A Letter to the Editor

The following is a writing assignment I received to create a colorful character and write a letter to the editor of our newspaper in their persona.

RE: The Testing of Products Intended for Human use in Springfield, MO.

Dear Editor:

The city of Springfield is in grave danger if it feels it can permit the testing of products designed for humans on animals.

I have been a citizen of Springfield for all 88 years of my life. I love this city, it is where I have my home, my favorite pizza restaurant, and most importantly my cats. My 12 cats: Bella, Tiger, Lily, Lucy, Luna, Peanut, Harley, Skitty, Toby, Whiskers, Baby-Face, and my precious Mittens, are very dear to me, and for that reason this issue of animal testing is also very dear to me.

The procedure of using animals for testing is not merely inhumane, but barbaric. The animals used in the tests are subjected to not love, but rather cruelty beyond the imagination of a woman who loves her cats. The testing of beauty products is particularly barbaric, as those in charge of carrying out the tests knowingly force pain upon the animals as they pour soap into their eyes. I have washed Mittens before, I was most careful not to soap her eyes, though through her frightened struggle she managed to splash some of the water into her eyes. I can personally attest to the great pain animals feel when they are subjected to soap in their eyes.

Another aspect in which animal testing has been used is in the testing of human medications, a simple-minded idea. Though I often share my meals with Mittens and her brothers and sisters, I know that the two of us still function in different ways. For instance, a medication that might be good for me such as my blood pressure pills, would not be of benefit to Mittens and may in fact cause her pain and harm. So though the idea might be thought of as positive; save humans by killing cats, we must remember that the cats or other lab animals may not in fact provide results which are the same as those experienced by humans.

I have seen in your paper people argue that animal testing is highly regulated and that this makes the practice okay, yet I believe these people are merely looking to cover valuable information. The regulation, Animal Welfare Act, existszxhvjoip (sorry, Mittens walked across the keyboard, silly mittens hehe) to protect these animals does not cover a large section of animals used in labs. I understand that my precious meowing children dislike water, and that?s something I accept except for when they need a bath, but their favorite food, tuna, is not an animal protected. Any man in a lab coat could pluck a tuna from the sea and either test on it or use it to manipulate my poor babies into cooperating in the scientists? tests. This is wrong, and if animal testing must continue, the 5 percent left uncovered by the Animal Welfare Act should be included.

With the greatest hopes that the Springfield community will change their minds and decide not to subject poor helpless animals to the abuses seen under animal testing,

Felina Chat & her 12 precious babies: Bella, Tiger, Lily, Lucy, Luna, Peanut, Harley, Skitty, Toby, Whiskers, Baby-Face, and Mittens