STOP EPA MASSIVE ANIMAL TESTING.

[Guest guest]

STOP EPA MASSIVE ANIMAL TESTING .Dear Friend, We would like to urge you to write TWO letters on EPAmassive chemical animal testing issue . We enclosed two sample letters to President Bush and EPA Administratorregarding the new EPA programs to encourage chemical companies toconduct years of redundant toxicity massive tests on animals.(note: the enclosed sample letter is merged from various sources . ) You may write your own style letters or modify the existing letterespecially at the beginning of the letter before you send it out.Thanks.Humanity

P.S.: If you have any questions regarding the nature of the issue ,please contact : PCRM at : Tel: 202-686-2210, ext. 309

=====================================SAMPLE LETTERS (To EPA and President Bush separately.) AND CONTACT INFO :1:The Honorable Christine T. WhitmanAdministrator, Environmental Protection AgencyAriel Rios Bldg., Rm. 3000 #1101-A1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.Washington, DC 20460ph: 202-564-4700fax: 202-501-1450email: whitman.christine (@epamail.epa.gov )Dear Honorable Administrator Whitman, When Congress passed the ICCVAM Authorization Act toreview petitions for acceptance of non-animal research, the EPA plans touse millions of animals in three large-scale programs. They are theHigh Production Volume Challenge Program, the Voluntary Children'sChemical Evaluation Program,and the Endocrine Disruptor ScreeningProgram. The National Cancer Institute undertook a Twenty-Five years screeningprogram, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumor activity.Out of this very expensive research many positive results surfaced inanimal models, but NOT A SINGLE ANTI-TUMOR DRUG EMERGEDFOR HUMANS. As a consequence, the NCI now uses human cancercells for cytotoxic screening. As Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director ofthe National Cancer Institute said : "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancerin the mouse.......We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and itsimply didn't work in humans. " The animal lab tests are outdated methods and proving failurerepeatedly. We must all go forward with the newest Non-animal testtechniques. The Benchmarks in medical history have relied on theNON-ANIMAL BASED methodologies, as will future developments. The EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) program to retest 2,800chemicals received so much backlash, it was revised to include funds forthe development of non-animal tests over a period of two years. The EPAalso agreed to recognize international chemical databases as well asaccept a non-animal mode to produce genetic toxicity data. Please directthe EPA to implement these and other revisions, as you work toward afull replacement of animal tests with tenable research alternatives. The EPA's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program-a shortsighted studyto analyze the effects of 87,000 industrial chemicals upon the humanhormonal system-calls for up to 1.2 million animals for every 1,000chemicals tested. Safeguarding the public from toxic chemicals is anhonorable ambition. But animals cannot mimic the human response tochemicals, drugs, disease or surgery. Numerous studies assert thatdifferent species metabolize chemicals along diverse circuits, atvarying rates.The human endocrine system sends signals to trigger or block certainbodily functions as needed. Foreign chemicals can imitate a particularhormone receptor and thus launch or suspend a function. In vitroscience is the most accurate way to generate data relevant to humans.Researchers need to discern whether a chemical can attach to humanhormone receptors. If it does, it' s probably an endocrine disrupter.If it doesn't, humans don't need to worry about that chemical. So far,the EPA has overlooked the "high-throughput pre-screen" (HTPS),a non-animal method to filter some chemicals. The EPA also hasn'taccessed existing wildlife studies about endocrine disrupters in theenvironment. Please reassess the value of EDSP and advocatenon-animal alternatives.Under the Clinton Administration, the Voluntary Children's ChemicalEvaluation Program was established to identify toxic chemicals such asDDT and PCBs in air, water, food or breast milk in order to reduceexposures and warn parents. The EPA, however, opted for rat tests tosafeguard children. Far too many chemicals that tested safe in animalsled to problems in humans, particularly children. Why should taxpayerdollars go to another program that has no direct impact on human health?I respectfully ask that the EPA redirect its funds toward the validationand use of in vitro cell/tissue cultures, clinical trials, epidemiologystudies, autopsy/biopsy studies, anatomically correct manikins,simulators and 3-D models, CAT, PET and MRI scans, interactivecomputer models, videos and computerized post-market drugsurveillance. We urge EPA to stop delaying and take regulatory action on chemicalsthat are known hazards, end duplicative testing,and employ alternative,more effective testing methods. We strongly urge EPA to distributemuch more funding for the research of Alternative testing methods. Please cut EPA spending on vivisection and boost the budget forhumane alternatives. Thank-you for your compassion