Rather than making its primary focus the reduction of emissions and the prevention of human and environmental exposures to toxic chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has instead chosen to establish "acceptable" exposure levels based on the results of animal tests.
In fact, the EPA requires more animal-based chemical toxicity testing than any other federal agency. Yet in more than 10 years, the EPA has banned only a handful of toxic industrial chemicals using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act, despite killing hundreds of thousands of animals and despite urgent calls to limit chemical exposures.
The EPA's indifference to animal suffering is further evidenced by its allocation of less than 10 percent of its $200 million annual research budget to the development of non-animal test methods, which are generally more reliable, less costly, and always more humane than animal-based tests. Instead, the EPA erects roadblocks at every turn, refusing to use internationally accepted non-animal tests, while wasting countless taxpayer dollars to fund cruel animal experiments like these.
Catering to the Chemical Industry
The chemical industry has long approved of federal regulatory agencies' near-exclusive reliance on animal testing, since the results of these tests are always subject to interpretation. In addition, any required testing means that their products are safe from regulation for years while products are tested and retested. And after decades of practice, industry representatives have perfected the art of arguing both sides of the animal-testing issue.
For example, if a chemical is shown to cause cancer or other harmful effects in animal tests, industry representatives claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This has happened with the pesticide atrazine and with chemicals called phthalates (ingredients in plastic products, including children's toys and IV bags). In each of these cases, companies have argued that cancers that develop in animals exposed to these chemicals would not occur in humans, and the arguments have worked. Both of these chemicals remain on the market and in widespread use even though thousands of animals have died painful deaths during their EPA-mandated testing.
Another example is saccharin, which was recently removed from the federal list of cancer-causing chemicals. In the late 1970s, huge doses of saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats, and the sugar industry had a field day. Now, two decades later, government scientists have been forced to admit that the animal tests just aren't relevant to humans.
At the same time, though, company officials happily rattle off the results of EPA-required animal studies that show that their chemicals are not harmful. In these cases, companies laud the predictability of animal studies and claim that their products are safe for humans. This is exactly what happened with cigarettes for more than 20 years as industry scientists claimed that tobacco was safe for humans because animals who were forced to inhale cigarette smoke in laboratory experiments did not develop cancer.
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights? Read more.