 |
No, I'm not referring to those ubiquitous green chew treats for dogs, although I've had a problem with them in the past too. I'm referring to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the organization that put out the report on environmental toxins in dogs and cats last week. It was all over the news. Our animal companions are getting contaminated by many household chemicals, such as flame retardants in furniture and perfluorinated chemicals in stain-resistant coatings. This is definitely a matter of concern and makes me want to advise everyone with animals to shop for furniture at thrift stores, where older items will be less likely to be covered with such poisonous coatings.
However, there is more to this story—much more. The EWG's cutesy e-mail message on this topic is supposedly authored by a dog named Eddie. He says, "Did you know that the humans' government doesn't make companies test our toys, furniture, or even our food for safety? That's why I'm launching Pets for the Environment with the help of Environmental Working Group." Poor Eddie must not realize that when the EWG says "test," the group is talking about conducting mean, nasty, painful experiments on dogs and other animals, like rabbits and guinea pigs—the same species that share so many homes in America. Yes, the EWG is one of the biggest promoters of animal experiments in the United States.
According to Jane Houlihan of the EWG, the results of the group's latest study are of concern because "there's a 20-year body of scientific literature showing that pets can be sentinels for human problems." Hmmm, so we should only care about this because it's a sign that humans might also be accumulating chemicals in our bodies—not because we love our animals and don't want them to be poisoned, especially since most of them are so much smaller than us and have such short life spans? That doesn't sound like someone who cares about animals at all. I guess Eddie's real job is just to make the EWG seem animal-friendly. That's a hard sell, though, once you've seen the EWG's true colors.
PETA first wrote to the EWG in March 2001 because of its involvement in chemical-testing issues and its calls for increased testing on animals. High-ranking officials in the organization did meet with PETA representatives to discuss the issues and committed to reconsidering the EWG's position on animal testing. But unfortunately, since that time, the EWG has become more and more involved in calling for animal-based toxicity testing and less and less responsive to animal protection concerns.
For example, the EWG is the driving force behind the "Campaign for Safe Cosmetics." This campaign calls on cosmetics manufacturers to test their products for effects such as cancer-causing potential, hormone disruption, skin allergy, genetic and nervous system toxicity, and birth defects—which, if conducted according to standard protocols, could spell suffering and death for hundreds of thousands of animals in laboratories. The EWG's report Skin Deep claims that such innocuous substances as salt, aloe vera gel, and chamomile are "unstudied chemicals" that should be tested, as well as substances such as phosphoric acid!
The EWG is also trying to enact legislation, misleadingly named the "Kids Safe Act," that will result in another massive animal-testing program. This plan will require chemicals to be tested using the most animal-intensive studies known under the guise of protecting children. PETA and other animal and health protection groups went to the EWG with a proposal to alter the wording of the bill to include the development and use of non-animal methods. After much work and compromise on the part of the animal groups, the EWG inexplicably pulled out of the discussions.
PETA and others have repeatedly explained to EWG officials that simply calling for more animal tests will do nothing to protect public health or the environment. The animal tests currently used are based on science that is decades old. Not only are they expensive and time-consuming, they also give ambiguous results with questionable relevance to human health. Non-animal tests that are based on our current understanding of biology can give much more reliable and relevant results.
We have explained repeatedly that a switch to a modern, non-animal-based scheme, as was proposed in July 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences, is critical. Our attempts to encourage the EWG to adopt this approach have been rebuffed. Unfortunately, if the EWG's current approach is successful, it will not protect public health and will result in immense animal suffering.
It's time to embrace effective non-animal tests and stop deliberately poisoning dogs in laboratory experiments with the false excuse that it will somehow protect dogs who are lucky enough to be called "pets."
If you'd like to share your opinion with the EWG, please write to:
Ken Cook, President
Environmental Working Group
1436 U St. N.W., Ste. 100
Washington, DC 20009
202-667-6982
202-232-2592 (fax)
ken@ewg.org
For more information on the EWG and for points that you can include in your letter, click here.
