Sep23
Animal Testing for Artificial Butter Flavoring?
Posted at 10:18 AM | Permalink
| 
Comments (24)
PETA’s regulatory testing division recently fired off a letter to Samuel H. Wilson, acting director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), urging him to cancel planned experiments on mice involving artificial butter flavoring and its ingredients. Yes, I said artificial butter flavoring, the stuff in microwave popcorn.
One ingredient in artificial butter flavoring, diacetyl, is suspected of causing a debilitating—and sometimes deadly—lung disease in dozens of workers and now possibly in consumers as well, and the NIEHS’ knee-jerk reaction is simply to do more animal tests. Keep in mind that producers accounting for 80 percent of the market for this product have already stopped using diacetyl or announced plans to do so, and as our regulatory testing watchdogs pointed out, in experiments that have already been conducted, mice who were forced to inhale diacetyl didn’t develop the same symptoms of obliterative bronchiolitis (OB) that humans did. It sounds like the NIEHS has never heard Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote that goes something like this, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results.”
In response to PETA's warnings—which were originally submitted to the NIEHS' National Toxicology Program (NTP) in May—one scientist acknowledged that although "it's not clear how one would extrapolate findings from the animal studies to humans. … [T]hat does not lessen my enthusiasm for this study." In our newest letter, we point out that while the NTP conducts cruel experiments on mice, workers—and possibly consumers—will remain at risk for OB. How about we cut to the chase and instead of conducting irrelevant animal experiments and further delaying the protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to diacetyl, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration immediately rescind its "generally recognized as safe" designation for the chemical?
Jessica Sandler, PETA’s director of regulatory testing said it best,
“There's a crisis looming for countless workers and consumers who are exposed to diacetyl, and once again, the government's answer is to try to mimic in animals the effects already seen in people. Not only is this completely illogical approach blatantly cruel, it also directly jeopardizes the health of the citizens that the agency is charged with safeguarding."
I’ll keep you posted as this case develops, and in the meantime, here’s a great page about PETA’s behind-the-scenes battle to stop animal testing.
TAGGED:
animal tests butter flavoring popcorn
Comments
I have just about finished reading "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" at the suggestion of another animal rights activist on these blogs, and it is beyond me how ANYONE can allow animal testing (for drugs, food, cosmetics or whatever) to continue. Animal tests have NEVER contributed to what we have learned about medical science - researchers who have a vested interest in producing "results" so that they can continue to receive research dollars will usually try to "confirm" what scientists have already learned from non-animal methods such as "in vitro" testing and clinical observation. What is mind-blowing is that they often have to "confirm" the results by testing on numerous species of animals, just to find one species that responds the "correct" way to whatever treatment is being tested.
It is absolutely criminal! Millions of people have suffered and/or died due to continued reliance on animal testing, either because the "safe" treatment proves to be harmful/fatal, or because continued emphasis of research dollars on animal testing means there is much less money for non-animal research and therefore legitimate research is delayed, sometimes for decades!
And of course, in the meantime, billions of lab animals are subjected to horrific tests that will be useless in the end anyway.
I strongly recommend this book to every animal rights individual, and to anyone who is not quite there but is looking for more information.
Posted by: Michele | September 23, 2007 12:23 PM
i am a hunter. we need hunters to keep down animal populations. natural predators can't do it alone. if,for example, deer populations got too high, then they would eat up entire forests, killing them. and the next time a forest fire came around, what do you think would happen? it would be enormous! it would destroy far more than the few deer we hunters might have killed.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2007 03:28 PM
Animals' reaction to these things are always different from human reactions - for this reason all the animal-tested products have to be re-tested on humans again and again!!! but these mentally deficient taillights do it again and again - and make me and the animals sickkkkkk!
Posted by: bluebird | September 23, 2007 06:56 PM
I still cannot understand how anyone who does these animal testings could sleep at night.
