n tests sur animaux horreur , mensonge = "aucune' cruauté!

September 7, 2010

Shocking Laboratory Investigation Reveals Misery for Dogs, Cats, and Rabbits

A nine-month PETA undercover investigation found that hundreds of dogs, cats, and rabbits were subjected to vicious and abusive handling, neglect, and miserable living conditions at Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc. (PLRS), a Corapeake, N.C.–based contract laboratory that tests animal-companion products such as flea and tick sprays and spot treatments on animals. Industry giants—including Bayer, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Schering-Plough (now Merck), Sergeant's, Wellmark, and Merial, the makers of Frontline flea and tick products—are among the corporations that have paid PLRS to force-feed experimental compounds to dogs and cats and smear chemicals onto the animals' skin. PETA's investigator documented that animals at PLRS suffered from burns and were covered in sores because they couldn't escape the urine, bleach, and water that pooled in the facility's cages. Many animals at the facility frequently exhibited stress-induced abnormal behavior resulting from anxiety and boredom. Animals were often forced to sit in their own waste, and many were sprayed with bleach and other harsh chemicals when the cages that they were being kept in were cleaned while the animals were still in them. A PLRS supervisor said that the untreated sores were "just part of … life" at the facility.

PETA's undercover footage revealed that PLRS supervisors and employees kicked, threw, grabbed, dropped, and dragged dogs; roughly grabbed and lifted rabbits by their ears; violently threw and slammed cats into cages; and viciously cursed at animals. Veterinary care was essentially non-existent at PLRS. Dogs who suffered from bloody diarrhea, hair loss, or worms were not treated—and little or nothing was done to prevent the spread of infection to other animals. Cats suffered from conjunctivitis—a highly contagious eye infection—and ear mites, and sloppy cleaning practices encouraged further disease transmission. Animals at PLRS were used in cruel and painful tests. In one experiment that was conducted for a major company whose flea-control products are stocked on store shelves nationwide, a test chemical was applied to the necks of 57 cats. Even though the cats exhibited severe adverse reactions that day (some suffered seizures and bleeding from the nose and mouth), the animals continued to be subjected to the toxic drug. Rabbits at PLRS were forcibly held over thousands of mosquitoes in order to feed and breed the insects and were intentionally and repeatedly subjected to infestations of thousands of ticks before being killed.
Please help end the suffering of dogs, cats, and rabbits at PLRS. Take a few minutes to view the results of our shocking undercover investigation and then urge the pharmaceutical companies that have been known to conduct business with PLRS to permanently sever their ties with this testing laboratory.

Thank you for speaking out for animals in laboratories who have no voice!

Kathy Guillermo
Vice President
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

http://www.peta.org/FeaturePLRS.asp

September 7, 2010

North Carolina product testing lab exposed

For nine months, a PETA investigator worked undercover inside the filthy, deafeningly loud kennels of Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc. (PLRS). Inconspicuously tucked away in rural North Carolina, PLRS takes money from huge pharmaceutical companies to test insecticides and other chemicals used in companion animal products. Bayer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Schering-Plough (now Merck), Sergeant's, Wellmark, and Merial, the maker of Frontline flea and tick products, are some of the corporations that have paid PLRS to force-feed experimental compounds to dogs and cats and smear chemicals onto the animals' skin.

PETA's investigator found that toxicity tests were just part of what the animals endured. Laboratory workers appeared to despise the animals in their care—they yelled and cursed at cowering dogs and cats, calling them "asshole," "motherfuckers," and "bitch"; used pressure hoses to spray water—as well as bleach and other harsh chemicals—on them; and dragged dogs through the facility who were too frightened to walk.

Video evidence shows that terrified cats were pulled from cages by the scruff of the neck while workers screamed in their faces and that a cat was viciously slammed into the metal door of a cage. One worker grabbed a cat and pushed him against a chain-link fence. When the cat fearfully clutched at the fencing with his claws, the worker jerked him off the fencing, saying she hoped that the cat's nails had been ripped out.

Undercover video exposes daily horrors for dogs and cats in a product testing laboratory.

Dogs at PLRS may spend years in cages, either to be used repeatedly in tests or to be kept infested with worms for some future study. They are just like the dogs we share our homes with, but they live day in, day out without exercise or enrichment, companionship, a scratch behind the ears, or even a kind word from the only people they ever see. Many dogs had raw, oozing sores from being forced to live constantly on wet concrete, often in pools of their own urine and waste. Workers didn't even move the dogs when they pressure-sprayed the runs, frightening the animals; soaking them with water, bleach, and soap; and exposing already painful sores to harsh, irritating chemicals.

PLRS didn't bother to keep a veterinarian on staff. Instead, it chose to bring its primary veterinarian in for only one hour most weeks. Animals endured bloody feces, worm infestations, oozing sores, abscessed teeth, hematomas, and pus- and blood-filled infections without receiving adequate veterinary examinations and treatment. Sometimes, the conditions were ineffectively handled by workers who had no credentials or veterinary training. After a supervisor gave one dog an anesthetic that was past its expiration date (and likely administered too little of it), the supervisor pulled out one of the animal's teeth with a pair of pliers. The dog trembled and twitched in apparent pain, and the supervisor continued with the procedure despite the dog's obvious reaction. Workers repeatedly cut into one dog's tender, blood-filled ear, draining blood and pus but never treating the underlying cause of the dog's suffering and apparently causing the ear to become infected.

Dogs were intentionally subjected to worm infestations for tests, but conditions were so sloppy that dogs who weren't supposed to be part of the study also became infested and were then left untreated. In one test commissioned by a corporation whose products are sold in grocery and drug stores nationwide, a chemical was applied to the necks of 57 cats. The cats immediately suffered seizures, foamed at the mouth, lost vision, and bled from their noses. Despite this, the substance was put on the cats a second time the very same day. To cut costs, PLRS killed nearly 100 cats, rabbits, and dogs. The company had decided that some of these animals' six daily cups of food were too expensive.

Federal oversight of horrendous facilities such as PLRS is virtually nonexistent. In preparation for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector's annual visit, which PLRS staff knew to expect in June or July, PLRS employees painted over the rusty surfaces that the USDA had warned them about the previous year and reported that ailing animals had conditions that might merit veterinary care—which the facility's attending veterinarian reportedly advised she would not provide—so that PLRS staff would be "covered" from blame should the inspector inquire about the animals' condition. The inspector's 2010 visit to PLRS, which housed approximately 400 animals at the time, lasted two hours and 15 minutes. PETA has filed complaints with federal and state agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and local law-enforcement authorities. Please help us speak out for these dogs, cats, and rabbits by urging the companies that are lining PLRS' pockets to stop doing business with the testing laboratory. Also, be sure to share this investigation on Facebook.

http://www.peta.org/FeaturePLRS.asp

September 14, 2010

The government is poised to resume invasive testing on chimpanzees at the same time as congress is considering a bill to phase out testing on apes entirely.

Just under 200 chimpanzees are currently residing at an Air Force base in New Mexico. They were relocated there when the research facility they were formerly housed in went bankrupt. They've been on a ten year hiatus from being subjected to cruel medical tests and research, but now the federal government wants to relocate them and begin testing on them again.

This comes at the same time as the senate is debating a law which would not only phase out all invasive procedures on great apes, but would also release all federally-owned chimps into animal sanctuaries.

The logic used to justify the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals in laboratories usually revolves around the argument that animals are so different from humans, and humans are so much more important, that their suffering is justified because it supposedly benefits us.

There are many problems with this argument. Firstly, it relies on the premise that human life is so intrinsically superior to animal life that any suffering on the part of animals is justified by the end result's benefit to us. That premise is inherently flawed because there is more moral standard by which humans can be judged superior to animals.

Secondly, the more like us the animals become, the more conflicted that logic becomes. We justify our treatment of mice and rabbits by citing their lack of intellect, their lack of cognitive complexity.

When scientists try to justify treatment of the great apes, however, it is by virtue of being more like us that they become so important for testing purposes. Scientists arguing for the relocation of and renewed testing on the apes in New Mexico cite the fact that chimpanzees share over 94% of our genes.

