Animal Testing and Climate Change: Is there a link?
The only identification this beagle had before being rescued was its ear tattoo.
While out on a run this past weekend, I came across a Beagle meetup at a local dog park. I hit pause on my watch and walked over to ask if any of the beagles came from the Envigo testing and breeding facility, which was finally shutdown in 2022 after fierce pressure on the USDA to do so. Thousands of beagles, approximately 3600, were then sent across the US to rescues to finally feel grass under their feet and loving human contact. I was lucky enough to get to spend time with many of the 80 beagles who flew to the Oregon Humane Society. Seeing how quick they were to trust us, the joy they felt as they got to explore outdoors for the first time, and the heartbreak I felt when I saw the tattoo identification codes inside their trademark long ears, I felt incensed that humans could use these beautiful animals to cruelly test a variety of products on.
I first started contemplating that animal testing has no part in a sustainable society as a middle schooler who was learning about cosmetics. Like many girls my age, we were drawn to the sweet smells of The Body Shop in the mall. The Body Shop was the first place where I was ever confronted with ideas about fair trade, sustainable sourcing, non-toxic ingredients, and the fact that many cosmetics are tested on animals. I became militant about what I bought after that, choosing Aussie shampoo for the smell and the fact that the bottle clearly started that they did not test on animals. There was no way in my mind that making sustainable choices that were good for the planet could come with a side of animal cruelty.
Animal testing facilities can be enormous, with significant environmental impacts. The Envigo breeding facility in Cumberland County, Virginia was large enough to hold 5,000 beagles. The site of the new Beagle Freedom Project Freedom Fields, which is located where a shuttered testing facility was, is 30 acres. The ironically named, Safer Human Medicine, owns a 300 acre facility devoted to testing on imported primates, while the Charles River Labs, also imports primates to their 500 acre torture, I mean testing, facility in Texas. These are enormous pieces of land where animals are bred, tested on with a variety of chemicals that need to be carefully disposed of lest they become environmental toxins, and each and every animal is then disposed of, their bodies usually treated like a biohazard given the tests that are performed on them. Add to that, the amount of food that is produced and transported to the facilities to feed the animals, the amount of pet waste that is created and then disposed of to landfill, animal bedding, medical waste, and more. I volunteer in an animal shelter and I can tell you just how much waste can be produced by one animal! It is impossible to ignore the huge environmental footprint that animal testing facilities can have, though it can be tricky to measure given that animal testing comes in all different shapes and sizes on a variety of fauna.
So, if we wanted to calculate the footprint, what would be our inputs in determining the GHG emissions of animal testing?
Potential Scope 1 Emissions:
On-site fuel combustion from furnaces, boilers, and vehicles
Refrigerant emissions from on-site HVAC systems (this is probably a big one considering the climate control needs of keeping animals comfortable and chemistries stable)
Potential Scope 2 Emissions:
Energy usage. These are enormous facilities that no doubt use a ton of energy in their buildings.
Potential Scope 3 Emissions:
The transport of animals from across the globe.
Employee travel to and from these facilities, which are often remote.
The upstream emissions of everything purchased and used on-site (food, supplies, etc).
The downstream emissions from the huge amounts of waste sent to landfill or incinerated.
These impacts are not trivial when it comes to climate. A report by Groff et al and published in the journal, Environments, concluded that:
“The quantity of energy consumed by research animal facilities is up to ten times greater than offices on a square meter basis. Animal research facilities have very specific, energy-intensive needs, including total fresh air exchanges for ventilation, environmental and space needs of the animals, barrier protection from outside pathogens, lighting, and power-intensive equipment.” (Copied from Faunalytics)
So how many of these facilities existed in the United States alone? It is hard to estimate the total carbon impact from animal testing given that it is done in facilities of all different shapes and sizes, from University labs to the large scale facilities described above. The Humane Society of the United States estimated that an astonishing 50 million animals are tested on each year. Dogs are tested on in 47 out of 50 states, but cats, horses, ferrets, pigs, birds, mice, primates, sheep, horseshoe crabs, octopus, and rabbits are also subjected to cruel and painful tests. With only 16 states requiring that dogs be adopted out after testing, we can ascertain that the waste alone from the sad disposal of all these animals through incineration creates dangerous air quality issues and emissions around the facilities. And if you think we have regulating agencies on our side, you’d be wrong. According to HSUS, the Environmental Protection Agency requires that any new pesticide be tested on dogs for 90 days before being approved. Additionally, animals that are “purpose bred” for testing, are exempt from the protections of the Animal Welfare Act. Breeding facilities, like the Envigo one in Virginia, and purpose-built primate breeding facilities in Texas continue to grow throughout the United States.
