April-June, 1997 Vol. 1, No. 2
What you like for yourself; and what you don’t like for yourself consider similarly for others; that is what the Jain command is.
Similarly, the Christian command also says, “Treat thy neighbor the way you would like to be treated”. We should try to implement this in our daily lives, in every possible way. However, that is not what the modern science does. Let us focus on that, in this issue.
First of all, let us see what Dr. Robert Sharpe said in Sweden at an international conference by International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals. While disucssing the theme “Towards Ethical Science”, he not only condemned the animal tests, but he also explained why they are outdated and misleading. See pages 2-5.
We can help reduce, if not completely eliminate, the suffering of many animals, simply by donating our organs after death as American Anti-Vivisection Society discusses on page 6.
That is what People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals say in an effort to encourage or discourage the acts of several individuals or corporations. See page 7.
Currently, genetic engineering questions — “Can we play God?” and “How far is it ethical?”– are becoming very crucial and we all need to face them. This subject raises not only severe challenges of animal ethics but also of food science for strict vegetarians, because it has come to mixing the genes of animals in fruits and vegetables. Beauty Without Cruelty, India, has provided a serious, thought-provoking, detailed discussion on this most current subject. See pages 8-11.
Many medical professionals in the past used to raise serious doubts about totally vegan foods being able to provide enough vitamin B12, an essential nutrient for human well-being. “Eat more organic food,” is the answer provided by North American Vegetarian Society, on page 12.
That is what Howard Lyman, a cattle rancher turned vegan advocate, says for the sake of sustainability and environment of our earth. See page 13.
“Is sugar vegetarian or not?” many people have wondered. The answer is not very simplistic but Vegetarian Resource Group has done enough research to provide some insightful guidance. See page 14.
Also see page 15 for another research on how wines are made. The result is very clear, that alcohol is not for vegetarians and we better stay away from it, according to The Vegetarian Resource Group.
And finally, there is an invitation to the Animal Rights ’97 National Convention this summer in Washington DC, on Page 16.
These are the questions: “What if it were you?” “How would you like to be raised as a food animal?” “Or, for testing cosmetics & drugs?” “Or, for entertaining humans?” “Or, as a genetic ingredient for some strange creature or plant, capable of a specific function?”
Whatever we don’t like for ourselves, let us not do to others — humans or animals.
“The Science We Deserve” — Dr. Robert Sharpe
(Text of speech given at International Conference at Helsingborg, Sweden, on 10th August, 1996)
Throughout the world, laboratory animals are the unwilling victims of science. They are used to develop drugs and investigate disease, to test agricultural and consumer products, for military and space research, and for a multitude of other purposes. In Sweden alone, 629,586 animals were subjected to laboratory tests during 1994.
Despite the widespread use of animals, there are powerful arguments against the practice. To begin with, animal research is virtually inseparable from suffering or death. This is partly to do with the experimenter’s desire for a disposable species that can be manipulated as required and killed when convenient. It also arises from the way many tests are performed. In the field of toxicology, which accounts for approximately one fifth of all animal experiments, test chemicals are administered so that at least some dose levels induce harmful effects. For instance, in the LD50 test, animals are deliberately poisoned to death to measure the toxicity of the chemical. A more humane version of the LD50, known as the fixed dose procedure, does not require the animal to be killed. Nevertheless it still requires clear signs of poisoning before it is stopped.
The LD50 is an acute toxicity test requiring a single dose. But even in more prolonged toxicity tests, in which substances are administered every day, the highest dose levels are again chosen to induce harmful effects. This is done so that doctors have some idea which parts of the body require special monitoring during human trials.
Another major area where animals are deliberately harmed is the study of illness and injury. Here, symptoms of disease are induced to promote an ‘animal model’ of the condition. In cancer research for instance, radiation, chemicals or viruses are often used to produce tumors in laboratory animals. Researchers acknowledge that these creatures are likely to suffer pain and distress.
Genetically Engineered Animals
Animals increasingly suffer in genetics research. Techniques have been developed to alter an animal’s genetic make-up producing new strains or species to be exploited by the agricultural, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. One approach is to insert genes from one species into the embryos of another, the resulting creatures being known as ‘transgenics’. Another methods is to disable or knock out one of the animal’s own genes. Scientists refer to these creatures as ‘knock-outs’.
Genetically engineered animals suffer because scientists are unable to predict the results of their genetic manipulations. The infamous ‘Beltsville’ pigs were genetically engineered to carry human growth hormone genes but developed severe arthritis and were unable to stand. During later experiments by the USDA in Beltsville, growth hormone genes from cows were introduced into pigs in an attempt to increase growth rate and produce leaner flesh. However, the resulting transgenic pigs suffered protruding eyes, gastric ulcers, arthritis, dermatitis, heart problems, lameness, pneumonia and kidney disease. At the University of Cincinnati, research with transgenetic mice unexpectedly led to animals with brain damage, malformed faces, and no back legs. They all died within 24 hours.
Even where there are no unexpected complications, genetically engineered animals suffer and die because in biomedical research they are designed to do so. An example is the so-called ‘oncomouse’, intended for use by cancer researchers. It is produced by inserting human cancer genes into the embryos of mice. The animals quickly develop fatal breast cancer. Another case is genetically engineered ‘cystic fibrosis’ mice. These animals become ill and die within 40 days.
Animals may also suffer from the way they are kept or through poor experimental technique. And for many primates, there are the additional hazards of capture and transportation from the country of origin.
