is beyond me.
3. Apparently the owners of these farms show compassion for people who come to the tiger farms seeking and pleading to buy tiger bone to cure rheumatism. The tiger farm owners say they must reluctantly turn them away because of the restriction on trade. I guess the tiger farm owners don't tell them that tiger bone does not cure rheumatism and that it is all hocus pocus.
4. There is no need for original animal body parts in Chinese medicine. There are effective (probably far more effective than the tiger part which cannot be effective at all) substitutes. There is no need to treat tigers like this.
5. The farms sell tiger bone wine and tiger meat even. This is hideous and has nothing to do with conservation of the tiger, it is plain callous commercialization of an highly endangered animal.
   

I have to quote John Stellar, CITES's enforcement chief: "Wild tigers are about to go down the toilet, and we don't seem to be doing anything about it. The international community has been pouring money into this, and we have failed." As I have said we need a completely different attitude and really we need to shut down all Chinese tiger farms. CITES can't do this. No one can except the Chinese government and they are a very cynical government and will never do anything that undermines their power. Upsetting business undermines their power base. And tiger farms are big business. The problem should be tackled from a business perspective.


Tiger Farms - Save me please - Photo by International Tiger Coalition.

On the basis, as mentioned, that the tiger belongs to the world (and not humans) and its extinction in the wild is a world problem, I suggest this as a solution to the tiger farms problem:

1. Provide China with some sort of political incentive to close tiger farms. America is talking to China currently on economic matters, why can't the tiger be brought into the discussions?
   
2. The major nations of the world pool resources, including China, to recompense those businesses who are involved in the tiger body parts trade when the trade is shut down. The Chinese must shut this trade down but to make it palatable there has to be compensation.
3. In tandem with this there should be a nationwide program of education in China initially on alternatives to ingredients to Chinese medicine along the lines promulgated in the west. There are effective substitutes for all the tiger body parts that are used in "medicine".
   
4. As to skins etc. there is no short cut here. The traders should be compensated and retrained once trade is banned with proper enforcement. There is arguably a need for a world enforcement team along the lines of the UN.
   

UPDATE

It is April 2021, quite a few years after I wrote this article (March 2009) and tiger farms have got worse as we would expect because China is very industrious at whatever they do. The demand for tiger body parts is bound to grow therefore they need more tigers to slaughter like livestock to supply the body parts. 

Incidentally, a bit of good news but only very incidentally to the main topic: China's human population is stagnating. Their citizens are not having babies despite the government's attempts to encourage them to have families. The one child policy has long been removed and now they can have 2 children but citizens are not taking up the offer. This means the demand for tiger body parts might level off and stabilise but perhaps I am being overly optimistic.

It is said that today, in 2021, China's tiger farms have turned a wild animal into a species worth more dead than alive. Tigers are reduced to living in just 6% of their former distribution and they've become more valuable as livestock and to be slaughtered than to watch them and admire them in the wild. China has reduced them to that status in my honest opinion. But other countries also have tiger farms and they are all in Asia.

As tigers become rarer in the wild because of poaching and human population growth in India where the Bengal tiger primarily lives, they become more valuable in captivity, on farms. One of the most popular tiger products is tiger bone wine, a concoction that is claimed to treat arthritis, impotence and rheumatism. Perhaps it is claimed to cure pretty well everything and people believe it is well. There is no science to back this up.

Tiger body parts are cooked for wealthy businessmen and bureaucrats because they like to demonstrate their elevated social status and their wealth. They also think that eating bits of a tiger does them some good in some way.

There are now estimated 8,000 tigers held in captivity on farms across China and in Laos, Thailand and Vietnam as at the date of this update. They are housed in appalling conditions, concrete floors, barely enough space to allow them any form of normal exercise, completely unnatural habitat et cetera. Tigers bred on these farms for their bones are often malnourished and it is said that their deaths are deliberately induced by starvation.

