|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - animal testing
Every day, millions of animals are tested in laboratories.
We are their voice.
Animal Tested Cosmetics are no longer able to be sold inside the EU, this does not mean the UK have to implement this. We feel they should, as animal testing is wrong.
Please sign this petition as by doing this we will be able to send it of to the UK government and big organisation's (like PETA and BUAV), so they can take our issue further.
We would also like to raise awareness of the 2013 ban.
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds.
Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them.
"Animal testing is vital to medical advancement".
This is completely untrue. Vaccinations have been produced for one of the most well-known and tragic type of illness; cancer. A vaccination against one type of cancer was tested on a small group of volunteers. As far as I am aware, none of the volunteers were harmed in testing process.
There are now so many charities that do not fund or conduct animal experiments, such as The Age-Related Diseases and Health Trust, that do not test on animals so it would be possible for the Alzheimer's Society to stop funding/conducting animal experiments. These organizations carry out their research on alternatives such as fake organs and computer models. Not only do these methods save thousands of animals, but some scientists also say that they are more reliable. If all scientists used these methods, more people would be saved.
"Animal testing has saved thousands of lives, including those of diabetics".
Although animal-tested medicines have saved people before, these were mostly invented in the days when there were not as many alternatives to the use of animals. Even these could have been tested on volunteers and donated body parts.
Research into treatments for Diabetes was in fact held up by animal testing. If animal testing had of been banned 200 years ago, Diabetics would have benefited enormously. A doctor found out that Diabetes was linked to high and low amounts of sugar in peoples' diets by looking at the urine of Diabetics, not by performing animal experiments.
"Lab animals are well-cared for and the scientists try to minimise their suffering".
Although there are laws to protect animals used in experiments, these laws are so poorly-enforced that they might as well not exist. Many of them exist only to protect scientists from animal cruelty charges. Scientists that work in these labs can, in most cases, legally: cut animals open, gas them, shoot them, burn them, drop chemicals into their eyes, irritate their skins, give them electric shocks, deprieve them of food, water and/or sleep, take them away from their mothers when they are too young and force-feed them chemicals. Animals may be forced to live in barren cages until they are either killed or die due to the experiments in which they are tortured.
Believe it or not, some people illegally kidnap animals to sell them for vivisection.
So if you have ever lost an animal companion, there is a risk that he or she might have been captured and sold for vivisection. Although most of the animals tortured are bred specifically for use in experiments, some of them are illegally taken from the people who love and care for them.
Animal testing has been banned from certain countries such as the EU, however Australia continues import and sell cosmetics tested on animals.
Currently, thousands of rabbits are bread for animal testing and are restricted to small, overcrowded cages that cause them to become ill and injured. Animals are restrained and forced to inhale, eat, or have ingredients applied to their skin and even eyes.
It is time to stop testing on animals. Numerous companies are relying on other sources to test their products and make sure that they are human friendly. We do not need to use animals to make sure our products are safe. Sign below to stop animal testing in Australia.
L'Oreal and Covergirl do bad things. They lie to us to cover up what they've done to the animals.
They told me they didn't do it anymore but why do so many people show me pictures of what's being done to those animals?
Please tell the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to stop funding millions of taxpayer's money into animal testing.
Over 10 million animals a year are used as models in medical research, most funded by taxpayer's money.
These animals are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act and are subjected to torturous experimentation which are often inconclusive and unscientific.
Putting aside the cruelty, animals and humans differ genetically, anatomically and metabolically therefore animals are inappropriate models for medical research. 9 out of 10 drugs that work successfully on animals failed on humans.
Please urge NHMRC to stop funding this cruel, expensive and inconclusive practice and invest in alternative methods such as computer modelling, Corrositex, improved statistical design, the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), etc.
NSW DECC (National Parks and Wildlife) has approved a scientific license for Wollongong University to retain 6 kangaroos in very small enclosures to measure the amount of methane expelled by the animals. A study that has been done before. After this experiment the kangaroos are to be slaughtered. They intend for the experiment to be repeated with Wombats.