Species Difference & False Sense of Security
Apart from the plight of animals, there are also scientific objections to vivisection. This is because species differ in their response to drugs and disease. Consequently animal experiments are not a safe guide to the treatment and prevention of human illness. For instance, it is well known that oral contraceptives increase the risk of blood clots in women. These and other circulatory problems caused by the Pill, were not identified by animal experiments. In fact, in common laboratory species such as dogs and rats, oral contraceptives produced the opposite effect, making it more difficult for the blood to clot. Another example is the drug fialuridine which was intended for the treatment of hepatitis. However, in 1993 clinical trials of the drug were halted following deaths and serious complications among participants. The dangers were unexpected since the drug had seemed both safe and effective in laboratory animals. Fialuridine is not an isolated example since most of the harmful effects of drugs cannot be predicted by animal tests.
Animals tests not only give a false sense of security, there is also the risk that worthwhile therapies may be lost or delayed through toxic effects that do not occur in human beings. Development of propranolol, the first widely used beta-blocking drug for heart disease and high blood pressure, was put in jeopardy when it caused rats to collapse and dogs to vomit severely. On the basis of animal tests, the transplant drug FK506 was feared too toxic for human use, and if it hadn’t been given as a last chance option to patients in desperate plights, its life-saving qualities may never have been appreciated. And the discovery that tamoxifen caused cancer in rats would have halted development of this anti-cancer drug had the company ICI not already been reassured by its safety profile in human patients.
Similar problems arise when animals are employed as “models” of disease. The use of monkeys to investigate malaria led to the suggestion that steroids would be helpful in treating patients who developed coma. However, human trials showed that steroids are actually dangerous, prolonging coma and increasing the risk of complications such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections and convulsions.
In cancer research some of the animal tumors are so different that any coincidence with human findings must be fortuitous. A widely used animal model of breast cancer is the mouse in which disease is introduced by a virus. Yet even researchers who use this animal admit that “the mouse model . . . has important differences from breast cancer in women.” The disease is not caused by a virus in people and whilst early pregnancy can reduce the risk of illness in women, the opposite is true in mice. And mouse breast tumors seldom spread whereas this is a characteristic of the human disease.
Even the genetically engineered animals that scientists hope will more closely mimic human disease are proving unreliable. It has been found for instance, that cancer genes can behave very differently in mice and people.
These examples show that vivisection is an illogical and unreliable system of research. The method is further undermined by the choice of species. All too often this depends on factors such as cost, breeding rate, ease of handling and tradition rather than whether the animals are likely to respond like people. An example is the use of rabbits for eye irritancy tests. It is known that rabbit eyes have important differences to human eyes but the test has traditionally relied on rabbits because they are cheap, readily available, easy to handle and have large eyes for asserting test results.
The widespread use of rats in toxicity tests highlights the unscientific nature of vivisection. They are one of the main species used to predict the harmful effects of drugs and consumer products, and the assumption is that rats will respond like people. However, there is another major industry whose success relies on differences between rats and people. This involves the development of rodenticides. In this case companies hope to develop products which are toxic to rats but comparatively safe to other animals and people.
Despite the ethical and scientific objections to animal experiments, vivisectors often claim there is no alternative. It has to be remembered that animal experimentation is only one method of research: there are others. One important approach to investigating disease is epidemiology. Here, researchers monitor different groups of people to discover the causes of ill health. Unlike animal experiments, epidemiology produces results of direct relevance to people. Careful detective work by epidemiologists showed how HIV is transmitted and how AIDS can be prevented. This information could not have come from animals since they do not develop the disease when inoculated with HIV.
Tragically, there have been numerous occasions when animal experiments have cast doubt on human epidemiological findings. For instance, epidemiology first highlighted the cancer-causing effects of smoking and asbestos, and of x-rays on foetus but in each case animal experiments delayed progress by producing false results. The same was true for polio research. Epidemiological studies of over 1,000 Swedish cases correctly suggested that polio is an intestinal illness. But experiments with monkeys produced different results and delayed a proper understanding of the disease for over 25 years.
Human Tissue
Another important but underused approach is human tissue research. Tissues are obtained from surgical specimens, from biopsies, or after death, and can be used to investigate disease, develop drugs and produce biological products. There is increasing interest in the use of human tissue to assess the safety of medicines and other products. By producing results directly relevant to people, human tissue tests have the advantage that they can identify harmful effects missed by animal experiments. Although not yet widely used there are enough cases in the medical literature to show their value. The drugs chloramphenicol, phenylbutazone, valproic acid, mianserin and thalidomide all produced injuries which were not predicted by the original animal experiments but which were later identified in the test tube using human tissue.
Scientific Attitudes
The development and adoption of non-animal techniques depends very much on attitudes within the scientific community. Those whose daily work involves the infliction of suffering and death must inevitably become hardened and desensitized. As a result animals are regarded as just another laboratory tool. Because experimenters do not feel strongly about the unnecessary loss of life, some tests continue long after non-animal replacements have been developed. An example is the use of guinea pigs for diagnosing tuberculosis. In 1972 Britain’s TB Reference Laboratory reported that a test-tube technique could be used as an alternative but 14 years later the London Hospital was still routinely using guinea pigs for the purpose. Another case is the testing of hormones like insulin and somatatropin which has traditionally employed animals. In Europe and Japan animal tests are no longer required and have been deleted from official guidelines. However, in the United States the use of animals to test these hormones continues even though it can no longer be considered ‘necessary’.
In contrast, progress is rapid when scientists and industry are sufficiently motivated to avoid using animals. For instance, public pressure has persuaded many companies to adopt more ethical test procedures with the result that consumer product testing has fallen substantially. In Britain, the use of animals to test the safely of cosmetics, toiletries and household products fell by 90% between 1977 and 1994.
