Animal Rights and Pressure Groups - Coursework Example

Animal Rights and Pressure groups Animal welfare and rights groups lobby government to support their interest, for instance, animal-friendly laws. The protection of animal welfare has existed since the 19th century. Pressure groups are an organized group that endears to influence government policy to protect or promote a particular interest. Pressure groups operate outside the political framework and at times use illegal means such as road barricading, violent protests, invading meetings and destroying animal testing laboratories (Browne 357). The prevention of cruelty to Animals Act 1849 advocated a creative technique such as broadening the scope of cruelty and extending criminal liability to third parties including employers for enhancing cruelty. Apart from the cruelty, the Act issued penalties on causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. Early advocators against the vivisection of animals were pragmatic, but the growing public opinion in the 1860s led to constraints on animal experimentation comprising cruelty. Pressure groups and animal welfare groups maintained steady pressure in favour of protecting animals (Grant 20). In Britain, Welfare groups have been active since the 19th century, but the advocacy of animal rights is a recent affair. Henry Salt formed the Humanitarian League; he was among the very first advocates of animal rights. Their group formed the league for the prohibition of cruel sports which was later renamed to LACS (Garner 61). In the U.S, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (regulated by the FDA) does not require products to be tested using animals to authenticate their safety. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) a federal law provides for the standards animals should receive at research facilities. However, it excludes almost 95% of animals that are in the labs such as the mice, rats, birds, fish and reptiles. The government has issued mandate to protect animals o various agencies which include; Public Health Service, United States department of Agriculture (USDA), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), and Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). Animal cruelty is common in laboratory testing. In the labs, they are constantly mutilated and subjected to suffering and psychological pain. They are routinely restrained and dissected without anaesthesia or painkillers whatsoever. However, much of the torture is legalized. Test conducted on animals and are legal include; poisoning, burning, mutilating, smoking, starving them off, blinding, drowning, dissecting without anaesthesia and electrocuting. The U.S government openly supports the laboratory testing on Chimpanzees. However, UK prohibits it. Also Belgium, Germany, Holland and Austria have banned cosmetic testing on animals. In EU, as of 2013, the organization prohibited the use of animal testing in cosmetic testing pursuant to EU regulations. Use of animals in testing for cosmetics safety began in the United States around 1933 after an eye-lash darkening treatment known as Lash lure blinded a lady (Willet, 17). The incident caused a huge outcry, thus prompted Eleanor Roosevelt to campaign for stricter regulation of cosmetic products. Animal tests have been conducted to investigate; skin and eye itching, where chemicals are rubbed on bare skin or dripped into the eyes of animals. Repeated force-feeding research, it usually last for weeks to find out if any side effects, signs of general illness appear. In 1938, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed the FDA act to provide safeguards against harmful effects of cosmetic use. The U.S now required the use of animal test to ensure safety of cosmetics before human use. In 1966, the coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC), a group of citizens including the Humane Society of the United States, developed the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals in an effort to create an international non-animal testing standard code (Willet, 16). In 2002, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium banned use of animal testing for cosmetic safety. In 2009, the EU also banned the use of animals in cosmetic testing. L’Oreal, the global leader in cosmetic industry lodged a legal protest, however, other beauty and cosmetic products manufacturers supported the cruelty-free products. According to the U.S National Academy of Sciences, animals are used in testing cosmetic safety because they provide vital data for evaluating the hazardous potential of the cosmetic products used by humans. Advocates of animal testing argue that conducting the tests on humans is far much dangerous as it risks the safety of human subjects, thus endangering their lives. Animal testing is so as to protect the health and safety of human consumers. The concern in animal testing is about the ethical treatment of animals and reliability of the tests when evaluating its safety on human use. Studies have shown that animal tests are not that accurate due to the differences in animal and human tissue, especially the distribution of the blood vessels and skin reactions. Also, the toxicity levels administered to the animals differs from what the human user applies or administers. It is also inhumane to cause an animal discomfort, allergic reactions and bleeding (Willet, 16). Animal test has also been identified to be inconclusive as different animal species react differently when exposed to a similar chemical. The moral underpinnings of animal welfare, which many actionists believe, justify and even necessitates their actions. Some of the animal protection welfare movements still hold onto the traditional welfare thought (Garner, 63). The American Humane societies and the Animal Welfare institute located in Washington DC (founded 1951) advocates for the reduction of the total sum of pain and anxiety inflicted on animals to enhance the humane treatment of laboratory