From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:46:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. FDN, Univ. of GA

In article <Bxsp6F.FDG@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> 
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> I suppose my family and I formerly purchased roughly $250 worth 
> rl> of Proctor and Gamble products each year.  For the past few years 
> rl> or so, however, we've been making conscious decisions to buy 
> rl> competitors' products instead.  If you were the CEO of P&G would 
> rl> you want to hear our reasons for defecting to the competition via
> rl> your toll-free customer service line?  Or, would you prefer to simply 
> rl> have us "go away"?  
> 
> From article <mhulsey-131192153346@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by 
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey):
> mh> Russell, your actions here might be ill-informed.  Although P&G 
> mh> does test its products on animals, you may be unaware that they 
> mh> also spend a considerable amount of money funding extramural 
> mh> proposals for the development of alternatives to animal testing.  
> mh> To my knowledge, none of their competitors that you support have 
> mh> such research programs.  
> 
> Several organizations have been funded by private industry for 
> the express purpose of developing reliable alternatives to animal 
> test procedures.  Of particular interest to US citizens is the 
> Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins which 
> was established in 1981 and is supported by many companies, 
> including Johnson and Johnson, Mary Kay, Benetton, Chanel, 
> Walgreens, Exxon, DuPont, Mobil, P&G, and Avon.  
>
> According to PETA, the CTFA has contributed more than $5 million
> to the development of alternatives to draize testing alone since 
> 1981.  The authors of a recent book on the animal rights movement
> (Jaspers and Nelkin) claim that the Soap and Detergent Association
> has also invested in a program aimed at eliminating draize testing.
> 
> It seems clear that neither past nor future developments have
> depended on P&G participation.  While P&G ought to be commended for
> taking some positive steps in the right direction, I prefer
> to give my business to competitors who are fully committed.

I respect your decision, but you have no evidence that P&G is not "fully 
committed" to developing AAT.  I NEVER indicated that "past nor future 
developments have depended on P&G participation."  In addition to being a 
corporate patron to CAAT, and performing research in house, P&G ALSO funds 
extramural proposals aimed at developing alternatives.  NO OTHER company
has 
such a triad of efforts toward developing such alternatives.

P&G is acting responsibly to protect the interests of human and non-human 
animals, and, hence, is undeserving of a boycott by animal activists.  You 
have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

> mh> Consider that your support of P&G might 
> mh> help fund the breakthrough that ultimately allows animal testing 
> mh> of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.  
> 
> What sort of "breakthroughs" did you have in mind?  Would they include:
> 
> - the "cam" test, the "ames" test, the "agarose diffusion method", 
>   and "topkat"
> - "Eytex", developed by Ropak Industries
> - "Neutral Red Bioassay" and "EpiPack", developed by Clonetics Corporation
> - "Neoderm", developed by Marrow-Tech
> - "Testskin", developed by Organogenesis

I do support these developments, but the breakthroughs I had in mind
wouldn't 
include ANY of these.  These are models of mutagenicity or *skin*
irritancy, 
and are not acceptable substitutes for the Draize test of *eye* irritancy.

Have you ever flipped a bit of toothpaste into your eye while brushing your

teeth?  Would it comfort you that the company producing your toothpaste had

determined in advance that its product wouldn't cause severe eye damage in 
case of such an event?

Authorities on AAT currently agree that, despite claims such as yours
above, 
there is yet NO substitute for the Draize test.  In June of 1990, after 
consulting the EPA, FDA and CPSC, Governor Deukmejian of California vetoed
AB 
2461 which would have outlawed the Draize test.  I applaud this courageous 
move, for the decision to use or ban the Draize test should be based on 
scientific merit and not outcry from animal activists. 

> References:
> 
> "Skin Stand-ins: Dermal substitutes promise to reduce animal testing",
> _Scientific American_, September, 1990, p. 168.
> 
> Fentem, Julia and Balls, Michael.  "In Vitro Alternatives to Toxicity
> Testing in Animals".  _Chemistry and Industry_, March 16, 1992, pp 207-
> 211.
> 
> Weiss, Rick.  "Test Tube Toxicology".  _Science News_, January 16, 1988,
> pp 42-45.
> 
> Jasper, James and Nelkin, Dorothy.  _The Animal Rights Crusade_.
> The Free Press: NY, 1992. pp 103-114.
> 
> "Animal Experiments - #4".  _PETA Fact Sheets_.  People for the Ethical
> Treatment of Animals: Washington, DC. 

It is too bad that your reference list did not also include the article by 
Alan Goldberg and John Frazer ("Alternatives to Animals in Toxicity
Testing" 
Scientific American, 261(2); 1989).  Anyone who reads this article will 
understand why you omitted it.  Selective citation of the literature that 
supports their position is a trademark of the animal "rights" movement.

Consider the following quote from Partners in Discovery (part of the NIH):

"An integrated approach of clinical, whole animal and _in vitro_ studies is

currently the best approach to advance science, develop new products and 
drugs, and treat, cure and prevent disease." - Dr. Alan M. Goldberg,  
Director,  Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins 
University.

If you cannot trust the opinion of a person who has dedicated his life to 
finding alternatives to animal testing, who can you trust?  A psychiatrist?
 A 
philosopher?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals