Putting animal testing out of its misery

I thought it might be time for a bit of an update on the party pill animal testing issue.

Late last year we highlighted the issue of party pills potentially being tested for safety on dogs. This came as part of the Government’s process to regulate party pills, legislation for which has just been introduced to the House. We are really supportive of better regulation to make sure party pills are safe but we need an ethical safety testing regime to make sure they are.

The science is clear that there are alternatives to animal testing in many, many cases of research.

There is a whole host of options to test new party pills before they need to be tested on live humans or animals. The technology has certainly come a long way. We now have computer models that can predict how chemicals will impact human health, and laboratory analysis and cell experiments that can rule out a lot of the more dangerous substances. There are also amazing microchips and models made to mimic the operation of human organs like lungs, livers, or bone marrow to understand what effect certain substances will have.

These can do a lot of the work just as well as, or even better than, testing on animals would.

Last week we saw the final phase of the European Union (EU) Cosmetics Directive come into force, meaning that no new cosmetic products and ingredients on sale in the EU can be tested on animals anywhere in the world.

What a great example of how animal testing is fast on its way out.

New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (NZAVS) has joined forces with SAFE and the New Zealand SPCA to launch a petition to prevent the testing of party pills on animals and I hope you will join me in supporting this campaign.

4 thoughts on “Putting animal testing out of its misery

  1. There is absolutely no need to test on animals, for anything, period! It would be far better to allow people to enjoy real organic marijuana instead of some synthetic substitute that will only have its composition changed slightly to accommodate legislating against these compounds which will then require another set of testing until the makers of the drugs have exhausted all avenues of ways to get these so called legal highs back on the market. All of these drug recipes can be found on the internet so how does testing on animals stop this? How stupidly ridiculous to allow synthetic cannabis with an R18 rating when the real deal has had endless testing done already with virtually no side effects, unlike these chemical cocktails that should be made to be tested on those who manufacture them instead.

  2. There is no shortage of human volunteer testers, so I fail to see why we need to bring in the animals, or indeed the computers.

  3. I was just pondering on the fact that many, in Western society particularly, embrace the Darwinian theory that regards humankind as merely a more highly evolved species of animal anyway. Adjunct to this theory is the survival of the fittest scenario. So, leave the lesser animals out of it and for those who feel that life is so meaningless that they have to take drugs to feel good about themselves or life in general, let them fry their brains and take the consequences. Why should we so bothered?
    Trouble is, the fallout affects the rest of us and boy, aren’t we all paying for it! Might be something in the Creationist beliefs after all?

  4. dbuckley – the computers would help to avoid disasters such as thalidomide where the victims that suffer the most damage aren’t the ones taking the drugs.

    Trevor.

Comments are closed.