Based upon the traditional assumption that animals respond the same way that humans do when exposed to certain products, animals are continually used to test safety and/or effectiveness of human and veterinary drugs, household and personal care products, chemicals, medical devices, radiation-emitting products (e.g., microwaves, cell phones, etc.), among others. We must remember, however, that animals are not 'little people,' and their bodies often respond differently than ours do. As a result, the animal-based research and testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals.

For instance, one medical doctor with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has described numerous problems with the Draize eye irritancy test, a widely used method during which animals, most often rabbits, are restrained and potential eye irritants are dropped into their eyes. Among the problems with the Draize test, the doctor stresses, are the biological differences between humans and rabbits, the lack of medical treatment (which would be expected with humans), and the atypical length of exposure. These characteristics are applicable to many other types of tests upon animals.

We promote the use of non-animal alternative methods that can more accurately and appropriately predict consequences to humans.

See the issues of AV Magazine entitled, "A Light in the Dark: Turning the Testing Tide" (Summer 2002) and "Ethics: Thinking Outside the Cage" (Spring 2002)