Posted by: sherri | September 23, 2007 08:12 PM
Hey Michele,
You should check out "Animal Liberation", if you haven't already! :)
-Jason
Posted by: Jason Levy | September 23, 2007 10:19 PM
animal testing is the most useless and cruel thing humans can do today.
oh it has to be safe for humans?
only stupid self-centered human lovers believe that bullshit.
all animal cruelty should stop!
and human lovers go to hell!
Posted by: zodiac | September 24, 2007 12:11 AM
anonymous...what the hell are you talking about...animals were controlling their own populations loooooooong before your country ass picked up a gun. Your comment is asinine. Humans do far more harm than good. Animals are a lot more intelligent than we are in terms of conservation and taking only what you need and living SUSTAINABLE lives. We do not do that. You're hunting doesn't help- so don't even try it. Oh and next time big hunter man- grow a pair and dont post Anonymously... PS why dont you set up a hunting trip with Dick Cheney!!!!
Posted by: Russell | September 24, 2007 12:35 AM
these lab rats were bred for testing. makes me feel better, also agree with anonymous if the deer population is not kept in check how you going to feel about that deer as a new hood ornament on your car this is happening in the mid west were the deer population is very high
Posted by: jason | September 24, 2007 01:39 AM
You people who actually believe these anti hunting stories and how it is on the decline are out of your minds!! Most of you who do believe this BS are living in a concrete jungle and have forgotten that there is a great big world beyond the city lights and your little greenie cars!! Maybe instead of locking up MILLIONS of acres of huntable land none of you will ever see, try focusing your attention on some thing like starvation of humans. Since many of the national parks, that outrage you because they are hunted, are so large and remote that 99% of birdwatchers will have no desire in spending the money to reach simply because they can go to thier local park and feed the little birdies. Many of the "trophy hunters" you claim that kill innocent animals purely for the trophy, donate the meat to grateful shelters and soup kitchens. Get a clue and realize that there are other things to focus money too. Without the killing of animals not one of you POS would be on this planet today. Before VEG.com there was hunters and there will be long after your soy fields are no longer harvested because the farmers you get the soy milk from are out HUNTING!!!!! Now your chicken S%$t moderator will probably delete this but at least they read it!!
Posted by: Kevin | September 24, 2007 06:47 AM
Diacetyl? I thought that had been outlawed years ago! But what an absurd test, not only in its cruelty to the mice, but by the very nature of it, in its disregard for the humans affected by this chemical. DUH! If it's causing distress, why don't they just not use it? I believe that many of these "tests" just exist to keep the labs and their workers in business. This sounds like one of them!
Posted by: Susannah S | September 24, 2007 08:57 AM
Hey, don't look at me. The only research I've ever been involved in was on humans.
Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 24, 2007 11:46 AM
"natural predators can't do it alone. if,for example, deer populations got too high, then they would eat up entire forests, killing them. and the next time a forest fire came around, what do you think would happen? it would be enormous! it would destroy far more than the few deer we hunters might have killed."
Sir, not only are you extremely underestimating Nature to take care of itself without human intervention...you are also justifying the killing of deer based on some bizarre future world where deer overpopulation seems to take over the world.
Considering that there has NEVER been a deer overpopulation in all of history, what about all of the other animals that we don't hunt that populate forests and jungles...should we start hunting them as well because if we don't they'll overpopulate the world?
There are no facts or statistics that indicate if we stop hunting deer they will eat our forests away.
As far as forest fires...you contradict yourself. If we are overpopulated by deer and they eat away our forests...there will be nothing to burn. If you hunt the deer, and there is a forest fire. There will be no deer to die in such a fire.
Besides...where do forest fires come from anyway? Usually from Man, the same species that is killing the deer.
From where I sit, Nature would take care of itself, and be just fine if we left it alone.
Peace.
Posted by: Christopher H. | September 24, 2007 12:32 PM
To Anoy-mous
i am a hunter-hunter (I hunt hunters and have an impressive display of stuffed hunters at home. I got American red-necks, Nazis, Communists and even some Aborigines hanging on my walls). we need hunter-hunters to keep down idiot populations. natural predators can't do it alone as the idiots have weapons themselves these days. if, for example, hunter populations got too high, then they would eat up entire forests, killing them (as has already happened to the Rainforest for our burgers). and the next time a forest fire came around, what do you think would happen? it would be enormous! it would destroy far more than the few hunter we hunter-hunters might have killed.