And on top of all of the moral inconsistencies, there is the overriding fact that animal testing is an inherently flawed method of gaining medical knowledge. Animals who share between 94% and 98% of our genes still do not contract diseases in the same way as we do. If we can't draw meaningful conclusions from chimps, what do we hope to learn from mice and rabbits?

The apes at the base in New Mexico are part of a colony that has been under government control since the '50s. They were tested on by NASA, then transferred to the custody of a doctor Coulston who kept them in cramped cages, killed nearly 50 of his test subjects, and violated the Animal Welfare Act time and time again.

After that, many of the apes were transferred to sanctuaries. The remaining apes are now awaiting their fate.

It's time to take a first step toward ending all animal testing. These chimps have been through more than enough for the sake of our "research" and it is time to allow them to retire.

Boycott companies that test on animals and act now to help pass the Great Ape Protection Act. But don't stop there. Call your representatives and urge them to support the Great Ape Protection Act, as well as all other laws that outlaw testing on animals.

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/federally-owned-chimps-may-face-more-cruel-testing/

14 septembre 2010

La directive sur la vivisection : une honte



URL Courte : http://7878.lapetition.be/

Malheureusement, le parlement a adopté le nouveau texte, malgré notre pétition. Merci aux nombreux signataires.

http://cav.asso.fr/fr/20100909_communiqu%C3%A9.html

Début Septembre, le parlement européen sera appelé à voter et approuver la nouvelle directive sur la protection des animaux de laboratoires.

C’est une loi favorisant l’industrie, faite spécifiquement pour mettre en évidence la nécessité des recherches sur animaux et du commerce qui en découle. Cette loi ne propose pas de méthodes alternatives, et ce même lorsqu’elles sont possibles.
En même temps, la Loi permettra :
- D’expérimenter sur les primates, même quand le but n’est pas de trouver des traitements pour les humains
- D’expérimenter sur les animaux sauvages ou errants, y compris les chats et les chiens (article 11)
- De réutiliser, systématiquement, les animaux ayant déjà servi à l’expérimentation, et qui ont souffert « légèrement » ou « modérément », ou encore même « sévèrement », prolongeant ainsi leur souffrance et leur détresse.
- De continuer à expérimenter, sans anesthésie, dès lors que les chercheurs estiment cette pratique appropriée (article 14)
- D’expérimenter sur des animaux vivants dans des buts pédagogiques (article 5)
- De créer des animaux génétiquement modifiés pour la réalisation de procédures chirurgicales
- De soumettre les animaux à d’inévitables chocs électriques, pour les rendre impuissants
- De garder des animaux d’espèce sociale, tels que chiens et primates, dans l’isolement complet et ce durant des périodes prolongées.
- De pratiquer, sans anesthésie, des ablations thoraciques (par exemple l’incision de la cage thoracique suivie de l’ouverture de la cavité pleurale)
- De forcer l’animal à nager jusqu’à l’épuisement, jusqu’à ce que mort s’en suive (annexe VIII)

Nous sommes à la fois honteux et profondément chagrinés en constatant à quel point le profit oriente les secteurs pharmaceutiques et chimiques. Nous sommes horrifiés voir autant bafoués les droits des autres espèces vivantes.
Des scientifiques internationalement renommés prônent d’utiliser des méthodes alternatives, utiles et plus exactes sur le plan scientifique.

Le parlement européen trahit de part et d’autre et les animaux et les citoyens européens qui croient en la justice !
La directive 86/609/EEC est un cadeau pour les industries chimiques et pharmaceutiques. Elle est scientifiquement obsolète, cruelle envers les animaux sans défense.
Nous demandons au parlement européen de renforcer les dispositions du rapport d'Elisabeth JEGGLE, en prenant compte, et en tout premier lieu, du bien - être des animaux.

http://lapetition.be/en-ligne/petition-7878.html

February 4, 2010

Please Help Us Stop NASA Radiation Experiments On Monkeys
Brookhaven National Laboratory , a Department of Energy lab, is currently considering whether or not they will perform a NASA-funded experiment involving the irradiation of 18 to 28 squirrel monkeys. The proposed experiment would expose these tiny monkeys, only a foot tall, to one burst of gamma radiation equal to a 3-year journey to Mars and back.
IDA's anti-vivisection team worked with Shirley McGreal of the International Primate Protection League to issue an official complaint to NASA and BNL – challenging the experiments on scientific grounds and citing fatal flaws such as redundancy, species differences, and available alternatives already in use. IDA's official complaint is available upon request.
Although BNL has received our complaint, we need you to get their attention. According to an IDA conversation with BNL's P.R. Dept. on Feb. 3, these experiments are still being reviewed and have not yet been approved, so time is of the essence!
Please click here to contact the Director of BNL and the Secretary of Energy – and request that BNL not perform these experiments.

In Defense of Animals, located in San Rafael, Calif., is an international animal protection organization with more than 85,000 members and supporters dedicated to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals by protecting their rights and welfare. IDA's efforts include educational events, cruelty investigations, boycotts, grassroots activism, and hands-on rescue through our sanctuaries in Mississippi, Mumbai, India, and Cameroon, Africa.
In Defense of Animals is a registered 5013 non-profit organization. We welcome your feedback and appreciate your donations. Please join today! All donations to IDA are tax-deductible.

Stop NASA Radiation Experiments On Monkeys

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), a Department of Energy lab, is currently considering whether or not they will perform a NASA-funded experiment involving the irradiation of 18 to 28 squirrel monkeys. The proposed experiment would expose these tiny monkeys, only a foot tall, to one burst of gamma radiation equal to a 3-year journey to Mars and back. IDA's anti-vivisection team worked with Shirley McGreal of the International Primate Protection League to issue an official complaint to NASA and BNL – challenging the experiments on scientific grounds and citing fatal flaws such as redundancy, species differences, and available alternatives already in use. IDA's official complaint is available upon request.

Although BNL has received our complaint, we need you to get their attention. Please use this form to contact the Director of BNL and the Secretary of Energy – and request that BNL not perform these experiments.

Thank you

https://secure2.convio.net/ida/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1371

25 décembre 2007

Pour commencer, il faut savoir que ECOCERT n’est pas une marque mais un organisme de contrôle et de certification BIO.
Qui dit BIO ne dit pas obligatoirement non testé.
Les marques communiquent beaucoup en disant “ non testé sur animaux” mais ne parlent que des produits finis.

Or, pour figurer sur notre liste, les marques doivent nous apporter toutes les preuves qu’aucun ingrédient permettant d’élaborer les produits finis n’est testé.
Si vous contactez une marque et qu’elle vous répond qu’elle ne teste pas, il faut nous communiquer la réponse. Nous la contacterons pour lui demander si elle souhaite obtenir notre label “ sans cruauté” après vérifications et audit établi par un organisme certificateur indépendant, si aucun test n’est effectivement fait à tous les stades de productions des produits, la marque sera sur la liste.

Biolav et Yves Rocher sont en cours de vérification. Notre procédure est très rigoureuse donc très longue, une année en moyenne. Je vous conseille de regarder ponctuellement la liste sur notre site qui est remise à jour régulièrement. La dernière mise à jour date du 26 novembre 2007.
Pour ce qui est des vidéos, nous savons après enquête que les tests existent. Notre but est de proposer une liste fiable de produits non testés. Il faut la consulter avant tout achat car chaque marque qui y figure a répondu à toutes nos exigences, ainsi vous serez sûre d’utiliser des produits qui n’ont pas fat souffrir des animaux.

Bien cordialement

Michèle Robert
Chargée de Relations
One Voice
BP 91923
44319 Nantes cedex 3
Tel: 02 51 83 18 10
Fax: 02 51 83 18 18
Www.onevoice-ear.org

September 16, 2010

Cats Tormented and Pigs Stabbed in the Heart at University of Michigan

Documents recently obtained by PETA reveal that the University of Michigan's (UM) Survival Flight course for nurses has been tormenting live cats and pigs in cruel and deadly medical-training exercises, even though UM already uses state-of-the-art human-patient simulators to teach all but one of the same skills in other courses for nurses and physicians.

Cats—who in the past have been purchased by UM from animal shelters—have a hard plastic tube repeatedly forced down their delicate windpipes for intubation training and are frequently killed after the procedure. Pigs have holes cut into their throats and chests and are stabbed in the heart for trauma training exercises before they are killed.

Studies by leading medical experts have repeatedly found that in addition to saving animals, the use of simulators and human cadavers is superior to the use of animal labs for preparing trainees to perform lifesaving skills such as those taught in UM's Survival Flight course. The American College of Surgeons and the American Heart Association recommend the use of simulators to teach these skills as well.

Please take a minute of your time to contact university officials and respectfully ask them to immediately replace the use of cats and pigs for these cruel training exercises with non-animal methods such as the modern human-patient simulators that are already in use at UM.

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3147&autologin=true&c=weekly_enews

September 16, 2010

Professional Laboratory and Research Services Undercover Investigation
.. Login To Rate 2 People like this

... ..Investigation Victory: Just one week after PETA released the results of its shocking undercover investigation of North Carolina–based contract animal testing facility Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc. (PLRS) and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), PLRS is surrendering nearly 200 dogs and dozens of cats and shutting its doors for good. This is a monumental victory and the first time that a laboratory has been forced to surrender animals and close under pressure on the heels of a PETA investigation and while facing a formal USDA investigation.

For nine months, a PETA investigator worked undercover inside the filthy, deafeningly loud kennels of Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc. (PLRS). Inconspicuously tucked away in rural North Carolina, PLRS takes money from huge pharmaceutical companies to test insecticides and other chemicals used in companion animal products. Bayer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Schering-Plough (now Merck), Sergeant's, Wellmark, and Merial, the maker of Frontline flea and tick products, are some of the corporations that have paid PLRS to force-feed experimental compounds to dogs and cats and smear chemicals onto the animals' skin.

PETA's investigator found that toxicity tests were just part of what the animals endured. Laboratory workers appeared to despise the animals in their care—they yelled and cursed at cowering dogs and cats, calling them "asshole," "motherfuckers," and "bitch"; used pressure hoses to spray water—as well as bleach and other harsh chemicals—on them; and dragged dogs through the facility who were too frightened to walk.

Video evidence shows that terrified cats were pulled from cages by the scruff of the neck while workers screamed in their faces and that a cat was viciously slammed into the metal door of a cage. One worker grabbed a cat and pushed him against a chain-link fence. When the cat fearfully clutched at the fencing with his claws, the worker jerked him off the fencing, saying she hoped that the cat's nails had been ripped out.

....Dogs at PLRS may spend years in cages, either to be used repeatedly in tests or to be kept infested with worms for some future study. They are just like the dogs we share our homes with, but they live day in, day out without exercise or enrichment, companionship, a scratch behind the ears, or even a kind word from the only people they ever see.

Many dogs had raw, oozing sores from being forced to live constantly on wet concrete, often in pools of their own urine and waste. Workers didn't even move the dogs when they pressure-sprayed the runs, frightening the animals; soaking them with water, bleach, and soap; and exposing already painful sores to harsh, irritating chemicals.



PLRS didn't bother to keep a veterinarian on staff. Instead, it chose to bring its primary veterinarian in for only one hour most weeks. Animals endured bloody feces, worm infestations, oozing sores, abscessed teeth, hematomas, and pus- and blood-filled infections without receiving adequate veterinary examinations and treatment. Sometimes, the conditions were ineffectively handled by workers who had no credentials or veterinary training.



After a supervisor gave one dog an anesthetic that was past its expiration date (and likely administered too little of it), the supervisor pulled out one of the animal's teeth with a pair of pliers. The dog trembled and twitched in apparent pain, and the supervisor continued with the procedure despite the dog's obvious reaction. Workers repeatedly cut into one dog's tender, blood-filled ear, draining blood and pus but never treating the underlying cause of the dog's suffering and apparently causing the ear to become infected.

Dogs were intentionally subjected to worm infestations for tests, but conditions were so sloppy that dogs who weren't supposed to be part of the study also became infested and were then left untreated.

In one test commissioned by a corporation whose products are sold in grocery and drug stores nationwide, a chemical was applied to the necks of 57 cats. The cats immediately suffered seizures, foamed at the mouth, lost vision, and bled from their noses. Despite this, the substance was put on the cats a second time the very same day.

To cut costs, PLRS killed nearly 100 cats, rabbits, and dogs. The company had decided that some of these animals' six daily cups of food were too expensive.

Federal oversight of horrendous facilities such as PLRS is virtually nonexistent. In preparation for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector's annual visit, which PLRS staff knew to expect in June or July, PLRS employees painted over the rusty surfaces that the USDA had warned them about the previous year and reported that ailing animals had conditions that might merit veterinary care—which the facility's attending veterinarian reportedly advised she would not provide—so that PLRS staff would be "covered" from blame should the inspector inquire about the animals' condition. The inspector's 2010 visit to PLRS, which housed approximately 400 animals at the time, lasted two hours and 15 minutes.

PETA has filed complaints with federal and state agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and local law-enforcement authorities.

http://www.peta.org/features/professional-laboratory-and-research-services.aspx?c=weekly_enews

noticia del 05 de marzo de 2009: inserm (Paris) experimentos crueles sobre ratas : provocar infarctus a ratas que estan bien de salud

24 octobre 2010
Une nouvelle marque de cosmétiques vegan/végétaliens et vivants, des algues uniques au monde, des protéines végétales pour les sportifs ...
Vous savez certainement déjà qu'il existe des produits et soins de beauté qui ne contiennent aucun produit ou sous-produit animal, qui n'ont pas non plus été testés sur une pauvre petite bête et qui sont certifiés biologiques. Mais vous ne connaissez peut-être pas encore les cosmétiques vivants sauf si vous êtes un(e) habitué(e) de notre boutique et lisez notre blog depuis longtemps.

Les produits de beauté vivants offrent une qualité encore plus élevée de soin à votre peau, en plus de préserver notre planète. En effet, les ingrédients utilisés pour leur fabrication ne sont, à aucun moment du processus, dénaturés par un traitement thermique ou décolorés chimiquement. Il en résulte un soin d'une grande richesse en vitamines, minéraux et antioxydants, en plus d'être particulièrement actifs grâce aux enzymes restées intactes.

Nous vous proposons depuis un certain temps déjà quelques produits de la marque RAW GAIA.

Aujourd'hui, je suis heureuse de vous annoncer l'arrivée de LIVE NATIVE, une compagnie oeuvrant sur l'île de Skye en Ecosse, pour nous offrir des crudités pour la peau, biologiques et artisanales. Vous pouvez en apprendre davantage sur leur éthique ici.

Crème hydratante pour femmes, crème hydratante pour tous, lotion tonifiante, nettoyant exfoliant pour le visage, soin réparateur pour les cheveux, déodorant, ne sont là qu'une petite partie de ce que LIVE NATIVE nous propose. Vous pouvez découvrir ces produits plus en détails en cliquant sur chacun d'eux. Je les ai tous personnellement testés cet été avant d'accepter de vous les proposer. J'espère qu'ils vous plairont autant qu'à moi !



Comme la beauté vient aussi et surtout de l'intérieur, il est important de vous assurer d'apporter tout ce dont votre corps a besoin en nutriments essentiels. C'est pourquoi je suis vraiment ravie de pouvoir enfin vous faire découvrir les très fameuses algues AFA, une variété unique d'algues bleu-vert !

Uniques car elles ne poussent qu'à l'état sauvage dans un seul endroit au monde, le lac Klamath en Orégon (Etats-Unis). Les études et témoignages montrent que leurs qualités fabuleuses sont nombreuses et il semble qu'elles n'aient pas encore tout dévoilé !

Bien que les algues AFA soient encore plus bénéfiques fraîches ou congelées, je ne peux pour le moment que vous les proposer sous forme de gélules végétaliennes/vegan (sans gélatine), sans pesticides ni conservateurs. Ces merveilleuses algues feront très bientôt l'objet d'un article plus détaillé mais vous trouverez ici les caractéristiques les plus importantes et vous trouverez, en attendant, sur internet, plusieurs sites qui en parlent.

Je me permets d'ailleurs d'attirer votre attention sur le dosage des gélules si vous êtes amené à comparer les prix. La plupart ont un dosage bien moins élevé que celles que nous vous proposons et vous obligent donc à prendre plusieurs gélules pour arriver au dosage quotidien conseillé.



Pour en finir avec les nouveaux produits en voici encore un qui, lui, réjouira les sportifs ou travailleurs de force végétaliens/végétariens !

Vous qui êtes toujours à la recherche de protéines sans vouloir pour autant renoncer à votre mode de vie, voilà la solution à portée de vos mains : les protéines de chanvre certifiées biologiques et vegan/végétaliennes.

Elles sont utilisées depuis de nombreuses années aux Etats-Unis par les sportifs de haut niveau qui veulent avoir un apport suffisant en protéines par rapport à leur activité physique intense, sans en faire pâtir leur santé présente ou future avec une surconsommation néfaste de protéines animales.

Toutefois, elles ne sont pas réservées aux sportifs ou travailleurs de force. Toute personne peut profiter des qualités de ces protéines végétales : facilement digestibles, riches en enzymes, en acides gras essentiels, en vitamines et en minéraux aidant à leur assimilation. Elles sont une aide précieuse pour faire face aux contraintes de la vie moderne en complément d'une alimentation équilibrée.

Actuellement, je donne tous les matins, à mon fils de 14 ans (en pleine croissance donc !), un smoothie avec une bonne cuillèrée de protéines de chanvre incorporée, en plus d'une cuillèrée d'Ultimate Superfood et d'Ultimate Berry Boost, le tout accompagné d'une gélule d'E3 AFA.

Vous trouverez peut-être que je donne beaucoup de suppléments à mon fils. Je suis persuadée qu'une alimentation bien équilibrée, riche en fruits et légumes frais et crus, doit suffire au maintien d'une bonne santé. Malheureusement, nous ne sommes pas dans un monde parfait et nous sommes entourés de pollution et d'agressions chimiques. Pour couronner le tout, l'adolescence est une période de changements physiologiques et de croissance importants, en plus d'être celle durant laquelle de nombreux jeunes sont plus attirés par la malbouffe et les sucreries en tout genre que par les fruits et les légumes. Mon fils en est un exemple flagrant, mangeant des paquets de bonbons hors de la maison avec ses amis et réclamant pizzas, frites et autres hamburgers. L'interdiction et la répression ne donnant généralement rien de bon, j'essaie de fermer les yeux sur ce qu'il mange en-dehors de la maison. Tout ce que je peux faire c'est de m'assurer qu'il absorbe le plus possible d'éléments essentiels répondant à ses besoins par ce qu'il mange à la maison (la cantine ne lui fournissant la plupart du temps que des calories vides, juste bonnes à lui remplir le ventre). Voilà donc pourquoi, j'ajoute à son alimentation, aussi riche que possible en légumes et en fruits, des suppléments qu'il avalera facilement et qui, je l'espère, aideront son corps à faire face à cet afflux de poisons.


Je prends la même chose à la différence près que mon smoothie est beaucoup plus vert que le sien (plus riche en verdures) et je ne prends pas de protéines de chanvre. J'estime en effet que mon activité physique se résumant à 30 min de sport et quelques trajets à pied par jour, elle ne réclame pas un apport supplémentaire quotidien en protéines. De plus, ma croissance est terminée, je pense, depuis longtemps !!!

Mais si, vous, vous avez pour une raison ou une autre, (que ce soit un problème de santé , une constitution différente, une activité physique importante, un travail contraignant, ...) un besoin plus important de protéines que la moyenne, les protéines de chanvre sont faites pour vous.

Et pour finir, ceux qui aiment les chocolats "maison" de qualité, vont pouvoir s'en donner à coeur joie avec le nouveau conditionnement en paquet de 500 gr du beurre de cacao maintenant disponible dans la boutique. Sans oublier que le beurre de cacao cru est très riche en antioxydants et peut passer de la cuisine à la salle de bain sans problème, pour nourrir délicieusement et en profondeur votre peau.

Téléthon = tests sur les animaux

Téléthon, des dons pour des expériences sur les animaux qui sont cruelles et sans résultats.







C'est la période du téléthon, vous souhaitez faire une bonne action ? Aider la recherche à progresser afin de soigner les maladies génétiques? Alors lisez d'abord ceci avant de choisir à qui vous voulez donner votre argent.





Aucune maladie génétique n'est guérissable selon la base des expériences sur les animaux.



C'est un constat. Pourquoi ? Pour la simple raison qu'il y a des différences fondamentales entre les différentes espèces et leurs métabolismes. Les expériences sur les animaux ne permettent donc pas de déductions utiles et fiables pour les humains.




Quelques exemples :



- la morphine calme les humains mais stimule les chats

- la pénicilline guérit les infections chez les humains mais tue les hamsters et les cochons d'Inde.

- L'aspirine cause des malformations chez les souris et chez les rats mais pas chez les humains, en revanche la thalidomide en cause chez les humains mais pas chez les souris et les rats.





La thalidomide était un médicament vendu durant les années 50 et 60 comme hypnogène et chez les femmes enceintes comme antiémétique pour combattre les nausées matinales et d'autres symptômes. Trois ans plus tard, on s'est rendu compte que 15 000 enfants étaient victimes de malformations à cause des effets secondaires de ce médicament.





Photo d'un enfant dont la mère prenait de la thalidomide



Les expériences sur les animaux ne servent pas au progrès médical puisqu'elles ne permettent aucune déduction fiable et valables pour les humains.




Les expériences sur les animaux ne sont pas effectuées pour assurer la sécurité des médicaments elles n'ont en réalité qu'une fonction d'alibi en cas de décès ou de dégâts causés par les effets secondaires des médicaments, les firmes pharmaceutiques indiquent qu'elles ont effectué les « tests de sûreté » sur les animaux exigés par les prescriptions légales et qu'elles ne sont donc pas responsables. C'est ainsi que les victimes ou leurs familles restent le plus souvent impuissantes a faire valoir leurs droits à des indemnités.




Malgré les expériences sur les animaux, 100 000 patients meurent chaque année aux Etats-Unis à cause des effets secondaires des médicaments, c'est la 5ème cause de mortalité du pays !








Ainsi, afin de réaliser de vrais progrès dans la guérison des maladies génétiques, les chercheurs doivent se concentrer sur des méthodes qui s'appliquent directement aux humains.




Il existe des comités scientifiques tels que ANTIDOTE ou PRO ANIMA qui proposent des méthodes alternatives aux tests sur les animaux.
Ces comités ont déjà obtenus des résultats positifs auprès de la commission Européenne en proposant des alternatives aux tests sur les animaux.




Dans le cadre du projet Reach par exemple, (le projet Reach consiste à re-tester sur les animaux des milliers de substances chimiques afin d'être certain de leurs innocuité) grâce à Antidote, 37 millions d'animaux ont été épargnés de tests aussi cruels qu'inutiles dans le cadre de ce projet et les tests prévus sur les animaux ont été remplacés par des méthodes substitutives.


Il faut continuer à soutenir les comités qui se battent pour une recherche plus efficace et sans cruauté.




Pensez aussi aux 12 millions d'animaux qui souffrent chaque année dans les laboratoires européens, soutenez les comités de recherche sans cruauté !!






Antidote : http://www.antidote-europe.org/





Pro anima : http://www.proanima.fr/



Association pour l'abolition des expériences sur les animaux : http://www.animalexperiments.ch/

nourriture testée sur les animaux

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=nourriture+test%C3%A9e+sur+animaux+&meta=

15 de diciembre de 2010

Usted esta Aqui: Home / 911 SENASA / Ley 7451Ley 7451


LA ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA DE LA REPUBLICA DE COSTA RICA

DECRETA :

LEY DE BIENESTAR DE LOS ANIMALES

CAPÍTULO I
Disposiciones generales

ARTÍCULO 1.- Valores
La familia y las instituciones educativas fomentarán, en niños y
jóvenes, los valores que sustentan esta Ley. De manera particular se
enfatizará en los siguientes:

a. La conciencia de que los actos crueles y de maltrato contra los
animales lesionan la dignidad humana.
b. El fomento del respeto por todos los seres vivos.
c. La conciencia de que la compasión por los animales que sufren
dignifica al ser humano.
d. El conocimiento y la práctica de las normas que rigen la protección
de los animales.

