Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2023

The Current Transcript for January 27, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

By amending Canada's toxics law, Canada has an exciting opportunity to phase out the unnecessary use of animals in painful toxicity testing.

MATT GALLOWAY: For years, animal rights campaigners have been calling on the federal government to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals. The Liberals ran on the idea as an election promise, and now the government appears to be about to keep that pledge. In an hour, why Canada is making this move now well behind many other countries, and what alternatives exist beyond animal testing to ensure these products are safe. Also this morning, online scams are commonplace these days. Hustlers sending you unsolicited messages looking to make a buck. A new podcast explores one of the more sophisticated scams using the promise of romance to separate victims from tens of thousands of dollars.

SOUNDCLIP

They are experts in the psychology of their victims and manipulating people into falling deeply, deeply in love, and forming attachments that are really hard to break.

MG: Love, Janessa takes listeners from unsuspecting inboxes to Internet cafes in Ghana. In 30 minutes, inside a catfishing scam and the search for one woman whose face was used to fleece people around the world. We start, though, with a spate of violent attacks in Toronto and a transit system and a city on edge. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

TRANSIT CRIME

Guests: Lex Harvey, John Di Nino

SOUNDCLIP

[TTC announcement]

The TTC takes your safety very seriously. In the event of an emergency, speak to a staff member or use emergency alarms.

MG: For people who ride transit in Canada's largest city, that announcement about safety may have faded into the background of their commute. But lately, it's a call that will be resonating as the city's transit system, The TTC, deals with an increase in violent attacks on both riders and workers. The Current's Samantha Lui spoke with riders yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

[TTC sound]

MAN: So I'd say I take public transit three, four times a week. I go to school downtown at U of T. I see the news. You know, it's a bit concerning, all the random attacks of violence. Toronto is still generally a safe city, but I am concerned about the uptick and the sort of strange attacks that we saw last few days, even last year. But I've been taking public transit my whole life, but I am keeping like an extra eye out. It's hard to say if things have seen more intense. I think maybe in the last couple of years, I've seen maybe a greater homeless problem. Maybe there's more mental health episodes that I'm seeing on the train.

FEMALE 1: I take the public transit every day for school and work. It's very scary because it feels like there's well, like for the past week, there's been an incident every single day. And it feels like there isn’t like enough security, you know. Like they're raising the prices, but like nothing's being done. I do spend a lot of money on Uber because of it, or I'll ask a family member to drop me instead of taking transit.

FEMALE 2: For me, I’m travelling with TTC and I never had a problem. You just have to keep praying and ask the Lord to take you wherever you’re going safely. I don't drive so I have to take it .

SAMANTHA LUI: Would anything make you feel a bit safer taking the public transit?

FEMALE 2: You know, I feel we should have security on the train especially now. Babies cause incidents to happen on the train. On the platform, we should have extra security. So probably that would be able to help the situation with TTC.

FEMALE 3: I'm scared to come on the subway, honestly, especially with the recent string of attacks coming down with the random, you know, stabbings happening on the TTC. It's really unnerving coming down here, especially as a woman. So while I do have to take it sometimes to get, you know, to school or get to different places, I feel like I'm more vigilant and more alert than I usually would be. As well as on social media, I think that my algorithm can tell that I'm stressed as well, because that keeps sending me like self-protection videos from everything that's going on.

SAMANTHA LUI: And are you changing your behaviours on public transit? Will you reconsider?

FEMALE 3: I mean, when you’re coming down here, you only have one earbud in at all times. You're being alert of your surroundings. You're keeping your back pressed up against the wall as much as possible and staying away from the edges of the tracks. You're not engaging with people on the subway. It's a much more hostile atmosphere than it was before.

[sound of train leaving station]

MG: Lex Harvey is the transportation reporter for the Toronto Star and is with me in studio to talk further about this. Lex, good morning.

LEX HARVEY: Good morning.

MG: You just heard people talking about their fears and their riding habits and how those riding habits are being changed by these stories. What sort of violent incidents are we seeing, for people who are elsewhere in the country who may not know about the scale of this?

LEX HARVEY: So this is a bit of a refresher. Over the past week, we've seen incidents like a passenger shot with a BB gun, a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed, sustaining serious injuries, a 23-year-old woman stabbed in the face and head on a streetcar, two bus drivers swarmed, a TTC operator also shot with a BB gun, employee's chased with a syringe. So it's been a really alarming week.

MG: This is in one week.

LEX HARVEY: This is. Yes. To clarify, this is in one week. So it's been really, really scary and troubling for riders.

MG: I mean, anecdotally, there are a number of stories that people will have that may not be reported because they might be seen to be low level forms of aggression that they might be witnessing. Do we know whether there are actually more incidents that are happening or are they being reported in a different way? It's perception versus reality in some ways.

LEX HARVEY: Right. So we don't have the best most up to date data on this. But if you look back from before the pandemic as a whole in terms of the number of violent offences against customers that the TTC reports, so these are the most serious incidents that often have police coming in and maybe charging the person. So in 2019, for that year, there were around 666. And that jumped up in 2020 to 735 and stayed constant the next year. Last year, we only have data for the first half of the year. But if that rate were to stay persistent, that would leave us with about 900 offences by the end of the year, making 2022 the most violent year in five years. And it's really important to consider that ridership is so much lower than it was. So right now, we're sitting at about 70% of pre-pandemic levels on weekdays on the TTC. So we're seeing all of these violent attacks, but about two thirds of the riders.

MG: What's going on, do you think, in the city right now? People feel unnerved by this.

LEX HARVEY: People definitely feel unnerved. I mean, I think what we're seeing now is a lot of social issues that have existed for a long time but were exacerbated during the pandemic. Things like lack of mental health supports for people who are struggling, a homelessness crisis, a shelter system that is bursting at the scenes. People are struggling to afford daily necessities. And so I think we are seeing all of this come together, and we're seeing more and more people who are in distress as a result.

MG: As a result of that, yesterday, there was announcement by the Toronto Police Service promising an increase in police presence. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

Our plan aims to have upwards of 80 police officers in place throughout the city's transit locations every day. These deployments will focus on reducing victimization, preventing crimes of opportunity and enhancing public safety. And those who ride their transit will immediately notice an increased presence of Toronto police officers in the subways, on streetcars and buses.

MG: What's the response been like to this so far?

LEX HARVEY: So I think we've seen a mixed response. I spoke to the union that represents the special constables. So those are the officers that patrol the TTC. They're definitely cheering this. At the same time, public health advocates, some TTC rider advocates are saying that this isn't doing enough to really get at the root causes of the issue. I mentioned things like homelessness, things like more mental health support. People have mentioned to me that they would really love to see more trained crisis workers and outreach workers who can be patrolling the system, potentially alongside special constables and helping people who may be in crisis at that moment. We know that police make a lot of people feel safer potentially, but there are also people who don't feel safe around police. Potentially racialized riders, indigenous, black riders who disproportionately have worse outcomes with police.

MG: What's the larger story here when it comes to the state of transit in the city? Your paper has a story this morning running down reasons why people are fed up with their transit system in Toronto. What's going on when it comes to transit in that city?

LEX HARVEY: Well, this is coming right after a budget cycle where the city and the TTC announced that in response to lower ridership, they're going to be cutting service. So if the budget is approved in February, we're going to see service cut by about 5%. So on off peak hours, that might have people waiting up to 10 minutes for a subway. On top of that, they're also increasing fares by 10 cents. So people are really frustrated because they ultimately want a system that is reliable, that is coming frequently, and they also want a system that is safe. So I think there's a lot of different things going on here.

MG: We know that ridership at the TTC is about 69% of what it was pre-pandemic. And so how much of an impact do you think the violence that we've been talking about has on ridership itself? Anecdotally again, people will say that they may not be as comfortable taking the subway or the streetcar or the bus as they were in past. But is that happening? Do we know whether there's been an actual drop in ridership because of the violent incidents that we've been talking about?

LEX HARVEY: Well, I think it might be a bit too soon to have the data on that. But anecdotally, it is powerful. As we heard at the top of the show, people are changing their travel plans. People are feeling unsafe. And that's a really big problem for the system that is struggling to recoup riders. And they're also not predicting that ridership is going to rise by much this year. I think they're hoping it'll get to 75% by the end of the year. And so if people are feeling uneasy or changing their travel plans, that is a really big problem. I think the goal for the TTC here, just as much as making the system safe, is also to make riders feel safe. And so that is definitely a big factor.

MG: But I mean, more broadly, even what's at stake for the city? Again, in your paper this morning, a columnist has a piece saying if you let the TTC go down the drain, the whole city won't be far behind. Now, that might sound alarmist to some people, but what is the place of this transit system in the biggest city in the country?

LEX HARVEY: I think this is huge, right? Like accessible, affordable transportation is so crucial to having an equitable, a vibrant city. And we have huge investments right now in Toronto coming in our transit system. And so we need to make sure that people feel safe on transit. I often hear from transportation experts who talk of this thing called the transit death spiral, which sounds a bit alarmist. But basically, the idea is that if you cut service in response to reduced ridership, fewer riders will come and thus you will need to cut service again. So it's kind of this downward cycle that ultimately, I think will hurt the city.

MG: Lex, thank you very much.

LEX HARVEY: Great to be here. Thank you.

MG: Lex Harvey is the transportation reporter for the Toronto Star. She is in Toronto. Transit violence isn't just happening in the city of Toronto. In Winnipeg, there have been at least 18 reports of assaults on public transit since the start of the year. Last week, Carissa Chaput was waiting at a bus stop near the University of Manitoba when she was assaulted.

SOUNDCLIP

CARISSA CHAPUT: I just got off work and I was going home. And I had my headphones on so I didn't know anyone was coming near me. But by the time I realized it, they were surrounding me. They were already proceeding to rob me and beat me up. I was wondering why they would do this to me. I didn't even do anything to you. I was rushed to the hospital. I couldn't stand. I had to be put in a wheelchair. I had bruises up and down my body. I have bruises on my neck and my collarbone and I have a bite mark. It's horrible.

MG: That's in Winnipeg. In Edmonton, transit workers have been threatened with guns twice this month. The Amalgamated Transit Union of Canada is calling for all levels of government to address the issue. John Di Nino is president of the ATU Canada. John Di Nino, good morning to you.

JOHN DI NINO: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. When did your union start to notice the increase in attacks on staff and riders?

JOHN DI NINO: Oh, that's an amazing question. You know, we've been advocating for the last number of years on the increase in violence and assault against our operators and the riding public for a number of years. This is not a new phenomena. But what is new is that the increase in violence has increased exponentially to alarming concerns, not just in Toronto, but right across this country.

MG: Do you have a sense as to the numbers? I mean, again, we've been talking about Toronto, but, you know, as I said as I was introducing you, there are incidents that are happening elsewhere in the country as well.

JOHN DI NINO: Yeah. So, you know, it's one of those things that's very difficult to gauge. And transit agencies are just calculating their numbers. The 2022 numbers have not come out yet. But annually, we are seeing upwards somewhere between two and 3000 reported incidents of assault or violence within transit systems across the country. We're talking about more than five per day. And those numbers were backed through CUTA, the Canadian Urban Transit Association, who does an annual report. And again, you know, just at the TTC, since December, we've seen over 20 incidences of very aggressive and concerning violence, not only against our workers, but against patrons.

MG: And again, there would be unreported incidents as well that might be added into that number if you were looking at the whole picture.

JOHN DI NINO: Yeah, absolutely. You know, we have thousands of unreported incidences from our transit operators out there, whether they're being spat on or whether they're being pushed or threatened or harassed. A lot of those incidents go unreported because, you know, employers will say, well, it's the nature of the job. You know, just wipe your chin and keep moving along. Those are concerning numbers as well.

MG: What do you think is going on? What's behind this?

JOHN DI NINO: Well, you know, I just heard the previous speaker, Lex. And I think, you know, Lex and I, we're hitting it on the head here. I think it's a whole component of where we are in society today. We've just come out of a pandemic where people have been locked up. You know, we honestly believe there are mental health issues that are not being addressed. We see the amounts of homelessness in subway stations and in transit properties right across this country. It's a huge complexity of things that are not being addressed. And, you know, this is why ATU has called for a national task force to deal with the overall issue.

MG: So what would that do? What would a national task force accomplish if the incidents of violence are as high as you're suggesting?

JOHN DI NINO: Well, I mean, Metro Police announced yesterday increased vigilance with police officers on transit systems, but all of those have a funding component. And I think we need to figure out what a balance is going to look like between putting more visibility out on the front lines, being able to address those individuals who are in crisis on transit systems, how we deal with the homelessness matter and how we put other best practices in place right across this country in every transit portfolio to figure out what are the best resources we could put forward. Just putting police officers on the front lines is not enough.

MG: Well, the police issuing this is as you mentioned Toronto. This is happening across the country. Toronto is set to hire 50 special constables to work on the transit system. Vancouver announced the city's bringing more offers onto its transit system and thus the announcement by the Toronto police as well. Have a listen to constable Amanda Steed of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police.

SOUNDCLIP

CONSTABLE AMANDA STEED: The goal is it will have 12 community safety officers in training and out on the system by fall with another 12 by the end of the year. They are unarmed. They do have powers of arrest. So they're out there able to assist the public. They have first aid skills. They have general knowledge of the transit system. They're there to support our transit officers who can then focus on more serious crimes and investigations that take us away from the transit system. So they're there to sort of add an extra layer of safety.

MG: Do we know, John, whether the increase in the number of officers, whether it's police officers, whether it's transit officers, will that actually make transit any safer?

JOHN DI NINO: You know, look, in most cases, it's going to deter those low level incidences. You know, if someone is going to commit a serious crime, I'm not sure that they're really worried about whether there's a police officer or a special constable on duty. But it does act as a deterrent. And it does build customer confidence in terms of safety and filling that uneasiness, relieving them of that uneasiness of having to move through transit systems without anybody there. So it really works twofold, right? Comfort levels acts as a deterrent in some instances. We understand that not every incident of violence is going to stop because there are police officers on transit systems across this country.

MG: What do you think is at stake here? This is the question that I asked Lex. If you have fewer people who are riding transit because perhaps they don't feel safe. And not everybody has those options. Not everybody could drive. There are transit users that this is their way to get around and they rely on the transit system. So what is at stake if people don't feel that that transit system is safe?

JOHN DI NINO: So, you know, once again, if people have been listening to what we have had to say over the last number of years, we have been advocating for safe, reliable, affordable and accessible transit for all Canadians. And the reason we do that is because public transit is a mobility right. It services our most vulnerable communities or low income communities. It takes people to and from school and work. And more importantly, those who are living with disabilities. And if there is no comfort in the transit system, then people are going to be driven away from it. We know we're suffering pre-pandemic numbers at less than 70%. So that has a significant impact. And if we don't put these dollars into it, and if we don't rebuild the confidence in the transit systems across this country, we are going to see a downward spiral. And we're seeing it in the city of Toronto where they are voting to reduce service once again. You know, you can't just keep chipping away at it. When things are down, you have to start to rebuild, not to take things down and destroy, because that is going to have that downward spiral and a domino effect of not having that safe, reliable, affordable transit.

MG: Just before I let you go, is your sense that those who make the decisions in this country, not just in Toronto, but across the country where there are transit systems that are facing these issues, do they have a sense as to that importance that you see, the place of a transit system at the heart of civil society?

JOHN DI NINO: Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think they have that sense of what that really means. And, you know, they're dealing with it from a business perspective. They're looking at numbers, they're crunching numbers. And we need to look beyond that. This is about mobility rights. We need investments in public transit. We don't need to be chipping away at it today.

MG: John, thank you very much.

JOHN DI NINO: Thank you so much.

MG: John Di Nino, national president of the Amalgamated Transit Union of Canada. Happy to hear from you on this as well. In terms of that perception versus reality is a tricky issue, but there are a lot of people, as we've heard, who don't feel safe in riding the transit in their communities. You can let us know what it's like in your community. Email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC news is up next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

A lot of people seem to think like these fraudsters are just people in their grandparents basement committing these scams. But really, it's a massive organized crime group that are making tons of money.

MG: Tons of money indeed. A new podcast, Love, Janessa goes inside a global network of cat fishers luring people into fake relationships and often fleecing them for big money. Who exactly is Janessa? We'll talk further about that coming up in 6 minutes. My name is Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

LOVE, JANESSA

Guests: Hannah Ajala, Katrine Onstad

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to the Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come. For decades, there have been campaigns against testing cosmetics, drugs and chemicals on animals. And yet that testing still happens in Canada. The government has plans to change that. And some scientists say there are new high tech alternatives that are not only more humane, but also more effective for finding out if a product is actually safe for humans. That's coming up in just under 30 minutes. But first, the perils of falling in love online.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I love it. I just love it. I want to see her finally happy. Like, I don't care if it's costing me that amount of time. That amount of money. That amount of energy. I just want to see her happy.

MG: Roberto Marini lives in Sardinia, Italy. He is a successful entrepreneur in his early thirties, and he, as you heard, is deeply in love with someone he's never met.

SOUNDCLIP

Even if we have never met, and even if I never got the ability to actually see it or know where physically I was feeling that it was something very important for myself to actually be present for this person in that period of a life. So yes, of course, I was loving it unconditionally without even having a doubt about it.

MG: Roberto's great love is name Janessa Brazil. And the problem is that he is one of hundreds of people who have fallen for her. They're all victims of an online romance scam. A new podcast by CBC and BBC World Service sets out to track down Janessa Brazil. Love Janessa investigates a global catfishing network, the victims who become trapped in its web and a woman whose photos are at the centre of it all. The podcast is hosted by Hannah Ajala and she is in London, England. And Katrina Onstad is one of the podcast producers who helped lead this investigation. She is with me in Toronto. Good morning to you both.

KATRINA ONSTAD: Good morning.

Speaker 4: Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. We should just explain for people who don't know Katrina, what is catfishing?

KATRINA ONSTAD: It is the practice of when scam artists hide behind online profiles and make their victims fall in love with them to make them part with their money.

MG: It seems very simple, but it's actually very complex in terms of how this unfolds, in part because of the woman who is at the centre of this. Hannah Who is. Janessa Brazil?

HANNAH AJALA: Janessa Brazil is a name that I had never heard of before. I Googled her to find tens of thousands of images. So she's, you know, had a few fair shares of a performing in some TV programs, as well as being a pretty big porn star at the time. But in sure, I would call her an entertainment star.

MG: And so how has she, Katrina, been used to scam people when you gave the definition of what catfishing is? What is her role in this?

KATRINA ONSTAD: Well, that's what we set out to discover over the course of this podcast. There was a British journalist named Simon Brazil who got a little ping in his inbox on New Year's Eve a few years ago and saw this picture of this beautiful woman, this toned, tanned woman, and began a relationship with her, this complete stranger, and quickly discovered when he reverse image searched her, that she was this adult entertainment star, this cam girl named Janessa Brazil. So it turns out that her images are some of the most use images that Catfishers have been employing to lure their targets in these elaborate schemes and these romance scams that are happening all around the world. So our question was, well, why her? Why this particular face, this particular body? Is she real at all? Is she involved and where is she? So that's what we were trying to figure out.

MG: And again, if you start to listen to the podcast, Hannah, you hear Simon, that Katrina mentioned and we heard at the very beginning of our conversation from Roberto Marini about his feelings for Janessa Brazil. How was he targeted? I mean, was it the ping in the inbox that that turned his head?

HANNAH AJALA: Well, I guess those was many things because this is something that turned into a relationship, what he calls it, to be a relationship that lasted over numerous years. So it started from the online interactions, constant communication and conversations and messages, just like you would meet anyone else organically, which eventually turned into him falling in love for this person. And then that's when the scam was really in motion.

MG: And so how did the scam unfold?

HANNAH AJALA: So the scam unfolded by little amounts of money just for random favours.

MG: Her asking him for money.

HANNAH AJALA: Yes, exactly that. So, you know, a family member is unwell or I need to travel here or I'm struggling with X, Y, and Z, without giving too much away. He obviously thought he was speaking to the Janessa Brazil. So, you know, when it got to the point where he felt as though, is it really you? He found himself going on the sites that she would as an entertainment star. And, you know, there are quite a few weird coincidences, shall we call it, where he fought as though it was literally her whilst on the phone in these cam calls, messaging him at the same time. So it was these little signs that kind of led him on to believe, Oh, it's really her. But she's still doing this. Times must be really hard, so maybe I should help support her a little more. I don't necessarily want to say kind of delusion, but just things happening coincidentally, that made him continue to send sums which turn into larger and much larger amounts. And it was the repercussions from it. It was him not just using his own funds, but loarning money from family and friends. And even though he had quite a flourishing business, also put a bit of a dent in that as well.

MG: Eventually he gives her and you've kind of hinted this a bit of an ultimatum there four years into their relationship and he continues to shovel money in her direction. Here he is describing what brought him to that point.

SOUNDCLIP

Speaker 2: I am studiously giving all my time, all my energies, all my finances that I said, okay, this has got to stop because I have it to the point that seriously, I think the total amount that I have sent out was over $250,000 when it reached their maximum amount and the maximum availability that I could actually send out, I just clearly said, okay, at this point it's really either you really love me, meaning that you love me, even if I ever thought I don't have money or this is all just something that is getting to be a tool that he used to trick me because right now I don't have anymore any money. Give away everything to you.

[/sc

MG: You would think perhaps for people who are listening, they might be saying. He must have had red flags. Katrina, there had to be a number of signs that would suggest that somebody that you've never met, that you've met through this online dating form, is suddenly asking you for money. Hold on a second. Why am I giving you this money? Who are you on the other end of the line? What do you think made him vulnerable to this scam?

KATRINA ONSTAD: Well, one of the things we discovered making this show was that anyone is susceptible. The tools that the scammers are using are extremely sophisticated. They are experts in the psychology of their victims and manipulating people into falling deeply, deeply in love and forming attachments that are really hard to break. So the long con is usually the norm. So they spend many months ingratiating themselves, caring about people who may be lonely and susceptible to the sensation of being part of a couple. Moving from the 'I' to the 'we' is a very powerful experience for most people.

MG: We are. We are a couple.

KATRINA ONSTAD: Yeah, we're in it together. Right. So then when those little asks come, they seem like little asks and they don't seem like red flags. And also there's a kind of addictiveness to the attention. A lot of psychologists have compared this experience to addiction and that people really begin to rely on that feedback, the constant feedback of their imaginary partner, so that even when those red flags are planted and waving in the wind, they're already really deeply embedded. And the threat of withdrawal, the threat that this relationship might end causes people to enter into that delusion is, as Hannah called it.

MG: You said that there are tools that are there and there are people who study how these scammers operate. You spoke with Aunshul Rege, who is an associate professor of criminal justice at Temple University. Here she is talking about a tactic called love bombing.

SOUNDCLIP

KATRINA ONSTAD: It's intense showering and bombarding of love and affection and attention to show them that you are crazy about them, that you absolutely love them, that this is your soul mate. It's really similar to getting addicted to a drug. So it's that same kind of attachment dependency. So that withdrawal seems impossible and painful. Right. So that's what gets you hooked.

MG: There's a real sophistication to that. In some ways. This is not it's plotted out in part because of the money that's at stake here.

KATRINA ONSTAD: Yeah, I mean, this are criminal networks. I think there might be a myth that this is like one kid up in his attic, but in fact, you know, it's more organised than that. The IP addresses that Simon uncovered in his article that was the jumping off point for our series led to West Africa, where Hannah got to go to see up close how some of these networks are operating and who the actual people are behind some of these sophisticated techniques.

MG: Hannah Tell me about that. You went to Ghana. Who in Ghana is behind these scams?

HANNAH AJALA: The people that you'd probably least expect. And Ghana is somewhere that I know very well. I've been over ten times, and I would describe it as a very peaceful country. So I think even discovering that existed in the first place was a shocker. And I remember one day being with my awesome fixer, Ludvig. We were in Accra just on a casual evening, and we decided to go into an Internet cafe and sort of conjure up some sort of, you know, understanding of how it works. We had no idea that within seconds of walking in, we would see these young teenage looking boys scrolling through dating sites. I literally could not believe it. It was quite an icy atmosphere. It was very quiet, just loads of clicking. And we saw a young boy on a dating site. There's loads of older looking American European men even says the location of where they are. And this young man's profile picture appears to be a young, good looking model. So that's one of many of the type of people that you'll see that are operating in these schemes.

MG: Just to be clear, these young teenage looking men are sitting in the Internet cafe and they are pretending to be the women that the men in parts unknown somewhere else in the world are communicating with online.

HANNAH AJALA: Correct.

MG: Tell me more about about who these young boys are.

HANNAH AJALA: These young boys. Damian So born and raised in Ghana, probably never left Ghana. And this is something that is important to emphasise. I guess with my hope in humanity, no one wakes up and thinks I'm going to be a scammer today and not just any type of scammer, I'm going to be a romance scammer. Something is often, you know, word of mouth or. You know, someone who knows someone or someone told you about it or. Times are a bit hard and you happen to have come across this from someone. It is based on a lot of these young boys gathering together. It could be in a house with loads of computers and a lot of them are working collaboratively because the more intelligent the resources are that they use to find success in these scams, the more money they make. And it gets to the point where it literally turns into a job where they see these wins. I say this with quotes as a salary because they realise they're getting good at it. They realise that the technology that they're using and the way that they're speaking to their victims is actually working.

MG: And these are these are known collectively as Sakawa Boys. Is that right? Amazing. The correctly.

HANNAH AJALA: Correct. Sakawa boys you.

MG: Spoke with with some of them. I want to hear some of these conversations. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

HANNAH AJALA: Which countries would you say you target the most?

VOICE 1: I don't really have a choice, but USA, Canada, Australia.

HANNAH AJALA: And could easily contact. Is it just women? Men? Both?

VOICE 1: Both. Both. Yes, I know it would be like a woman. So we have a phone that we can change the voice. Maybe if you are my friend and you're woman, I can talk to you to talk to someone for me.

HANNAH AJALA: Do you ever sometimes feel bad that you're scamming people, including people who really like, you.

VOICE 1: Very, very bad info, but definitely, you know, is because of work and because of money. If you have a family, you have to, I mean, kick off one or two things. So I always feel bad for that. I always feel bad.

MG: Do you believe him? That he feels bad, Hannah?

HANNAH AJALA: Yeah, but I don't feel bad for him.

MG: You don't feel bad for them for the scammer.

HANNAH AJALA: Correct. Because how I see it is it's still affecting someone else's life in a in a really bad way. You know, they're losing out on so much money, and the chances of them being able to track you down and get you in trouble for what you've done is slim. So I don't, I don't really feel bad for them. This Sakawa boy in particular who I spoke to thought was a nice guy. So I guess there was that feeling of pity of, Oh, you're actually you're actually a nice human being. Why are you doing this?

MG: Well, they're doing it presumably because of money.

HANNAH AJALA: Yeah, but then there's also the question of they've been doing it for X amount of years. And this is this is something that I've questioned a lot. If they've been doing it for X amount of years and they've got a lot of money from it. Why is it still something that they've stayed in as opposed to moving on to another career or something else that they can proudly talk about or just do freely without the fear that maybe one day someone could track them down?

MG: What did you learn about that? We'll talk about money in a moment, but what did you learn about why they would do something like this?

HANNAH AJALA: It's just the unfortunate case of many African countries who aren't doing so well economically. Ghana in particular has had a high youth unemployment and even unemployment rate for some time now. And I guess it's just inevitable, like when someone is going through these financial troubles and have tried all these options, the last resort tends to be criminal activities.

MG: How much money are they making? I mean, again, we heard that Roberto earlier gave upwards of 250,000 to these scammers. How much money are these Sakawa boys making?

HANNAH AJALA: Oh, honestly, it kind of range. Like some successful scams can go from 10 to 50000 in a go. But again, this takes time after, you know, a lot of relationship building. This sakawa boy that we just heard from mentioned that he does target victims in the US. And there was even a stat that romance scam victims they lost nearly $550 million in 2021 alone. It's is pretty insane. I mean, if we were to sort of track the percentage of that that specifically comes from Ghana, I'm not entirely sure. But there is a lot of a connection between Ghana and victims in the U.S. and Canada.

MG: Katrina, are you surprised as you worked on this and learned more about it, just how deep this goes and how much money is at play here, we might think. I mean, we know the people are involved in these scams because they make money. You continue to do the scam because somebody is paying. There's a lot of money that we're talking about here.

KATRINA ONSTAD: It is a lot of money. Was I surprised? Maybe not. I mean, I think the Internet has unleashed something in us and I think we see it play out the good and the bad, the dark and the light of the Internet and this age of technology, the sort of illusion of connection and and real connection that technology can provide. And then those destructive forces that it's unleashed and often those that destruction takes financial shape in this day and age. So, you know, they have a perfect set of conditions to prey on people especially covered the numbers around romance scams increased exponentially because people are sitting in front of their computer.

MG: And they're isolated.

KATRINA ONSTAD: And we know that there is a kind of epidemic of loneliness and people are desperate and hungry to connect. It's very human.

MG: We heard that Sakawa boy saying running through the countries that he kind of operates in, in quotation marks, the U.S., Australia and Canada as well. You spoke with John Armitt to get a sense of how common this is in this country. He is an investigator with the Canadian Anti-Fraud.

SOUNDCLIP

Romance fraud are the lowest reported frauds versus the highest amount of losses per victim, which is staggering. I've seen on average $150,000 in losses per victim, which is just devastating. And a lot of people seem to think that these fraudsters are just people in their grandparents basement committing these scams. But really, it's the massive organised crime group that are making tons of money, whether it be organised crime or countries in corruption, receiving the funds to make it look the other way.

MG: If you are a victim of one of these scams, do you have any recourse whatsoever after you have electronically transferred all sorts of money to parts unknown?

KATRINA ONSTAD: It's very difficult for these victims to recover their money. In fact, it's practically unheard of. We're beginning to see a little bit of coordination between John Armitt, who represents the Canadian. Fraud Centre, Interpol, Europol. They're beginning to speak to each other. So there is a recognition that this is a global issue. But because the perpetrators and the victims are likely not in the same jurisdiction, it makes it really difficult to prosecute cases. So the other thing is that a lot of this money is exchanged electronically. Right. So especially in the with the advent of crypto scammers really like crypto, it's one of the first things I'll ask for, and that's because it's virtually untraceable. So generally, once a victim has released their money to the scammer, it's fairy dust and they won't see it again.

MG: Hannah You spoke with a number of people who were victims of these scams. Once they realised that they had been taken, how did they reflect on what they had gone through?

HANNAH AJALA: Oh, just pure heartbreak. A lot of heartbreak, a lot of shock to see stress, almost denial at the fact that it's it's happened to them. I think of Roberto, young man, only a few years older than me who fell for it. But it's quite interesting as we'll hear more in this series. Different victims have different feelings. You know, you'd think that they would all never believe in love again. But there have been some that I've just, you know, felt like, you know, it's it's not going to ruin my dating experiences despite being, you know, scammed in such a way. It can not just cause a dent in their finances, but can also ruin relationships where some of their family members no longer talk to them. And a lot of these victims have even uprooted their lives like they've flown to different countries and way to the airports and decided to eventually be with their lovers thousands of miles away from their usual surroundings. But a lot of it is is heartbreak.

MG: A lot is revealed in this podcast. But I want to go back to the idea of Janessa Brazil, and you went to try to track her down. We'll learn more about this. We don't want to give too much away, but is she a real person?

HANNAH AJALA: She is a real person. She exists.

MG: She exists. So she's not just these photos online now.

HANNAH AJALA: And that's something that I had to keep telling myself because it was hands on deck for this investigation just to find this person. It was really tricky. We were going through so many loopholes and we even called Brazil the we call it the USA. We looked at voting registration addresses of people that match the name and try to find family members and ex-partners. We went through so many different routes in the hopes to find her.

MG: Why was that so important, Katrina, to try to figure out who the person is at the other end of this scam?

KATRINA ONSTAD: I think we were not really sure who the victim was and who the perpetrators were.

MG: And I mean, that seems fairly clear who the victim was. The victim would be the person who's being scammed. And so what you're saying that there's more sophistication to it than that?

KATRINA ONSTAD: Well, what if your picture was being used as bait by cat fishers around the world? Are you a victim in that case, or what if we don't know if you're benefiting from it? And what we did know early on was that Janessa Brazil was a quote unquote cam girl, which is a corner of the Internet where solo sex acts usually are streamed online for money. So her image was out there and there were a lot of images out there. We all put our images out there. If they get scooped up by criminals and used to bait unsuspecting victims, are we guilty? I don't know. So we really wanted to find her and ask her these questions. And so our quest became asking these questions of her if we could find her. And in fact, you know, Hannah said very confidently, she exists. But we actually thought that in the beginning. And then there were times where we thought, oh, no, she doesn't, or maybe she's vanished because for a while her digital footprint just stops online. So it was quite a puzzle to put together.

MG: We will listen for how the puzzle comes together. Katrina, thank you very much.

KATRINA ONSTAD: Thank you.

MG: And Hannah, thank you.

HANNAH AJALA: Thank you so much.

MG: Hannah Ajala is host of the new podcast Love Janessa. It's a co-production with CBC Podcasts and the BBC World Service. Katrina Onstad is one of the Podcast's producers. The first episode of Love Janessa is out now. You can find it wherever you listen to podcasts or through the CBC Listen app. Well, coming up after your regional update, ending the use of animal testing for cosmetics in Canada, what it means for animals and for the advancement of science. What new techniques are out there to test products to ensure that they are safe for humans? We'll learn more about that coming up in 90 seconds. My name is Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. Back in a minute. Stick around.

ANIMAL TESTING

Guests: Camille Labchuk, Charu Candrasekera, Michael Brunt

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to the Current.

SOUNDCLIP

Okay, so here I'd just like to say to everyone out there still buying animal tested cosmetics, like eyeliner, shampoo, sunscreen, pretty much everything in your bathroom without you and countries that allow animal testing. I'd out of a job, I'd be on the streets. Well, not the streets. More like a field, I guess. You know, like a normal rabbit. But, hey, ah ahh. So good.

MG: That's the filmmaker Taika Waititi voicing Ralph the Testing Rabbit that was part of a campaign to end animal testing. And now that hope looks like it will be a reality in Canada. The Health Minister, Jenny Ducklo, will be pushing forward a motion to amend the Food and Drugs Act to ban cosmetic testing on animals. And Health Canada has confirmed it's also looking at changes into how drugs and chemicals are tested. Camille Labchuk is a lawyer and executive director of the animal law group Animal Justice, and she's with me in our studio in Toronto. Good morning.

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: How much animal testing goes on in this country right now?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: You know, in 2021, which is the last year for which we have numbers, we know that 150,000 animals endured tests for toxicity testing reasons. We don't have numbers for cosmetics, but it's likely substantially smaller. But not only is that a high number, these are also some of the worst types of tests that can be done at the highest category of invasiveness. And what that means is animals often experience pain at or near or above the pain threshold for conscious animals who have no pain relief. So it's a really good thing that we're looking at moving away from these tests.

MG: What exactly would the ban change then when it comes to the testing of cosmetics?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Well, we'll see when the government introduces legislation. But generally what people are looking for is a couple things. First of all, a ban on testing, end use products, cosmetics on animals, a ban on the use of ingredients that have been tested on animals for cosmetics. There's 20,000 ingredients out there that work very, very well for cosmetics. The industry doesn't need more. And then also labelling to make it very clear which cosmetics, you know, our cruelty free, which can sometimes be confusing for consumers.

MG: Why is this necessary? Because there are a number of cosmetics companies that are already phasing out animal testing, right?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Yes. And that's what's exciting, is that the industry really has been leading in a number of respects. But we've got states, sorry, jurisdictions like the European Union that have had this ban already for a very long time, and it hasn't resulted in an elimination globally. So we need to see jurisdictions like Canada starting to step up to the plate. You know, we've already seen states, major populous states like California, New York and New Jersey go this route and many countries around the world. So it's time for Canada to step up to the plate and join them.

MG: But if the manufacturers are doing this themselves, why do you need the laws that would tell the manufacturers to do it?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Because they haven't finished doing it yet.

MG: So this would go further than.

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Yeah, that's right. It's not enough just to say, you know, it's nice that the industry has gone in this direction. It's important to have laws to send that signal from the top that this has to absolutely end.

MG: Do you know what exactly I mean? When Health Canada says it wants to reduce reliance on animal testing for drugs and chemicals. What might be in the plans there?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Well, we think what they're doing is probably mirroring an important move in the U.S., which happened in December. So the FDA, FDA Act was modernised and it made it so that in the United States, it's not going to be a requirement to test on animals to prove the safety of drugs or drugs before you can start claiming clinical trials. So this is a really important move and it could send an important signal to the industry that they can start using human biology based tests that are in some cases more effective, often much quicker and less expensive than animal tests.

MG: We're going to talk about that in just a minute, what those alternatives might be. But right now, when you take a look at the testing and the testing, as you said, that's still happening here. How is that regulated in this country?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: You know, unfortunately is not regulated for the most part. So Canadians, you know, we're nice, kind, polite people. We expect the government is watching out for animals in labs. And that's especially so because we as members of the public don't have any ability to see what's happening in research labs across this country. But unfortunately, there's no federal regulation. There's no rules about what can happen to these animals. There's no federal inspections or oversight. The feds basically leave a private non-profit with voluntary standards to sort of police this area a little bit. But it's not a transparent process and it's not a legal process.

MG: Is that true that there are no rules in terms of what can happen to these animals?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: That's right. There's no federal laws that say, here's the test you can do. Here's a test you can't do. Here's what you have to provide for animals. There's just voluntary guidelines that in some cases may be enforceable via, you know, funding agreements with the federal government. But it's no substitute for laws and regulations like they have, say, in the European Union or in the United States, where the USDA inspects labs. And as the public, you can see inspection reports and see what happens in those labs.

MG: You mentioned what's happening in the United States when it comes to the FDA and the changes there that will allow. Allow for the use of artificial intelligence and other ways to kind of test to see whether these products are safe, what's happening in the European Union, what's going on there?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: The European Union has led the way on this for a very long time, both when it comes to toxicity testing, drug testing and, of course, cosmetic testing, which they outlawed ages ago. The U.S. and the E.U. are quite far ahead of us at this point. And that's why it's so important that Canada catches up. So we also have this process going on where candidates looking at revising the candidate Environmental Protection Act to do away with toxicity testing as a requirement and look at eliminating it hopefully by 2035, which was a liberal platform commitment in the last election.