One worker said that a skeleton is a bag of bones which is what they're looking for anyway. Tigers bred for meat rather than for bones are plumped up by being pumped full of liquid and force-fed to make them as fat as possible. The farmers fatten them up because they get more money for their carcasses. They can barely stand at the end of their lives with their stomach scraping low to the ground.

These tiger farms are described as speed-breeding factory farms providing raw materials for high-end products. It is a conveyor belt from the creation of cubs by a mother who is quickly brought back into heat by removing her cubs once born. They are used as forms of entertainment. Visitors can pay to cuddle and bottle feed them, take selfies with them for their social media webpages. Then once the cubs have grown up they can be fattened up and slaughtered. Everything is commercialised.

This once magnificent creature has been reduced to a commercial asset, to be maltreated as livestock and then fed to the arrogant and hungry mouths of rich bureaucrats in China and Laos.

Are Tiger Farms Bad? to Bengal Tiger Facts

Cat Experiments

Cats are used extensively in animal testing and cat experiments are conducted in universities all over the world. Physiologically cats have a lot of similarities to humans. The idea of carrying out nasty and injurious tests on cats does not bother many people. To others it is abhorrent and unforgivable. I am in the second category.

The examples are numerous. Two immediately come to mind. The beginning of the Bengal cat breed is indirectly founded on tests carried out on Asian Leopard cat hybrids (leukemia research). Jean Mill acquired one of the hybrids and bred from the cat to start the breed. Read about Bengal cat origins (this post has a different take on the breeding of Jean Mill). Another is the testing on Safari cats. The Safari cats concerned were killed (I don't know if these tests were carried out at university facilities).

You can go on and on. Testing often happens behind the respectable veneer of established and revered University facades. Here are some other examples of cat experiments at universities:


----University of Colorado Denver and Health Sciences Center (this is a PETA story, src: Peta). I am not sure of the date of this research. It concerns the work of a person named Moshe Solomonow. He was conducting tests on cats into back pain. He'd open up the cats back to the spine and attached hooks to the cat's spinal ligaments, having administered an anesthetic that is considered "archaic" and inadequate by modern standards. The indications are that the cats felt pain. It is claimed the test were worthless. This sounds like a form of medieval torture.


----Ohio State University - 2002 - Experiments carried out by Michael Podell a veterinarian (src: Singapore cats). Cats where used to test the effect of HIV positive humans abusing drugs. Cats were deliberately infected with FIV and injected with the drug "speed" (methamphetamine) and their brains cut into to check the brain response. The cats were then killed. Nice one Mr Podell.


----Baylor College of Medicine Houston, Texas (it is not clear if the following experiments were actually carried out at this college). The research was written up by Claudia Robertson, MD, Guest Editor, Department of Neurosurgery. The language of scientists is opaque. This is probably deliberate to make the work sound more complicated, important and special, which translates to the people conducting the experiments being more important.

In this case the method employed was "open skull experiments" on cats and monkeys under chloralose anesthesia. This anesthesia is apparently archaic. The objective of the cat experiments was as far as I can ascertain to study the incidence of Peri-infarct depolarizations (PID).


----University of Edinburgh, Summerhall, Edinburgh EH9 1QH, UK (1996) - This entailed researching the release of immunoreactive (ir-) neuropeptide Y (NYP) in the spinal cords of cats that were anesthetized. Yes, fine the cats were anesthetized but did they feel pain and did you check? And what happened to the cats after the experiments?


----University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia. The research was to investigate the effect on blood flow in the cat optic nerve by flickering light. The cat(s) were anesthetized. It looks to me as if electrodes were placed into the cat's head to take measurements.

As I said, I could go on. Some of these are freely available published results, usually on PDF format direct from the researchers and usually in the form of an article or research paper. The sources for the above came from a simple Google search. A lot of the research is almost invisible, I would think for the purpose of limiting attention to it.