ARTÍCULO 2.- Ámbito de competencia
Los animales gozarán de los beneficios estipulados en esta Ley y su Reglamento.

CAPÍTULO II
Bienestar de los animales

ARTÍCULO 3.- Condiciones básicas
Las condiciones básicas para el bienestar de los animales son las siguientes:

1. Satisfacción del hambre y la sed.
2. Posibilidad de desenvolverse según sus patrones normales de comportamiento.
3. Muerte provocada sin dolor y, de ser posible, bajo supervisión profesional.
4. Ausencia de malestar físico y dolor.
5. Preservación y tratamiento de las enfermedades.

ARTÍCULO 4.- Trato a los animales silvestres
Los animales silvestres deberán gozar, en su medio, de una vida libre
y tener la posibilidad de reproducirse. La privación de su libertad,
con fines educativos, experimentales o comerciales, deberá producirles
el mínimo daño posible y estar acorde con la legislación vigente, sin
perjuicio de lo dispuesto en la Ley de conservación de la vida
silvestre Nº 7317 del 30 de octubre de 1992.

ARTÍCULO 5.- Trato a los animales productivos
El propietario o el poseedor de animales productivos deberá velar
porque vivan, crezcan y se desarrollen en un ambiente apropiado.

Cuando el hombre modifique el ambiente, además de procurar la
productividad, deberá tomar en cuenta el bienestar y las condiciones
apropiadas de vida de estos animales.
Asimismo, deberá cuidar que los animales productivos que se destinen
al consumo humano sean transportados en condiciones convenientes.
Deberán sacrificarse con la tecnología adecuada, según la especie,
para reducirles el dolor al mínimo.

ARTÍCULO 6.- Trato a los animales de trabajo
Los animales de trabajo deberán recibir buen trato, contar con el
reposo necesario y una alimentación reparadora, conforme a la labor
que realicen.

ARTÍCULO 7.- Trato a los animales mascota
Los dueños de animales mascota están obligados a garantizarles
condiciones vitales básicas.

ARTÍCULO 8.- Trato a los animales de exhibición
Los animales de los zoológicos deberán exhibirse, alimentarse y
mantenerse en las condiciones adecuadas a cada especie.

ARTÍCULO 9.- Trato a los animales para deportes
Los animales utilizados para deportes no deberán someterse a la
disciplina respectiva bajo el efecto de ninguna droga o medicamento
perjudicial para la salud e integridad; tampoco deberán ser forzados
más allá de su capacidad.

CAPÍTULO III
Experimento con animales

ARTÍCULO 10.- Experimentos
En los experimentos con animales, el investigador deberá velar porque
se cumpla con lo siguiente:
1. Antes de la experimentación, deberá ponderarse si el experimento
beneficia la salud humana, la animal o el progreso de los
conocimientos biológicos.
2. Los animales seleccionados deberán ser de la especie adecuada y su
número no deberá exceder el mínimo necesario para obtener resultados
científicamente válidos.
3. Los investigadores y el resto del personal deberán tratar a los
animales con atención y cuidado, evitándoles o reduciéndoles el dolor
al mínimo.
4. Antes de la manipulación de un animal que pueda resultar dolorosa,
deberá brindársele sedación, analgesia o anestesia, según las
prácticas veterinarias aceptadas.
5. Al final del experimento o durante él, si es necesario, se le dará
muerte sin dolor al animal que, de quedar con vida, padecería dolores
agudos o crónicos, trastornos, molestias o discapacidades
irreversibles.
6. Los animales sometidos a experimentos deberán mantenerse en
condiciones vitales óptimas. Los bioterios serán regentados por
personal capacitado en la materia. Siempre que se necesite, se
procurará brindarles atención médico veterinaria.
7. El responsable de toda institución, pública o privada, que utilice
animales parra experimentos, deberá cerciorarse de que los
investigadores posean la experiencia necesaria para realizarlos. En la
medida de lo posible, deberán ofrecer oportunidades de formación a los
investigadores, para conducir adecuadamente esos experimentos.

ARTÍCULO 11.- Experimentación alternativa
Antes de utilizar un animal para la experimentación deberán
intentarse, siempre que sean apropiados, otros métodos, como los
basados en modelos matemáticos, la simulación por computador y el
empleo de sistemas biológicos in vitro.
Siempre que el experimento y las condiciones lo permitan, se
utilizarán animales del nivel más bajo posible en la escala zoológica.

ARTÍCULO 12.- Condiciones para los experimentos
Los experimentos con animales deberán registrarse en el Ministerio de
Ciencia y Tecnología, salvo los casos estipulados en la Ley de
conservación de vida silvestre Nº 7317, del 30 de octubre de 1992.
Ese Ministerio vigilará porque tales investigaciones se realicen de
acuerdo con los criterios establecidos en esta Ley.

ARTÍCULO 13.- Experimentos ilegales
Los experimentos que no se ajusten a la presente Ley y su Reglamento,
podrán ser denunciadas por cualquier persona, física o jurídica, ante
el Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, a fin de que se suspendan. No
podrán reiniciarse hasta que el responsable ofrezca las garantías del
caso a ese Ministerio.

CAPÍTULO IV
Obligaciones de los propietarios o poseedores de animales

ARTÍCULO 14.- Responsables
Los propietarios o poseedores de animales serán los responsables de
velar porque se beneficien con la aplicación de las condiciones
básicas dictadas en esta Ley.

ARTÍCULO 15.- Prohibiciones
Se prohíbe la cría, la hibridación y el adiestramiento de animales con
el propósito de aumentar su peligrosidad.
Asimismo, se prohíbe que los responsables de animales de cualquier
especie promuevan peleas entre ellos.

ARTÍCULO 16.- Medidas veterinarias obligatorias
Los propietarios o los poseedores de animales deberán cumplir con las
medidas veterinarias declaradas de acatamiento obligatorio, de
conformidad con los artículos 184 y siguientes de la Ley General de
Salud No. 5395, del 30 de octubre de 1973 y sus reformas.

ARTÍCULO 17.- Trato a los animales peligrosos
Los propietarios o los poseedores de animales peligrosos deberán
mantenerlos en condiciones adecuadas de salubridad y seguridad, que
eviten los riesgos para la salud y la seguridad de las personas. De
incumplirse con estas condiciones, el Ministerio de Salud les
considerará animales nocivos.

CAPÍTULO V
Animales Nocivos

ARTÍCULO 18.- Determinación de la nocividad
Para efectos de esta Ley, el Ministerio de Salud o el Ministerio de
Agricultura y Ganadería determinará cuáles animales se considerarán
nocivos. También se incluirán dentro de esta categoría, las mascotas,
los animales productivos y los de trabajo que deambulen por vías y
sitios públicos.

ARTÍCULO 19.- Adopción o remate de animales
Las autoridades administrativas deberán llevar los animales
mencionados en los dos artículos anteriores a albergues o al fondo
municipal para ser adoptados o rematados. En estos casos, se concederá
un plazo de tres días hábiles al propietario o al poseedor para
reclamar sus derechos. Si quince días hábiles después de vencido ese
plazo, no se ha verificado la adopción ni el remate, deberá dárseles
muerte sin sufrimiento.

Durante la permanencia en el albergue o el fondo municipal, a los
animales deberá brindárseles atención y asistencia médico veterinaria,
como se establece en la Ley de regulación de la tenencia y matrícula
de perros Nº 2391, del 2 de julio de 1959.

ARTÍCULO 20.- Condiciones de albergues y fondos municipales
En la medida de lo posible, todo albergue o fondo municipal parra
animales deberá contar con la dirección técnica y científica, que
garantice los tratamientos y los cuidados convenientes así como la
muerte sin dolor mediante supervisión profesional.

CAPÍTULO VI
Sanciones

ARTÍCULO 21.- Sujetos de sanción y multas

Se sancionará con una multa equivalente a cuatro salarios mínimos
mensuales, a quien:

8. Propicie peleas entre animales de cualquier especie.
9. Promueva o realice la cría, la hibridación o el adiestramiento de
animales para aumentar su peligrosidad.

