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.

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).

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

Cosmetics Animal Testing

Cosmetics Animal Testing is on the way out and about time. It is obviously completely immoral to hurt our fellow creatures in the name of making people look more attractive. This behavior is indicative of the morality of some businesses, where profit is the only guide to behavior.

About 38,000 animals (at 2005 - update 23-1-08: I think this figure is wrong and too low as 2.8 million animals in the UK alone suffer from animal testing) are used in Europe every year to test cosmetics. The gradual change in attitude by some companies is due at least in part to all the peaceful activists who have actually done something. There are a lot of people who don't like animal testing to improve cosmetics and that includes a massive majority of women who use cosmetics but only a tiny handful of people actually do something. I am ashamed to say that up until now I have done very little. We can't talk about beautiful cats without doing our bit to help the "ordinary" cats who are suffering. These ordinary cats as as good as the beautiful ones.

Although I disapprove of the violent protests it may well be that it is these protests that have moved companies the most in banning cosmetics animal testing. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me as that is the way the world works (i.e. sometimes you've got to push extremely hard to drive some people to do the right thing).

Apparently a number of major companies have changed their practices and found different ways to test their products proving that there are alternatives.

In Europe the European Parliament is debating legislation to ban cosmetics animal testing by 2009.

There is absolutely no justification for animal testing to improve cosmetics. The use of cosmetics itself could be questioned never mind killing animals to test the stuff.

At a more problematic level, it is highly questionable that animal testing to save human life is justified as it presumes that humans are worth more than other animals and that we have the right to decide if other animals die or not for potential human health benefits.

The great man Mahatma Gandhi said it well, "To my mind the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."

In any event there are alternatives that are becoming more efficient such as tissue cultures and computer models, which are cheaper as well.

As it is impossible to justify animal testing in the cosmetics business the only thing to do is to discover which cosmetics companies are and which aren't animal testing and to stop buying from the ones who are animal testing.

One extremely large company comes to mind: Procter and Gamble ® who use animal testing. They manufacture a massive range of products and have a cosmetics branch - Procter and Gamble (Cosmetics and Fragrances) Ltd. They also make cat food under the Iams ® brand. As far as I am aware P&G admit the commissioning of animal testing or do it themselves. I am not sure if they carry out cosmetics animal testing. I understand that they are in discussion with the Human Society of the United States in an effect to improve practices. Or is this a cynical attempt at improving image?

They make products such as Max Factor® and Wells® hair products. They are the world largest consumer products company apparently.

I provide links to lists of companies in another post on this site. Click here to get to this posting (from cosmetics animal testing to animal free testing of baby products).

Sources:

• http://www.clearleadinc.com/site/cosmetic-animal.html
• photo top of page courtesy Animal Port
• 2nd picture down. This cat was not tested in cosmetics experiments but to see the effect on him mentally when his legs were made deformed. Copyright Brian Gunn
• All experts
• Uncaged