Animal testing is immoral even if it is for the possible benefit of humans. There are two reasons:

1. We have an unwritten contract (a form of social contract) with domestic cats. The contract doesn't allow for one to experiment on the other.

2. We are not superior to cats and have no right to cause them pain in our ostensible interests. All animals whether the human animal or other animals should respect each other. Cats respect us, lets do likewise.

Photo: copyright Brian Gunn IAAPEA (published with his permission. All the photographs on this website are published with express permission of the photographer)

Cat Experiments to cat and animal cruelty

Cat Cloning A Mortal Sin

Cat cloning is a mortal sin under the Vaticans new list the seven deadly sins (anyway that's my assessment). The original seven deadly sins were: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth. These are personal characteristics, the focus being on the individual.

In a modern world as it shrinks (and we become more connected with peoples from other countries) the Vatican has upgraded the list and come up with these:- drug abuse (drug abuse is as much an illness in fact, perhaps this is referring to drug dealing as well), excessive wealth, genetic manipulation, morally debatable experiments, environmental pollution, social inequalities and causing poverty. They are more outward looking and relate to our relationship with others including the world generally (we are all connected).

Of these sins, I am most interested in genetic manipulation and morally debatable experiments. The scientists doing these experiments are, it seems, motivated by the desire to improve the welfare of humans (or are they more interested in personal gain or the gain of the drug companies?).

I am particularly thinking of the recent experiment by Korean scientists to clone Turkish Angora cats that glow in the dark. The purpose was to better understand diseases related to mutant genes in humans and to discover cures. A cat's genetic make up is similar to ours.

The intention is to bred more cats with genetic diseases by implanting a mutant gene that causes a disease. If we recognize ourselves as frail and sinful humans (i.e. we gain humility and lose arrogance) we can, I believe, perceive such experiments as being morally wrong.

These experiments are done I believe without any regard for the cats. There is a distinct lack of respect for other animals if we permit ourselves to cause the creation of an animal that has a serious disease and which is liable to cause suffering. Even if it may help humans.

Why are we special and more important than cats? I don't see an argument to support that. We are cleverer in some respects but that is irrelevant.

The Korean scientists have committed a mortal sin as far as I am concerned. Korea is also a country where they eat cat meat. I don't like Korea.

Photograph of poster (taken in China or Korea?) copyright mac_vegetarian and reproduced under creative commons.

Cat Cloning A Mortal Sin to Home Page

Cats Feel Pain

Cats Feel Pain - Vets operating table copyright Brit reproduced under creative commons. Another Flickr photograph had a caption which read something like, "how can I tell when a cat's in pain?". Well if she is quiet, hiding, and behaving in a non-routine manner, she could be in pain. Also cats sometimes purr deeply when in pain. After that you investigate (to the Vet usually and quickly). Thereafter you can normally tell.

Cats hide pain as all do all animals. It is a natural state in their quest for survival. They also hide themselves. But animals and cats do feel pain. A simple test suffices. If for example you accidentally stand on your cat's paw (I've done this once in 15 years - don't do it deliberately please), you will see a reaction that clearly indicates that she has felt pain. She will yelp and cry out. It goes further. My cat suffers nightmares and cries out and wakes up (psychological pain).

It seems common sense to me that cats feel pain. They have brains, nerves and are programmed to survive. It is necessary therefore for the body to know when it is injured by the signal of pain to the brain.

Yet surrounded by day to day examples of animals suffering pain, until the 1980s (yes fairly recently) scientists argued that animals could not feel pain. They routinely conducted experiments on animals including cats inflicting pain without compunction.

Sometimes the objective was to inflict pain and see the result (this doesn't square up with the argument that animals don't feel pain). The fact that mankind had until recently argued that animals don't feel pain is a major reason for the maltreatment of animals worldwide including cats. That and sheer ignorance and nastiness. I am sure this false concept is still alive in a many areas of the world.

This misconception arose out of the idea that animals couldn't rationalize. It suited scientists to maintain this view as it assisted them in their research during which they inflicted pain on animals. It was and is an example mankind rationalizing things to suit himself.

