Posted on 08/02/2002 12:44:18 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
Al Gores Deadly Animal Test Plan
and the Scientist Who Can Stop It
After his plan to resume whaling and his massive pig farm bailout, the vice presidents new plan to kill 800,000 animals in pointless tests may be his worst yet.
In the early months of 1999, while the nations attention was focused on President Clintons problems, Vice President Al Gore was pushing a plan that aims to kill 800,000 animals in barbaric and useless tests, beginning before the year is out.
It began as a part of Gores efforts to appear concerned about the environment. Seizing on an old Environmental Protection Agency report that suggested that many high-production industrial chemicals had never been safety tested, Gore demanded that chemical manufacturers begin new tests on nearly 2,800 chemicals. If they dont volunteer to do the tests, hell force them to do so in what is now called the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge.
The tests include the gruesome lethal dose-50% test (LD50), in which animals are forced to ingest or inhale a chemical in increasing doses until half are dead, as well as longer-term tests. In all, Gores plan will kill an estimated 800,000 birds, fish, rats, mice, and other animals. The price tag to businesses is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, plus an extra $14 million EPA will need to review the results. The Environmental Defense Fund supported the plan, claiming that killing hundreds of thousands of animals is crucial to protecting the environment.
PCRM analysts found, however, that the EPA had botched the job. The chemicals Gore thought needed safety testing included rat poison, turpentine, and leaded gasolinechemicals whose risks were already well known. Odder still, Gore called for testing sorbitol, the sweetener in sugarless gum, as well as soybean oil and palm oilhardly an environmental crisis.
It turned out that the EPA simply had not checked the right databases of prior test results and had completely ignored all evidence from human exposures. The EPA had checked the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), TOXLINE, and MEDLINE. However, PCRMs review did not stop there. We added to our search the Toxicology, Occupational Medicine and Environmental Series Consolidated Point Solution (TOMES CPS), which includes toxicological data drawn from a wide variety of sources. We found that data thought by the EPA to be lacking were indeed often available. Here is a sampling:
The Tests Will Go Forward, Gore Insists
None of this has stopped the vice president. At his urging, the deadly test plan is going forward at full steam. In December, the EPA summoned hundreds of industry representatives to a Washington meeting to encourage their cooperation. In every session the manufacturers nodded in solemn agreement, and during the coffee breaks they laughed out loud at the absurd program. PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., presented the data showing that, indeed, there was no call for animal tests. While most manufacturers present agreed, it is unclear at this time whether they can stop the testing program.
A prominent EPA official said at the meeting, If saving one bald eagle means killing a million lab rats, then so be it, reflecting a surprising naiveté regarding what laboratory tests can and cannot accomplish and what are the most effective means of protecting the environment. The EPA currently has no plans for using any of the test results. Indeed, the key for protecting people and the environment does not lie in further tests of rat poison, turpentine, or anything else, but in preventing exposures.
Meanwhile Gores environmentalist posture continues to unravel. First, in a confidential White House memorandum of conversation dated October 5, 1993, and leaked to the Animal Welfare Institute, Gore and Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland conspired for passage of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) in order to resume commercial whaling. Then, when pig farmswhose slurry and smells are a growing environmental nightmarefell on hard times, Gore announced a $130 million pork bailout plan.
Why would an environmentalist like Al Gore be so visibly linked to such programs? Many believe that Gores environmentalist stance was never intended to be anything more than a safely uncontroversial image, like Lady Bird Johnsons efforts to beautify America, or the literacy and antidrug campaigns of other First Ladies. The environmentalist image provided an identity without upsetting anyone. And Gore readily abandoned it when he needed to.
What You Can Do
If our goal is to gather preliminary information about chemical risks, we should not underestimate what we have in hand now, nor should we assume that further animal tests will more clearly indict dangerous chemicals. Indeed, they may well do the opposite. The HPV program could discourage regulators from taking action on chemicals that are suspected hazards based on worker exposures or other clinical and epidemiologic observations.
It would be a mistake to allow a hurried and incomplete analysis of chemicals that have been in use for decades to propel us into an absurd and costly new cycle of testing. Rather, a straightforward retrieval of already conducted tests, along with data on human exposures, is in the first order of business and will likely be amply rewarded. Please write to Vice President Gore about the EPAs High Production Volume Challenge Program. His address is:
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
Let him know that, if he is a true environmentalist, he will:
The Scientist with a Better Test Program
Human cell tests have shown their superiority over animal tests. Dr. Bjorn Ekwall and colleagues in the Multicenter Evaluation of In-Vitro Cytotoxicity (MEIC) trial based in Uppsala, Sweden, recently released final data from 29 independent laboratories. The results showed that while rat and mouse tests have been about 65 percent accurate in predicting human risk, a combination of three human cell tests predicted the toxicity of chemicals with 77 percent precision. Further improvements can be made by statistical adjustments, based on a test chemicals ability to pass through the blood-brain barrier. Human cell tests may also provide information for judging ecotoxicity. The most accurate human cell tests were developed in Belgium, Japan, and Mexico.
The MEIC trial tested 61 different in-vitro assays for their correlations with human lethal blood concentrations, comparing the results with lethal dose (LD50) tests on rats and mice. They tested 50 chemicals which varied widely in their chemical properties.
While the rodent tests showed varying degrees of inaccuracy for the 50 test chemicals, they were wildly inaccurate in predicting human lethal doses for 9 chemicals. For one of these, digoxin, the problem was clear: rodents have less Na/K ATPase enzyme activity compared to humans, rendering rodent tests useless. In fact, rat LD50s are not particularly good predictors of mouse LD50s. The MEIC review found that rat tests grossly underpredicted results of mouse tests for several chemicals. An animal LD50 test could exonerate a chemical or make it appear safer than it is. Human cell tests are far better predictors of human toxicity.
I could not find this in the archives and am posting it for posterity on FR for future reference. When the animal rights activists claim support of Gore...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.