The Draize Campaign
The Draize Campaign, which focussed on the use of rabbits for eye irritancy testing, again stresses the importance of attitudes. Since 1944 the Draize test has been employed to assess the irritancy of a wide variety of chemicals including pesticides and consumer products. Usually no pain relief is given and the test often proceeds for 7 days during which the eyes are monitored for signs of damage. It had long been recognized that the rabbit eye is a poor model for the human eye and eventually researchers announced that the traditional Draize test “has essentially no power to predict the results of accidental human eye exposure.” Despite the problem, toxicologists could only suggest using different species. Only during the 1980s, when animal protection groups throughout the world focussed attention on the test, did attitudes finally start to change. The campaign highlighted the cruelty and scientific invalidity of the test and persuaded companies to invest in research to find a humane alternative.
Since then dozens of test-tube alternatives have been developed and some are now routinely used. One of the most successful is EYTEX which is available in the form of a kit and can take as little as one hour to perform. EYTEX uses a mixture of plant proteins and can rapidly identify moderate or severe eye irritants. Another alternative, devised by the Californian company Advanced Tissue Sciences, uses a human tissue system which models the outer layer of the cornea. It can distinguish between innocuous, mild and strong eye irritants.
The Draize campaign has not yet been completed because some animals are still used. Nevertheless it has already led to a substantial fall in the number of rabbits subjected to eye irritancy tests. Above all it has demonstrated what can be achieved when science and industry are sufficiently motivated. This suggests that two key factors are necessary to stop animal experiments. One is an informed public that finds the abuse and exploitation of animals unacceptable. After all, it was public opinion that persuaded many cosmetic companies to stop using animals. The second requirement is a new generation of scientists who no longer regard animals as the disposable tools of research.
Animal protection groups have the power to create these changes and many organizations are now putting great emphasis on education. Already the campaigns are paying dividends. In America for instance, animal laboratories are no longer required by any civilian medical school for teaching purposes. In some of the medical schools the use of animals is now optional: in others the procedures have been discarded altogether. In Britain, dissection is no longer required by any school examining board and has actually been banned in Argentina. And a recent survey of computer-based alternatives in undergraduate teaching found that in 15 out of 20 university departments, students had objected to using animals. The survey acknowledged that “Although there has always been some degree of student objection to using animals, it has never been so apparent as in recent years.” These are important trends because the students of today are the scientists of the future.
In conclusion, there are powerful ethical and scientific objections to animal experiments. We need to use these arguments to educate each new generation of scientists. Our aim is very simple. It is to close down the animal laboratories and create a completely ethical system of scientific research and health care.
A Smart Alternative to Xenotransplantation:
“The Presumed Consent Law”
Tina Nelson — Executive Director, American Anti-Vivisection Society
Xenotransplantation, or the transplantation of organs from animals to humans, is on the rise. Due to the chronic shortage of human organs, many transplant centers are considering the use of substitute organs from baboons, chimpanzees, pigs and sheep.
Approximately 12,000 organ transplants are performed in the United States each year. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a nonprofit organization in Richmond, Virginia that, under federal contract, allocates organs nationally. Patients can register and be placed on a waiting list; however, this does not guarantee that an organ will be available by the time the patient’s own organ fails. For instance, in 1993, 50,169 patients registered with UNOS, but 2,887 died while waiting for donor organs. The primary cause for these mortality rate is the shortage of organs due to the failure of people to donate. Only 1 out 5 people has consented to donate his or her organs at death. At least 100,000 people die each year of accidents or strokes, and approximately 20,000 of these are potential organ donors. However, the number of donors remains low, at about 4,000 per year.
In a 1993 AV Magazine article, John McArdle, Ph.D., our Scientific Advisor, wrote an article which discussed the alternatives to xenotransplantation. Among those alternatives is the Presumed Consent Law. This law was originally recommended by the Council of Europe in 1978 and subsequently passed in most European countries. The basis of this law is the legal presumption that anyone is a potential organ donor, unless he or she has stated an opposite wish, which can be done making a written statement of dissent in any form. At death, family members are not required to extend permission to “harvest” the deceased’s organs. This law is the exact opposite of the current United States organ donation law which requires that the person grant prior permission for the use of his or her organs at death.
The United States law has been extremely ineffective and unable to meet the high demand for organs despite evidence that the majority of people support the concept of donating. The European law, however, has been overwhelmingly effective, especially in Austria where organ availability quadrupled after the Presumed Consent Law was implemented. In Belgium, the experience was similar, proving that the results of presumed consent are very successful.
Several animal protection organizations are presently working on building a coalition, and expect to have legislation drafted and introduced regarding a Presumed Consent Law in the United States. By establishing this law, we will be saving many lives that otherwise would have been wasted and will have provided a smart alternative to xenotransplantation.
I encourage AAVS members to support the implementation of such a law, but offer an additional suggestion in the interim. Please call or write the AAVS and request The Humane Research Donor Card. Millions of animals would be saved if medical researchers used human tissue in their work instead of killing healthy animals. By carrying this card, you ensure promoting ethical research which benefits people and animals. Also available in The AAVS catalog is our publication, Health and Humane Research, which provides factual information on animal experiments and alternatives, and contains The Humane Research Donor Card. The American Anti-Vivisection Society promotes compassion in classroom, laboratories, and dinner plate. This 100+ years old organization also issues grants to scientists for using and/or developing non-animal tests. For more information, please write: 801 Old York Road, Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA 19046-1685. Phone: 215-887-0816.
Profile of a Crusader: Howard F. Lyman
The Director of Humane Society’s “Eating With Conscience Campaign”, who travels the country speaking about the humanity, health and environmental benefits of plant-based organic diets.