Vets until recently would not routinely (or at all) give "pain meds" to cats after spaying and neutering. The operation is routine but invasive. Now, gradually, the world is becoming more civilized and pain killers are given to cats after this operation, more routinely because the vet understands that cats feel pain.

The great man Mahatma Gandhi famously said that we can measure the degree of civilization in a community by the way they treat animals (or the vulnerable). Obviously we are not very civilized but getting better.

When we wish to trick ourselves about the truth we talk about the subject in a particular and benign fashion to make it palatable and hide it from ourselves. This is most noticeable in politicians and of course animal testing scientists.

From Cats Feel Pain to Home Page

Animal Free Testing of Baby Products

99% of the time I don't think about animal free testing of baby products or any products for that matter and I am ashamed of it. I care deeply about the welfare of cats and animals but don't do enough (although I am building this website :).

The root cause of the problem is, "Out of Sight out of Mind", apathy, and I'm too busy. All bad reasons if I am honest. Amongst other animals, cats are used in animal testing. I find it difficult to allow myself to talk about cats and present the most wonderful pictures of the wonderful looking cats without addressing what is hidden behind that pretty veneer.

The issue of animal testing is very problematic and there are very strongly held polarized viewpoints on the subject. Even I sometimes think that animal testing is a necessary evil if it genuinely improves the lives of people. This though would not and can never include using animal testing to improve cosmetics and baby products. Animal free testing of baby products has got to be something we aspire to, surely?

Even if the rewards (excluding for a minute, profit) are huge, such as finding a cure for a disease through animal testing, I still have real doubts about it. This is because, even at the most morally acceptable level, animal testing presupposes that humans (as an animal) are more important than other animals. Why should we be more important? We aren't doing such a great job of running the world are we? Were does this right to harm other creatures come from?

I feel an overriding an naturally correct assessment of the situation is that we are all fundamentally equal. Being more intelligent in some areas (there are various types of intelligence) does not qualify us to behave as Gods in respect of other animals.

If we want to find a cure for disease or make better baby products we should test on ourselves. Of course we wouldn't do the kind of tests that are carried out on animals. Progress would slow down as a result (probably). For my part a little slowing in so called progress wouldn't be a bad thing since I am not sure that we are making progress anyway and slowing down a bit would be good for us all.

There is evidence it seems that cat food companies such as Iams are using animal testing to improve their products. Iams® is owned by Procter and Gamble®, who I understand are working with Humane Society of the United States® to improve their practices in respect of product safety research. It also seems that Hills®, another big cat food manufacturer, animal test. This is very cynical behavior. It also puts me in a difficult position personally as I buy Hills LD® dry food which I occasionally give my cats.

{there are issues too with the amount of carbohydrates in dry cat food - there is too much starch in dry cat food, which may effect your cat's health. You can read about law carbohydrate cat food here.

I'll have to stop buying it. But I would have stopped anyway as I agree the arguments about too much carbohydrate in dry cat food.

There are programs to which companies can subscribe if they can provide evidence that they do not animal test. I have found 2 lists of companies, one relates to North America (USA and Canada) and the other to Europe (I think). Click on these links to see the lists:

The first 2 lists are courtesy http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp and relate to North America:


Companies that don't test on animals

Companies that do test on animals

---

This list comes from The Go Cruelty Free initiative organised by BUAV and lists companies that are approved under the Humane Cosmetics Standard (HCS) and/or the Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS). This means that they don't do animal testing indirectly or directly. These relate to UK and Europe as I understand it.

For the time being I will leave it to visitors to find the companies making baby products. But I'll be back for more about this. It needs to brought out into the open so it is no longer out of sight out of mind.

All the photos are copyright Brian Gunn IAAPEA. They are reproduced with his permission. The objective is to put the issue in front of us to remind us. Gandhi said words to the effect that everything we do is insignificant but we must do it.