THIS IS TOTALLY BARBARIC AND WILL PUT THE ANIMALS UNDER TREMENDOUS STRESS!!!
For a government department responsible for the protection of native animals to give approval for such a cruel and unnecessary project is a violation of their duty to protect Australia's wildlife... Especially ironic when they are so reluctant to approve licenses to individuals and groups to care for and rehabilitate native animals!
IT IS AN INSULT TO THE DEDICATED CARERS THAT WORK SO HARD AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE TO ENSURE A FUTURE FOR AUSTRALIA'S DIVERSE AND BEAUTIFUL WILDLIFE!
Since 1968, in the wake of the thalidomide tragedy, the Government has required new medicines to be tested in animals. But 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests
are unsafe or ineffective in humans.
It is time to compare animal tests with today’s advanced human biology-based methods. Please ask your MP to sign Early Day Motion 475 today.
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Worldwide it is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals are used annually—from zebrafish to non-human primates.Invertebrates, mice, rats, birds, fish, frogs, and animals not yet weaned are not included in the figures; one estimate of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.
The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the second and fourth centuries BCE. Aristotle (Αριστοτέλης) (384-322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304-258 BCE) were among the first to perform experiments on living animals. Galen, a physician in second-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection. Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in twelfth-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.
Animals have been used repeatedly through the history of biomedical research. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs to describe classical conditioning. Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. On November 3, 1957, a Russian dog, Laika, became the first of many animals to orbit the earth. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then given to humans. The ability of humans to change the genetics of animals took a large step forwards in 1974 when Rudolf Jaenisch was able to produce the first transgenic mammal, by integrating DNA from the SV40 virus into the genome of mice.
This genetic research progressed rapidly and, in 1996, Dolly the sheep was born, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. So please, if you care about the animals, sign this petition.
The National Aeronautic and Space Administration plans to fund experiments where monkeys are blasted with radiation at Brookhaven National Labs.
Dr. William Brinkman at The Unites States Department of Energy could halt these tests.
Animal testing is probably the worst form of animal cruelty in history. Every second of the day an animal dies from gruesome and unnecessary experiments! In fact, it has been proven that 25 to 50 BILLION non-human primates and companion animals die annually... all because of Animal Testing.
But the good news is that we can do something about it, such as spreading the word, boycotting products that have been tested on, and by SIGNING THIS PETITION.
Thanks for all your help,
The video that all meat-eaters should watch and every vegetarian should own, "Meet Your Meat", narrated by Alec Baldwin, covers each stage of life of animals raised for food.
No PETA videos are copyrighted, so copy them for everyone you know.
Animal testing (a.k.a. vivisection) is probably the worst form of animal cruelty in history. Every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every year, every DECADE, an animal dies from gruesome and unnecessary experiments. In fact, it has been proven that 25 to 50 BILLION non-human primates and companion animals die annually... all because of vivisection.
But the good news is that we can do something about it, such as spreading the word, boycotting products that have been tested on, and by SIGNING THIS PETITION.
Thanks for all your help, y'all!
A petition to call upon the University of Bradford to immediately end all animal experiments and replace them with alternative testing methods that do not involve the pain and suffering of living creatures.
Our group, Japan Anti-Vivisection Association (JAVA), has been seeking the abolition of animal experiments in Japan.
As animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in EU since March 11, 2009, we took this opportunity to launch a campaign to seek the abolition of animal testing for cosmetics, targeting SHISEIDO, the largest cosmetic company in Japan. However, the company still refuses to stop animal testing despite our repeated cry against animal experiments.