MG: And so are you. There are many commitments that are made in platforms. Are you hopeful that this actually will move forward and answer the calls that you and others have been making?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: We're very hopeful. There's a lot of support from this across parties. We're seeing the industry being on board with moving away from toxicity tests on animals. But what we need is strong mandatory language in legislation. It's not enough just to be aspirational and try to encourage alternatives to animal tests. We want to see the bill amended when it's in the House of Commons committee in a few weeks when Parliament resumes in a way that has mandatory deadlines and requires departments to develop plans like they've done in the EU and the U.S. for phasing out toxicity tests by 2035.

MG: Do you think the average Canadian is plugged in to this issue at all? Again, these are products that people use on a daily basis. They might be around them right now. Do Canadians understand what's going on? Do you think it's top of mind for them?

CAMILLE LABCHUK: I think most people don't really think about it too often. And one of the reasons for that is we don't really hear much media exposure about what happens in labs because they're very secretive places. But when information does come out, people are shocked. There was an exposé in 2017 that aired on national news with undercover footage from a research lab in Montreal that does toxicity tests. And they use monkeys. They use dogs, they use pigs. And some of that footage was heartbreaking and it prompted national calls for change. So I think when people learn the truth, they're really motivated to see a cruelty free future.

MG: Camille, thank you very much.

CAMILLE LABCHUK: Thank you.

MG: Camille Labchuk is a lawyer and executive director of the National Animal Law Group Animal Justice. She was talking about some of the alternatives, particularly in the United States, that are now approved to ensure that products are safe for human use. Charu Chandrasekera is executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods at the University of Windsor. Good morning to you.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Good morning.

MG: How ready do you think Canada is to move away from animal testing? Camille was saying that in some ways we're, you know, late to the party here.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Oh, indeed we are. We're not that ready. We're just getting started here in Canada. If you look at the European Union or the United States, there are legislative mandates that have been in place for years and years and well over a decade. In some cases. They are national strategic roadmaps and parliamentary resolutions. There are federally funded national centres and congressionally mandated committees to evaluate alternative methods. And there has been consistent financial investment in the billions to develop and validate non-animal methods with the passage of bills like S5 and cruelty free cosmetic bills in Canada. We're just getting ready for the marathon. We've just tied our shoelaces so we won't trek.

MG: How do we know if the products and drugs aren't tested on animals? That they will be safe for humans?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: That's an interesting question, you know. Animal methods are not the be all and end all. They're just one tool. That track record for animal safety testing isn't exactly impressive either. 95% of drugs tested to be safe or effective in animals failed in human clinical trials. And with product testing, there are over 85,000 chemicals currently in commerce where we don't know the full range of toxic effects. So if we were to rely on these conventional animal methods, it would take a couple of centuries. So it's really impractical. What we have to do is to resort to other tools. And there are a lot of tools in this versatile, quote unquote, alternative toolbox, perhaps none. That's perfect. Stand alone, none that fits all. But if we use the whole tool kit instead of just the hammer, the animal models where you can actually study human biology from genes to populations to look at how we respond to animals and not just how mice, rats, cats and dogs and sheep and monkeys respond to this, these chemicals.

MG: Let's say if the hammer doesn't work, I'll use your word. If the hammer doesn't work, though, why? Why are people still using animal testing?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: This is, again, not an easy question to answer either. There are a couple of different, different main reasons. On one hand, it has a lot to do with the centuries old global culture of science engrained in animal testing, where animal tests are held to unreasonably high standards as the gold standard, when they may not even be suitable to be the bronze standard in many cases. And it's a it's a culture that disregards the colossal limitations of animal models. It's a culture that requires you to validate human data using animal methods. And we really need to get beyond the Stone Age thinking and start accepting alternatives which are poised to better predict human outcomes in the long run. And the other part is that, just as Camille alluded to, as a society, especially in Canada, we don't demand better. Most Canadians are unaware of the extent of animal testing happening in this country that we use well over 4 million animals annually, and they're also unaware of the extent to which animal testing is replaceable. With 21st century technologies that are faster, cheaper and more predictive of human biology. So we also need to demand from all stakeholders to change the system like many other countries in the world have already done.

MG: Tell us about some of those 21st century technologies. I was reading about them. They sound fascinating, but I don't know that I totally understand them. So run through what what you are working on and dreaming about.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Oh goodness. In one minute? This is gonna be difficult.

MG: Be a bit more than one minute, but go ahead.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: I just, I'll just go through a few that are they're really amazing and making a lot of progress. So at my research centre, we engineer human tissue through 3D bioprinting to create disease in a dish and toxicity in a dish. It's like capturing a microcosm of human physiology in a petri dish. We're seeing drug induced liver injury in a dish, we're seeing chemical induced lung fibrosis in a dish. We're beginning to see kidney injury in a dish. And if you want to Google organ on chip. This is a technology where you can emulate drug and chemical toxicity responses using human cells on a chip the size of the thumb drive.

MG: This is the organ on chip. This is that what microfluidic organs on microchips.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: That is correct. And there is, you know, liver on a chip, long on a chip, partnership on a chip. And the goal is to really create human on a chip where you're combining all these different organ chips to create a whole human response where these chips are connected to each other. And we can-

MG: Was just about to say, what would that be used for?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: It would be used for drug testing and chemical toxicity testing that you can throw in a drug into that system and look at effects very quickly and much, much faster than it would take to do this in animals.

MG: Are there specific things that they would be that you would be testing for with using those technologies, whether it's the 3D tissue or, as you say, organ on chips?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Yes. So with animal moving away from animal testing, these alternative methods are proving to be very promising and outperforming animals at predicting human responses. And oftentimes this is the context of use. How what kind of biological question are you trying to look at? We don't have one model or one method that fits all. So if you're looking at irritation and corrosion, there is one type of test that you would use if you're just looking at injury to liver cells. There's another type of test that you're looking at. So you have to combine mix and match and use the different types of tests to understand human biology at different levels of biological complexity.

MG: How reliable are these new technologies now?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Well, oftentimes the question is not how effective or reliable are they, but how willing are we to let go of the legacy and test the reliability and effectiveness really depend on the context of use, as I said, and the types of biological processes you're trying to measure. And there are already many OECD tests that are recognised as reliable and effective. And they are robust. They are they can better predict human biology and they're reproducible. And there are other methods on the verge of meeting these criteria and there will be a lot of progress in the next five years actually. In fact, in December the OECD called on its member nations for urgent mobilisation of national resources to demonstrate reproducibility and reliability of alternative methods.

