News blog

Crunching PETA’s numbers

peta ad.jpgPosted for Meredith Wadman

A gray, sinister-looking picture of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach appeared in a full-page ad in Tuesday’s Washington Post. “Meet Andrew von Eschenbach,” the caption ran. “On His Watch, `FDA’ Stands for `Federal Dog Abuse.’”

The ad, placed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) goes on to explain, atop a smaller picture of an adorable puppy, that “because the FDA guidelines are antiquated, dogs are still forced to ingest, inhale or be injected with drugs. Those who don’t die outright can suffer for months or even years while their organs fail and they become riddled with cancer and other diseases.”

The ad directs concerned readers to take action at PETA’s website where they can sign and send to von Eschenbach a letter stating that “The FDA should listen to countless scientific experts – including the National Research Council – that have shown that animal tests do not do a good job of predicting the effects of chemicals in humans.” PETA’s press release on the advert is headlined “65,000 Dogs Killed Every Year in Outdated Tests.”

I phoned up Jessica Sandler, the director of PETA’s Regulatory Testing Division, who before coming to PETA worked for a decade as a safety and health professional at the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and then ran the safety office for a branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, to ask where the figures came from…


Sandler, who told me that the group spent nearly $82,000 on the advert, was only too happy to explain how they arrived at the 65,000 number. The United States Department of Agriculture reports on the number of animals (excluding rats and mice) used each year for purposes of experimentation – which runs the gamut from pharmaceutical R&D to pesticide testing overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency to medical students being taught surgery using live animals. In 2006, the most recent year available, USDA reports use of 87,424 dogs, in three categories: 1,340 “with pain, no drugs;” 29,239 “with pain, with drugs;” and 56,845 with “no pain, no drugs.” (The “drugs” referred to are pain relievers and anaesthetics, not pharmaceuticals under test)

However, USDA doesn’t break down the dogs’ use by type of testing, so PETA took a look at figures from the United Kingdom, where the Home Office does report on the percentage – 73% — of dogs used in pharmaceutical experiments. The organization then applied that 73% to the US total of 87,424 dogs to come up with a guesstimate of 65,000 dogs. “These are estimates,” Sandler says, “but we think they are reasonable estimates.”

Among the long list of citations Sandler points to as supporting the claim that “countless experts” have shown that animal tests don’t do a good job of predicting chemical effects in humans is a June 2007 National Research Council study, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy”.

The report addressed animal testing of commercial chemicals and pesticides, rather than pharmaceuticals, but there are others looking at drug development like this (click on the second abstract) and this.

There is also this from von Eschenbach himself: “Today, nine out of 10 compounds developed in the lab fail in human studies. They fail, in large part because they behave differently in people than they did in animal or laboratory tests.”

I also chatted with Frankie Trull, the president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a group that defends the use of animals as necessary in some experimentation. Trull noted that dogs are in the main used for testing the toxicity of new pharmaceuticals before they are put in people—and that it’s an FDA requirement that a new drug be tested in a higher species before it is put in humans.

She called the advert “typical PETA, making a very emotional statement not backed up with facts. Dogs are not given cancer. But dogs are used for drug compound studies and they are used because they have digestive systems similar to humans…..There are reasons why the FDA requirements are what they are.”

Trull’s group estimates that about 30 million rodents are used for research annually, which in turn led her to estimate, by including USDA reports of other non-rodent species used, that the 87,000-odd dogs comprise some 0.05% of all animals used in the US.

She added that her take home message is this: “What PETA says is that animal research and testing is archaic and scientists should be using other methods. My response is: terrific, bring us validated alternatives, because using animals in research is an extremely expensive, time-consuming proposition.”

The FDA had this to say:

“FDA supports efforts to reduce the number of animals used in product safety testing, and replacement with laboratory tests where possible. We also require companies to meet Good Laboratory Practices so that animals used in product testing are treated in a humane and compassionate manner. At the present time, there are some necessary animal-based tests for which a suitable laboratory test has not yet been developed. However, FDA, the industry, and scientific organizations continue to seek replacement test methods and we are optimistic that as science continues to advance, we can make further progress in this area.”

