Boycott

Animal and environmental advocates, among other social movements, will often encourage a boycott of any product they believe has harmed animals or the environment: straws, disposable coffee cups, vaccines, cosmetics. So how do we know the extent of what has been a result of animal experimentation so that we can avoid its use?

In The Ethical Case Against Animal Experiments, Andrew Linzey and Clair Linzey make the point that even “[t]he notorious LD50 poisoning test – designed to ascertain the dose at which 50 percent of the animals to whom a substance is given die – has been carried out using water, the very stuff of life.” Even the most stringent animal activist will have had at least a glass of water today thereby inadvertently participating in animal experimentation.

It is a hard day to reconcile when one first discovers that everything we have and have ever had has been a result of animal use or abuse. It is not possible to enact a boycott on every product or ingredient as they have at one stage or another been tested on animals. Given the history of animal experimentation and the current encouragement of authorities to require (although not legally) a substance to be tested on animals before commercial human use, it is hard to even find a product which hasn’t been tested on animals at some point, if not for its commercial introduction than at least during supportive or follow-up testing.

Despite proclaiming a ‘ban’ on animal testing for cosmetics in Australia, the government and supporting parties failed to make the point that this only includes ingredients which are exclusively used in cosmetics. As most ingredients in cosmetics have use in other products, the ban is cosmetic at best.

There are products, such as modern insulin and pregnancy tests, which no longer use animals in their production or application, but the animal component was only replaced when a technological advancement was made, not as a result of activists demanding the cessation of their use. This is likely to be the case with alternatives to animal use in biomedical research, for example. The companies developing these alternatives are not doing so solely because they want to remove animals from experimentation. They are primarily doing so because there is a business case; because it will progress science and return a significant profit.

Additionally, when animal research is seen as a ‘necessary evil’, there is a significant amount of work required simply to change the colloquial responses to suggestions of boycott.

There is an emerging contemporary narrative that anyone who values animals should boycott vaccines. The history of vaccines is tied to animals more than almost any other medical product and, exacerbated by the polarising Covid-19 pandemic, has led to many animal advocates boycotting the subsequent vaccine primarily on animal testing grounds.

Centre for Contemporary Sciences CEO Dr. Aysha Akhtar, who works towards finding alternatives to animal testing, has said “There should be no tough decision to be made here. You have to protect your health. You have to protect your safety and that of your family.” We cannot advocate for animals in any capacity if we are bedridden and unable to be in close contact with others.

If we are to enact a boycott, what impact might that have on the use of animals in vaccine discovery and production?

Boycotts have, even recently, led to some companies ceasing their involvement in the use of animals in parts of their operation, however it is extremely rare and history-changing when an entire industry ceases following a boycott. This is essentially what boycotting activists are asking for: the cessation of the animal research industry.

The urgency in the production of the Covid-19 vaccines allowed biotech companies to move faster past the normally encouraged or required animals trials, but this was not as a result of a threat of boycott or pressure from animal activists, it was a result of the urgency of finding a solution to the pandemic. We did learn that animals are not necessarily necessary to the discovery of new medical products, but there is still a long way to go before the modern technologies are adopted to replace animals and government health agencies remove their reliance on animal testing data. A long way which will more likely be dictated by the investment of governments and organisations which are producing and funding drug development than by animal advocates encouraging alternatives or boycotting medicines.

Advocates may be able to exploit this approach by directly targeting the economic and development aspect of non-animal research technologies through supportive government petitioning and early education of those entering into research careers, or by supporting effective organisations who have the financial, personnel, and connection resources to.

A quick action:

Better health approaches are a cost-effective way to ensure animals aren’t used in medicines you take. By reducing your chance of illness, or the impact of your existing illness, you reduce your reliance on medical intervention. Doctors for Nutrition in Australia promote whole-food plant-based approaches to health and illness prevention and recovery, and host significant resources and links for further nutritional education.