In cosmetics and household products research, painful experiments are carried out on animals, including rabbits, mice, rats and guinea pigs. Animal testing is not legally required in Japan. Only when an additional ingredient is included in “the limitation on combinations of preservatives, ultraviolet absorbers and tar dyes (positive list)” or where the maximum acceptable quantity is changed, and in manufacturing the products, such as permanent wave solutions, hair dyes, or skin lightening/whitening cosmetics, classified as “quasi-drugs” containing new ingredients (the “quasi-drugs” is the classification used only in Japan and Republic of Korea and such products are regarded as “cosmetics” in the United States and EU), animal testing data is required. So it is possible for companies to manufacture ingredients, combination of ingredients and final formulations of cosmetics without animal testing. There are about 100 cruelty-free cosmetic companies listed in JAVA’s shopping guidebook for consumers “JAVA Cosmetic Guide”, but unfortunately SHISEIDO and other major companies keep conducting animal testing simply because they want to make excessive profits by patented medicinal properties.
In spite of the fact that since March 2009 the EU has banned animal experiments for cosmetics in EU countries and the sale of cosmetic products in EU countries for which animal experiments were performed outside the EU, SHISEIDO has been keeping making products for EU consumers from ingredients that are not tested on animals, despite the continuation of animal testing in Japan and other countries.
So EU consumers are still be in danger of buying products made by the company which keeps conducting animal testing in other countries It means that EU ban cannot protect EU consumers from cruel cosmetics.
A survey conducted by JAVA has revealed that approximately 90 percent of people say they would choose a brand that has not been animal-tested. Japanese consumers also want cruelty-free cosmetics. Japanese major companies should not ignore the global trend and should stop animal testing voluntarily. If they want to develop new ingredients, they should wait until alternative non-animal testing methods have been fully established.
As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money.
You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.
Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited.
Animals shouldn't.t be tested for cloning, or no mutilations.
Animal teting is wrong and is not the animal's fault that people like to wear make-up so if anything there should not be any animals being tested on for the human's mistakes.
WASHINGTON (AP) - April 11, 2008 -- The Bush administration is likely to move its research on one of the most contagious animal diseases from an isolated island laboratory to the U.S. mainland near herds of livestock, raising concerns about a catastrophic outbreak.
Skeptical Democrats in Congress are demanding to see internal documents they believe highlight the risks and consequences of the decision. An epidemic of the disease, foot and mouth, which only affects animals, could devastate the livestock industry.
One such government report, produced last year and already turned over to lawmakers by the Homeland Security Department, combined commercial satellite images and federal farm data to show the proximity to livestock herds of locations that have been considered for the new lab. "Would an accidental laboratory release at these locations have the potential to affect nearby livestock?" asked the nine-page document. It did not directly answer the question.
A simulated outbreak of the disease - part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" - ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.
"It was a mess," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who portrayed the president in the 2002 exercise. Now, like other lawmakers from the states under consideration, Roberts supports moving the government's new lab to his state. Manhattan, Kan., is one of five mainland locations under consideration. "It will mean jobs" and spur research and development, he says.
The other possible locations for the new National Bio-and Agro-Defense Facility are Athens, Ga.; Butner, N.C.; San Antonio; and Flora, Miss. The new site could be selected later this year, and the lab would open by 2014. The numbers of livestock in the counties and surrounding areas of the finalists range from 542,507 in Kansas to 132,900 in Georgia, according to the Homeland Security study.
Foot-and-mouth virus can be carried on a worker's breath or clothes, or vehicles leaving a lab, and is so contagious it has been confined to Plum Island, N.Y., for more than a half-century - far from commercial livestock. The existing lab is 100 miles northeast of New York City in the Long Island Sound, accessible only by ferry or helicopter. Researchers there who work with the live virus are not permitted to own animals at home that would be susceptible, and they must wait at least a week before attending outside events where such animals might perform, such as a circus.
The White House says modern safety rules at labs are sufficient to avoid any outbreak. But incidents in Britain have demonstrated that the foot-and-mouth virus can cause remarkable economic havoc - and that the virus can escape from a facility.
An epidemic in 2001 devastated Britain's livestock industry, as the government slaughtered 6 million sheep, cows and pigs. Last year, in a less serious outbreak, Britain's health and safety agency concluded the virus probably escaped from a site shared by a government research center and a vaccine maker. Other outbreaks have occurred in Taiwan in 1997 and China last year and in 2006.
