# Harlan Boycott



## blueberryratlover (Jan 4, 2014)

Hi, I have recently learned horrifying things Harlan is doing to rats and mice. Harlan is the company that makes a very popular lab block. If you use these blocks for your rats, please stop supporting their company. Harlan breeds and sells rats that have been genetically engineered to research companies throughout the world. I can't think of a strong enough word to explain how cruel what they do is.Stop Harlan is a facebook page that shows the things they do. Warning: the facebook is graphic and hard to read.I will not buy Harlan lab blocks anymore and I hope that other people will do the same.


----------



## ArborWeek (Feb 18, 2014)

blueberryratlover said:


> Hi, I have recently learned horrifying things Harlan is doing to rats and mice. Harlan is the company that makes a very popular lab block. If you use these blocks for your rats, please stop supporting their company. Harlan breeds and sells rats that have been genetically engineered to research companies throughout the world. I can't think of a strong enough word to explain how cruel what they do is.Stop Harlan is a facebook page that shows the things they do. Warning: the facebook is graphic and hard to read.I will not buy Harlan lab blocks anymore and I hope that other people will do the same.


Woah, woah, woah, Harlan is a very respected company among universities / laboratories. What exactly has Harlan done that's so cruel? Could you post some info? I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just would like to hear some more on the subject before I decide that Harlan is a bad company.


----------



## CleverRat (Mar 9, 2014)

They use animals for testing. That basically means they inject animals with various diseases and then once they are 'done' with them, the simply euthanize them. In other words, they live a life of pain and suffering.


----------



## ArborWeek (Feb 18, 2014)

CleverRat said:


> They use animals for testing. That basically means they inject animals with various diseases and then once they are 'done' with them, the simply euthanize them. In other words, they live a life of pain and suffering.


I understand that. I know that some rats are specially bred to have obesity or to be born with diabetes, but this kind of research is invaluable to humans. I love rats and animals as much as the next person, but this kind of research saves countless lives and advances our knowledge of disease / illness. The rats are well taken care of in an academic / scientific environment and their lives are not taken for granted because the knowledge that they give us will last FOREVER.


----------



## blueberryratlover (Jan 4, 2014)

ArborWeek said:


> I understand that. I know that somfOe..e rats are specially bred to havty or to be born with diabetes, but this kind of research is very valuable to humans. I love rats and animals as much as the next person, but this kind of research saves countless lives and advances our knowledge of disease / illness. The rats are well taken care of in an academic / scientific environment and their lives are not taken for granted because the knowledge that they give us will last FOREVER.


The Facebook page Stop Harlan shows what they do. An example is that they tried removing the spinal cord of a rat and used electric shocks to get it to walk on two legs. Some of the paws had been distorted. I was alerted about Harlan through the rat rescue I foster for. They have new speed supporting Harlan.


----------



## ArborWeek (Feb 18, 2014)

blueberryratlover said:


> The Facebook page Stop Harlan shows what they do. An example is that they tried removing the spinal cord of a rat and used electric shocks to get it to walk on two legs. Some of the paws had been distorted. I was alerted about Harlan through the rat rescue I foster for. They have new speed supporting Harlan.


That sounds terrible if they actually do that! That is cruel and very unscientific. That is animal cruelty that goes too far. I still stand by my statement that laboratory rats are invaluable to scientific research, but only if conducted in a HUMANE environment.


----------



## DustyRat (Jul 9, 2012)

What!? Really? What is the FB link?


----------



## portkeytonowhere (Dec 24, 2007)

ArborWeek said:


> I understand that. I know that some rats are specially bred to have obesity or to be born with diabetes, but this kind of research is invaluable to humans. I love rats and animals as much as the next person, but this kind of research saves countless lives and advances our knowledge of disease / illness. The rats are well taken care of in an academic / scientific environment and their lives are not taken for granted because the knowledge that they give us will last FOREVER.


I agree they are saving countless human lives through research. Plus its not actually Harlan doing the testing but labs right? 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## DustyRat (Jul 9, 2012)

There are plenty of human scum In the prison system that scientists can do research on. No
need to do research on Innocent animals.


----------



## brundlefly (Mar 27, 2014)

I don't trust anything I hear on facebook unless I see credible sources.


----------



## nanashi7 (Jun 5, 2013)

Harlan does nothing but supply genetically modified similar rats. Researches infect or modify as needed. 