As a fourth-generation family farmer in Montana for almost 40 years, he speaks from a background personal experience, when he says that chemically based agri-cultural production methods today are unsustainable, and therefore ecologically disastrous. His experiences range from working in a large organic dairy to raising registered beef cattle to owning a large factory feedlot. He has farmed thousands of acres of grain and reprodu-ced a herd of over one thousand commercial beef cows. In addition to raising cows, he has raised chickens, pigs, and turkeys. He has also grown crops such as wheat, barley, oats, alfalfa, and grass. But after all that, finally he has turned vegetarian, and now a vegan.
He was involved in agriculture at a time when the call dictated getting bigger and better or getting out. He was educated in modern agriculture. He followed all the modern advice and turned a small organic family farm into a large corporate chemical farm. But that is when he saw the organic soil go from a living, productive base to a sterile, chemical-saturated, mono-cultural ground produced by the so-called modern methods.
In 1979, a tumor on his spinal cord caused him to be paralyzed from the waist down. That changed his life forever. He promised himself that, whatever the outcome of the surgery, he would dedicate the rest of his life to doing what he believed to be right — no matter what changes that necessitated.
The period before and after surgery gave him much time to think about the changes resulting from his methods of farming. Convinced that we were going the wrong way, he saw a need to become a voice for the family farmer and the land. In 1983, he sold most of his farm and started working for farmers in financial trouble. This led to his working for the Montana Farmers Union and from there to Washington, D.C. as a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union.
For five years he worked on Capitol Hill. In that time they had some small successes, such as passing the National Organic Standards Act. But even after the act became a law, it took the administration several years to allow funds for its implementation. He became convinced that the changes needed had to come from the producers and the consumers at the grassroot level. Until that alliance is put into play, the big money interest will continue to control public policy in the Congress.
His goal is to see a producer-consumer alliance controlling public policy decisions in North America. To that end he has joined The Humane Society of the United States as Director of the Eating With Conscience Campaign. This campaign has been designed to educate people about organic sustainable agriculture and the dangers of current methods of food production. He believes that informed producers and consumers will help by making humane choices in their personal lives.
His progress in achieving sustainable agriculture has been marked by some very interesting events. He ran for Congress in Montana in 1982 and was able to carry the message through the political campaign. Although he lost, he was able to focus the voters’ attention on who was producing our food and how they were doing it. Later on he took on as the executive director of the international Beyond Beef Campaign (in favor of strictly vegetarian diet), which was able to organize over 2,400 teams consisting of over 10,000 people who handed out over 1,000,000 pieces of information in one day at over 3,000 separate locations around the world. This effort was to educate consumers about their food choices.
He has appeared on over one thousand radio stations and hundreds of television stations. Recently he talked on Oprah Winfrey’s show about the ‘Mad Cow Disease’. He has spoken to thousands of groups. The message is always the same: If there is to be a bright future for our children and grand-children, it will come only from consumer support of producers who work in concert with nature — organically, sustainably, and humanely.
Top
Genetic Engineering
“Compassionate Friend”, the publication from Beauty Without Cruelty, India, raised following two questions regarding this sensitive issue. Please call/write them for your support and comments — Tel: 91 212 66-4321 (fax 66-4312). 4 Prince of Wale’s Drive, Wanowrie, Pune 411 040 INDIA. Internet: http://giaspn01.vsnl.net.in/~bwcindia.
Playing God?
by Keya Kamat
Biotechnology can now cross animals with plants, leaving the vegetarian confused. The scientific world today has the power to alter the very fabric of nature, by transferring characteristics not only between plants , but cross-altering animals, plants and human beings. Genetic engineering which is without ethical limitation has a serious impact on the environment of animals and plants. It violates our relationship with the natural world. Most people believe animals have a right to live their lives free from human interference with their original genetic structure. Also, that animals can never serve as models of human disease — just because they’re much too different. But scientists still keep trying — after all, the human transplant market is worth well over $ 6 billion per year!
Biotechnology in recent years has been progressing in leaps and bounds. It represents a quantum leap in the exploitation of animals, allowing humans to move genes from one species of animal into another totally different species.
Scientists and biotech companies in some major countries of the world want to create new animals that produce more and ‘better’ meat, give up their valuable products such as wool more easily, and have organs that can be used in human transplants. It doesn’t stop there… many of the genetically modified crops now being field-tested in the US (and around the world) could not only have a devastating Jurassic-Park type impact on the global eco-system, but also hit agriculture-based third-world economies dependent on cash crops. Genetic engineering is a one-dimensional ‘reductionist-science’ that ignores the wider dynamics of life systems.
Genetic engineering primarily involves the introduction of genes containing DNA (deoxyribo-nucleus acid) procured from humans or animals into cells of bacteria, yeast or other animals. One of the outcomes is termed ‘Transgenic Animal’. These transgenic animals cannot be bred by natural/traditional selection or artificial insemination.
Donor females are given hormone injections and hormone impregnated sponges are also inserted directly into their reproductive tracts, so as to make them produce lots of egg-cells. This process has been termed ‘super-ovulation’. These eggs are then artificially inseminated either manually or surgically. Next the embryos are collected by further surgery or slaughter. These embryos are then injected with foreign DNA containing the genes of preferable traits, and then transferred into foster mothers, by surgery again.
It takes 80 donors and recipient animals to produce only one transgenic cow — if everything works perfectly — which is VERY rare.
Once the transgenic animal is produced, its suffering just about starts… for example, non-porcine genes have been added to pigs, producing animals with gastric ulcers, liver and kidney disorders, lameness, damaged eye-sight, loss of co-ordination, sensitivity to pneumonia and diabetic conditions.