animals and to reform the cruelty of food animals. In Britain, FRAME, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and Humane Slaughter Association also advocate the humane treatment of animals within the laboratory. FRAME performs almost similar roles as the Medical Research Modernisation Committee. Their activities are by the three Rs’ approach adopted from Russell and Burch (1959). It involves reducing the number of animals used in the experiment, refining the procedures so that animal suffering could be reduced and replacing animals in the long term (Garner, 63). The Humane Society of the U.S and the Humane Society International are towards the end of animal testing. In the U.S, the Be Cruelty-Free campaign aims to promote a situation whereby animals will not have to suffer to develop cosmetics. The Humane Cosmetics Act was incorporated in the U.S; it prohibits animal testing for developing cosmetics products in the U.S. In democratic countries, pressure groups are there, some campaign politically, they advocate for animal welfare, they include; The American Anti-vivisection Society (USA), The Animal Liberation Brigade (USA). Others campaign through legal means such as; The National Association for Biomedical Research (USA) (Davies, 8). In the UK animal welfare rights, players include; Animal Aid, they campaign peacefully against all forms of animal abuse and advocate a cruelty-free animal lifestyle. They undertake undercover investigations after which they publicize the findings. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), it comprises of anonymous individuals and small groups of people who participate in direct action protests. They damage property belonging to companies believed to cause animal cruelty with an aim of causing financial loss to them. The group claim to have a code of conduct such as not harming individuals or animals but the victims of the groups primitive actions might argue differently. British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, they openly oppose the dissection and experiments involving animals. They also campaign peacefully. The league Against Cruel Sports, it is the major anti-hunting campaign group. They have a host of networks of wildlife sanctuaries in the West Country. London Animal Action, the group advocates on animal rights, welfare and supports extremists jailed for direct protests. Oxford Animal rights Group, its aim is to object the proposed animal laboratory in Oxford. People for the Ethical treatment of Animals, it is the largest animal rights organization. Its membership totals over 800,000 members. It focuses on in four key areas where animals suffer the most; factory farms, laboratories, fur trade and the entertainment industry. The royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, it is a charity organization which comprises of 323 uniformed inspectors and 146 animal collectors. Their role is to investigate animal cruelty complaints and initiate proceedings to prosecute the perpetrators. The Speak Campaign, it was born after the success of the SPEC (Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge). The campaign is now opposed to the proposed construction of animal laboratory at Oxford University. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), it’s against the Huntingdon Life Sciences, its directors, suppliers and employees due to animal experimentation. The group has waged violence against the company but are now subject to a court order. Uncaged, based in Sheffield it is an anti-vivisection right group against Procter and Gamble against animal to human transplants. The Vegan Society, it advocates the adoption of the Vegan lifestyle, and they do not eat animal products whether is milk or eggs. Viva, it promotes Vegan diet. West midlands Animal Action and they organize peaceful protests on different animal welfare issues. However, the growth of the radical movement in recent years has grown; this has caused disdain within professional pressure and welfare groups. Conflict between competing ideologies has divided the groups into terms of rational and irrational. Some animal welfare activists and pressure groups have resulted to employing extreme measures such as violence and threats (Deegan, 15). Some violent acts witnessed include hoax bomb threats, death threats, property damage, arson and effigies. For instance, in the case against Huntingdon, SHAC published addresses and phone numbers of directors of Phillips and Drew stating that it was ‘payback time’ for investing in animal cruelty. Shortly after, they were mailed with hoax bombs from people claiming to be representing the Animal Liberation Front. Huntingdon employees and directors have had their homes attacked, and property destroyed (Deegan, 16). Huntingdon shareholders were also warned to sell their shares or have their homes ‘invaded’. It is unacceptable for a group of individual to protest outside people houses in an intimidating manner. Such action goes against the Harassment laws, especially when some research staff receives hate mail letters, hoax bombs and violent home invasions form protestors. More so the affected firms are raising concern over the effect of such protests over the economy. Security costs rise especially when dealing with such activism. Work Cited Browne, Ken. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2011. Print. Davies, Jamie A. Replacing Animal Models: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Culture-Based Biomimetic Alternatives. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Internet resources. Deegan, Denise. Managing Activism: A Guide to Dealing with Activists and Pressure Groups. London: Kogan Page, 2001. Print. Garner, Robert. Animals, Politics, and Morality. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2004. Print. Grant, Wyn, The Regulation of Animal Health. Routledge, 2013. Print. Willett, Julie A. The American Beauty Industry Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood, 2010. Print. Read More