Harlan makes native earth as well. 

It should be noted that you support this research in most grocery purchases as well as medication you take. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vegn (Jan 2, 2014)

I agree. And doesn't it seem hypocritical to use a brand that is making food for animals to be KILLED. The same animals that you love and care for. Doesn't make since to me. More info on testing on mice and rats (not specific to Harlan) ***WARNING: Graphic***http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-laboratories/mice-rats-laboratories/

The animals are sold as "Research Models" and here are some of what they are created for.

Ovary transplant and ova transfer studies, Production of targeted mutations due to the availability of several lines of embryonic stem cells, Tumor cell growth, Leukemia, Autoimmune Disease,drugs, and hormones,General Purpose, Infectious disease, Immune Response, Osteoarthritis, Renal degeneration, Source of albino C57BL/6 embryos for chimera generation, Alcoholism, and finally Drug addiction. I stopped reading, it sickens me.

If you check what you buy, you can avoid using cruel products Cruelty Free Company Search (also look at the Leaping Bunny website) and government required testing is unavoidable but Colgate-Palmolive is fighting for regulatory change.


----------



## ksaxton (Apr 20, 2014)

I actually just had to do a research paper on animal testing for college. While it is astounding how much failure there has been in animal testing and there definitely needs to be a change, it's results are inescapable. Everyone, in some way or another has benefitted from animal testing whether they like it or not. To boycott Harlan Teklan for their cruel animal procedures, you then need to boycott basically anything that isn't completely animal testing free. That means you need to stop taking medicine too. Yes, animals in the labs are suffering unspeakable horrors. But unless you cut out literally everything even remotely connected to animal testing from your life, boycotting one company that makes quality nutrition food for your rats won't make much of a difference. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cagedbirdsinging (May 28, 2012)

It may be easier to turn away from Harlan Teklad and Native Earth simply because they are inferior foods.

Essentially, they are compressed fillers infused with synthetic nutrients, like menadione sodium bisulfite, which is a synthetic vitamin K that is a known toxin.


----------



## veimar (Feb 19, 2014)

I never used their products anyway, and now won't for sure. I'm not a scientist, but have many scientist friends who use mice in their research. They hate to do that, but that how science works. We still shouldn't forget that these are, well, just rats and mice… It is heartbreaking to see the pictures of tortured little critters, but this is not done just out of cruelty - it helps to save human lives, lives of little kids, and lives of any of us here. I love my pet rats, but when we had over 20 rats right behind our basement apartment window years ago I freaked out and called the city for an exterminator. Quite frankly I wasn't sorry for these street rats… I was so happy when they were gone and our terror ended. 
So for most people rats and mice are just annoying pests, and they wouldn't even understand what you are talking about here. I'm not justifying the cruelty, just trying to make a point that there is NO WAY to use the rats humanely in experiments, unfortunately. ;( The rats and mice for experiments are breed specifically for that purpose, and unfortunately they have to die so that we could live better. What about eating meat and poultry?? I feel very sorry for cows and pigs, but still cannot give up meat.


----------



## veimar (Feb 19, 2014)

Just wanted to add that I would NEVER buy anything from a cosmetic company that uses animal testing - in this case it is completely unnecessary. And I call up anyone to do the same - there are labels on the bottom that say "not tested on animals".


----------



## Vegn (Jan 2, 2014)

I get *some* testing for medicinal uses and agree 347% that ALL cosmetic testing is so insanely stupid and useless. Shampoos can literally BLIND rabbits and still be sold to people. At this point in time, we should know what is and isn't toxic to people in cosmetics. And the fact that they test individual ingredients, like really? You can't remove everything but that so why test it at full concentration?

And the ingredients are just bad. I never have, and don't think I ever will get the hype over it.

@veimar Sometimes, it isn't cruelty, but a lot of it blatantly is. Google Chimp Haven in Louisiana, it's were retired research chimps go, watch some of the intro videos. I don't think that anything should die so we can live better. What makes us so much better than them? Humans aren't very smart, we are destroying our Earth as if we have another to take over and do the same to, and mass farming from the meat industry causes more than 2x as many emissions as all of public transport combined. It also takes 5,000+ gallons of water and 13+ pounds of grain for 1 pound of beef (go to farmsanctuary.org) . We are evolutionary lacking in just about everything. How does breeding for a specific purpose give you the right to take a life? Feeder rats are bred for a purpose yet I'm sure most of us here would agree that that is wrong and these rats can make some of the best pets. Should we only get rats from breeders as pets because the ones at pet stores are usually meant to be feeders, or no because the breeder rats might be meant to breed more rats? *Tone is hard to transfer by reading on a screen, this is not supposed to come off harsh or mean, just philosophical*


----------



## Wendydp (Mar 3, 2014)

ArborWeek said:


> That sounds terrible if they actually do that! That is cruel and very unscientific. That is animal cruelty that goes too far. I still stand by my statement that laboratory rats are invaluable to scientific research, but only if conducted in a HUMANE environment.


