News Archive
I’ve Got You Under My Skin - New Skin Tests To
Replace Animal Cruelty
Episkin, developed by French, German and Swiss scientists, is
being claimed as the most advanced laboratory-made skin in the world.
It takes a relatively rapid 19 days to grow in a special solution and
is reported to be a very good approximation of the architecture of human
skin, with all its layers and constituents.
Grown from living tissues in culture, it apparently feels like real skin
and can tan, display some features of ageing, show signs of irritation,
and be manipulated to produce different colours. Professor Michael Balls,
a European Union-funded scientist and anti-vivisectionist (he holds a
chair at Nottingham University), has called the manufactured skin "breathtaking
and astounding".
It has both a dermis and epidermis, the thick inner and thin outer layer,
respectively. During its cultivation, the skin culture is raised out of
the solution and allowed to dry and harden, to mimic the tough outer layer
of human skin. Beneath the layers lies a carpet of connective tissue and
collagen.
The layers contain the three main cell types found in the epidermis -
keratinocytes, which produce the keratin that lends skin its toughness;
melanocytes, which produce the pigment melanin and are responsible for
colour and tanning; and Langharans’ cells, the sentry cells that
look out for signs of distress to the skin and alert the immune system.
It is the incorporation of this last type of cell - harvested from umbilical
cords - that makes Episkin unique. The breakthrough lay in the special
culture that was used to make the Langharans’ cells "take".
It is hoped that it will replace painful (and always ultimately fatal)
animal tests for skin creams, make-up, sun lotions, and new chemical compounds
and ingredients. There are currently an estimated 30,000 cosmetic tests
carried out on animals in Europe each year.
Episkin could also be used in skin grafts for burns victims. In such
grafts a small piece of healthy skin is taken from a patient, then attached
to the infected area, where it grows to eventually cover the wound. However,
in severe injuries the patient may not be able to provide enough of his
or her skin, so surgeons resort to using industrially made skin, known
as epidermal sheets.
Professor Balls also reiterated what we have known for years about the
value of experimenting on living skin cultures rather than animals: "If
you are making products for humans, then human skin is better than animal
skin."
But these replacements, which are made by culturing human skin cells
taken from biopsies and from the discarded foreskins of circumcised infants,
are quite crude. They do not contain all the cell types, such as those
responsible for chemical sensitivity or pigment. This is a problem for
both applications. The pigment of grafted skin often does not match the
patients’ own, which is not ideal cosmetically. And the lack of sensitivity
means that existing substitutes cannot be used for chemical testing.
Episkin is also expected to be valuable in testing for allergies. This
is because the Langharans’ cells are responsible for informing the
immune system that it is under siege (these cells start the chain of biological
events that lead to skin rashes, for example). When an irritant is placed
on the skin, it becomes inflamed. Even though Episkin does not have any
blood vessels and so cannot turn red, it can release signalling molecules
when it is under duress. The more distress signals released, the more
of an irritant the chemical is judged to be.
The next research stage involves finding a way of keeping Episkin alive
in the lab for longer than a month. Normally skin renews itself after
this period, but because Episkin is not plumbed into blood vessels, it
cannot replenish itself. Stem cells - those that have not specialised
to build a particular part of the body - may provide an answer.
Corrositex
Meanwhile, for the first time in history, regulators in the United States
have approved a full-scale replacement of an animal test. InVitro International’s
new synthetic skin test, Corrositex, can be used instead of rabbits to
test the safety of thousands of new chemicals.
The in vitro test determines chemical corrosivity and permits the assignment
of Packing Group classification for Class 8 corrosives. It is based upon
a biomembrane and chemical detection system, which becomes coloured when
exposed to potentially corrosive substances. Users simply record the time
it takes for the sample to break through the membrane, then they can assign
the relevant Packing Group classification, or use the data as a ranking
tool or to substantiate marketing claims.
It replaces the rabbit test for dermal corrosivity by reliably mimicking
this test (though clearly mimicking human skin reaction to corrosives
would bring more reliable results). Corrositex can provide Packing Group
determination in as little as 3 minutes and no-longer than 4 hours, whereas
animal tests can take 2 to 4 weeks, and is also advertised as both more
accurate and cost-effective.
The agreement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission
to accept the test was welcomed by campaigners in the US and elsewhere.
Since there are currently more than two thousand new chemicals tested
on animals every year, the substitution of Corrositex will save thousands
of rabbits’ lives.
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns 13.07.00
[Source: Sunday Times 24.5.00 & Corrositex website]
Victory! Spanish 'Shamrock' Denied
Thanks in part to Uncaged Campaigns and our supporters, the proposed
Spanish monkey farm near Barcelona will not be opening for its evil business.
Uncaged Campaigns supporters and visitors to this website have been writing
letters and emails to the Spanish authorities urging them to turn down
the proposal from French company, La Societe de Recherche Primatologique.
As one evil institution in Shamrock Monkey Farm closed (see news item
below), another, even bigger, site was being proposed to perpetuate and
increase the trade in non-human primates for vivisection. La Societe de
Recherche Primatologique was denied permission to build a monkey breeding
centre in Strasbourg last year after intensive lobbying from animal advocates.
