SIR: In reply to Mr Derbyshire's letter (BEN April 3).

If destroying the world, polluting air and sea, is any measure of importance, then, yes, humans win hands down.

If killing animals for pleasure and money equals supremacy, then we can claim first prize.

If taking vulnerable animals and persistently subjecting them to pain and suffering, for research, and then discarding of them like disposable rubbish is acceptable to you, then you are entitled to your view.

You, of course, are not enduring the torture and ill-treatment. Would your view still be the same if you were, or is it a case of you can do it to them but don't do it to me?

I wonder what the RSPCA's views are on this. Would it be legally acceptable in a domestic situation to inject an animal with disease and pour chemicals in its eyes? Why are some animals protected and others not?

I have made my views obvious and intend this to be my last letter, but it is encouraging that others, like myself, are turning to more natural medication and taking time out to only buy products that have not been tested on animals.

Most animals just want to live life as nature intended. Why can't we just leave them alone?

B Harding (Mrs), Bolton

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.