Although, the scientists did sever the spines of rats (to mimic spinal cord injury ), the electrical shocks were not as implicated. This electrical stimulation was similar to the signals that the brain already sends out. As you may know, neurons communicate with both electrical and chemical signals. These scientists were recreating what our body already does in attempt to find a combination that ma help those that are paralyzed through artificial means.


----------



## blueberryratlover (Jan 4, 2014)

Harlan breeds and sells the animals to research companies. They aren't even doing things that could benefit humans in a significant way. They took a rat (4 legged) and after removing it's spinal cord, filled it with drugs and used electrical shock to get it to walk a treadmill on two legs. The problem is not that Harlan is testing on animals, it's that they are torturing rats and mice for things that aren't even going to help humans.


----------



## blueberryratlover (Jan 4, 2014)

Yes, but scientists have been able to do this without the use of lab rats. And they shouldn't test this on rats. They aren't bipedal.


----------



## blueberryratlover (Jan 4, 2014)

I agree with you. I feed my rats the salad on your website along with the other food mix. I have used Harlan for my foster rats, but now the rescue will be switching the rats to a new diet.


----------



## nanashi7 (Jun 5, 2013)

I just thought id throw it out there. This electric-stimulation is the cutting edge. It is able to treat mental illness without five hundred pills. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ratswithfoxandbear (Feb 12, 2014)

PETA is not always the best source for this information. They're the FEMEN of animal rights organization. (They bastardize animal rights and layer it with many problematic things-- sexism, racism, etc.)

However, I do think it is important to buy as ethically as you can. It is impossible to never mess us-- heck, tires of cars have animal bones and whatnot in them. This does not mean you say, "Well, whatever, if I cannot be 100%, I might as well be 0%." We do the best we can. I stay away from non-vegan cosmetics (not even vegan anymore), and I eat mostly vegan. When I buy meat (for my beau), we find local farms and shops. It's cool because we are able to do this. Not everyone can, and they should not be looked down upon for not being able to do this.

I say all of this to state that HT is something you go out of your way to buy. You buy it online. If you are purchasing food online, you can choose a different food if you want to avoid this mess. Animal testing is a hot-button issue. I have spoken to people on all sides, and it is not an issue that will be resolved soon. Unlucky for us, rats are a major source. Many of the tests are cruel, and HT does condone these actions (http://www.harlan.com/about_harlan_laboratories/animal_welfare.hl) because they breed the rats for it. They also supply the major research labs with food. All in all, that makes me feel icky even if I can conceit to the fact animal testing *had* to be done at some point. I'd also throw in that with the use of grown organs and cells, it is less and less necessary. Hopefully we get to the point where it is not happening anymore.

If you look through the HT website-- for those of you asking for proof-- they don't hide it. They list the services they provide which makes sense. The research institution has no reason or desire to hide the research they are doing. You can read through everything there. It won't go into graphic pictures of it, of course. Most people don't see it and don't need to be concerned with it.* (Note- I think we all SHOULD be concerned, but I realize that as scientists they aren't worried about animal rights and liberation.) They do need to be concerned with the scientific community knowing what services and species they offer.
http://www.harlan.com/products_and_services/research_models_and_services/surgical_services

Go by other food if it bothers you. Spread the word but definitely try to leave PETA out of it. They're hypocrites that rally against animal testing but use non-vegan medicine. I am not saying we should not use medicine. I am saying practice what you preach. (This is the president, I am speaking about, by the way.)


----------



## Vegn (Jan 2, 2014)

Yes, PETA isn't the best source for everything, but they do have a lot of information. Some people can't go vegan or vegetarian and I understand that, sadly the meat industry is subsidized by tax dollars (at least in the US) and it is therefore cheaper to eat that way. 