I love hunting hunters! You know why? Cause when you kill one - you can always blame it on Dick!
PS: I did NOT know that artificial butter flavors are tested on mice in such an insane way.. I avoid artificial ingredients like I avoid needles used by HIV patients - but I have recommended some such products to friends who wanted to cut down on "real butter"...
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 12:38 PM
i think animal testing is so cruel
it should not be done
no matter what happens
WE DON"T NEED IT
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 01:21 PM
I see "Anonymous" was blindly directed to this site by the hunting lobby...so, Anonymous, what's your take on animal testing? You know, the actual subject of the post?!?!
(Never mind, I think I can guess...)
Posted by: BullyDawg | September 24, 2007 03:53 PM
I have visited this site in past months and took the time to watch some of the videos (eg: fur farms, and medical experiments) and found them to be quite horrifying. That people are allowed do commit such atrocities to animals is beyond my comprehension. Having said that I ask that you give me audience for my personal opinion. In essence, I agree with the opinions expressed here on the majority of the issues that this site addresses. I'm not certain what percentage of people that subscribe to PETA's ideals/opinions believe in GOD (as in the Cristian God Jehovah), but I personally believe he exists. He commanded people (in the bible) to be loving and kind to all of their animals, which I do to the best of my abilities (I adopt abandoned Ferrets from time to time). He also allows for us to use animals for food (as in
milk, eggs, meat, clothing, etc...). I Personally, for whatever reason, seem to be losing interest in meat as time goes on. I couldn't tell you why, and I'm sure that news will delight some of you here... (winks). Now while I may be able to substitute vegetation for meat, there are others that cannot. I would point to the Inuit Indians (eskimo's) as an example, and ask the solution for their consumption of meat. Should we keep warming the environment until it's warm enough to force them to grow their own soy and stop killing seals for food? Or force them to migrate south to a warmer climate (as in trail of tears) where they can now grow their own soy? Or is it OK for them to KEEP existing as they have for the last several thousand years? And if the LATTER is OK, then shouldn't it be OK for ME to eat meat? Now I wasn't trying to be insulting here, merely, ridiculous enough to cause people to think.
Posted by: Craig | September 24, 2007 09:59 PM
When they confirm, they try to find side effects. The reason we don't test on humans is because a human's life is more valuable than a common animal. Without confirmation, your next unrefined Rx could kill you. Still, almost all of the tests aren't needed.
Oh, and hunter-hunter person, have you any idea what Communism really is? The only idiots are the capitalists and the U.S govt.
Posted by: halo snipe | September 24, 2007 10:25 PM
Well, I see that the "hunters," so to speak, have conveniently ignored the title of this subject to once again defend their bloodlusts.
I also see that fellow animal activists have more than adequately and intelligently addressed the "hunters" with all the truths, justifications, logical points.
So that doesn't leave me with much to say except that "hunters" should admit to a few more facts that don't gloss over their stance by using "nice" terms and promoting self-glorification:
1. "bagging" is killing.
2. so "hunters" are killers.
3. "hunters" or I should say killers, spend enormous amounts of money - only to mention a few - for their killing devices, licenses, special clothing, travel expenses, and sometimes lodging expenses. Upon the first days of a certain killing season, it is known that the amount of them suddenly being absent from their places of employment,greatly disrupts their fellow co-workers, thus causing a heavier workload on them, as well as imposing an economical burden on their employers due to lack of production.
From the financial point of view, "hunters" spend more money to satisfy their bloodlust and butchering than could ever possibly be compared to their "generous" donations of corpses to feed the hungry that they are so worried about. That portrays a poor attempt at justifying their craving to kill and tells of their need for self-glorification...since they need to brag about their (malicious) efforts and sometimes have to have their pictures in the newpaper with their corpses.
