 |
 |
 |
Bayou Dogs
Say no to toxic testing
|
|
|
|
|
Toxic Chemical Tests
Threaten 750,000 Animals
In October, 1998, Vice President Al Gore
and the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) announced a pro-gram to begin the testing of turpen-tine,
lead, rat poison and 2,800 other high production volume (HPV) chemi-cals in the U.S to determine if these
substances posed a hazard to human beings.
If that happens, at least 750,000 animals will suffer and
die in useless and painful experiments. The EPA would allow the use of the cruel LD-50 test, which kills
half of the animals tested and is an unreliable predictor of human risk. Furthermore, the EPA does not
put enough emphasis on the use of non-animal testing alternatives, which are faster, less expensive,
and in many cases, better at predicting a chemical's actual hazard. For example, a combination of three
new human cell tests predicts chemical toxicity to humans with almost 80 percent accuracy. While protecting
the public and environment from toxic chemicals is a good idea, the HPV program is overly political.
It is the result of closed-door negotiations, without public input or Congressional review of the program.
Hoping to win back environmental votes, Vice President Gore placed this program on a fast timetable that
does not allow for proper oversight. He has called for the complete testing of all HPV chemicals by the
year 2005, and the EPA is now giving manufacturers until the end of 1999 to decide whether to join the
program voluntarily or be forced to do so.
And be aware, the HPV program is just the tip of the iceberg:
the EPA is planning two additional massive animal testing schemes. One such proposal, the endocrine disruptor
program, would subject millions of animals to suffering and death in order to test another 85,000 chemicals.
We urge all of concerned citizens to speak up now and demand a more humane science. The EPA can design
chemical testing programs that will protect human health and the environment, without wasting millions
of ani-mal lives.
It is urgent that you contact Vice President Gore and the EPA and urge them
to:
~ use non-animal alternative methods, rather than animal tests. If some alternative tests need
to be validated first, the RPV program should be delayed to allow for the vali-dation and incorporation
of these humane procedures.
~ allow the public and Congress to provide input on the program.
|
|
Please write or e-mail your Congressmen and those listed below. Your voice counts.
|
 |
|
You can find your Congressmen here!
|
|
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
Vice President of the United States
Office of the Vice President
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
fax: (202) 456-7044
e-mail: vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
The Honorable Carol Browner
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street,
SW Washington, D.C. 20460
fax: (202) 260-0279
e-mail: browner.carol@epamall.epa.gov
|
Sample Letter
|
|
|
In early October 1998, VP AL Gore announced the HPV program and ordered the Environmental Protection
Agency EPA) to "fast track" it. As it now stands millions of animals will be killed in painful, unnecessary,
and scientifically flawed tests. The notorious lethal dose test - in which animals are force-fed or forced
to inhale toxic chemicals until half of them die - is one of the main tests which will be used. Other
animals will have their skin abraded and corrosive chemicals rubbed into the wounded area.
The
EPA claims that there isn't enough data on these chemicals. But there is, in fact, an enormous amount
of publicly available data, including human exposure data. Many of the chemicals that will be tested
have been well known for years as extremely dangerous and will cause excruciating deaths for the animals
used. Many others are considered safe food ingredients by the Food and Drug Administration. Recently,
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine issued a report examining a random sample of the HPV
chemicals and found large amounts of data that have been ignored by the EPA (a copy of their survey is
available by calling 202-686-2210 or by visiting their web site at www.pcrm.org).
For those
gaps in information that do exist, there are tests available that do not use animals. For example, an
internationally accepted non-animal test is available to replace the genetic toxicity procedure in which
chemicals are injected into animals' stomachs. Use of this test alone would save tens of thousands of
animals. Other promising non-animal alternatives have been developed to replace the lethal dose, skin
abrasion, and acute fish toxicity tests but have not yet been filly validated by government scientists.
A delay in the HPV program to allow for the validation of these humane procedures would save tremendous
suffering and the lives of millions of animals.
1
These tests are faster, less expensive, and in
many cases better at predicting a chemical's actual hazard. Tests using animals could actually clear
chemicals already known to be hazardous. Animal tests can also keep highly toxic materials in the marketplace
because, even though a chemical may kill a mouse, manufacturers will always be able to accurately claim
that the results aren't applicable to humans. Either way, animal tests could delay government regulation
of dangerous chemicals for years.
Please be aware that the EPA-HPV program is just the tip
of the iceberg. Lined up behind this program are two more EPA animal testing programs (couched with the
harmless sounding name of "chemical right to know" programs) involving many more thousands of chemicals
and many different animal tests. One, the endocrine disruptor testing program, means testing 85,000 chemicals
on animals! Animal testing laboratories are breeding animals and gearing up for these programs even as
you read this letter. One EPA official was recently quoted as saying: "It's a good time to be a lab owner
and a bad time to be a lab rat." These plans call for the most massive animal testing programs in our
nation's history and must be changed to save millions of animals' lives.
Please conduct an oversight
hearing into this ghastly plan and fully examine the issue, including the concerns of animal welfare
advocates and caring, compassionate people in the discussions.
Thank you,
|
 |
|