Genetic engineering research is most often carried out on animals such as pigs, mice, sheep, farm animals, fish and sometimes, even on some plants such as the tomato, tobacco and corn.
Vegetarians around the world are seriously wondering whether the food they are eating is actually vegetarian. In the case of Flavor Savor as they are usually called, tomatoes are genetically altered by introducing into them genes from a fish, the Arctic Flounder, so as to reduce freezer damage, to enable them to have a longer shelf-life, to ripen longer on the tree while remaining firm at the time of picking and transporting and to make them bigger and tastier as well. No layman can make out the difference between Flavor Savor and a normal tomato which is primarily why staunch vegetarians want the altered tomatoes labeled.
Other such experiments with vegetables include chicken genes introduced into potatoes for resistance to disease and for increasing shelf-life and size, tobacco altered with mouse genes to reduce impurities or with a gene from fire-flies that makes the leaves glow at night. Some biotechnologists go to the extent where it becomes a game for them — playing around with genes of animals. This might result in some ghastly creature produced just to satisfy someone’s whims and fancies.
Scientists in the US have bred a mouse called the ‘Oncomouse’ which has been genetically engineered to develop cancer and in due course die a slow, painful death. The first oncomouse was bred in 1981, yet, in the past 15 years, a cure for cancer still seems to elude scientists. Genetic engineering on mice does not stop there. A mouse specifically created to lack an immune
system has been used to grow human organs, like ears, externally, even internally. The absence of an immune system ensures that the mouse will not reject human tissues. Scientists make a look-alike mold of a human organ, say, an ear, with biodegradable polyester fabric or other polymers. They then
transfer the bone/muscle cells into the form and transplant it on the mouse. When ready, the organ is ‘grafted’ from the mouse. The mouse somehow manages to remain alive after the ear is removed.
Similarly, scientists have managed to grow liver, skin, cartilage, bone, ureters, heart valves, tendons, intestines, blood-vessels and breast-tissue with such polymers. But, if the idea of reversing the experiment (substitute the mice with humans) came about, people would call it blasphemous! No thought for the animals is involved. The extent to which these experiments will go is uncertain. A change will only come about when scientists realize the animals’ right to live a normal, healthy life, without man tampering with their genes.
Pigs are also grown transgenetically, so that their organs can be transplanted into humans. Transgenic pigs were first produced in 1985. Scientists have succeeded in making the required organs in pigs capable of producing human cells. These proteins they hope will trick the human immune system while transplanting the organ(s) so that the recipient does not react to the foreign tissue.
Another example is that of sheep that have been injected with hormones, bioengineered to cause wool-shedding to produce the so-called ‘self-shearing’ sheep. This is done in Australia, where, unfortunately for the sheep, the climate is mostly hot and sunny. As a result, some sheep experience an increased rate of abortion.
WHERE ON EARTH WILL IT ALL END?
Talking about sheep, meanwhile, Welsh Mountain clone sheep are living proof that life can be created without sperm! A scientist at Rosalin Institute created them by fusing a cell grown in the laboratory with an empty sheep-egg through a spark of electricity. Imagine growing a sheep in a lab-
dish! Ironically, when pondering about doing the same with human beings, scientists find it ‘unethical’!
In another bizarre experiment, Indian scientists at the Nimbalkar Research Institute, Phaltan, Maharashtra, have, by artificial insemination, created an animal with goat-head and the body of a cow. This animal grows fatter faster and the volume of meat has therefore increased.
Scientists claim that they can, and will make genetically-altered animals that will help cure human diseases and illnesses; well, transgenic research has been going on for nearly 20 years, and it still has not cured a single human illness. But illnesses like diabetes, blindness, lameness and cancer (among others) have all been produced unexpectedly in animals subjected to these ridiculous experiments. Genetic engineering at lengths such as these, are a symbol of consumerism gone berserk. Is it really fair that animals and their environment face the brunt of our insatiable curiosity?
Considering that “to err is human” the probabilities of a mis-judgement or mis-step or mis-reaction resulting in a catastrophe are very high. And in such an eventuality, it will be next to impossible to trick the genie (or ‘gene’) back into the bottle (test-tube).
How Far is it Ethical?
by P.H. Butani
Genetic engineering on animals is highly undesirable, unnatural and therefore unethical. Some rationalists believe that it is tantamount to tinkering with nature’s pre-planned programme. Once modified, the individual genetic ‘personality’ of the animal stands irreversibly altered. It is used AGAINST the well-being of animals rather than FOR their welfare.
Genetic engineering is highly immoral because of four robust reasons:
1. Although lower in the order of evolution animals are very much sentient beings which means that they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain in the same way as we do.
2. In the case of humans, their permission is taken for genetic engineering. Further, for certain experiments, they are paid ‘inducement money’ and in the case of failure, they are given a generous compensation. In contrast, in the case of animals, genetic engineering is done without their permission or any compensation which is patently mean and unfair.
3. Animals being speechless and defenseless, cannot run away (all escape routes are blocked), resist (they are held down), protest (they are muzzled), or lodge a police complaint nor can they move the court for redressal of their grievances.
4. There are psychological perspectives also. Like human mammals, animal mammals also develop great attachment towards their young. And when any of the young is forcibly separated from the mother, she feels sad and expresses her sorrow. Early weaning leads to abnormal behavior and pathological changes in the small intestine. Even rough handling affects their psyche. Fear of humans reduces the reproductive performance of animals. Further, in cloning of animals (say cow, buffalo, pig, rabbit, mouse etc.) multi-identical offspring are born. The mother becomes attached to her young and each offspring’s separation from her causes mental shock and plunges her into depression. Repeated cycles of this trauma leaves her heart-broken. This is mental cruelty.