So instead of spending all that money for killing expenses - since they have such a great concern about feeding the poor - that makes me wonder why they don't just go to a grocery store to purchase food items for the poor and still have enough money to buy clothes for the poor as well.
"Hunters," try as you might, there is no justification or sane excuse for killing. Therefore, there is nothing to debate. You are wrong and need to come to terms with your conscience as to why you have a desire to kill innocent beings. Perhaps you have a need to fulfill a sense of power. Well killing innocent beings is very much the opposite approach to fulfill needs that would enhance your heroic manhood (or womanhood) Instead, working towards being a quality leader for the betterment of your communites would be a lot more notable and memorable...because do you honestly think that you will ever be emulated and rememebered for killing innocent animals?
And please don't let your rifles be easily accessible to your children. They might become the next child on the news who is the focus of going on a school-shooting ramage.
Posted by: Ariel | September 24, 2007 10:37 PM
i think Kevin is missing the boat here....Vegetarians do more to help world hunger than anyone else on the earth....EVERY SINGLE DAY we dont support inefficient food sources- read up on the facts THENN post a blog comment....
Posted by: Russell | September 25, 2007 10:01 AM
Kevin: did it ever occur to you that Veg.com exists BECAUSE there were hunters (and slaughterhouses and trappers and all the other vast assortments of inhumane humans)? Also, WHAT does your hunting rant have to do with the topic of testing on mice?
Um...Zodiac - "human lovers"?
There is no disconnect between caring about animals and caring about people. All of it is part of a more compassionate life. No?
Animal testing is cruel and unnecessary; there are plenty of lab "models" to use now that don't involve animal testing.
Dr. Cochran - don't look at you? Ok, but if you don't mind, I might take a hard look at your colleagues, who walk hand-in-hand with the pharmaceutical companies that perpetuate animal testing.
Posted by: Susannah S | September 25, 2007 12:49 PM
If we find an ingredient is harming humans, why would we test it out on animals. According to the "scientists" doing this barbaric research, animals would likely respond like humans. If we are getting lung disease from it, what good is it to then pump it into animals. What could they possibly learn that they dont already know???? Personally, I think these people just get off on being paid to torture animals.
Posted by: Andy | September 25, 2007 08:48 PM
I guess it's hard to understand this, but although hunting is cruel, it is also an ancient way to stave off hunger. So sure, modern Americans don't need to hunt anymore because we have domesticated farm animals, but something to consider is the fact that the domesticated farm animals (we'll just keep factory farms out of the picture for right now) are going to be killed as well. So take your pick. There is no way to insist that all human beings stop eating animals, especially since we evolved TO eat animals, to eat whatever we could get our hands on. Vegetarianism is great, but animals WILL be eaten, and hunting WILL happen, whether it's on a farm or in the woods.
On another aspect of this discussion, to keep in consideration is the fact that deer really are overpopulated. Since humans have built up huge cities and suburbias to accommodate themselves, the REAL predators of deer have been chased off. I live in a suburbia that is overrun with deer, and besides the fact that they are a terror for anyone growing a garden or farm in the area, they also are very dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. I do not blame the deer, no, they are only making due with what they've been given, but it is not true that they are no problem whatsoever. We have thrown the whole system off balance, and now we need to do something about it. There are many options that do not support hunting, and these are great to consider. Still, no one has acted them out yet. If you feel so strongly about it, you should go somewhere where deer population actually IS a problem, where there is a current debate about hunting or where hunting is happening, and then find another method to help out.
If you say that "human lovers should go to hell" then I don't even know what to say back to you. So you think all humans should die? That is ridiculous. You're as bad as anyone else. The argument can never be won unless both sides concede that the other side has at least gotten SOMETHING right. Taking sides will get you no where.
Posted by: Chloe | December 3, 2007 03:40 PM
how do you kill animals for testing!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 12, 2007 12:57 PM
hey michele:
thats stupid
animal testing dosnt control populations when they are raised for the sole purpose to be tortured! hunting dosnt bother me but you saying that thats why people hurt animals for population issues does!
Posted by: tiff | February 13, 2008 10:38 AM