Many of the experiments are useless. Like when they remove the skin from the penis of mice and electrically stimulate them to see if they can still get erections and procreate.


----------



## Wow (Mar 26, 2014)

I think that not even Peter Singer himself would suggest that we ban all animal testing. Whether or not we think all animal testing should be banned (and although I agree with a comment above, that suggests it doesn't follow that is killing an animal helps us to live better, we have a right to kill or torture), I think the issue we can agree upon is that the awareness of the amount of suffering is not enough. First we must see that animal suffer, and we must first sympathize. Really sympathize, the same way we would sympathize with dogs and cats (the distinction between animals that ate pets, food, and test subjects are arbitrary). If we have this kind of sympathetic attitude, if and when we decide to experiment on them, we would think twice, we would feel guilty, we would wish we didn't have to make that choice. The way things are right now, animals are used for food and testing easily and casually. We block out the amount of suffering we caused. Of course, like one comment suggests, we can't live in the society without relying animal product (even though Vagans are doing exemplary job at living the conscientious way), but we can choose to be aware, to try to do better, and to always do our best under our circumstances. So the attempt to do right by the animal might start with doing less animal testing, and until the people in the animal testing business do better, we can stop supporting companies that supply food and supply animal to labs. This doesn't mean we have to stop taking medicine. We don't argue here (although we might, with another argument) that we have to stop animal testing entirely. We just ask for a conscientious scientific community, we ask them to be more careful, and we ask them to have mercy to animals as they do to humans). And we also have to live under our circumstances. In this way, we can take medicine, and at the same time not supporting the company that's supplying testing animals. It's only illogical if you think ethical issues are black and white, either/or situation. Ethical issues are mostly not either/or. So I think we can do our best even though it's not perfect. And that we should be able to boycott HT without having to claim that all animal testing should be abolished.


----------



## LilCritter (Feb 25, 2014)

True, as organs are being grown, they still won't give a viable model for many diseases. Drugs, viruses, bacteria, mutations, they all work on different parts of the body in different ways. We'd never be able to cure Alzheimer's with just brain tissue. It just wouldn't work. What if it cures the disease, but causes heart failure? We'd never know that until we started giving the medicine to people and they started having heart attacks. Using animals (yes, I agree that not all animal testing is required), we are able to see how something works on the level of an entire organism and we NEED to see things working on that level. Curing diseases just through tissue testing just isn't a viable option.
I agree, not all animal testing is needed. This is especially so in regard to cosmetic research. However, when it comes to disease-related research, I cannot help but stress the need to test things on levels beyond tissue. In addition, I do not think that a boycott by pet owners on the HT company would damage them much. Most of their income is likely to come from large research corporations who are making our medicines, new methods of surgery, or strides in understanding the human knowledge of how the brain works.


----------



## Wendydp (Mar 3, 2014)

blueberryratlover said:


> Harlan breeds and sells the animals to research companies. They aren't even doing things that could benefit humans in a significant way. They took a rat (4 legged) and after removing it's spinal cord, filled it with drugs and used electrical shock to get it to walk a treadmill on two legs. The problem is not that Harlan is testing on animals, it's that they are torturing rats and mice for things that aren't even going to help humans.


You're using loaded language that can skew the reader's opinion if they're not well informed. They did in fact sever the spinal cord, but they did not "fill it with drugs" and used "electrical shock" rather they used drugs with chemicals that mimic the ones our bodies already produces during synaptic communication. Same goes for the "electrical shock". They used electrical simulation ("shock" has a negative connotation that gives the idea that they were externally shocking the rat to cause pain), at the same level of the currents that our bodies already produces during neuronal communication. There has to be a certain amount of electrical activity before our neurons reach action potential. The reason they had it walk on two legs was because the rats' hind legs were the ones that were paralyzed. This research is beneficial or both human and animals as this chemical-electrical stimulation combination had not been tried before. Why for animals? With a quick search for rat paralysis, many sites come up...apparently hind leg paralysis is common in pet rats. Although, this treatment probably won't be affordable just yet, maybe one day it will be.