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Samantha Dozier, Ph.D. said:

    It’s odd that Frankie Trull would accuse PETA of not backing up its statements with facts and then go on to make two very serious mis-statements: Dogs certainly do suffer from cancer, the pain from toxic effects of pharmaceuticals, and a myriad of other effects directly correlated from being force-fed or forced to inhale large amounts of toxic chemicals. These are all “side-effects” of the drug-testing industry and the direct result of FDA requirements to use old-fashioned, animal-based test methods.

    Secondly, the gastrointestinal tract of dogs has long been understood to have mechanisms distinctly different from that of humans. In fact one of the main mechanisms of human gut contraction is not found in dogs (Peeters et al. Regulatory Peptides, 1988). Additionally, canine “models” have been tested in comparison to human gut performance and were out-performed by in vitro models (Fotaki et al. International Journal of Toxicology, 2005).

    Frankie Trull’s errors would be laughable were the results not so sad for the tens of millions of animals who suffer in these crude and cruel experiments and lead researchers down dead ends over and over again. Perhaps her organization could join PETA in the massive monetary donations PETA makes to support the development of sophisticated non-animal methods that benefit humans as well as animals.

    Sincerely,

    Samantha Dozier, Ph.D.

    Policy Advisor, Medical Testing Issues

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

  2. Report this comment

    N. Beck said:

    Although the FDA states that it supports efforts to reduce animal use, a more substantive and detailed statement than the one reported is in order, given the scientific concerns raised around the issue. Rather than the vague response issued, I would like to know what exactly the FDA is doing to improve predictivity and in turn reduce animal use? Is it involved in the development of non-animal methods? Does it require the use of non-animal methods where they exist, as is common practice in the EU? If not, does it at least encourage use of non-animal methods in its test guidances?

    There is growing recognition surrounding the limitations of animal models, as highlighted in this piece. It is incumbent upon the FDA, as protectors of human health, to develop, validate, and promote the use of more predictive methods for assessing toxicity. Developing non-animals methods to predict toxicity based on omics, computational and systems biology -approaches envisioned in the NRC report requires expertise that is in short supply at FDA, according to its own Science Board report released last December. In response to the report, FDA is making strides to bolster its science and hopefully those initiatives will lead to a more dynamic agency that operates based on the most modern,

    predictive methods rather than those with the longest track record.

  3. Report this comment

    Debra Fish said:

    I do not usually post to these kinds of articles. It is wrong to speculate any information based on reports and spread propaganda about subjects they have no idea about. Yes animals are used in testing everyday, but when you get sick do you take antibiotics, asprin, or do you give you children the same? If you do, then it is hard to imagine that you don’t support the research necessary to have these products available, if you truely don’t agree with the current methods then don’t use the medications and vaccines that these animals have given to us. If you have ever talked to or worked with an individual that has performed research with animals you will find they are more compassionate about animal wellfare in general than most people. They take great strides to make the animals lives as fullfiling as possible, the faciities these animals live in are cleaner than the average hospital. The animals that need saving are those that are used for dog fights, those animals whose owners abandon them on the side of the road, keep them breeding past their breeding age, and those who put kittens in bags in rivers. Animal abuse is in my opinion more prevelant in everyday society and that is where the focus of helping animals should be.

  4. Report this comment

    Wilbrod said:

    Unfortuately PETA’s one-note reasoning fails to realize that one of the biggest ecological disasters of the 20th century could have been averted by more thorough animal testing. Yes, I said it. MORE animal testing.

    I speak of DDT, used to kill mosquitoes. Thousands of animals died, and we nearly lost our national symbol, the bald eagle, as a result.

    I will sacrifice a few dozen or hundred animals to save thousands more. I also will sacrifice some animals to save thousands and millions of people.

    I realize math may not be your strong suit. In that case, hire a math or science tutor to explain it to you carefully.

    Pay attention, you will learn a lot and may realize that thousands of people with genius-level IQs and careful study of biology in all its form…. may not be wrong to consider animal testing the most humane way to ensure safety of drugs and other medical tools.

  5. Report this comment

    Elizabeth said:

    7 Things You Didn’t Know About PeTA

    1. PeTA has stated repeatedly that their goal is “total animal liberation.” This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no hunting, no farming, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.