Thus, the prime motive for using genetic engineering on animals is not for any real concern for or welfare of them but solely and ultimately for the benefit of man. In other words, all gains go to man and nil to animal — it stands to lose its health, limb or life for man.
To test the validity of my views, I put the same question to Hindu Swamis, Jain Munis, Buddhist Monks and Sikh Saints. At first they frankly said that they had absolutely no idea as to what genetic engineering was. On my briefly explaining the application of genetic engineering to animals, all of them gave more or less the same answer:
The Swamiji said: “According to our Vedas, all living beings have a soul. It is an infinitesimally small part of the Universal Soul (Parmatma) seated in the heart of every being (Jiv Atma). Our religion forbids killing of any animal and exhorts to be kind to them. Now if genetic engineering causes any pain or suffering to animals, then it is definitely not right and it would be very cruel to forcibly subject them to it because as you say, it doesn’t benefit them. It only harms them. Narayan! Narayan!”
The Jain Muniji said: “We hold that all life is precious – be it human or animal. But unfortunately the sanctity of animal life is not recognized and if, during the course of genetic engineering it loses its life, no remorse is felt. The dead body is just carted away. Bhagwan Mahavir has summed up this philosophy very succinctly thus: ‘What we cannot give, we have no right to take. We cannot give life, so we have no right to take life.’”
The Buddhist Monk nodded his head in agreement and added: “Buddhism is essentially a religion of kindness, humanity and equality. It is against animal sacrifices. So those who do these kind of things (genetic engineering) are deviating from the right path. They seem to have only passion for experiments (Paryog) but no compassion for animals.”
The Sikh mystic in his typical Punjabi-accented Hindi opined: “We accept the cyclic Hindu theory of ‘Samsara’ – birth, death and rebirth – and karma. Humans are, therefore, equal to all other creatures – big or small. Conversely, all animals are sentient beings and therefore no pain should be inflicted on them. Because who knows that in our next birth, we may be born as an animal. That is why genetic engineering should not be performed on them.” To make his point clear, he added: “There may be grounds for valuing the life of a person more highly than that of an animal. But these, however, are not grounds for ignoring or devaluing the life of an animal for the simple reason that the basic characteristics (of divine life) are present to some degree in all animals.”
Genesis Awards on TV
“Genesis” Awards are given to honor and encourage all those who took courage and integrity to expose animal cruelties and thus heighten the public awareness on these issues. This 90 minutes ceremony will be shown on TV three times this year, on each of the two Animal Planet and Discovery Channels, all over the nation. Mark your calendar for dates, and verify them with your local TV Guide for exact time, because the timings are confusing, and there are two separate channels. Animal Planet Channel: (1) Saturday, May 17, 7 pm PST (10 pm EST), again (2) Saturday, May 17, 10 pm PST (1 am EST), and (3) Friday, May 30, 9 pm PST (midnight EST). Discovery Channel: (1) Saturday, May 31, 3:30 pm your own local time, (2) Sunday, June 1, 6:30 pm EST, and (6) Sunday, June 1, 6:30 pm PST. You should be able to catch at least one of the six airings.
Top
Let’s Appreciate..
First Daughter Chelsea Clinton. Yes, if you have heard it, it is true. She is now a vegetarian!
Actor Edward Furlong. While shooting a Calvin Klein ad, Edward said cotton was fine, but the leather shirt had to go! Send “thank yous” to Edward Furlong, c/o. Disney, 500 South Buena Vista St., Burbank, CA 91521-2310.
U.K.’s Pharmagene, the first pharmaceutical company to test new drugs exclusively on human donor tissue instead of unwilling animals. Says company co-founder Gordon Baxter, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”
Cruelty-free toothpaste pioneer Tom’s of Maine for challenging the Fortune 1000 companies that test on animals: Tom’s will donate $5,000 to an animal charity on behalf of the next company that stops animal tests.
Auto Club Europe for cancelling a French foie gras farm visit after learning how geese suffer to produce this epicurean atrocity.
Buñol, Spain, for banning bullfights long ago and substituting the annual Tomato Festival — a food fight of monumental proportions.
Amoco, the latest oil company to cap its open exhaust stacks, saving countless migratory birds and bats from a fiery death.
Oslo, Norway, city court for ruling that cartons of factory-farmed eggs showing hens happily roaming a farmyard are illegal. The court said that the cartons mislead consumers since the eggs are really produced by birds who spend their entire lives squeezed into tiny cages.
Oprah Winfrey, who swore off pork after seeing the hit film Babe and ditched beef. Thank-yous to Oprah (and ask her to save birds and fish, too) go c/o. Harpo Productions, 110 N. Carpenter, Chicago, IL 60607.
The Israeli Army for letting soldiers give leather the boot and wear vegan shoes instead.
ANIMAL TIMES by PETA for publishing such news.
Top
Let’s Protest!!
New York Police Department for outfitting dogs with videocameras and sending them into high-risk situations. Canine cams beam live footage back to TVs monitored by officers, alerting them to possible dangers. Crimes and criminal problems are created by humans. Why should innocent dogs have to risk their lives and limbs? Please ask the NYPD not to endanger dogs in New York’s “war zones,” and ask them to look for some other alternatives. Write: Mr. Howard Safir, Police Commissioner, 1 Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038.
Edinburgh’s Scottish Life International Insurance Company for delivering boxed homing pigeons to news agencies — and promising a case of Scotch whiskey to the organization whose pigeon returned first — as part of a P.R. stunt. Not all homing pigeons make it “home”!
