NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/politics/animals/9690

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 7.0 KB | 153 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!rigel.econ.uga.edu!fatrat.fcs.uga.edu!user
From: [e-mail] (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:15:37 GMT
Lines: 139

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>
>
> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Martin Hulsey):
> mh> I respect your decision, but you have no evidence that P&G is not
> mh> "fully committed" to developing AAT.  I NEVER indicated that
> mh> "past nor future developments have depended on P&G
> mh> participation." In addition to being a corporate patron to CAAT,
> mh> and performing research in house, P&G ALSO funds extramural
> mh> proposals aimed at developing alternatives.  NO OTHER company has
> mh> such a triad of efforts toward developing such alternatives.
>
> Proof?

The P&G program was announced in the summer 1990 issue (vol. 8 no. 2) of
the Johns Hopkins CAAT newsletter.  Of course, I cannot prove the *absence*
of competing programs, but I am aware of no similar program from any
competitor.  If you had any proof as to their existence, you would have
already given it.

> mh> P&G is acting responsibly to protect the interests of human and
> mh> non-human animals, and, hence, is undeserving of a boycott by
> mh> animal activists.  You have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
>
> I'm not interested in buying soap powder, personal hygiene products,
> and cosmetics that have been tested on rabbit eyes.  Does P&G still
> conduct draize testing?  [yes or no]

Again, I respect your personal choices, but disagree with your assessment
of P&G's commitment to alternatives.

Yes, I imagine that they continue to use the Draize test, but I have not
asked them.

If you purchased "cruelty-free" mascara for your daughter (assuming you had
one), and it caused severe eye ulceration and subsequent blindness, would
you sue the company for damages?  Would you care more about your daughter's
eyes than those of a rabbit?

> mh> Authorities on AAT currently agree that, despite claims such as
> mh> yours above, there is yet NO substitute for the Draize test.
>
> Are you ignoring the battery of tests described in the articles
> I cited previously?

No.  As I stated in my last post, and you deleted, the "battery of tests"
you cited were NOT alternatives to the Draize test.  They were instead
"alternatives" for skin irritancy tests.

> mh> In
> mh> June of 1990, after consulting the EPA, FDA and CPSC, Governor
> mh> Deukmejian of California vetoed AB 2461 which would have outlawed
> mh> the Draize test.  I applaud this courageous move, for the
> mh> decision to use or ban the Draize test should be based on
> mh> scientific merit and not outcry from animal activists.
>
> I posted my references, Martin.  Perhaps it would behoove you to
> admit that some scientists no longer consider draize testing to
> be an essential practice.

You are doing better with your references these days, but still not good
enough.  None of the references you gave are refereed journals.  Show me
some peer-reviewed reference from toxicology or related journals that
accept these as substitutes to the Draize test, and I will concede your
point.  Do you honestly expect me or anyone else to accept a "fact sheet"
from PETA as a _bona fide_ reference?

"Some scientists" might consider the Draize unnecessary, but none who
formulate policy at EPA, FDA and CPSC.

> rl> References:
> rl>
> rl> "Skin Stand-ins: Dermal substitutes promise to reduce animal testing",
> rl> _Scientific American_, September, 1990, p. 168.
> rl>
> rl> Fentem, Julia and Balls, Michael.  "In Vitro Alternatives to Toxicity
> rl> Testing in Animals".  _Chemistry and Industry_, March 16, 1992, pp 207-
> rl> 211.
> rl>
> rl> Weiss, Rick.  "Test Tube Toxicology".  _Science News_, January 16, 1988,
> rl> pp 42-45.
> rl>
> rl> Jasper, James and Nelkin, Dorothy.  _The Animal Rights Crusade_.
> rl> The Free Press: NY, 1992. pp 103-114.
> rl>
> rl> "Animal Experiments - #4".  _PETA Fact Sheets_.  People for the Ethical
> rl> Treatment of Animals: Washington, DC.
>
> mh> It is too bad that your reference list did not also include the
> mh> article by Alan Goldberg and John Frazer ("Alternatives to
> mh> Animals in Toxicity Testing" Scientific American, 261(2);  1989).
> mh> Anyone who reads this article will understand why you omitted it.
> mh> Selective citation of the literature that supports their position
> mh> is a trademark of the animal "rights" movement.
>
> I was unaware of this article, Martin.  Your unkind suggestion
> that I omitted it purposefully is a "trademark" of Martin Hulsey.

Perhaps it was instead PETA that purposefully omitted it.  Did you get the
list from them, or did you compile it yourself?  If the latter, I
apologize.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who earnestly compiled a
list of such references could have overlooked it.  Was it not cited in your
first reference?

> Be that as it may, have any changes taken place in the past three
> years that would alter any conclusions set forth by the authors of
> an article published in 1989??

Possibly.  Its a fast-moving field, but it is not moving as fast as
activists would purport.  If you are really interested you can call Dr.
Goldberg or his associates (301-955-3343) and ask them if P&G or any of
their other patrons deserve a boycott.

> mh> Consider the following quote from Partners in Discovery (part of the NIH):
> mh>
> mh> "An integrated approach of clinical, whole animal and _in vitro_
> mh> studies is currently the best approach to advance science,
> mh> develop new products and drugs, and treat, cure and prevent
> mh> disease." - Dr. Alan M. Goldberg, Director, Center for
> mh> Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins University.
> mh>
> mh> If you cannot trust the opinion of a person who has dedicated his
> mh> life to finding alternatives to animal testing, who can you
> mh> trust?  A psychiatrist?  A philosopher?
>
> You're entitled to trust any authorities that you choose to trust.
> Meanwhile, I'm not going to buy any P&G products and will be giving
> my business to P&G competitors who've made a committment to the
> alternatives.

Again, I respect your decision.  I merely dispute your assessment of P&G,
and I dispute your contention that the Draize test is unnecessary.  Again,
you may call Dr. Goldberg if you want the most learned and current opinion.

--
[e-mail]                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity