• Home
•  >  Animal Protection
•  >  Animal Testing

OHS Policy: Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching

Adopted by the Board of Directors October 5, 1993

The OHS knows that physical and psychological suffering by animals is incurred in experiments in the fields of psychology, toxicity testing, biomedical and drug development, wildlife research and teaching.

The goal of the OHS is to restrict the use of animals to those areas of research, testing and teaching which do not jeopardize their physical or psychological well-being. The need to use animals in research can, at the present time, only be tolerated if there is absolutely no alternative and the animals used are afforded complete protection from pain and stress.

The Humane Society recognizes that the use of some animals for research, testing and teaching in ways that jeopardize their physical or psychological well-being may not end in the immediate future.; It is the policy of the OHS to use every means in its power to reduce and end the suffering of animals for research, testing and teaching by:

• Promoting replacement of animal used in research, testing and teaching with alternative methods, refinement of techniques, and reduction in numbers. Greater efforts should be made by government, university, industrial and other research institutions to develop and use humane alternative techniques.
• Ensuring that animal housing facilities are designed to ensure physical, social and psychological well-being.
• Ensuring that appropriate exercise is provided.
• Appointing animal welfare representatives on all animal care and grant review committees. These committees must be accountable to the public.
• Opposing the importation of primates from the wild for research purposes.
• Opposing the use of restraining devices for any prolonged period.
• Opposing mandatory surrender of animals from pounds for research, testing or teaching purposes. The OHS will not release companion animals for research.
• Requiring education for all those involved with research animals to include courses in ethology, ethics, manipulative procedures and current laws, regulations, guidelines and codes of practice regarding laboratory animal care.
• Supporting legislation to prohibit elementary and secondary school students from performing experiments on animals which cause or could cause pain, suffering or death. Students at all levels who object to experimenting on animals or dissecting animals should be provided an opportunity to choose alternate projects, approved by their teaches, without a grade reduction.
• Requiring enforcement and improvement of pertinent laws relating to the use of animals in research, testing and teaching.
• Opposing the use of muscle relaxants or paralytics alone, without anesthetics. Anesthesia, tranquilization, analgesia and euthanasia must only be administered by trained researchers and technicians.
• Urging the ongoing review of the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guidelines for the "Care and Treatment of Animals in Research". It is recognized that these Guidelines represent the absolute minimal level of care available.
• Opposing procedures, experiments or animal use which involve needless repetition, or are from scientifically trivial ends, or which involve techniques for which satisfactory and humane alternatives have already been developed. The OHS is especially opposed to the use of animals for testing such items as cosmetic products, household cleaning goods, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. The OHS believes that all experimental and testing protocols utilizing animals should be subject to extensive ethical reviews.

Pain Free Shopping

While the subject of animal testing of cosmetic and household products can be a depressing one, it is important to realize that we have the potential to bring an end to this practice. Already, awareness campaigns have led such major companies as Avon, Revlon and Benetton to abandon animal testing.

Nonetheless, despite concerted efforts by animal welfare groups, countless animals are still poisoned, blinded and burned in North America every year for such dubious aims as creating new and improved shaving cream, mascara, and dish detergent. While only a fraction of the testing is carried out in Ontario, most of the products available in our stores are produced by companies which engage in animal testing.

The Draize Eye Test, conducted primarily on rabbits, involves dripping the tested substance into the animal's yes. During the test, rabbits are often confined in a restraining device with only their heads protruding — some rabbits will break their backs in an effort to escape. The rabbits are then observed for three to twenty-one days during which time resultant eye damage may range from ulceration to blindness. Following the Draize test, rabbits may be used again in skin irritancy test. In the LD-50 test, which determines the toxicity of a given substance, the tested product may be force-fed to the animals, applied to their shaved skin or sprayed into their cages. The test is only concluded when 50% of the test animals have died.

In addition to obvious concerns regarding animal suffering, criticism of animal testing also focuses on the fact that these tests have only limited applicability to humans. Numerous critics, including some scientists and doctors, have contended that the Draize Eye Test gives crude and inconsistent results which can not be accurately extrapolated to humans. The LD-50 test certainly does not prevent poisonous products from being marketed — as demonstrated by the large number of toxic products currently available on our supermarket shelves. Animals used in tests of less poisonous substances such as hairspray, must consume large amounts of the tested substance before the required 50% of the animals will die.

Critics also contend that although any number of alternatives to animal testing exist, they are not being fully exploited by manufacturers of cosmetic and household products. They accuse companies of failing to allocate sufficient time and money to refining current alternatives and developing new ones. While some companies claim that they must conduct animal tests to protect consumers, there are any number of companies which manage to market their products by using alternative testing methods such as tissue and cell cultures, mathematical models and computer programs. While those companies which do animal testing have not been immune from reports of personal injury to consumers using their products, the cosmetic company "Beauty Without Cruelty", which does not animal testing states that it has had no reports of consumer injuries during its twenty-seven year history.

As a consumer, you can help bring an end to animal testing by purchasing cruelty-free products. Visit the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics' website, for their online Shopping Guide of products not tested on animals, including cosmetics, personal care and household products. You can ask companies about their policies on animal testing and let them know you will not buy their products until they stop animal tests. You can also write to your M.P.P. and to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture to ask why the government's proposed amendments to the Animals for Research Act to ban the Draize test and cosmetic testing have never been adopted — ask when they will be. Lastly, by talking about the issue with others, you can increase awareness and play a part in ending animal testing.