It's PETA vs. greens in tiff over lab rats

[Guest guest]

From the front page of this morning's Chron:

 

IT'S PETA VS. GREENS IN TIFF OVER LAB RATS

Traditional allies split on EPA animal tests

 

Glen Martin, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, July 22, 2002

 

----------

----

 

 

 

A fight has erupted between environmental groups and the nation's leading

animal rights organization over the issue of laboratory animal testing.

 

The dispute is the result of a media campaign by People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals against three mainstream environmental groups: the

World Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental

Defense.

 

PETA has denounced the three organizations for their support of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's use of laboratory animals to test toxic

compounds. Such tests are unnecessary, PETA claims, and could be replaced

with toxicology evaluations that don't use animals.

 

The animal rights organization has initiated a letter-writing campaign

against the three groups, taken out media ads urging people to stop donating

money to them and created a " Mean Greenies " Web site accusing the groups of

" greenwashing " their support of animal testing.

 

Among the items on the site is a " report card " that evaluates environmental

groups on the animal testing issue. Of the 12 groups tested, only the World

Wildlife Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental

Defense got failing marks. Several other groups got grades of D or C-.

 

The dispute highlights a widening gap between traditional allies.

 

" We're distressed because we thought of ourselves on the same side, " said

Gina Solomon, a senior scientist and physician with the Natural Resources

Defense Council.

 

" We both fight for animal welfare, " said Solomon. " We're both activist

organizations trying to make the world a better place. We're sad to be on

opposite sides on this, but we're convinced PETA is on the wrong side. "

 

The spat started when the environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the

EPA in 1999 to force it to stick to established deadlines on pesticide

assessment and the evaluation of " endocrine disruptors, " chemicals that can

inhibit fetal development.

 

Such tests typically involve laboratory animals, and PETA subsequently filed

a counter suit in federal court to delay the procedures. That case was

dismissed, and the EPA is proceeding with the chemical evaluations.

 

 

VALUE OF TESTS QUESTIONED

PETA says the tests approved by the EPA will result in the death of many

animals -- mainly laboratory rats and mice -- but will not necessarily yield

pertinent information on the toxicity of the target chemicals on humans.

 

" The way these three environmental groups approach this issue is to immerse

themselves in a morass of useless data (from animal tests) that clearly

don't accomplish what they should accomplish, " said Jessica Sandler, the

federal agency liaison for PETA.

 

" The endocrine disruptor screening program (employed by EPA and supported by

the three groups) will look at thousands of chemicals and will potentially

require killing millions of animals " Sandler said. " But these tests have

never shown to be relevant to human health. Not a single animal test has

gone through a validation process (to demonstrate relevance) to human

health. "

 

But the EPA and the environmental groups say that nonanimal tests are simply

inferior to animal tests in most situations, and that eschewing the use of

lab animals would pose grave risks to the environment and the human beings

and wildlife inhabiting it.

 

" We're greatly concerned that PETA is working directly against environmental

and human health goals in their campaign, " said Solomon. " Basically, the

only alternatives to this (animal) testing program are ignorance of toxic

chemicals or the de facto testing of those chemicals in the real world

environment.

 

" If PETA gets its way, people and wild animals will be the guinea pigs. We

would prefer that a small number of lab rats are used to save the rest of

us. We see targeted animal testing as a key component of animal and

environmental protection. "

 

 

SEARCHING FOR ALTERNATIVES

Richard Liroff, the policy director for the wildlife and contaminants

program for the World Wildlife Fund, said that good, reliable nonanimal

tests are unavailable for many protocols.

 

" All of us want to see more nonanimal tests, " Liroff said. " All of us want

to reduce the number of laboratory animals used for tests. Ultimately we'll

get there. But when you're looking for the developmental effects of hormone-

disrupting chemicals, for example, you need to see what the effect is in the

entire organism. "

 

Sandler countered that reliable nonanimal tests do exist for some

evaluations, but claimed they are met with resistance in the United States.

 

" To cite a particular case, the EPA is calling for a battery of animal tests

to evaluate chemicals for genetic toxicity, " she said. " We've found a

nonanimal test required in several European countries that is actually more

sensitive than the animal tests. But the (environmentalists) are fighting us

on it. "

 

EPA spokesman David Deegan said the agency was eager to develop nonanimal

tests and had earmarked $4 million for that purpose for the current fiscal

year.

 

" We're looking forward to the development of validated methodologies as an

alternative to animal testing, " Deegan said. " But for us, the emphasis must

remain on 'validated.' Unfortunately for many issues involving the health

effects of specific chemicals, or airborne toxics and toxic residues, there

are no alternatives to animal testing. Nothing else is accepted as valid. "

 

Liroff said the conflict was rooted in an essential difference in

priorities.

 

" We don't disagree with animal welfare, but we define our missions

differently, " Liroff said. " The World Wildlife Fund focuses on biodiversity

protection, preserving species in the wild and protecting entire ecosystems.

PETA is pursuing an agenda that defines animal welfare as the preservation

of specific animals, including laboratory and domestic animals. "

 

Sandler sees the matter differently, saying the issue is as much a matter of

ethics as it is of scientific protocol and disparate missions.

 

" We have a mutual interest with these environmental groups in getting toxic

chemicals out of the marketplace, but they believe there is a species of

animal called the 'laboratory animal,' and you can do anything you want with

them, " she said. " There is no such species. All animals suffer when you

poison them. "

 

E-mail Glen Martin at glenmartin