Friday, May 25, 2007

EU orders animal holocaust

Cranmer likes cute, little furry things, and intriguing, intelligent, hairy things. He is not so keen on scaly, slimy, slippery things, so he eats them with an unfettered conscience. And chickens are stupid, so he eats those also. He is mainly against vivisection, unless such research is deemed to be absolutely necessary for the benefit of humankind, not least because man is made in the image of God, and he does not expect to be standing before the majestic seat of the ineffable gerbil deity on Judgement Day.

It is widely known that the EU’s Common Agricultural policy encourages intensive farming techniques and demands the transportation of live animals for days on end, often without water. It is also widely known that the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy permits our waters to be plundered recklessly by the Spanish, and requires that perfectly edible dead fish be thrown back into the sea because they are not supposed to swim into the nets. But Cranmer has been made aware of an animal-testing horror that is soon to befall millions of cute, little furry things, and intriguing, intelligent, hairy things.

The REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals) regulations due to be imposed across the Union are concerned with chemical testing. They require products that have already been in use for the past 25 years without any problem to be tested on animals. It is estimated that this will involve the exploitation of an additional 45 million animals over the next 15 years. Such tests involve painful chemical poisoning experiments - toxicity tests – such as irritants being dripped into rabbits’ eyes, cancerous tumours grown on mice, and pregnancy trials necessitating stillborn offspring. All such tests are considered outdated in the UK, having largely been replaced by computer modelling and testing on cell cultures.

This is mindless and barbaric, yet utterly consistent with the absurdities of the CAP and the CFP. The EU pretends to be ‘green’ and environmentally friendly, but this dictatorially-imposed vivisection lunacy is an offence to common sense, and an abuse of creation. And our political masters – Labour, Conservative and LibDem – are united in their support for it. How does one change this policy? To whom does one protest? For whom does one vote? And why is the Royal Soviet Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals not spending millions of pounds on full-page advertisements to inform people of this barbarism, as it did in the campaign to outlaw fox hunting?

13 Comments:

Anonymous Observer said...

Yes it's super - at a time when energy prices are high in the EU and chemical companies find Russia or the Middle East or the Far East more conducive to low-cost energy and proximity to markets; it is highly probable that testing may well be outside the EU - or even that products incorporated into goods Made in China will not be declared for testing anyway.

When push comes to shove China might decide to introduce its own standards as it has with mobile phones and simply ban EU products from their markets unless they comply.

Some lobby group has gone overboard this time because i understand each chemical may cost £100.000 in testing fees and for some applications it may no longer be woth marketing the product in view of increased regulatory costs

25 May 2007 at 11:55  
Blogger Elaib said...

My Lord,
Sorry to point this out that the Tories were going to vote against this awful legislation until Greenpeace and chums got onto Cameron's office and ordered him to change their vote as a quid pro Quo for the Greenery support (glaciers etc).
This was leaked to the Telegraph who carried a large piece on the volte face before the vote last October.
You I suppose might consider voting UKIP, after all they were the only British party to oppose the Directive.

25 May 2007 at 12:56  
Anonymous oiznop said...

Well this is a change, Cranmer. Animals? God's creatures, i suppose, but a bit off the scale of importance, not to say nearly completely irrelevant.

25 May 2007 at 13:43  
Blogger mutleythedog said...

oiznop is wrong Your Holiness..

25 May 2007 at 14:53  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

I had hoped that we in this country had moved beyond this barbarism,we stopped the veal crates,now animals go for days without rest or water,courtesy of the eussr.The royal society for not doing anything is a joke , as are all the other organisations that pretend a respect for animal welfare,we are not allowed to disturb bats or birds that are occupying roofs or chimneys under penalty of a 2000 pound fine,yet we can infect rabbits and guinea-pigs with hiddeous diseases,with gay abandon,we can smash the sculls of thousands of seals,and allow the repulsive and brutal halal slaughter,but never a word from cwf,rspca,wwf.If we no longer need to mutilate a frog at school,surely these wonderful scientists can find an alternative to the already existing abuse of harmless small animals.

25 May 2007 at 15:23  
Anonymous Mark Wadsworth said...

Elaib asks a good question. Answer?

25 May 2007 at 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do catch up Cranmer, UKIP 'banged on' about this for years. Why all of a sudden are you now concerned?
Perhaps if you backed the right horse you could help do something about this?

25 May 2007 at 18:39  
Anonymous Snuffy said...

Who are these hideously immoral or simply insensitive people? ... Oiznop? Anonymous?

I am so pleased to read that you, Cranmer, in true form, are as admirable as ever. Though I cringe at the distinction between furry and scaly creatures. Don't get me wrong, I hate spiders and lizards as much as the next person, but their ugliness, it seems to me, should not impinge on their right to life. If one were to draw a parallel with humans, it might leave goose pimples of horror on one's spine.

The reason our treatment of animals matters is not because of we should love animals, or because animals are high up on the importance scale. It is because the way we treat other people, other things, other forms of life, reflects something in ourselves. We should show respect to the animal kingdom because when we don't, it is difficult to know when, and to whom we must show that respect.

When we show respect to animals, we are all the better for having done so. We fight for their right to live with dignity so that we too might live with dignity and be proud of who we are.

So Your Grace, your blog today fills me with hope. Hope that there are people in the world who understand what is really important.

Snuffy

25 May 2007 at 21:54  
Blogger Arthur J. said...

Not sure "holocaust" is particularly tasteful term to use here.

26 May 2007 at 00:29  
Anonymous Colin said...

"All such tests are considered outdated in the UK, having largely been replaced by computer modelling and testing on cell cultures."

These methods are normally used a a first step in the investigation. His Grace seems to have fallen prey to leftist propaganda. Fact is that neither computer models nor cell cultures are a substitute for living organisms. Without animal testing, the consumer would be the first guinea pig for all the new chemical products hidding the market every year (cosmetics, drugs etc). Even animal testing isn't able to discover all harmful effects in humans due to differences in the physiological structure, function, metabolism, excretion, distribution and absorption that exist between species.

To demand a ban on animal testing, would make more sense if we all were vegetarians. But millions of animals are killed every month by the food industry only to please our taste buds (with regard to the protein requirements of humans, soya would do the job). In addition, millions of humans have been killed by governments in wars to please the human desire of dominance and conquest. Compared to these endless massacres for no humanitarian reason at all, animal testing is at least a reasonable strategy to protect humans from harm.

26 May 2007 at 14:41  
Blogger Scott said...

Here, here, Colin!

Tho I believe this EU thing isn't actually so simple.

27 May 2007 at 22:42  
Anonymous Colin said...

Scott,

The EU thing is another story. I was talking about Cranmer's criticism of animal testing.

28 May 2007 at 22:26  
Blogger Brituncula said...

In the RSPCA's defence I would respectfully point out that they have in fact been lobbying quite hard on REACH. Some of the things that get tested are really rather strange - did you know shellfish are regularly tested on mice? The RSPCA are in a bit of a bind on more public "fuss" because they'll sound lose credibility with government scientists if they try to claim all animal experiments are pointless but they'll set themselves up for a lot of flak from more extreme groups if they admit that some experiments need to be replaced rather than simply banned.

29 May 2007 at 16:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older