AR-News: (U.S.) letter supports animal testing

[Mary Finelli]

Send letters to:
letters at gristmagazine.com


Better Mice Than Us
Letters to the Editor
http://www.gristmagazine.com/letters/letters062504.asp?source=daily

Responding to: We Hate Critters!
http://www.gristmagazine.com/letters/letters061504.asp


Dear Grist:

I am an animal lover and can truly relate to what Karen O'Donnell said about 
animal testing; however, her statement that "toxicity studies on animals are 
egregiously cruel, and yield very unreliable results and therefore a waste" 
isn't completely accurate. It depends on what you are testing for.

And, the sad truth is that without toxicity testing on the products that we 
use regularly, testing is being done on us, without our permission, while 
the manufacturers profit. As a parent, this is particularly disturbing.

Inhalation toxicity testing using mice accurately detects the physical 
reactions of mice to breathing a real-life dose of the chemicals that 
vaporize from shampoos, markers, disposable diapers, cleaning products, and 
more. This is very different than the cruel eye-irritation tests such as 
Draize, or the LD50 tests, which don't give us much useful information. The 
inhalation testing, on the other hand, gives useful information, uses four 
mice per test -- and there isn't any other non-animal alternative yet.

Doesn't Karen care that she is using a whole host of products (cleaning and 
body care products, synthetic carpets, paints, etc.) that contain untested 
toxic chemicals? And any domestic pets that live with her are also exposed 
to these toxic chemicals? That seems cruel to me.

Amy Todisco
Huntington, Vt.

_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win 
a trip to NY 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/