There are further environmental threats from the import of exotic animals into the United States for testing. Climate change has made it much easier for zoonotic diseases to travel and remain infectious, as viruses and parasites are finding a more appealing climate to survive in. The spread of heartworm and Lyme Disease to regions where they have never been seen before is a reality for many pet owners. COVID-19 also demonstrated what can happen when a zoonotic illness crosses a barrier into humans. When a new primate breeding facility was proposed for a small town in Texas, primates would have outnumbered the residents 2 to 1. The project was ultimately rejected after community outcry about the amount of waste that would be produced, the use of productive land for animal breeding instead, and fears of disease transmission from the primates. When primates are not purpose bred, they are wild caught, typically in Asia or Africa and transported across the globe. When industry supports the wild capture of exotic animals, it is not only associated with high transport emissions of those animals, but also with the illegal wildlife trafficking that goes along with it, the loss of biodiversity, and often habitat destruction to reach the animals themselves. The environmental effects of testing in one lab thus become global.
It is easy to fall into a trap of believing that animal testing is necessary for human survival, but it is not. As Jane Goodall has pointed out, chimpanzees share over 98% of DNA with humans and yet testing on chimps was not considered to be reliable. The Center for a Humane Economy states that clinical trials performed on animals have a 90-95% failure rate when they reach the human clinical trial phase. This failure rate has led to changes at the federal government level through Congress’ passage of the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 that supports non-animal trials. There have been amazing technological improvements in developing alternatives to animal testing, including 3D printed organs, studies using human cells and tissues from cadavers, even growing live cells from skin and cheek swabs, “organs on chips” that are 3D chips created from human cells that mimic organs, and even improved computer modeling.
What Can You Do?
The most important thing you can do is to stop purchasing products that are tested on animals. It’s easier than you think. Look for a “cruelty-free” label on product packaging. Or download the Cruelty Cutter app from the Beagle Freedom Project, and scan barcodes or search for products to see if they are tested on animals.
You can also look up if there are any animal testing facilities near you using the Animal Laboratory Search Tool.
Support local, state, and federal legislation that regulates or bans the use of animals for cosmetic testing. The Humane Society of the United States is working to pass the Humane Cosmetics Act, and 12 states have banned the sale of cosmetic products that are tested on animals. Globally, 45 countries have passed laws banning cosmetics animal testing (the United States is not one of them…yet).
Support organizations that work to rescue animals that have been subjected to forced breeding or testing, and advocate for non-animal testing. Beagle Freedom Project is one of the most active, but obviously HSUS, Humane Society International, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Center for a Humane Economy are all deeply committed to this cause.
If you have the time, foster or adopt an animal that has come from a breeding or testing facility. Efforts are constantly underway to close more of these facilities, including ones in upstate New York and Wisconsin that are the current focus. These are dog testing facilities, and these (mostly) beagles will need sensitive, caring, and patient new homes.
HSUS has a list of additional actions you can take to push federal agencies to oversee testing facilities more thoroughly, support development of new non-animal testing alternatives, and stop mandating animal testing as part of approval processes.
To summarize, I do not believe that a climate forward economy is one where animal testing continues. While I did not delve into the horrific animal welfare concerns associated with testing an breeding, the negative environmental impacts should also give us pause. If we are choosing to buy products that we pick for their sustainability benefits, we should take an extra second and make sure that product was not created with cruelty as part of its supply chain.