MG: It sounds incredibly promising. Are you getting support from Health Canada to move these alternatives forward?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Yes, there is. There's a lot of support and interest or Canada is in OECD members. So has Canada recognises alternative methods that are approved by the OECD Chemical Test Guidelines program. So, for example, for skin and eye irritation and corrosion. Health Canada will accept data using non-animal methods, and Health Canada will also way of testing requirements for when the outcome can be reasonably predicted. For example, a chemical test that is similar to those known to be corrosive will not needed to be tested for irritation. And there are instances where they've dropped some tests altogether, like the one year dog test for pesticides. And there are brilliant scientists at Health Canada who are actively engaged at the OECD and other international consortia to develop and validate non-animal methods. And it's critical that Health Canada continue to adopt them for regulatory decision making.

MG: You've worked in labs for a long time and are now pushing for and helping to develop these alternatives. As a scientist. Have you ever done testing that has involved animals?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Yes, I have. I used animals, mostly mice and rats, to study heart failure and diabetes. But I was also exposed to research labs just down the hall I was working that had dog heart failure models, for example, and spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's, cancer and many other diseases.

MG: You paused when I asked whether you'd worked on them in part, and the tone of your voice changed. I wonder what it was in that work that led you to this work that you're doing right now.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: There were two main reasons. Realising that there are insurmountable differences between us humans and the animals and the ethical implications of animal testing. So it was over a decade ago when I sat next to my dad at Halifax Hug Centre following his quadruple bypass surgery, and I was looking at him and other patients in that ward and I had this profound realisation that the animal research that I was doing that would never help humans like him or anyone else in that ward. And at the same time, I was also going through a personal journey with my precious cat Mowgli, who taught me all about animal sentience, how animals are just like us. And I realised that there was no difference between her and the mice that I was doing heart failure experiments with. So combined with the scientific failures of animal testing and the ethical ethical implications of it, I walked away from it all. And within five years I established the Canadian Centre for Alternative Animal Methods with a vision to change the Canadian animal testing landscape.

MG: Just before I let you go, how long do you think it'll be before that landscape has changed?

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: It is already changing. But if you are looking for a date when we can end toxicity testing, it's not going to happen by 2035 unless the government really ramps up all of their efforts and put in a lot of energy, financial investment, infrastructure, legislation, roadmaps and everything else that we're yet to catch up on. If we did all of that, I would say we will see it in my lifetime.

MG: In your lifetime. And presumably, as you have in both you and Camille have said, that this will also require us, the consumers, to tell the government that this is what we want.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Absolutely. There is a huge role for us to play. This is what happened in the European Union. Most of the European Union initiatives, they were citizen led initiatives that led to history altering changes. And we need to take a more of a stance here in Canada as well. And honestly, every time I go to give talks abroad, and especially in the European Union, people always ask me, why don't Canadians care? And I don't have an answer for that.

MG: Charu, glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

CHARU CHANDRASEKERA: Thank you.

MG: Chandrasekara is executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods, and she was in Windsor, Ontario. Michael Brunt is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph. He has been studying animal welfare and ethics. Michael, good morning to you.

MICHAEL BRUNT: Good morning, Matt.

MG: How significant are the steps that the Government is proposing to end animal testing and better fund and develop those alternatives that Charu has been talking about?

MICHAEL BRUNT: Oh, I think that the availability of validated non-animal tests as this continues to grow is going to be extremely important for the government to ensure that the laws stay current and are able to stay caught up with the science that's coming out in these nano or these non-animal models. And I sincerely hope that these advancements continue and that we don't stick with the status quo, as you had alluded to. Governments internationally need to invest substantially in money for this source of research and development and be committed to updating the surrounding regulations regarding the testing of new compounds.

MG: Is there a point in time at which you think we will replace animals in testing labs?

MICHAEL BRUNT: Hmm. I sincerely hope there is. And again, I feel that we're in the move towards it. But it is about combating the culture that's there and making sure that there are funding that is able to reliably replace the testing strategies that are in place.

MG: How do you go about. I mean, I ask you this as somebody who who studies animal welfare and ethics, how do you go about navigating the ethical issues here to ensure that consumers are protected? But also we understand so much more now than perhaps in past about animal sentience, the fact that these animals feel pain. And so how do you navigate those ethical issues?

MICHAEL BRUNT: Hmm. Well, the ethics can tell you what you can and can't do. Right. And there are teams of veterinarians and technicians, animal care staff, animal care committees that are there to ensure that the rules are followed and that the work is ethical. But the larger question is whether the work is morally permissible and morals tell you what you should or shouldn't do. And within animal care committees, they use a harm benefit analysis to kind of way harms to the animals against the expected benefits of the knowledge. And this is used in order to ensure that all the animal experiments that move forward are ethical. However, given the reproducibility crisis in scientific disciplines, it's extremely challenging to accurately assess these future benefits and additionally to anticipate the harms of the animals. So I feel that in that it's like a very polarising issue. There needs to be a discussion in which society the use of animals requires of permission from society to do the work, and this sort of a social licence gives these scientists permission to use animals as long as they self-regulate in ways that reflect societal values.

MG: Can I can I go back to a phrase that you use, which is morally permissible? I mean, do you think that society we've been talking about the fact that perhaps people don't know what's going on in these labs because it's hard to make it out of the labs, but also people want their products to be safe, presumably. How do you how do you how do you define what's morally permissible when you're talking about the welfare of animals?

MICHAEL BRUNT: Oh, that's a that's a very good question. So for me, it's not necessarily about what I feel is morally permissible. It's around what society feels is morally permissible. And I feel like from my work that I've done by research that I've done with Canadians, Canadians are extremely concerned about the experience of the animal. But at the same time, they also recognise that the work has value that's being done with animals. Andit's a complicated it's a complicated area to explore. Sure is. Yeah. And so what I feel that we really do need is the ability to. Balance the social benefits, like what are actually able to be socially beneficial to society against the cost to the animal and the welfare. And while we people are doing the best they can right now, I think that there could be refinements that would would involve involving Canadians talking with Canadians and having scientists and governments having conversations to be able to decide what we as a society feel is morally permissible for the animals here.

MG: Michael, glad to talk to you about this. As you said, this is a complicated issue. Thank you very much.

MICHAEL BRUNT: You're very welcome. Thank you.

MG: Michael Brunt, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph. He was in Guelph, Ontario. That's The Current for this Friday and for this week. q is up next on CBC Radio One. Earlier in the program, we talked about a new CBC and BBC podcast, Love Janessa, takes us into the world of online catfishing and regrets that perhaps people had who got themselves into a scam that they couldn't figure out a way to get out of. We'll leave you today with some music about coming to terms with the past. It's Brandi Carlile and the things I regret. Hi Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend. We'll talk to you on Monday.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

Friday January 27, 2023 Full Text Transcript

Social Sharing