Friday, August 26, 2005

ACSH Asks EPA to Limit Reliance on Animal Testing in Identifying Carcinogens

No, the ACSH is not an animal rights group. The American Council on Science and Health is an advocacy group funded largely by chemical companies. It has now invoked the Data Quality Act in a petition asking EPA to end its reliance on animal testing in identifying chemical compounds as carcinogens. ACSH calls the animal testing "junk science." Effect Measure scoffs.


Anonymous writes ...

Animal testing is a horrifically cruel, and scientifically useless practice. The fact is, that animals such as dogs, cats, and rabbits, are not human beings. They are not anything like humans genetically, or even physically. Human beings will not react the same way in most cases as animals do. Why do people think that new prescriptions are causing diseases and death? Because these products are found safe on animals, but people are reacting very differently. We have more computer technology than ever before. There is no excuse for primitive animal testing anymore. It's time to find cruelty-free, dependable alternatives. There are a multitude of computer programs that mimic the human body, and can be tested on, with any product, prescription, or chemical. The results are 100% accurate and dependable based on exactly how the HUMAN body will react. So, why on Earth would all these companies continue to test on animals, yielding unpredictable results? How many more people and animals need to suffer and die before these companies grow a heart, and do the right thing!?

1:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Fed. R. Evid. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.