Sharon Stone, who, asked by Vanity Fair if she would wear fur, said, “Don’t give me that animal-rights crap. Mink is farmed just like leather.” Said stone-cold Sharon, “Damn it, minks are rodents. If people can warm themselves by wearing dead rodents, they don’t have to stop that on my behalf.” Write her c/o. PMK, 955 S. Carrillo Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90048.
Nalge Company, maker of Nalgene sports water bottles, for making laboratory restraints used on rabbits and mice. Write: David Della Penta, President, Nalge Company, P.O. Box 20365, Rochester, NY 14602.
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and his wife, Hannelore, for A Culinary Journey Through Germany, a cardiologist’s nightmare that includes recipes for sow’s stomach, pork knuckles and other unsavory slaughter-house suppers.
Furrier Yolanda, for selling fur-bedecked Barbie dolls. However, we must appreciate Toymaker Mattel for telling Yolanda to “immediately cease using our trademark.” Says Mattel, “We would never design a fashion for the Barbie doll using real fur.”
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which gives orphaned bear cubs to the Mayo Clinic for experiments. Complain to Governor Arne H. Carlson, 130 State Capitol, 75 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, MN 55155.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals can be reached at 757-622-PETA, or 501 Front St, Norfolk, VA 23510.
Top
Vitamin B12 Breakthrough
Commonly, most of the strict vegetarians who do not consume even dairy products (or eggs) are warned about the dangers of missing this essential nutrient. North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) has some good news: According to their research, organic foods contain much more vitamin B12 than their counterpart, chemically fertilized commercial foods. This is one more reason to include as much organic food in our diets as possible. However, they note that further B12 research is needed, and vegans may want to have their blood levels tested and / or consume foods or tablets fortified with B12 until more information is available.
NAVS can be reached at 518-568-7970, or P.O. Box 72, Dolgeville, NY 13329.
Plants — especially organically grown plants — have been shown to contain vitamin B12, even though previous research had indicated that plants were not reliable sources of this essential vitamin. B12 is needed in microscopic amounts for new cell growth and maintaining a healthy nervous system.
A summary of the results of the study, by Dr. A. Mozafar in Switzerland, was reported in the November issue of New Century Nutrition by T. Collin Campbell, Ph.D., and Jeff Gates, D.H.Sc.
The Swiss research focussed specifically on three plants (soy beans, barley and spinach). Soils enriched with organic fertilizer (cow manure) resulted in a several-fold increase in the soil’s B12 content, as compared to soils worked with conventional inorganic or chemical fertilizers, according to Gates. More importantly, Gates said, the soil’s B12 was actually absorbed by the plants tested. Spinach, the most absorptive of the three tested plants, was found to have 17.8 mcg/kg, as compared to 6.9 mcg/kg for the spinach grown in conventional fertilizers. Barley grown in soil fertilized with manure was found to have 9.1 mcg/kg of vitamin B12, as compared to 2.6 mcg/kg for barley grown with inorganic fertilizers. Soybeans grown with manure had 2.9 mcg of B12 as compared to 1.6 mcg with chemical fertilizers.
“When one recalls that the RDA for B12 is only 2 mcg/day, then a quick calculation finds that just a 4-ounce daily portion of spinach is all that is usually necessary for B12 nutrition,” Gates wrote in New Century Nutrition. Two micrograms is a minuscule amount, approximately the size of a period at the end of a sentence.
Health professionals have warned vegans for years that they may need to take B12 supplements because there is no reliable plant-based source of the vitamin. B12 is not a true vitamin, but rather a by-product of bacteriological action. Animal flesh, milk, cheese and eggs have been shown to contain B12 — but previous studies have not consistently found B12 in plant-foods.
“Are vegans really at greater risk of B12 deficiency?” Campbell ponders in New Century Nutrition. “Some evidence says yes; some invites skepticism. Clearly, vegans do generally have lower blood concentrations of B12. A number of studies have shown this. But these low concentrations mean little unless there is a higher incidence of the accompanying blood (megaloblastic anemia) and nerve (parathesia) disorders, for which there seems to be little or no evidence. What should be acknowledged is that the concentrations of other blood factors, such as cholesterol, also are very different among vegans, and for very good health reasons at that. Why should we expect the lower B12 levels to be an exception?”
B12 is actually found in five forms, only some of which are considered active or useful for humans. B12 deficiencies can be masked by the presence of non-useful forms of B12.
2nd World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Uses in the Life Sciences
It was held on October 20-24, 1996, at Utrecht, Netherlands, to provide a useful forum for dialogue, exchange of information, problem resolution and debate between animal protectionists, scientists, industry, regulators, educationalists and others. The basic premise of the Congress was the policy of ‘Refinement, Reduction and Replacement’ of animal experiments. The next World Congress will be held in 1999.
Top Sugar and Other Sweeteners: Do They Contain Animal Products?
The answer to this question is very complex. Carolina Pyevich provided following clues in Vegetarian Journal, while doing an internship with the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG).
Refined sugar is avoided by many vegetarians because its processing may involve a bone char filter. The activated filter decolorizes sugar to make it white through an absorption process. Bone char filter is used by some major sugar companies, but not necessarily by all. The other filters may be granular carbon, pressure lead filter, or an ion exchange system. The granular carbon has a wood or coal base, and the ion exchange does not require the use of any animal products. Bones from cows are the only bones used to make bone char.
Two major types of refined sugar produced in the United States are beet sugar and cane sugar. They both are nutritionally equivalent, and one cannot usually taste any difference between them. They are both composed of sucrose. The production and sale of each type are approximately equal.
Beet sugar refineries never use bone char filter, because beet sugar does not require an extensive decolorizing procedure. It is refined with a pressure lead filter and an ion exchange system. Beet sugar is often labeled Granulated Sugar. It is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. because the Federal government subsidizes it. But Jainism would not accept beets, because they are roots.
