George Guimarães

VEDDAS - Ethical Vegetarianism, Defense of Animals and Society

It was especially interesting to have acted in this particular moment of the struggle for animal rights in Brazil. I could see scientists who kill animals for economic reasons claiming to be interested in the welfare of those who by their hands lose their lives. I could still see how appellant's argument based on false need to use animals for the advancement of science, claim that this, unfortunately, is still well accepted by society.

I could see lawmakers elected on the platform of animal protection corroborating the discourse of scientists and others interested in maintaining this archaic model that has now extended its lifetime. Lawmakers who had the support of the community carrying the flag of animal advocacy played a very important role for this negative result, because when calarem up (or in some cases to position themselves favorable '=' adoption of the Law) passed the erroneous message that animal rights advocates are in agreement with the successful outcome. We are not!

Was it all a big mess or an important lesson? Believe the first would be the most serious mistake and also the most naive, because what is happening is nothing less than the throwing open of inconsistency, both on the side of those who live at the expense of the animal model as the defending socks solutions to mitigate their plight. The whole incident served to make it even clearer that the deficiency animal movement has its representation in the legislature of that country, considering that those who claim to represent the voice of the animals exercised their power to favor the oppressors, strengthening them further to regulate the fallacy is that animal research, and did so without objection, simply accepting the false argument that the passage of this law would reduce the suffering of animals in laboratories incarcerated. Despite the lack have been more severe among those who use the flag of animal advocacy, neglect and bias in listening prevailed among all legislators.

At other times, it was possible to vivisectors do what they wanted with animals within the four walls of their laboratories, without any interference of public opinion. Today, it is no longer possible. Was 1977 Henry Spira first led a campaign to end animal testing in an institution. Their campaign was successful even then. In the decade of 80, the matter became public for the first time via television, when the press reported the unprecedented images of the interior of a vivisection lab.

Already in this first moment, there was the question about suffering imposed on animals and on our right to use them for educational or scientific purposes. Later, added to this is the active questioning of the validity of these experiments to human health. Almost 30 years later, in an unprecedented debate in Brazil, the federal legislature gives a huge step towards backward, contrary legislative trends that can be observed in countries with more advanced legislation.

We go back, throughout Brazilian society, and the decision was made by the few without all sides of the debate had been heard. Even though lawmakers sought and provided support for 23 thousand citizens who expressed through a petition to request the non-approval of the law, were ignored in both legislative houses of our country.

During the discussion phase mediated pela imprensa, we could observe an expected terrorist rhetoric in defense of the interests of vivisectors, used the same today and forever to mask its fallacies and methods obscurantist, under the false claim that the animal model would irreplaceable advancements for the good of humanity. At the same time, they very conveniently forget to consider the failures of the animal model, which certainly overlap the alleged benefits. Going beyond, allege the lack of substitute methods, precisely this lack that exists as a result of their own lack of interest in developing them. Who else would fit the development of these alternatives is not the scientists themselves? The animal rights advocates put the ethical problem and it is up to scientists seeking solutions to the stated problem. Nevertheless, in many cases, substitutive models already exist, but these are not always convenient to them from the standpoint of economic, especially when, beyond the individuals themselves, also talk of the industry. Especially, they are not convenient from the point of view of comfort-and professional development, since migrating to the models of experimentation with substitutive methods they would have to relearn and it would cost them time, money and, above all, an open mind to change.

The undersigned VEDDAS published by asking non-approval of the bill 1.153/95, to Lei Arouca, regulating animal experimentation, received 5.000 signatures only 24 hours, reaching 13.000 signatures only 5 days, 20.000 signatures only 3 weeks. On the other hand, the undersigned containing opposite, organized by an organization that defends the interests of vivisectors and demanded urgency in the vote on the bill, subsequent meeting, over 3 months, 3.500 signatures only. This means that public opinion contrary to the approval of the bill obtained popular support 4 times greater in only one sixth of the time. Considering the lack of resources available to groups of animal rights, whose structure is incomparably lower than the industries that profit from animal exploitation, we have this popular expression would be even greater if it were set these forces.

The strong popular opinion contrary to animal testing that can be found in the research conducted by the media in these months of debate and also disclosed by the undersigned (23.000 with a lei versus 3.500 for the law) is more of a reflex to be increasingly obvious fallacy and inadequacy of the animal model. This refinement of public opinion also demonstrates the ethical perception which fortunately has grown in our society, in particular as regards sensitivity to the animals. Unfortunately, influenced by the superb speech scientists, parliamentarians proved unwilling to listen to opinion of other representatives of this society dictates our democratic.

There are still many steps to be conquered and the goal we seek is not just this outcome on the approval of Law Arouca. Whenever the time comes when the false arguments and allegations failures are placed face to face with the truths consistent. Regarding vivisection, from the point of view of ethics, this point is reached. The obscurantism behind this powerful economic structure can no longer sustain itself before the eyes of ethics. This structure subjugating other species and only thus is able to perpetuate the current model (a model that profits from disease and not health, that postpones the findings of the inves unravels them) is bound to be extinct. Unfortunately, confronted with the prevailing political and economic interests, we found that this moment was temporarily postponed. But as with all social justice movements, when the time comes change driven by ethics, time of political and economic change, inexorably, not long in coming. I'm sure you'll see this change happen even in my lifetime.

Showing the progression towards the inevitable, confusing situations like the present to start setting up: vivisectors claim to be concerned with the welfare of the animals whose lives are exterminated by their own hands and, at the same time, said some animal advocates team up to those who oppress animals, as if their struggles were the same. We know that these struggles are not the same in the same way that we know we can not take life while declaring there was interest in the welfare of him whose life was taken. The fact that scientists obscurantist be compelled to ally with the arguments of animal advocacy only throws open its lack of alternatives in the search unsuccessful for covering up their flaws.

The rights movements always win. Thus the rights of blacks, Women, children and so will the animal rights. The trail we have to go on the path of liberation animal until we achieve our ultimate goal is still long. But with regard to animal experimentation, this achievement is only a matter of time, because this practice is already with their days numbered.

The fate of the whole truth is to be desvendada. The time for the truth about animal testing is unveiled in full is directly related to the efforts of animal rights activists. Therefore, sooner or later, our choice, the public will be definitely informed and immune to false claims of vivisection industry that obscures this truth that is motivated by nothing more than their own economic interests. The inability of vivisectors to sustain its own scientific fallacy front of the public remains mitigated only by the use of political and economic mechanisms, as was the case with the approval of Law Arouca. But history shows us that the support through this game forces have life time counted from the moment a legion of activists, scientists, lawyers and other citizens dedicated to the truth, ethics and justice begin to act to revolutionize the current scenario.

In due time, vivisectors will find themselves with no alternative (now and in fact even the indulgence) and will have to form alliances with the true defenders of animal rights so that together they can finally walk the path that will lead us to the answers we seek about the physiology and human health, without this we have to subdue and usurp the life and liberty of other species.

George Guimarães is a nutritionist and president of VEDDAS - Ethical Vegetarianism, Defense of Animals and Society

Contact: www.veddas.org.br / veddas@veddas.org.br