ATTN: Opponents of Animal Testing

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: jjessico
Would you rather have it blind you or a lab rat?

Jason

Good point.

look, if other manafacturers make shampoos, detergents or whatever that don't cause blindness why can't P&G do it (i'm being drawn further and further into a debate that I haven't even seen proof of myself yet... yikes.., anyways... ) for sake of argument D), why?

 

[edro]

That's it! I will never buy another Tampax!

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

The basic drill for testing soap and cosmetics is to slice off the animal's eyelids and see which substances blind it.

any links to substantiate this statement..if thats true, it certainly changes my view on things

Try here

I'm not sure what the test beyond Draize is called, where the eyelids are removed but I'll find it. Draize is bad enough.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: edro13
That's it! I will never buy another Tampax!

if you're a hot chick you can borrow me instead.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: edro13
That's it! I will never buy another Tampax!

if you're a hot chick you can borrow me instead.

Why yes I am.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: jjessico
Would you rather have it blind you or a lab rat?

Jason

Animal testing of any kind is an archaic practice with no place in modern science. We can draw so little information from them that the only reason they still occur is ignorance and tradition. The labs that do them can do them cheaper than any kind of in vitro test or computer model.

 

[SherEPunjab]

OMG have you guys read this??

Gilette! oh no no more mach 3's now. has anyone tried schicks triple razor?

parker pens? sheesh what could they possibly test with that? put ink in the bunny's eyes to see if it blinds it? no wonder they are so cheap.

JnJ? I like their products and Aveeno too.

what to do what to do?

confuzed.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: edro13

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: edro13
That's it! I will never buy another Tampax!

if you're a hot chick you can borrow me instead.

Why yes I am.

okay, no thanks.

 

[Joemonkey]

so...

if it came down to (and these are your ONLY choices) having to euthanize an animal to help control the population, vs using that animal to better humanity by testing various things on it, which would you rather have happen?

 

[Spoooon]

Some interesting things:

Colgate-Palmolive has animal testing undertaken for it by outside contractors. A few years ago, BUAV recently uncovered details of an experiment carried out for the company by Columbia University in which guinea pigs were locked into small plastic tubes and a strong solution of surfactant was applied for four hours a day for three days, causing cracked and bleeding skin on the animals.

Smithkline-Beecham

The company its own animal testing facilities and it has been accused of unnecessary cruelty in housing its animals. In 1990, an undercover National Anti-Vivisection Society worker reported baby mice having their toes removed, beagles kept in metal pens with concrete floors and no bedding, and dogs being transported packed two in a crate.

Proctor and Gamble

In July 1991, BUAV revealed that P&G had conducted tests on about 300 guinea pigs to determine irritancy and allergic sensitivity to sunscreen ingredients. Human data was already available. In 1992, using US government records, 'In Defence of Animals' reported that P&G had increased its use of dogs, hamsters and ferrets between 1986 and 1989. Total animal use is estimated at about 50,000 per year.

 

[Joemonkey]

ok so do you people really believe that all this animal testing is pointless?

do you believe that the ONLY reason the testing is done on the animals is to harm them?

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
ok so do you people really believe that all this animal testing is pointless?

Yes. 100 years ago it was valid. Today it is not. The specialized drugs being developed are so specific that any animal results are inapplicable. And any cosmtic tests are for legal reasons, not actual safety.

 

[Joemonkey]

i'm not talking about ONLY cosmetic testing, i'm talking about all testing in general

which would you rather happen, they test (insert anything potentially harmful to people) on animals first before it goes to human markets, or just put it in the human market and see what happens?

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
i'm not talking about ONLY cosmetic testing, i'm talking about all testing in general

which would you rather happen, they test (insert anything potentially harmful to people) on animals first before it goes to human markets, or just put it in the human market and see what happens?

Depending on what they test, there may be no reason other than profit to put it in the human market. And also, it's not just the tests, but how the animals are treated. For example, I see the need for some medical testing... but there is no need to treat the animals cruely at the same time. Like in one of the accusations I posted where the dogs were kept in metal pens with concrete floors and no bedding, etc. Also, I think I read that, atleast for cosmetics, animal testing is not required by law.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
i'm not talking about ONLY cosmetic testing, i'm talking about all testing in general

which would you rather happen, they test (insert anything potentially harmful to people) on animals first before it goes to human markets, or just put it in the human market and see what happens?