También se sancionará, con una multa equivalente a un salario mínimo
mensual, a quien:

1. Viole las disposiciones sobre experimentación estipuladas en el
artículo 10 de esta Ley.
2. Realice experimentos con animales, pero no los registre ante el
Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología.
3. Mantenga un animal peligroso en condiciones inadecuadas, de modo
que se arriesgue la seguridad colectiva.

Para los efectos de esta ley, la denominación “salario mínimo”
corresponde al monto equivalente al menor salario que contiene el
decreto vigente de salarios mínimos.

ARTÍCULO 22.- Responsabilidades civiles
Al propietario o poseedor le corresponden las responsabilidades
civiles por los daños y perjuicios causados por el animal bajo su
vigilancia y cuidado, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1045,
1046 y 1048 del Código Civil.

CAPÍTULO VII
Disposiciones finales

ARTÍCULO 23.- Deberes de la administración pública
Por medio de sus dependencias técnicas competentes, la administración
pública determinará si no se le brindan a un animal las condiciones
básicas establecidas en la Ley. Además, deberá oír a las
organizaciones protectoras de animales, cuando formulen denuncias.

ARTÍCULO 24.- Reglamentación
El Poder Ejecutivo reglamentará la presente Ley en un plazo máximo de
sesenta días a partir de su publicación

ARTÍCULO 25.- Vigencia
Rige a partir de su publicación

COMISIÓN LEGISLATIVA PLENA PRIMERA. Aprobado el anterior proyecto el
día veintiséis de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro.
Sandra Piszk Feinzilber, Presidenta.- Alvaro Azofeifa Astúa, Secretario

ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA.- San José, a los tres días del mes de noviembre
de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro.
Comuníquese al Poder Ejecutivo
Alberto F. Cañas, Presidente,– Juan Luís Jiménez Succar, Primer
Secretario.- Mario A. Alvarez G., Segundo Secretario.
Dado en la Presidencia de la República.- San José, a los diecisiete
días del mes de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro.
Ejecútese y publiquese

10 décembre 2008

Les tests... vu par 30 Millions d'Amis " Aucune espèce animale ne peut être considérée comme modèle biologique fiable pour une autre. " [30 millions d'amis]

En effet, on a déjà réussi a soigner le SIDA humain inoculé à la souris avec divers médicaments. Ceux-ci constituent à chaque fois un espoir pour des millions de malades, mais aucun vaccin n'a encore fonctionné chez l'homme.

Si les tests font parfois avancer les choses, il ne constituent pas pour autant LA solution miracle, loin de là.

Ah comme j'aurais aimé être douée en sciences et maîtriser le sujet sur le bout des doigts...

05 décembre 2010



Qui sommes-nousNos actionsProtéger les animauxNos campagnesNos brochuresLa dernière newsletterRechercherVotre avisForum Lois Presse FAQ WebTV Annuaire Actualités RSS Carte Chiens Dangereux

La FondationQui sommes-nousNos actionsNos campagnesNos brochuresLa dernière newsletterRechercherVotre avisAgir pour les animauxAdoptez-moiPétitionsFaire un donLegs et donationsActions sur le terrainMétiers animaliersMon animal et moiConseilsRevue de livresPerdu / TrouvéEntraideA mon amiLe mur des amisCarte vacancesHot Dog
Fondation 30 Millions d'Amis > La Fondation > Nos actions > Protéger les animaux > Les horreurs de l'expérimentation animale > De nouvelles alternatives à l'expérimentation animale

Imprimer Envoyer à un ami

De nouvelles alternatives à l'expérimentation animalea-a+


Dans le cadre du projet REACH, Antidote Europe, une associations de scientifiques et de particuliers, sensibles à la nécessité de faire évoluer les mentalités, propose une solution fiable et peu coûteuse pour tester les substances chimiques inscrites sur la liste de ce projet européen. Une démarche que soutient la Fondation 30 Millions d’Amis car elle constitue un véritable espoir pour des milliers d’animaux de laboratoire.

Accompagné par la Fondation, Claude Reiss, Président d'Antidote europe en rendez-vous à la Comission Européenne de BruxellesLe projet REACH, lancé par la Commission Européenne, est un programme visant à tester la toxicité de 30 000 substances chimiques pour assurer une meilleure sécurité sanitaire et environnementale.

Aujourd’hui encore, les méthodes de test préconisées par ce projet laissent libre cours à l’expérimentation animale. Or il est démontré scientifiquement qu’aucune espèce animale ne peut être considérée comme modèle biologique fiable pour une autre.

Le test sur animal n'apporte donc aucune garantie pour la sécurité sanitaire humaine et ne permet ainsi pas d'atteindre l'objectif fixé par REACH.

Depuis de nombreuses années, la Fondation 30 Millions d’Amis s’engage auprès des pouvoirs publics afin d’encourager le développement des méthodes substitutives à l’expérimentation animale et favorise le dialogue entre scientifiques et défenseurs de la cause animale pour trouver les solutions les plus adaptées afin qu’un jour, les animaux ne soient plus pensionnaires des laboratoires de recherche.



Les apports de VALITOX®
C’est avec cet objectif que La Fondation 30 Millions d’Amis soutient l’action de Pro Animal qui, grâce au développement du Programme de Toxicologie Scientifique, propose une alternative fiable à l’expérimentation animale. Le programme mis au point par ce collectif de scientifiques, est aujourd'hui capable de mettre en évidence les effets toxiques des substances chez l'homme sans avoir recours à l’animal. C’est pourquoi, à l'occasion du vote en première lecture du projet REACH, le 17 novembre 2005, le Parlement européen a introduit la toxicogénomique comme méthode d'évaluation alternative à l'expérimentation animale.

L'année 2009 aura été riche en rebondissements concernant l'expérimentation animale en Europe, l'Union ayant sur les deux textes de loi qui régissent aujourd'hui l'expérimentation au sein des 27 pays membres (lire notre article à ce sujet).

La dernière phase de développement de VALITOX® a été réalisée entre janvier et mai 2009, grâce à l'appui fincier des partenaires décidé lors de la réunion de décembre 2008. Toutes les difficultés relevées pendant cette réunion ont été résolues (assurer le test sur un format haut débit, résoudre le problème des faux négatifs...).
Le protocol VALITOX® est véritablement utilisable à une échelle industrielle. C'est un test "prêt à l'emploi". Il ne reste plus qu'à proposer VALITOX® dans le cadre de l'appel d'offres FP7 (issu de la commission européenne) afin que celle-ci prenne le relais du processus de validation et propose un financement plus adapté par rapport à ce que peuvent proposer les organisations de protection animale.

Afin d'assurer la participation de VALITOX® au montage du programme FP7, il est fortement recommandé de positionner le test VALITOX® par rapport aux résultats obtenus lors du programme ACuteTox. En remportant cet appel d'offre, cette etchnologie donnerait à la France un statut de référence en matière d'expérimentation scientifique sans animaux, ce qui est loin d'être le cas pour l'instant.
Les enjeux sont importants et vont au-delà du projet REACH. Ce programme ne commencera pas avant 2011 car il ne semble pas vraiment possible de le mettre en place suite à des dysfonctionnements internes. N'oublions pas que le nombre d'animaux à sacrifier a été revu à la hausse : 50 millions !

Il y a donc urgence et la Fondation 30 Millions d'Amis continuera à apporter sa contribution financière à Pro Anima dans l'intérêt de tous nos Amis.

December the 1st of 2010

Protect the EU's Ban on Animal-Tested Cosmetics

© iStockPhoto.com / pcatalin

The European Union was on track to ban all animal-tested cosmetics – now they might be changing their minds. Please contact the European Commission and let them know: no delay, no compromise and no cosmetics tests on animals.

In a major victory for animals, the European Union agreed in 2003 to a ban on all animal tests for cosmetics and a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics products containing ingredients tested on animals. In 2009, the sales ban came into force, with exemptions for certain tests that were still permitted. The final deadline to ban the marketing of every cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals is 11 March 2013, after which the shelves of every shop and internet supplier in Europe will be free of animal-tested cosmetics.