However, they then applied to the Spanish Government to site the centre
in Camarles in Catalunya, near Barcelona.
La Societe Recherche Primatologique had already purchased 100,000 square
metres of land. If approved, the centre it would have become the
largest primate supplier for vivisection in Europe, holding up to 3,000
monkeys.
Letters and emails from Uncaged supporters, and other animal advocates,
poured in to the President of Catalunya, Camarles Town Council, and the
Federal Ministry of Agriculture.
Near the end of April 2000, an Animal Rights group in Barcelona reported
that the local Government of Catalonia had presented a proposal to the
Catalan Parliament to ban breeding farms for the import and export of
primates for research. Nonetheless, letters and emails kept pouring in,
until it was announced in July that these laws had been passed!
[Massive credit to Save the Shamrock Monkeys for organising demos, spreading
info and inspiring action etc; and Coral Putman for the Spanish translation
of protest letters]
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns 28.06.00
Uncaged Campaigns Responds as Pro-Vivisection Scientists Lobby for Weaker
Regulation
Last week, Uncaged Campaigns were interviewed by journalists
from the Independent and the Financial Times for our response to a letter
signed by 100 scientists to Lord Sainsbury which complained about the
length of time the Government was taking to issue licenses to vivisect.
Here is a copy of an open letter we have sent to Jack Straw countering
some of the fallacies and contradictions in the scientists' letter.
An open letter to the Home Secretary
Dear Mr Straw
What the scientists who wrote to Lord Sainsbury are really demanding...
The core of current legislation is a so-called "cost-benefit"
analysis where the harms inflicted on animals are weighed against the
potential benefits to humans from a piece of research. There are several
intrinsic problems with this decision-making framework, but I won’t
go into them here. But it is undeniable that this is a very complex
task. There are currently 21 Inspectors (most of whom have previously
vivisected), who are charged with scrutinising approximately 900 project
license applications, and monitoring a further 2,700 ongoing licenses
because scientific or ethical developments may alter the cost/benefit
assessment in such a way that the license may need to be revoked or
amended. (This is stated by the Chief Inspector in his paper on the
cost/benefit assessment in the report of the Government-appointed Animal
Procedures Committee published in November 1998.) A project license
involves an average of approximately 700 animals, and may include several
evolving studies over a few years, which will give you an idea of the
complexity of these matters and how much is at stake in terms of the
deliberate infliction of death and suffering on animals. Inspectors
are also charged with visiting the hundreds of "Designated Establishments"
who vivisect some 2.6 million animals a year (and destroy an estimated
8 million more because of over-breeding.)
Even with the best will in the world, 21 Inspectors cannot perform
these tasks adequately at the moment. To ask for project licenses to
be processed more quickly, as these scientists are demanding, will result
in the scrutiny of project license applications being even more perfunctory.
Because of the complexity of a cost/benefit assessment in this context,
any adequate scrutiny of a project license application within this framework
should be lengthy. It should also be borne in mind that the Inspectorate
engage in dialogue with vivisectors in order to produce "satisfactory"
applications - thus a project license is discussed with Inspectors to
amend it and refine it. Thus the system does not work in the manner
of a simple: application... yes/no decision.
Therefore, by asking for project license applications to be approved
within days or weeks which they claim is the case in the other countries
to where scientific research may supposedly be exported from Britain,
these scientists are, in effect, asking for the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986 to be ignored. The rubber-stamping of project license
applications which is demanded by these scientists is theoretically
illegal in this country. However, contrary to the spirit of the law,
this is basically what happens at the moment - and the signatories to
the letter to Lord Sainsbury are thus looking for a more efficient and
blatant rubber-stamping process.
The scientists claim that they do not wish to see a "reduction
in the welfare of laboratory animals." This is a disingenuous claim
because the welfare of animals would undoubtedly be given even less
weight in the cost/benefit assessment of project license applications
than is currently the case, should the wishes of this group of scientists
prevail. What these people are really demanding is carte blanche to
do whatever they want to animals, and any efforts to minimise the suffering
of animals only take place as secondary considerations within that context.
The 2.6 million animals who are counted in the Government’s annual
statistics are subjected to procedures "likely to cause pain, suffering,
distress or lasting harm," with only a third receiving any anaesthetic.
Thus the scientists’ stated commitment to animal welfare is an
insult to Lord Sainsbury’s and the public’s intelligence.
They are using a familiar and dubious form of economic blackmail to
reduce further their accountability for their violence towards animals.
If a few companies and scientists are prepared to export their research
to countries who don’t even pretend to consider the interests of
animals and where the hegemony of commercial greed is even more blatant,
then this reveals the true values of these people. We say "good
riddance!" and let’s ostracise these morally bankrupt individuals
and companies rather than surrender to blackmail. If Britain is really
to be the "beacon of progress" referred to by Blair a few
months ago, then this is a real litmus test. We should lead from the
front in terms of the progress of our society’s relationship with
animals - and it’s not as if we’ve really got anything to
be proud of yet!
