Canadians:
Jessica Scott- Reid has a superb opinion piece in today’s, Tuesday January 30, Globe and Mail, page 11, titled, "To end toxicity testing on animals, federal funds are needed.”
It opens:
"In 2016, when Canadian scientist Dr. Charu Chandrasekera was attending international meetings on developing alternatives to animal testing, she was often met with shock when she revealed that Canada lacked its own centre for alternative methods. There are several of these centres around the world, working to replace the use of animal models in science with more innovative, effective and ethical methods. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established 32 years ago, and the U.S. equivalent, NICEATM, opened in 2000. Each receives millions of dollars of government funding annually. Canada has yet to do the same.
"A subsequent question Dr. Chandrasekera was often asked at these meetings, she recalls, was “Why don’t Canadians care?” But Canadians do care, including Dr. Chandrasekera, who in 2017 went on to establish the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods (CCAAM)…"
The piece tells us:
“More than 3.5 million animals were used in taxpayer funded testing, research and education in Canada in 2022. This does not include an unknown number used in private facilities. And yet, animal-based testing is largely ineffective. More than 90 per cent of all drugs tested and found to be safe and effective in animal models fail in human clinical trials…
“Advocacy organization Animal Justice explains that toxicity tests involve animals ‘forced to eat or breathe in toxic chemicals, and endure skin or eye irritation tests that cause painful sores and rashes without pain relief.’ …
“The reliance on animals in both drug and toxicity testing is cruel, ineffective and archaic – an old model in desperate need of modernization.”
And we read, “While other governments invest millions annually into developing alternative methods, there is no such funding earmarked in Canada” with the suggestion that funds should be earmarked for CCAAM.
For now the full piece can only be read by Globe and Mail subscribers but I have given you more than enough to respond to, and I urge you to do so, thanking the paper for the article and supporting the need for alternatives to animal testing. Animals so badly need our voices!
The paper advises: "Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, contact letters@globeandmail.com."
Yours and all animals',
Karen Dawn of DawnWatch