----------



## ratswithfoxandbear (Feb 12, 2014)

Wendydp said:


> You're using loaded language that can skew the reader's opinion if they're not well informed. They did in fact sever the spinal cord, but they did not "fill it with drugs" and used "electrical shock" rather they used drugs with chemicals that mimic the ones our bodies already produces during synaptic communication. Same goes for the "electrical shock". They used electrical simulation ("shock" has a negative connotation that gives the idea that they were externally shocking the rat to cause pain), at the same level of the currents that our bodies already produces during neuronal communication. There has to be a certain amount of electrical activity before our neurons reach action potential. The reason they had it walk on two legs was because the rats' hind legs were the ones that were paralyzed. This research is beneficial or both human and animals as this chemical-electrical stimulation combination had not been tried before. Why for animals? With a quick search for rat paralysis, many sites come up...apparently hind leg paralysis is common in pet rats. Although, this treatment probably won't be affordable just yet, maybe one day it will be.


I do have a question, though. Legitimately as I do not know the answer.

Did they use rats that already had this "so very common" paralysis (which I have never heard of), or did they paralyze the legs first? At which case, I'd say is pretty cruel if this condition is common enough in rats.

It's an honest question coming from someone who is curious.


----------



## lindzmichelle (Jan 2, 2014)

dustyrat said:


> there are plenty of human scum in the prison system that scientists can do research on. No
> need to do research on innocent animals.


 agree 100%!!!


----------



## brundlefly (Mar 27, 2014)

Vegn said:


> Yes, PETA isn't the best source for everything, but they do have a lot of information. Some people can't go vegan or vegetarian and I understand that, sadly the meat industry is subsidized by tax dollars (at least in the US) and it is therefore cheaper to eat that way.


Dunno about that.. Steak is more expensive than a bunch of carrots.
I'm not vegetarian because of finances, I am because I like meat. I also like animals. But our bodies were designed to eat meat. Tuna is super healthy for you, and so is white meat. After all, the native american word for "vegetarian" is "bad hunter"


----------



## Gannyaan (Dec 7, 2012)

Vegn said:


> Some people can't go vegan or vegetarian and I understand that, sadly the meat industry is subsidized by tax dollars (at least in the US) and it is therefore cheaper to eat that way.
> .


Oh yes! Speaking as having live years as a Vegetarian, then eating whatever, now eating mostly vegan ... All on a student budget .... I can say first hand for like 1000 reasons why it's actually more expensive . People don't really get it, since it seems counter intuitive....

After knowing this ..... I will not buy HT. I was going to try their foods to supplement my girls' new home made diet. 
As a researcher who worked with others closely who did animal research (I had the option and declined ..... ) it's really complicated. I'm on the fence about some issues for many reasons, so I'd rather not. Simple as that . I am happy at least people are being made aware of what the company does so they can make informed decisions either way  . I totally understand both views.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## veimar (Feb 19, 2014)

I read this article yesterday, and I got progressively pissed off while reading it!  This is an example of a cruel, senseless study that doesn't contribute anything to human health and is conducted just out of plain curiosity. 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...y_smell_of_male_researchers_mcgill_study.html


----------



## dr.zapp (Dec 24, 2012)

I think I am the only person here with first-hand knowledge of the subject, as I have been doing cancer research in animals (rats and mice) for the past 14 years, mostly with Harlan animals. As has already been said- anyone who is against animal testing should not seek medical treatment for anything, since all of it has been supported by animal models. We have increased the average human lifespan by 20 years as a result. Perhaps you should consider suicide at 70 to offset that? ;-)

It may be easy to think of animal researchers as inhumane, but nothing could be further from the truth. To be a good scientist that uses animals, you have to be committed to their care, 24/7. If your animals are unhealthy, then your results are garbage. Most of the rats I have cured of brain cancer have lived out the remainder of their lives as members of our family, because I got so attached to them. The white rat (Obie) in my avatar is one of those.

The animals we use receive the best care possible... better than most people in the hospital. The experiments we propose are all reviewed by an independent board to determine necessity and impact, and to determine the lowest number of animals needed. I can't just go buy some animals and torture them. Every step of an animal experiment is reviewed to make sure it is humane *and* necessary.

I would much rather use human subjects than animals, but so far, the two groups who took that route (Nazis and Japanese in WWII) did not end up doing so well...LOL. Death row inmates would be a good source. It would save billions in medical research.
Some have proposed that we could do the same type of testing in silico or in vitro. At some point it may be possible to do some things- indeed we have already started. However, life is far too complicated and we know far too little about it. Thinking we can replicate it is a great overestimation of our understanding or abilities.


----------



## dr.zapp (Dec 24, 2012)

On a personal note- I sustained a spinal cord injury 7 years ago that resulted in complete paralysis from the sternum down. The original poster was upset about some of the animal testing used to study spinal cord injury. However, it is such research that has resulted in amazing advances such as this recent report- http://www.nih.gov/news/health/apr2014/nibib-08.htm 
(and here http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/epidural-stimulator-trial)
I know one of the participants (Dustin) personally- I was his peer mentor when he was first injured in 2009, and I was almost in the study myself. Before you get angry about the research methods used to find cures for paralysis, you should try living with it. Perhaps you could volunteer as a research subject in place of the animals? ;-)


----------



## Wendydp (Mar 3, 2014)

dr.zapp said:


> On a personal note- I sustained a spinal cord injury 7 years ago that resulted in complete paralysis from the sternum down. The original poster was upset about some of the animal testing used to study spinal cord injury. However, it is such research that has resulted in amazing advances such as this recent report- http://www.nih.gov/news/health/apr2014/nibib-08.htm
> (and here http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/epidural-stimulator-trial)
> I know one of the participants (Dustin) personally- I was his peer mentor when he was first injured in 2009, and I was almost in the study myself. Before you get angry about the research methods used to find cures for paralysis, you should try living with it. Perhaps you could volunteer as a research subject in place of the animals? ;-)





dr.zapp said:


> I think I am the only person here with first-hand knowledge of the subject, as I have been doing cancer research in animals (rats and mice) for the past 14 years, mostly with Harlan animals. As has already been said- anyone who is against animal testing should not seek medical treatment for anything, since all of it has been supported by animal models. We have increased the average human lifespan by 20 years as a result. Perhaps you should consider suicide at 70 to offset that? ;-)
> 
> It may be easy to think of animal researchers as inhumane, but nothing could be further from the truth. To be a good scientist that uses animals, you have to be committed to their care, 24/7. If your animals are unhealthy, then your results are garbage. Most of the rats I have cured of brain cancer have lived out the remainder of their lives as members of our family, because I got so attached to them. The white rat (Obie) in my avatar is one of those.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this!!!!!!!!!


----------



## annoellyn (Sep 19, 2013)

i have to agree with dr.zapp on all accounts. it's terrible that SOME people misuse animals in the lab but they don't represent the majority. Three of my close friends works in a lab with animals and they are, as stated above, kept in good health and treated well.


----------



## veimar (Feb 19, 2014)

Dr. Zen, thank you so much for your input!!! We all were probably waiting for someone like you to contribute here!
I was horrified to hear about your spine injury… I'm sorry for a personal question - are you better now? Thank you again for your posts!


----------



## Gannyaan (Dec 7, 2012)

dr.zapp said:


> I think I am the only person here with first-hand knowledge of the subject, as I have been doing cancer research in animals (rats and mice) for the past 14 years, mostly with Harlan animals. As has already been said- anyone who is against animal testing should not seek medical treatment for anything, since all of it has been supported by animal models. We have increased the average human lifespan by 20 years as a result. Perhaps you should consider suicide at 70 to offset that? ;-)


Um, no, I do not think that people who are against animal testing should commit suicide at the age of 70. In any case your statement is an oversimplified version of how life span has been increased. Ex. Researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and several British universities published a paper in the British Medical Journal titled “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” The researchers systematically examined animal studies and concluded that little evidence exists to support the idea that animal experimentation has benefited Between 1900 and 2000, life expectancy in the United States increased from 47 to 77 years. Although animal experimenters take credit for the greatly improved life expectancy rate, medical historians report that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the fact that people are living longer lives.

Now, I am not saying that animal testing never ever benefits humans. It's actually the opposite... That's the reason why we use animals instead of other methods. But don't forget, other industries use animals in testing things like make up, perfume, new cleaning agents, new paints, new pesticides, new sweeteners and preservatives etc etc etc ... What about people who want to reform animal testing, by asking for replacements when appropriate, reduction in the number of animals when appropriate and refinement of testing methods ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing)... What about people who think animals should never be used in the testing of new cosmetic products? Harlan has a partnership in France with Bertin Pharma who offers R&D outsourcing and bioreagent tools for companies that include cosmetic companies... Hmm. 

I hate to state the obvious, but even though Ethics board are becoming more stringent in US about ensuring that animal testing is necessary/humane, ethics regulations are different worldwide. Think about human rights in countries all over the world.... Now think about what their animal testing and animal welfare regulations are.......

