¥IT-ANNI:-DE-BELLEWUE (CUP)--

¥ Yacinda Vallejo aS anyone out there ever thought about how that Gillette Shaving Lotion came to be? Or how that sheet of Bounce was lanufactured to make your clothes soft and oh-

wSlatic-free? Well, the following may be of

Merest to you, because the ingredients in your allette Foamy were achieved at the cost of lany animal lives. Gillette, Proctor and Gam- le, Colgate-Palmolive, and many others all We one thing in common (besides SOF laVing cream and soap): they test their aerUes 48 on living, breathing, defenceless animals, Practice we would call torture if it were ‘tlormed on humans. “So what?’ you might say. But what many ‘ople are unaware of is the degree of needless ‘inand suffering these tests inflict on the iMals and just how SBTC ee TUM EDT AM CON OTTO RH ¢ National Anti-Vivisection Society of the Slists more than 300 products, mainly cos- LCST TOUTS Re eet teen Manufacturing companies have various ways Aco Whether a product is “sate” USUAL SE UTR O TR Nee ETy @c MeeTIT Ret en eR Ts animals on which to put their tests to use. bbits are at the top of the list because, first, Yate inexpensive (and profit is the name of ‘Bame), and second, they are not difficult to tk With because of their gentle and peaceful Ure. These factors are Necessary to the per- Mahe of one of the most popular tests, the taize.”* This test involves putting some of €Xperimental compound (anything trom FWax to eyeshadow) into a rabbit's OYUN e SLUT TORU MT ROTA RT aR Te sitting USN CU OTT happens. After twenty-one mau Tesults are recorded and the test-rabbit CE aU interesting test is called the *Le- SA lo be Car) ab ECan bet) vey

* The LD-S0 requires the ani- force-fed or injected with the test he point of this one is to see how age ofthe compound is needed to kill 4 test-animal population. Once the BSTC Tet enough toothpaste or bleach

ee

Meee ee UMUC eee Pee

CH aaa s

to Kill it, the test is terminated. Granted, the computers would cost a lot of

ITC eiataacoUen TMU RIateRON (ee twenty million dead animals. The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) insists only that prod- ucts put on the market for human ores eRSE ToD OL COy eT are safe; it does not specify that these eROXCLUG ES be tested on animals.

Some other tests require the animals Con monkeys, dogs) to be operated on without an- aesthetic, sometimes several times over, in order to verily the progress of the test.

There are alternatives to this kind of inhu- Mane treatment, and why the major manutfac-

turers of cleaning and cosmetic prod- ucts don’t use them isa good question. Most

reer

For those who are in favour of animal- testing because they believe medical research is furthered by these experiments, a maximum of only 17% of all animal tests are used for medi- cal purposes. The remaining 83% is used for household and cosmetic artes

ucts, such as testing the ef-

not be bothered to conduct theirtests on computers or other non-living subjects because this would

costa lot of money. Mechanical and computer- ized models can be, and have been, used to reproduce physiological systems, and in-vitro studies with cell cultures are proven substitutes for animal-testing. However, converting their syringes, operating tables, and cages into com- puters and mechanized models is too expensive and bothersome. Dropping bleach into an ani- mal’s eyes is much simpler than using one’s brain to conduct the research on other models.

fects of in- gesting bleach. | be- lieve that it is safe to say that something strong enough to clean your toilet-bowl is not safe to eat.

Does your cleanliness really need to be achieved at the expense of even one dead rab-

bit? @