Joemonkey:

first of all, i'm sure the rabbits aren't wild, so the control of their population is pointless. I doubt some researcher somewhere working on a 20 million dollar R&D project is out in the field in his galoshes chasing down wild jack rabbits.

Second, the fact is that animal testing for cosmetics is not needed, hence countless other examples of very good companies (very good products), that do not use them. For the most part, I'm willing to bet it is just cheaper to test it on animals instead of using computer models as stated by the other poster, so the human vs. animal thing isn't very realistic imho.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
i'm not talking about ONLY cosmetic testing, i'm talking about all testing in general

which would you rather happen, they test (insert anything potentially harmful to people) on animals first before it goes to human markets, or just put it in the human market and see what happens?

No, I mean all testing. Methods using cultured human cells are far more accurate, but more expensive. In other words, science has advanced to the point where animals are no longer useful.

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
i'm not talking about ONLY cosmetic testing, i'm talking about all testing in general

which would you rather happen, they test (insert anything potentially harmful to people) on animals first before it goes to human markets, or just put it in the human market and see what happens?

Depending on what they test, there may be no reason other than profit to put it in the human market. And also, it's not just the tests, but how the animals are treated. For example, I see the need for some medical testing... but there is no need to treat the animals cruely at the same time. Like in one of the accusations I posted where the dogs were kept in metal pens with concrete floors and no bedding, etc. Also, I think I read that, atleast for cosmetics, animal testing is not required by law.

i understand where you are coming from now, and it makes sense

why treat animals cruelly if there is no benefit by ANYONE, rather than the almighty dollar?!

I suppose there will always be people like you and me who can tolerate the testing when needed, but there will always be the crackheads who oppose it no matter what, and the assclowns who are for it even if for the slightest minor thing...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: jjessico
Would you rather have it blind you or a lab rat?

Jason

Animal testing of any kind is an archaic practice with no place in modern science. We can draw so little information from them that the only reason they still occur is ignorance and tradition. The labs that do them can do them cheaper than any kind of in vitro test or computer model.

Not true. If it were you could design a drug in advance, know who would respond to it, how they would, what the side effects are, market it and have it work every time. What you are describing is decades away from reality, if it is possible at all. Notice there is no cure for AIDs yet? That is because it is so far an intractable problem. The problem is far far to complex to model. You would have to know everything there is to know about life to do this and have a level of computing power commensurate with that knowlege. You may not like animal models, but from a pharmacologic and toxicologic standpoint, they are indespensable.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Not true. If it were you could design a drug in advance, know who would respond to it, how they would, what the side effects are, market it and have it work every time. What you are describing is decades away from reality, if it is possible at all. Notice there is no cure for AIDs yet? That is because it is so far an intractable problem. The problem is far far to complex to model. You would have to know everything there is to know about life to do this and have a level of computing power commensurate with that knowlege. You may not like animal models, but from a pharmacologic and toxicologic standpoint, they are indespensable.

Trial and error has outlived it's usefulness. If you've ever wondered why drugs are available in Europe years before here, less reliance on animal tests in one(though not the only) reason.



It's long, it's boring, but it's a good example of how other methods are viable and even preferable.

 

[AndrewR]

Subjecting animals to tests such as the SAT, MCAT, and the LSAT is just outright cruelty. I mean, it's cruel for people but the poor animals would suffer low self-esteem by their poor performance. Down with animal testing!

That is the kind of testing you had in mind, right?

 

[Fencer128]

Just a quick point.

If you don't support animal testing for cosmetics, etc. that doesn't mean your opposed to testing medical products (ie drugs) on animals. I have no problem with that point of view.

From the point of view of those who say "we need new shampoo's, etc. and I want them tested before I use them" - well there are plenty of companies supplying cosmetics and beauty products who DON'T test them on animals - so in my view this is a perfectly possible route to go down.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[datalink7]

Heh, I boycott Sunny Delight because it is crap.

Anyway, I am against animal testing on Monkeys, but think it is alright on Rats and Mice.

 

[jjones]

Hey, you can count on me! You'll never find me with Tampax in the checkout line.

 

[yakko]

Is that all the products they make? I was hoping there was more I could buy.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Animal Avengers? Do you get a costume with that?