I'm sure we'd all like to believe all ethics boards follow guidelines so that only certain methodology animal testing that promote only humane and necessary testing.... This is definitely not true world wide, and what is "necessary" (even in North America) still has a subjective element... If you have never seen a researcher who uses unnecessarily painful methods or uses far too many animals/has too many die from procedures unrelated to the actual testing (like ones that have their grad students doing part of the prep surgery for the animals and having these **** students kill far too many in the process....).. And if you've never seen any studies where you've thought "hmm, that research seems unnecessary".... Then you're really lucky.

Some studies are just better off using different methods, but continue to use animal methods in their design. Obviously, researchers who specialize in animal models/prefer them are going to use animal models when designing their studies (duh), and are probably not going to just be like "you know what, I'm going to drop this idea that could get me funded/published and tell my colleague that specializes using a different method that his would be more appropriate"..... It's not always about ground breaking research on spine injuries and cancer. Many areas of medicine use animal studies... This article is just one example questioning how appropriate animal models are in neuropsychophamacological studies in schizophrenia. http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v23/n3/full/1395545a.html. And that's only one... It's actually a decent read. But this piece of review doesn't detract from studies trying to improve drugs to reduce the sometimes horrific metabolic side effects of antipsychotics. There is a grey area. 

Without people advocating for animal welfare in testing, we'd still have really horrible regulations and inhumane methods that were approved to too long ago... http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/may/20/thepeople-investigative-journalism 
http://elizabethely.com/2010/06/03/tobacco-companies-still-testing-on-dogs/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/why-animal-experimentatio_b_3997568.html 
http://www.neavs.org/research/testing

Many people believe that that if we are saving one human life, then hundreds, thousands or millions of animals deaths are justified. If one million rats had to die to save one child, I think the great majority of people would say "do it". Example, there are animal models studying progeria.... There are 100 people on the whole planet who have progeria. Out of more than 7 billion. 0.0000014%. I'm not saying we shouldn't do those animal studies, but what I'm saying is that in using animals for research, the inherent stance is that human lives and progress are more valuable than the lives of other beings. Therefore we have to use them for our benefit (ex. cure our diseases), we should be able to. The argument against this is a moral argument, not a scientific one. It says that humans do not have the right to kill other beings for our own benefit and use them toward our means. It's mostly a philosophical debate ( although there are scientists who are moving away from animal models for other reasons http://www.neavs.org/research/testing ). The OP just wanted to share some info and let people know that if they feel the same way they should boycott the product; I'm happy they did. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jessiferatu (Apr 30, 2014)

Some animal testing is extremely beneficial to our collective knowledge, and some animal testing is absolutely cruel and horrific. Sometimes both. All the animal testing I've read and heard about absolutely turns my stomach and makes me want to cry, while simultaneously making me pretty angry. I'm a sensitive one. This is a subject I am torn about (clearly). I try to avoid purchasing things that are tested on animals, but I am not vegetarian or vegan and so I suppose I am sort of a hypocrite in that regard.  I love science and I think scientific progress is a good thing, but I sincerely wish there was a way to gather knowledge without causing any harm.


----------



## cagedbirdsinging (May 28, 2012)

Unfortunately, this is just one of those things that can never be a black and white issue. The best we can do is to make a personal decision for ourselves and our families and rest assured that we've made the right call for ourselves.

I still think it's easier to boycott Harlan Teklad foods because it's simply an inferior food, though.


----------



## Rattielover965 (Apr 26, 2016)

I'm sorry to comment on this since it's a few years old, but I was just wondering if this was still true. Did they change or are they still the same?


----------



## Jaguar (Nov 15, 2009)

Rattielover965 said:


> I'm sorry to comment on this since it's a few years old, but I was just wondering if this was still true. Did they change or are they still the same?


They are now called Envigo and are a provider of animals used for laboratory testing, including rats. I highly doubt much, if anything, has changed. Read the opinions presented on this thread & elsewhere and draw your own conclusions.

I am really surprised so many people weren't aware of this, honestly


----------



## MaryArch (Dec 5, 2016)

I had to do some animal research work in college for my major. It's actually where my girls came from. I rescued them from being euthanized. I agree that animal testing is something that makes me angry, but it is also something that has saved countless lives. After having seen our facilities and after having to actually put a rat down due to illness, I can say that (at least where I am) the animals are treated very very well.


----------