On the other hand, almost all the cane sugar requires the use of a specific filter to decolorize the sugar and absorb inorganic material from it. The filter may be either bone char, granular carbon, or an ion exchange system.
Domino, the largest sugar manufacturer, uses bone char in the filtration process. The cane refineries of Savannah Foods, the second largest sugar manufacturer, also use bone char. California and Hawaiian (C&H) Sugar employs bone char filters as well as granular carbon and ion exchange filters. All these companies use the bone char in the refining process of brown sugar, powered sugar (sugar mixed with corn starch), and white sugar.
Refined Sugar, producers of Jack Frost Sugar, use a granular carbon. Florida Crystal sugar is a cane sugar which has not passed through the bone either.
Some labels of sugar packages seem to indicate that the product is “raw sugar,” but all commercial sugar has undergone some refining. Genuine raw sugar, according to FDA regulations, is unfit for human consumption.
Turbinado sugar is made by separating raw cane sugar crystals in a centrifuge and washing them with steam. It retains brown color. C&H produces Washed Raw Sugar, without passing through bone char.
Brown sugar is basically refined sugar with added molasses. It could have been refined with bone char.
Molasses is derived from sugar canes. Beet sugar molasses is too bitter for human consumption. The molasses syrup does not go through any filter, because there is no need to eliminate the brown color.
This sweetener may sometimes be non-vegetarian, because the process of making it requires an agent to reduce its foam by adding a small amount of fat to the liquid. This fat is the complex issue.
Traditionally, lard has been used for that. The pork is hung over a tub of maple syrup, and let drops of fat drip into the syrup. Milk, cream, butter, or vegetable oil also could have been used for that process.
Most maple syrup manufacturers now use vegetable oil or synthetic defoamers instead of lard. But one commercial defoamer, Atmos300K, contains glycerides derived from “edible meat and/or vegetable sources.” Thus, it is difficult to determine whether a particular brand has an animal or vegetable based defoamer.
Kosher certified brands, such as Spring Tree or Maple Groves, are unlikely to contain animal products in their defoamers. Holsum Foods, which produces pancake syrup, uses vegetable oil for defoaming. Their products are labeled by food chains such as Dominick’s, Supervalue, and Superfine.
Conclusion: Turbinado Sugar and molasses are top choices. Granualted would be ok, but it is non-Jain.
Top
Is Wine Vegetarian?
Most probably, the answer is “NO”. Here is another study by Carolina Pyevich, for the VRG.
VRG can be reached at 410-366-8343, or P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203.
Although wine usually contains only grapes, yeast, and a small amount of sulphites, which are added and created during fermentation, the processing of wine introduces small amounts of substances not acceptable to vegetarians and vegans.
Every wine is different and no uniform formula exists for producing them. A clarifying or fining agent makes wine clear by removing proteins from it. If left in the wine, these proteins would denature and form long molecular strands. That would result in wine that is either hazy or has loose sediment floating in it. The agents eventually settle out of the wine. Different proteins serve as clarifying agents depending upon both the type of wine and the desired flavor.
Some clarifiers are animal-based products, while others are earth-based. Common animal-based agents include egg whites, milk, casein, gelatin, and isinglass. Gelatin is derived from the skin and connective tissue of pigs and cows. Isinglass is prepared from the bladder of the sturgeon fish. Bentonite, a clay earth product, serves as another popular fining agent.
Organic protein agents are more likely to be used in the clarification of premium wines which cost more than $7 a bottle.
Egg whites from chicken eggs are used for red wine clarification. Wine makers in France (Burgundy) commonly utilize egg whites in their production. Egg whites generally clarify more expensive wines (above $15 a bottle) or French wines which are expected to age.
Large producers of wine in the United States usually implement potassium caseinate as a substitute for eggs. Whole milk and casein are two other possible fining agents in some red wines.
Gelatin can clarify either white or red wine, or beer. Gelatin pulls suspended material out of wine, and less expensive wines may use this method.
Isinglass is used to fine selected white wines. Germany is one of the main countries that uses this technique. Some American wineries also use isinglass to clarify white wine or chardonnay.
The most popular substance used to remove the proteins of domestically produced white wines is bentonite, the silica clay. It is used to fine most inexpensive wines.
Another fining agent of concern to vegetarians is blood. Although blood of large mammals may serve as a clarifier in some Old Mediterranean countries, it use is forbidden in United States and France.
Both the clarifying agents and the removed proteins coagulate on the bottom of the wine tank or barrel, from where they are removed. The ingredient list will not state the clarifier because it is removed from the final product.
Kosher wine is a specialty item and it is produced directly for the Kosher market. Kosher wines may be more likely to avoid the use of the animal-based clarifying agents, but not all do so. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations stated that a wine could theoretically be certified as Kosher if it contained egg whites or if the gelatin were completely removed from the final product. Paper is another agent sometimes used to clarify Kosher wine, as the impurities adhere to paper.
Jay Dinshah — American Vegan Society — 609-694-2887 — P.O. Box “H”, Malaga, NJ 08328
Alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver, oral and esophageal cancers, hemorrhagic strokes, malnutrition, accidents and suicides. Alcohol injures every cell it touches.
With every drink, you lose 10,000 brain cells. Those cells may be most vital ones for you… Have you ever experienced, that a very few little glitches bring a whole computer operation to a screeching halt or ‘crash’?
Anger, hatred, lust, greed, or any emotion reasonably controlled under normal circumstances may find free rain when one is ‘under the influence’. How can you tell what a man will do when he’s drunk?
Top
| January – March | July – September | October – December |
Top