Dan Lyons
For a report on this year's Global Boycott of Procter & Gamble Day
click here.
EU Kow-Tows To Pressure On Cosmetic Testing Ban
After years of prevaricating, the European Commission (EC) has
backed down on a proposed ban of: i) the testing of cosmetic
ingredients, and: ii) the sale within the European Union (EU) of cosmetics,
made anywhere in the world, whose ingredients have been tested on animals
after 1st July 2000.
In its stead is:
i) a test ban on finished products and a ban on ingredients after
three years - which can be postponed should "validated alternative
methods" not be available.
The marketing and ingredients testing ban was initially put forward 8
years ago, but has suffered incessant postponement and disruption following
intense pressure and self-interested maneuvering from the cosmetics industry.
When it finally seemed that the legislation (Council Directive 76/768/EEC)
would be introduced, the Commission smothered it by extra-ordinary behind-the-scenes
maneuvering of its own. Late on Wednesday 5th April 2000, EU Commissioner
Erkki Liikanen bypassed the European Parliament, and forced through a
much weakened proposal.
The Directive was due to take effect on 1st July 2000. The EC appears
to have been unwilling to make a stand in the face of the ‘free-trade’
behemoths of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the United States, and
huge multinational cosmetic companies.
In a statement, Mr. Liikanen said:
"In its current wording, the Cosmetics Directive...would appear
to raise certain difficulties in relation to the WTO... the Commission
therefore proposes to modify the ban in order to ensure its WTO-compatibility
and to make it legally and practically enforceable."
While the new legislation represents at least a step in the right direction,
most animal testing for cosmetics is carried out on ingredients. The multinational
cosmetics companies (most of whom operate out of France and Italy) can
move their testing laboratories outside EU borders and then re-import
their products. The new legislation is behind the UK situation (where
no licenses will be granted for cosmetic ingredients testing). Mr. Watts,
Labour MEP and party spokesman on animal welfare, described the amendments
as "half baked" and "meaningless."
The EU has recently emerged from costly trade wars over Caribbean bananas
from US-backed competition, and ‘hormone-enhanced’ beef from
the US, but what price the lives of 38, 000 animals every year in cruel
and unnecessary experiments for vanity products?
The Commission hopes to adopt the amendment on Friday 5th May.
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns
[Source: Independent on Sunday 9.04.00; European Coalition
to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) mailing via World Animal Net 6.04.00]
Oops...They Did It Again!
The Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
was forced by intense pressure from the public and animal advocates to
back down from yet another controversial move.
The appointment in April of the vet who had been in charge at Shamrock
Monkey Farm to the post of assistant chief veterinary officer appeared
to be utterly at odds with the RSPCA’s perceived ethos and raison
d’etre. Mr Paul West was responsible for staff who mistreated animals
in Shamrock Farm in West Sussex, UK. Shamrock supplied thousands of monkeys
for vivisection. Despite the self evident hypocrisy in the decision, the
RSPCA initially held firm, insisting that Mr West had been found guilty
of nothing and was the best qualified person for the post.
However, as was the case over the RSPCA’s deal to promote Procter
& Gamble products (who routinely destroy animals to test new products
and ingredients), a swarm of protests forced them to back down in late
May.
Thanks to all our supporters who wrote to the RSPCA to express their
disgust.
Mr West was in charge of animal welfare at Shamrock from 1989 until 1997.
Between 1991 and 1992 an undercover worker with the British Union for
the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) exposed widespread abuse and cruelty
to the animals. A Government enquiry into animals under his control produced
a damning indictment of welfare conditions - staff were ‘incompetent’,
the handling of monkeys was ‘inappropriate’ and ‘insensitive’;
and conditions were condemned as ‘inadequate’. Shamrock was
closed down in March this year.
A Home Office investigation upheld the allegations made by BUAV and said:
"The investigation found evidence of poor standards of care
and handling and a lack of effective management and control. Insufficient
attention was paid to the maintenance of a regime in which animals are
treated at all times with dignity and respect and in which the physical;
and emotional need of the animals are given proper emphasis."
Save the Shamrock Monkeys spokesperson, Kerry Williams was understandably
outraged:
"Anyone who understands Government speak will know that this
is a forthright condemnation of animal welfare at Shamrock.
"The man in charge at that time was Paul West. The video footage
puts meaning to the words and shows the terrible fear and suffering
these bewildered animals were subjected to because of him. He is now
the number two vet in Britain’s largest animal welfare organisation.
It is a betrayal of all the monkeys who have suffered and died because
of this man.
"Any other animal group, big or small, anywhere in the UK
would have dropped Mr West’s job application in the bin. RSPCA
patrons, trustees and members - and that includes the Queen - should
be asking, in very loud voices, why this man was employed. Its Freedom
Food division is staffed by ex factory farmers and people from the Meat
& Livestock Commission and shows that today’s RSPCA has little
commitment to animal welfare", concluded Kerry Williams.
The RSPCA email is executive@rspca.org.uk.
The Director General is Peter Davies.
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns
|