The sales ban means that not only are no cosmetics tests using animals now performed in Europe but also that non-EU companies hoping to export their products have to change their animal-testing ways too. That commercial pressure has driven the development of effective and humane non-animal test methods which can also be used for some drugs and other chemicals, stopping even more tests. Most importantly, the ban puts animals' lives and well-being before vanity.

But now the EU is considering delaying that 2013 deadline for years, perhaps even indefinitely. The European Commission recently held a "consultation" on technical aspects of the ban as a preliminary step to introducing a delay on the basis of claims that alternative methods haven't been perfected. Scandalously, that consultation sought only scientific information from experts on alternatives to animal tests, effectively excluding the millions of people who object to cosmetics testing on animals on compassionate and ethical grounds and who would rather not have yet another shampoo if it means animals will die.

If the Commission proposes postponing the 2013 deadline, it will wipe out the motivation for cosmetics companies to develop alternatives and will essentially put cosmetics before the lives of animals. That proposal would then have to be considered by MEPs in the European Parliament and the governments of all 27 EU member states. While they will have the power to reject it, there is no guarantee they will do so. Please take action today and contact the European Commissioner responsible, John Dalli, to let him know that the people of Europe want no delay, no compromise and no cosmetics tests on animals.
SubjectDear Mr Dalli:

Like the vast majority of Europeans, I am a strong opponent of cosmetics testing on animals and was overjoyed when the EU passed the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive in 2003, banning animal testing and introducing the marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics. I have looked forward to that ban becoming complete in 2013. I am writing to you today to insist that any delay in fully implementing the marketing ban would be completely unacceptable to me and to the vast majority of Europeans.

As you know, the ban has driven the development of non-animal test methods which can not only replace animal use in cosmetics testing but also be used in many other forms of safety testing that use animals. Replacement of existing animal tests has already saved hundreds of thousands of animals and many more can be saved as new techniques are developed and validated. It is vital that this critical incentive to companies to invest in alternatives not be removed.

More importantly, the ban embodies the principle that animals should never face suffering and death in tests for vanity products. The Commission must not overturn that principle. The safety of cosmetics ingredients can be assured by non-animal methods, but regardless of any conclusions reached on technical questions, Europe must maintain its principled and compassionate position: say "No" to animal tests for cosmetics and "No" to cosmetics that have been tested on animals.
Message Signoff All mandatory fields are marked with an *
First Name *
Last Name *
Email Address *
By signing up here and giving us your details, you're acknowledging that you've read and agreed to our privacy policy.

Sign me up for PETA UK E-News and other special announcements. In This Section
Action Alerts
Campaigns
Join the Action Team
Activist Resources
Sign Up for E-Mail



People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation
PO Box 36678
London SE1 1YE
United Kingdom
+44 (0)20 7357 9229
+44 (0)20 7357 0901 (fax)
Info@peta.org.uk (general enquiries)
General Info:About PETAContact PETAContest Terms and ConditionsDisclaimerDonate NowPrivacy Policy© 2010 PETA. Read Our Full PolicySite Tools:AccessibilitySubscribe to E-NewsJobs andInternshipsVolunteerAbout This WebsiteSite MapInternational Sites:PETA USPETA FrancePETA GermanyPETA NetherlandsPETA IndiaPETA AsiaPETAenEspanolPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation – a charitable company limited by guarantee, with its registered office at Lacon House, Theobald's Road, London WCIX8RW. Registered in England and Wales as charity number 1056453, company number 3135903.

http://action.peta.org.uk/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=5&ea.campaign.id=8459&c=peta_uk_enews

.Posted 12-23-2010, 11:56 AM
0 Comments
In response to our January 2010 lawsuit (and with a court date rapidly approaching), Davis County, Utah, has finally agreed to abide by the law and provide PETA with the intake forms and transfer records for the approximately 100 dogs and cats that it's animal shelter callously sold to the University of Utah in 2009 to be tormented in experiments. While Davis County ended this shameful practice earlier this year, these records will show that the homeless dogs and cats who are unfortunate enough to end up cut up and killed in the university's laboratories have names and personalities and are no different than the animals whom many of us consider family and with whom we share our homes. Indeed, some were peoples' lost and surrendered animal companions.

Under the agreement, Davis County will be reimbursing PETA for 50 percent of PETA's legal fees—nearly $18,000.

Since our subsequent undercover investigation at the University of Utah, the state legislature amended the law so that government-operated animal shelters are no longer required to sell dogs and cats to laboratories for use in cruel and deadly experiments upon request. Only one shelter in the state—Lindon's North Utah Valley Animal Shelter (NUVAS)—continues to profit by betraying homeless animals and selling them to the university.

Please take a moment to urge NUVAS to stop stocking the university's laboratories with helpless victims.

August 20, 2010

Help Stop Indian Bio Tech Company From Conducting Experiments on Animals in Malaysia

Vivo Bio Tech Ltd., an Indian Bio Technology company, plans to build a $140 million animal testing facility in Malaysia—where there are no laws to protect animals in laboratories. The company would then ship beagles and monkeys to the laboratory for experiments; these animals would be condemned to lives of pain, loneliness, misery, and death with no government oversight to monitor their use. The animals could be burned, cut open, shocked, poisoned, socially isolated, starved, dehydrated, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, brain-damaged, and more.

Please contact Vivo Bio Tech Ltd. and urge it to halt all plans to conduct or fund animal experiments in Malaysia immediately.

http://action.petaasiapacific.com/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=110&ea.campaign.id=6859&ea.param.extras=ea_source_code:papadvvbtmenews~c=papenews

August 19, 2010

video about animal testing : http://www.petaasiapacific.com/issues-nottoexperiment-v-testing123.asp?c=pap_enews

November 23, 2010

You may know that a pig is as clever as a 3-year-old child. Pigs are also friendly and loyal. In their natural environment, they love playing, basking in the sun and exploring their surroundings. By the time they are 2 to 3 weeks old, piglets, who are smart and sensitive, can recognise their own name!
The piglets used in tea experiments by the company which makes PG Tips, Lyons and Lipton wouldn't have been given names because they weren't treated as the thinking, feeling and affectionate individuals that they are. Instead, they were cut open in a cruel experiment, and parts of their intestines were removed while the animals were still alive. At the end of the experiment, the piglets were killed.
Who was responsible for these hideous tests? The corporate giant behind PG Tips. Why? To assess the effects of tea.



That's right. Each one of those piglets was torn away from his or her mother and suffered in pain and fear in a bleak laboratory, separated from everything that's natural and important to them – all in the hope that a company who makes tea could find some new angle to sell more of it. In this particular experiment, piglets had their intestines pulled out of their bodies while they were still alive. Experimenters then divided the intestines into 10 sections and infected them with disease-causing bacteria to see if tea extracts might prevent diarrhoea. The experiment resulted in no definitive conclusions about the effect on humans.
And I'm sorry to say, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, in the UK alone, 3.5 million animals were mutilated, poisoned, gassed, electrocuted, burnt and otherwise abused in experiments of all kinds. We think we can stop these types of tests, but we urgently need your help to save animals like those piglets from a living hell. Please support PETA with the most generous donation you can afford.
Like all experiments on animals, these tea tests were not only unethical but also unnecessary. There was no defensible legal or practical reason to make those piglets suffer and die. And I believe that most tea drinkers would be appalled to know that these kinds of experiments on animals take place. But they do. And on a huge scale.
Your support will help us negotiate with corporations such as the maker of PG Tips, Lyons and Liptons to end their cruel policies and to push for changes in the way products are tested in the UK and Europe.
At this very moment in laboratories around the world, countless pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, monkeys and other animals are locked away in cages and denied everything that is natural and important to them. Confused, terrified, lonely, sick and in pain, they suffer and die without a gentle touch or a caring word. These animals are counting on us. Please help us reach out to them – and all other exploited and abused animals – by supporting PETA today.

December 15, 2010

Dying for a cup of tea? The animals used in the cruel tea tests conducted by the company that makes Lipton teas are. The tea giant has caused animals to suffer and die simply to investigate the possible health benefits linked to tea products and ingredients.