If even a single cow signals an outbreak in the U.S., emergency plans permit the government to shut down all exports and movement of livestock. Herds would be quarantined, and a controlled slaughter could be started to stop the disease from spreading.
Infected animals weaken and lose weight. Milk cows don't produce milk. They remain highly infectious, even if they survive the virus.
The Homeland Security Department is convinced it can safely operate the lab on the mainland, saying containment procedures at high-security labs have improved. The livestock industry is divided. Some experts, including the former director at the aging Plum Island Animal Disease Center, say research ought to be kept away from cattle populations - and, ideally, placed where the public already has accepted dangerous research.
The former director, Dr. Roger Breeze, suggested the facility could be safely located at the Atlanta campus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., home of The United States Army Medical Research Institute for infectious diseases.
Another possibility, Breeze said, is on Long Island, where there is no commercial livestock industry. That would allow retention of most of the current Plum Island employees.
Asked about the administration's finalist sites located near livestock, Breeze said: "It seems a little odd. It goes against the ... safety program of the last 50 years."
The former head of the U.S. Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service said Americans are not prepared for a foot-and-mouth outbreak that has been avoided on the mainland since 1929.
"The horrific prospect of exterminating potentially millions of animals is not something this country's ready for," said Dr. Floyd Horn.
The Agriculture Department ran the Plum Island lab until 2003. It was turned over to the Homeland Security Department because preventing an outbreak is now part of the nation's biological defense program.
Plum Island researchers work on detection of the disease, strategies to control epidemics including vaccines and drugs, tests of imported animals to ensure they are free of the virus and training of professionals.
The new facility will add research on diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans. The Plum Island facility is not secure enough to handle that higher-level research.
Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also are worried about the lab's likely move to the mainland. The chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and the head of the investigations subcommittee, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., are threatening to subpoena records they say Homeland Security is withholding from Congress. Those records include reports about "Crimson Sky," an internal review about a publicized 1978 accidental release of foot-and-mouth disease on Plum Island and reports about any previously undisclosed virus releases on the island during the past half century.
The lawmakers set a deadline of Friday for the administration to turn over reports they requested. Otherwise, they warned in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, they will arrange a vote next week to issue a congressional subpoena.
A new facility at Plum Island is technically a possibility. Signs point to a mainland site, however, after the administration spent considerable time and money scouting new locations. Also, there are financial concerns about operating from a location accessible only by ferry or helicopter.
The Homeland Security Department says laboratory animals would not be corralled outside the new facility, and they would not come into contact with local livestock. All work with the virus and lab waste would be handled securely and any material leaving would be treated and monitored to ensure it was sterilized.
"Containment technology has improved dramatically since foot-and-mouth disease prohibitions were put in place in 1948," Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said.
Cattle farmers and residents are divided over the proposal to move the lab to the mainland.
"I would like to believe we could build a facility, with the knowledge and technology we have available, that would be basically safe from a bio-security standpoint," said John Stuedemann, a cattle farmer near Athens, Ga., and a former scientist at the Agriculture Department.
Nearby, community activist Grady Thrasher in Athens is worried about an outbreak from a research lab. Thrasher, a former securities lawyer, has started a petition drive against moving the lab to Georgia, saying the risks are too great.
"There's no way you can balance that equation by putting this in the middle of a community where it will do the most harm," Thrasher said. "The community is now aroused, so I think we have a majority against this."
In North Carolina, commissioners in Granville County originally endorsed moving the lab to their area but later withdrew support. Officials from Homeland Security ultimately met with residents for more than four hours, but the commissioners have taken no further action to back the facility.
"Accidents are going to happen 50 years down the road or one year down the road," said Bill McKellar, a pharmacist in Butner, N.C., who leads an opposition group that has formed a research committee of lawyers and doctors.
(Copyright ©2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.
That life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social needs. The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways, the nonhuman animals in labs and on farms, for example, are the same as human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them, and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral principles.