    2. PeTA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.

    3. PeTA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to violent animal-rights groups called SHAC and ALF.

    4. PeTA has used their contributors tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front and the Animal Liberation Front, FBI-certified domestic terrorist groups responsible for fire bombs and death threats.

    5. PeTA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They are totally opposed to traditional farming methods.

    6. PeTA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals. PeTA kills animals.

    7. PeTA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases.

    source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com

    http://www.petakillsanimals.com

    http://www.animalscam.com

    http://www.pet-law.com

    http://www.naiaonline.org

  6. Report this comment

    Netanya said:

    Typical that a supporter of animal torturer (Trull) would only be concerned with the expense and “time consumed” in using animals as things to torture, maim and murder as they desire. Breeding, selling and tormenting animals is BIG BUSINESS, representing huge grants to legalized animal abusive institutions, filling the pockets of “White Coats” with money and giving them the right to practice their hideous professions – at tax payer’s expense. Torturers and leaches on the American society. More importantly, vile, vicious human beings who purposely inflict pain and suffering to helpless animals, specifically the loyal, wonderful dog. Man’s Best Friend has no friends in science. PETA ROCKS! (No one else is speaking up for the animals except A.R. groups and animal advocates – and one can notice the fuming going on within scientific world at the “gall” to be the voice for their voiceless victims.

  7. Report this comment

    Felix Finch said:

    I too wonder if PETA members and all others opposed to animal testing also refuse to use modern medicines developed using animal testing. Do they in fact put their own lives on the line as they want others to do?

    I doubt it.

    Further, PETA kills more animals in their shelters than the places they get the animals from. For details, see https://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html. If they can lie about simple matters like this, what else are they lying about?

  8. Report this comment

    Janet Hiller said:

    If you want to be intellectually honest, check out the truth about the origin of Elizabeth’s anti-PETA info posted above:

    https://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/anti_organic_consumer_group.cfm or

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom%29:

    “The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving…"

    You can love or hate PETA but just recognize the bias of the group whose info you are passing on as gospel and where their money comes from.

  9. Report this comment

    Marty Brandon said:

    While I don’t have an intimate knowledge of PETA, I’m always dismayed by the satisfaction people derive at pointing out its shortcomings. Even assuming that PETA does commit acts that are counter to its stated goals, would that make cruelty to another sentient being any more acceptable? Likewise, can the existence of dog-fighting or the drowning of kittens be used to justify your own behavior? When one’s morality is based on such reasoning, I shudder to think of what acts that they are capable.

    The reality is that the issue is more complex and nuanced than most will admit. While animal testing has undoubtedly benefitted humans, it is not a simple case of trading a few mice to save baby Jane. Instead, we make a decision that the imposition of suffering on another species will possibly help to elucidate the outcome of a particular experiment. The design and purpose of the experiment, degree of suffering, and potential benefit are serious questions to consider.

    Though it may be understandable to appreciate the development of a new antibiotic at the expense of a cohort of mice, how is one to feel about the institutionalization of a primate for a new hairspray? And what about infecting a caged primate or dog with a disease? Even if convinced of the merit of such an experiment, it’s disturbing that many seem completely unremorseful about having to do it.

  10. Report this comment

    Richard said:

    “PeTA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals … and has links to violent animal-rights groups called SHAC and ALF.”

    PeTA should be prosecuted and their members put in jail where they belong. There is no point arguing with them, just like there is no point arguing with a suicide bomber who believes he is going to heaven. Like all fanatics and oddballs, there is something mis-wired in their brains which makes them impervious to normal reasoning and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. Or perhaps its just a lack of intelligence which prevents them from understanding simple logic. The world would be a better place if they were removed from society and the gene pool.

  11. Report this comment

    Ruth Prizak said:

    Having suffered in Israel from real terrorism, I find Richard’s comparison of animal advocates to suicide bombers completely offensive and irrational.

  12. Report this comment

    Shade Grown Organic Coffee said:

    Not that animal testing is my favorite practice, but the alternative of testing untried products on people is even more deplorable. The sentiments of the PETA organization are probably largely sympathized with, but until a practical alternative is introduced, there is little chance this practice will change. Plus, how do the numbers of animal testing cases compare to those pets within shelters who are put down each year?

Comments are closed.