and insight.Sincerely,Name,Address,City, State, (*** letter ends here ***)============================================2 : Letter to President Bush :President George W. Bush,The White House1600 Pennsylvania Ave NWWashington, DC 20500U.S.A.Tel: 202-456-1414 ( 8am-5pm, east time, Mon-Fri)Fax: 202-456-2461 (in U.S.A.)E-mail : president (@whitehouse.gov )Please also CC your letter to First Lady Laura Bush :(copy the following address and paste to CC field. ) : first.lady (@whitehouse.gov )SAMPLE LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH @ Please state you are an U.S. Constituent in the letter.).RE:Please stop EPA useless, wasteful, cruel massive animals testing.Please redirect EPA funding for more effective Alternatives testingsPlease cut EPA spending on wasteful and very cruel vivisection .Dear Mr. President , When Congress passed the ICCVAM Authorization Act toreview petitions for acceptance of non-animal research, the EPA plansto use millions of animals in three large-scale programs. They are theHigh Production Volume Challenge Program, the Voluntary Children'sChemical Evaluation Program,and the Endocrine Disruptor ScreeningProgram. The National Cancer Institute undertook a Twenty-Five years screeningprogram, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumor activity.Out of this very expensive research many positive results surfaced inanimal models, but NOT A SINGLE ANTI-TUMOR DRUG EMERGEDFOR HUMANS. As a consequence, the NCI now uses human cancercells for cytotoxic screening. As Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director ofthe National Cancer Institute said : "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancerin the mouse.......We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and itsimply didn't work in humans. " The animal lab tests are outdated methods and proving failurerepeatedly. We must all go forward with the newest Non-animal testtechniques. The Benchmarks in medical history have relied on theNON-ANIMAL BASED methodologies, as will future developments. The EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) program to retest 2,800chemicals received so much backlash, it was revised to include funds forthe development of non-animal tests over a period of two years. The EPAalso agreed to recognize international chemical databases as well asaccept a non-animal mode to produce genetic toxicity data.Please direct the EPA to implement these and other revisions. The EPA's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program-a shortsighted studyto analyze the effects of 87,000 industrial chemicals upon the humanhormonal system-calls for up to 1.2 million animals for every 1,000chemicals tested. Safeguarding the public from toxic chemicals is anhonorable ambition. But animals cannot mimic the human response tochemicals, drugs, disease or surgery. Numerous studies assert thatdifferent species metabolize chemicals along diverse circuits, at varyingrates.The human endocrine system sends signals to trigger or block certainbodily functions as needed. Foreign chemicals can imitate a particularhormone receptor and thus launch or suspend a function. In vitro scienceis the most accurate way to generate data relevant to humans.Researchers need to discern whether a chemical can attach to humanhormone receptors. If it does, it's probably an endocrine disrupter.If it doesn't, humans don't need to worry about that chemical. So far,the EPA has overlooked the "high-throughput pre-screen" (HTPS),a non-animal method to filter some chemicals. The EPA also hasn'taccessed existing wildlife studies about endocrine disrupters in theenvironment. Please direct EPA reassess the value of EDSP andadvocate non-animal alternatives. Under the Clinton Administration, the Voluntary Children's ChemicalEvaluation Program was established to identify toxic chemicals such asDDT and PCBs in air, water, food or breast milk in order to reduceexposures and warn parents. The EPA, however, opted for rat tests tosafeguard children.Far too many chemicals that tested safe in animals led to problems inhumans, particularly children. Why should taxpayer dollars go to anotherprogram that has no direct impact on human health? I'm requesting you please urge EPA redirect its funds toward thevalidation and use of in vitro cell/tissue cultures, clinical trials,epidemiology studies, autopsy/biopsy studies, anatomically correctmanikins, simulators and 3-D models, CAT, PET and MRI scans,interactive computer models, videos and computerized post-marketdrug surveillance. Please urge EPA to stop delaying and take regulatory action onchemicals that are known hazards, end duplicative testing, and employalternative, more effective testing methods. Please urge EPA to distribute much more funding for the research ofALTERNATIVE testing methods. Please cut EPA spending on vivisection and boost the budget forhumane alternatives. Thank-you for your kindness, compassion, insightand wisdom.Sincerely,Name,Address,City, State,(U.S. CONSTITUENT(S).)----------------------References Source :1: http://www.curedisease.com/FAQ.html Americans for Medical Advancement.2: http://www.pcrm.org/issues/index.html3: http://www.mrmcmed.org/ Medical Research Modernization Committee. (*** Letter ends here *** )

 

 

Thanks so much for your caring, and help.