At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect.
The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally, too.
It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths, it insists upon and justifies them.
But this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us.
Once this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer.
It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, not "more humane" testing, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
All consumers have the right to know how their product reaches the shop-shelf, and past surveys have shown that people would be less likely to buy products if they explicitly state that they/their ingredients HAVE been tested on animals.
We are campaigning in order to raise awareness of the extent of animal testing, in order to enable consumers to make more informed decisions with regards to the products they buy.
Go to www.caring consumer.com to find out wich companies DO test on animals.
Companies have been testing on animals for years and years to better their products.
Enough is enough! It's time to stand up and speak up for those who cannot and boycot and stop these companies from using poor animals to test on their products.
Companies have been breaking limbs, dropping chemicals into eyes, and other things for too long. Say no to these companies!!!
Procter & Gamble is a major corporation that owns many large companies,
including numerous cosmetic companies, some popular ones are Pantene
and Cover Girl.
Procter & Gamble allows animals to suffer unnecessarily in the production of
their cosmetic products, although no law states that animal testing is
There are much more efficient ways to test makeup products, for example,
growing human skin tissue, or using all natural ingredients.
Testing cosmetic products on animals is not only ineffective and inefficient
the companies, but it is harmful and tortuous for the animals.
Many people are morally opposed to experiments on animals, even if they are of supposed medical benefit. Such people are often portrayed as wishing to sacrifice medical progress to avoid animal suffering.
The government and the media dismiss their concerns by labelling them 'anti-science': a convenient, but totally false, stereotype. But what if there were no medical benefits from experiments on animals? What if they were actually an obstacle to medical progress: misleading scientists, harming patients by their unreliability and wasting precious funds that would be better spent on patient-oriented research?
If that were really the case, then stopping animal experimentation would be in everyone's best interests: truly a win-win situation!
Every year, millions of animals are killed for our benefits -- but the main thing that disgusts me is how many animals really are affected by it.
Nearly 90% of animals that are tested on die due to the chemicals in the cosmetics -- anyone else find this alarming and disgusting?
This is for all animals!
PEOPLE!! we need to help animals across the world! I think this is unfair! If they can test things on animals why not test them on different things such as:
Dead Human Skin
Dead Human Organs
or Just us!
Thankx a Lot!!
Labels are often made to be deliberately misleading. They put hidden animal products in sweets, and don't tell you what's in it (big complicated words don't count. I'm 12 years old, how do I know what they're on about!?).
Labels rarely say "This product is NOT suitable for vegetarians". They only tell you if it is. And they often lie. "This product is not tested on animals." What about the ingredients, huh? And what about other products, like those toys they sell at fairs and in amusement arcades? They don't tell you how they were produced, do they? How do we know that we aren't buying something that was made by an exploited child in a sweatshop somewhere? We don't know, because they don't tell us.
Companies like Proctor and Gamble and GlaxoSmithKline market their products to look "good". If they told you that Aquafresh toothpaste and Febreze fabric spray was tested on animals, who in their right minds would carry on buying it? They don't want you to know. But if they had to tell us the truth (I'm sure they've never tried this before), we could tell straight away what to buy to help make the world a better place.
Currently the only way to tell how your products were made is by looking for an ethical consumer logo. But not all products have them, so you don't know what you're buying.
500 companies in the United States alone don't do tests on animals. They use alternatives, and no people or animals get hurt in the process.
This proves that 1. animal testing is not necessary, and 2. the alternatives to it DO work. Therefore, there is no logical reason to continue with animal testing.
Also, the many differences between animals and humans are countless, so the only reliable "research" that you get for it is only for the species of animal you are doing the test on.
I believe that all or most of the companies in America, especially cosmetic companies, should discontinue animal testing and take up one of the alternatives.
This website shows what products test on animals: http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_test.htm So please sign this petition to bring down one of the millions.
They put the products you use on a daily basses on animals. They put your favorite eye shawdow or eyeliner on poor animals and they suffer alot more then you can imagen!