Experimenters have infected piglets with E. coliand cut their intestines apart while the animals were still alive, inflicted brain damage on rats, and caused rabbits to develop abnormally high cholesterol levels and hardened arteries, after which the animals' heads were cut off. Not one of these experiments is legally required.

We need your help to put an end to these cruel and painful tests! Please click here to urge the makers of Lipton to ditch their crueltea to animals and join other brands—like Honest Tea, Twinings, Stash Tea, Luzianne Tea, and others—that use cruelty-free research methods.

http://www.peta.org/action/action-alerts/Tell-Lipton-Tea-to-Stop-Torturing-Animals.aspx

December 8, 2010

I have exciting news that's out of this world. Following more than a year of vigorous campaigning by PETA, NASA has quietly shelved plans for cruel radiation experiments on dozens of monkeys that would have cost $1.75 million, and we are over the moon!
In the proposed NASA-funded experiments that were to be conducted by an experimenter at Harvard's McLean Hospital, dozens of squirrel monkeys would have been exposed to a harmful dose of radiation and then isolated in cages and subjected to years of behavioral experiments in order to measure the damage caused by the radiation. Such damage likely would have included cancerous tumors, cataracts, brain damage, loss of motor control, and early death.

Thanks to tens of thousands of letters, phone calls, protests, and tweets by PETA supporters, this misguided plan has been grounded, and monkeys will be spared this cruelty.
In addition to PETA members, our campaign also received support from Sir Paul McCartney, Bob Barker, and Alicia Silverstone. Even former astronauts, NASA engineers, and the European Space Agency spoke out on our side and against NASA's ill-conceived plan to torment squirrel monkeys.

Please help us win even more groundbreaking victories for animals by making a special tax-deductible gift right now.

Thank you for everything that you have done—and will do in 2011—to help animals

October 6, 2010

Do Twice as Much to Stop Animal Torture


Shut down! Just one week after PETA released its shocking undercover investigation of Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc.—a laboratory that tested "pet" health products—and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the laboratory surrendered nearly 200 dogs and more than 50 cats before shutting its doors for good!


This latest investigation isn't the only way in which we've helped fling laboratory doors wide open. With the support of compassionate activists like you, we've helped end many cruel tests, exposed laboratories' violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and closed the doors of animal shelters to laboratories. We have also provided funding that has led to the development and use of modern, effective non-animal tests and convinced hundreds of companies to produce and sell products that aren't tested on animals.


Now, we badly need your help to keep the pressure on other laboratories that treat animals like disposable test tubes instead of sensitive living beings. Will you help us save more animals like these? If you donate online to PETA today, your gift will be DOUBLED as part of our "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge. That means your donation will go twice as far toward supporting PETA's work to end horrific experiments on animals.


PETA is working to raise $4,000 to help animals in laboratories. And the sooner you donate, the sooner your gift will be doubled and put to work to help these animals.


Your support of PETA will provide hope for animals trapped in laboratories—please make a generous contribution to have your gift doubled today!

October 6, 2010

VIDEO : http://www.peta.org/features/professional-laboratory-and-research-services.aspx

Professional Laboratory and Research Services Undercover Investigation
..
... ..Update: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has now filed its initial inspection report confirming serious health issues for the animals and substandard housing conditions at Professional Laboratory and Research Services, Inc. (PLRS). The USDA's full investigation of PETA's complaint is ongoing and likely to take several months.

For nine months, a PETA investigator worked undercover inside the filthy, deafeningly loud kennels of PLRS. Inconspicuously tucked away in rural North Carolina, PLRS takes money from huge pharmaceutical companies to test insecticides and other chemicals used in companion animal products. Bayer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Schering-Plough (now Merck), Sergeant's, Wellmark, and Merial, the maker of Frontline flea and tick products, are some of the corporations that have paid PLRS to force-feed experimental compounds to dogs and cats and smear chemicals onto the animals' skin.

Just one week after PETA released the results of its shocking undercover investigation of PLRS and filed a complaint with the USDA, the North Carolina–based contract animal testing facility surrendered nearly 200 dogs and more than 50 cats and shut its doors. This is a monumental victory and only the second time in U.S. history that a laboratory has been forced to surrender animals and close under pressure on the heels of a PETA investigation and while facing a formal USDA investigation. The first time was PETA's landmark Silver Spring monkeys case.

During this investigation, PETA's investigator found that toxicity tests were just part of what the animals endured. Laboratory workers appeared to despise the animals in their care—they yelled and cursed at cowering dogs and cats, calling them "asshole," "motherfuckers," and "bitch"; used pressure hoses to spray water—as well as bleach and other harsh chemicals—on them; and dragged dogs through the facility who were too frightened to walk.

Video evidence shows that terrified cats were pulled from cages by the scruff of the neck while workers screamed in their faces and that a cat was viciously slammed into the metal door of a cage. One worker grabbed a cat and pushed him against a chain-link fence. When the cat fearfully clutched at the fencing with his claws, the worker jerked him off the fencing, saying she hoped that the cat's nails had been ripped out.

Dogs at PLRS may spend years in cages, either to be used repeatedly in tests or to be kept infested with worms for some future study. They are just like the dogs we share our homes with, but they live day in, day out without exercise or enrichment, companionship, a scratch behind the ears, or even a kind word from the only people they ever see.

Many dogs had raw, oozing sores from being forced to live constantly on wet concrete, often in pools of their own urine and waste. Workers didn't even move the dogs when they pressure-sprayed the runs, frightening the animals; soaking them with water, bleach, and soap; and exposing already painful sores to harsh, irritating chemicals.

PLRS didn't bother to keep a veterinarian on staff. Instead, it chose to bring its primary veterinarian in for only one hour most weeks. Animals endured bloody feces, worm infestations, oozing sores, abscessed teeth, hematomas, and pus- and blood-filled infections without receiving adequate veterinary examinations and treatment. Sometimes, the conditions were ineffectively handled by workers who had no credentials or veterinary training.

After a supervisor gave one dog an anesthetic that was past its expiration date (and likely administered too little of it), the supervisor pulled out one of the animal's teeth with a pair of pliers. The dog trembled and twitched in apparent pain, and the supervisor continued with the procedure despite the dog's obvious reaction. Workers repeatedly cut into one dog's tender, blood-filled ear, draining blood and pus but never treating the underlying cause of the dog's suffering and apparently causing the ear to become infected.

Dogs were intentionally subjected to worm infestations for tests, but conditions were so sloppy that dogs who weren't supposed to be part of the study also became infested and were then left untreated.

In one test commissioned by a corporation whose products are sold in grocery and drug stores nationwide, a chemical was applied to the necks of 57 cats. The cats immediately suffered seizures, foamed at the mouth, lost vision, and bled from their noses. Despite this, the substance was put on the cats a second time the very same day.

To cut costs, PLRS killed nearly 100 cats, rabbits, and dogs. The company had decided that some of these animals' six daily cups of food were too expensive.

Federal oversight of horrendous facilities such as PLRS is virtually nonexistent. In preparation for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector's annual visit, which PLRS staff knew to expect in June or July, PLRS employees painted over the rusty surfaces that the USDA had warned them about the previous year and reported that ailing animals had conditions that might merit veterinary care—which the facility's attending veterinarian reportedly advised she would not provide—so that PLRS staff would be "covered" from blame should the inspector inquire about the animals' condition. The inspector's 2010 visit to PLRS, which housed approximately 400 animals at the time, lasted two hours and 15 minutes.

PETA has filed complaints with federal and state agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and local law-enforcement authorities.

.

Sepember 13, 2010

Senators in Puerto Rico have introduced an important resolution that would strongly urge U.S. government agencies to permanently deny Bioculture Puerto Rico, Inc., permission to import and breed thousands of monkeys at a horrendous facility being built in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The monkeys would be sold for use in cruel and deadly experiments in the U.S. and abroad.

Bioculture has repeatedly violated Puerto Rican and U.S. laws during the construction of this monkey prison, and U.S. agencies have the authority to stop this dreadful project once and for all.

Please click here to help monkeys right now by sending polite e-mails to key Puerto Rico senators. Ask them to support R.S. 1514 and to keep this shameful and corrupt company from establishing itself in Puerto Rico.

Thank you for everything that you do for animals who have no voice but that of caring individuals like you!