Animal Testing

[fat bear]

is it right to test cosmetics and other products on animals?

I think that it is right because lab animals can not sue a company that reacts badly to them, does not cost any money to have them, and really, would you want to put on some untested skin lotion or something like that on your body that reacts badly, you would most likely want it to be harmful first on an animal rather than on yourself.

[squealpiggy]

I think that animal testing for cosmetics is wrong. I'm not an animal rights bod, but testing cosmetics on animals is just pointless cruelty. "Se we made a lipstick that stings 30% than other lipsticks if you use it in your own eye!". Bonus! Now I can go for this season's lipstick on eyeball look.

[ZekeyLizard]

This is not a very good debate as everyone I think agrees that animal testing is wrong......but.

It IS a wondeful place for me to show you some of the victims pictures.

[fat bear]

WHY IS IT WRONG? Why put stuff on you that could be harmful to you? If you let the labs test these things on animals, we won't have to be wounded or killed by using potentially lethal things that are fixed to where they are not harmful(when used properly) because they were first tested on animals to see if it is harmful? It just doesn't seem smart!

[ZekeyLizard]

Fatbear,
everyone agrees with you.
Have you not noticed?

[often Ndisguise]

testing cosmetic products on animals is rather disrespectful to life in my opinion. Why should a bunch of rabbits be bred just to spend a miserable life testing rouge?

Medical testing is a whole other area. Medical testing on animals has led to alooooooooot of medical advances that have eased the suffering of alot of people. so the question you have to ask urself is this: what is more important to you: a human or an animal. Even though i profess to hate humanity with a burning passion i still would rather save the life of a human with cancer than the life of a rabbit.

People should ocme first. Then animals.

[squealpiggy]

I agree, it isn't any kind of human centric belief, it's a loyalty to your species thing. If an animal dying can save a human life then bonus.

But I find the idea of sticking cosmetics up guinea pig's arses to make sure people won't die from them is a tad offensive.

[Reddig]

Personally i don't like the idea of testing them cosmetics on animals, for the reasons already mantioned in this thread. But there is another point of view. Cruel and disgusting as it may seem, testing cosmetics on animals isn't pointless.

Imagine, that we ban animal testing. The cosmetics companies have to put a lot more money into less effective lab tests. And then there is a cosmetic created, not tested on animals. After som time it gets to the shops and is bought by hundrets of thousands of women. And then, after a year it comes out, that after a longer usage of this cosmetic people start to loose teeth. Or they get some nasty skin disease. Or something happens to their head and they all start voting for Bush. Animal testing prevents this.

[squealpiggy]

Or they could just make cosmetics out of ingredients that have already been tested.

[The Angry Elvis]

Unfortunately a lot of products that we take for granted would not be around if it wasnt for animal testing. Many mecicines and other retainl products relied on tests done by Huntingdon Life Sciences and other places. If they hadnt done the testing, we wouldt have the medicine.
Now I ask you all: is it right to cause horrific amounts of suffering to animals in place of us having less suffering? Bit of a dilemma.

[Reddig]

Or they could just make cosmetics out of ingredients that have already been tested.

But this would slow down if not stop the progress, wouldn't it?

[Reddig]

I have a dog, a very old one. And no, I don't do any experiments on him. I hate cruelty to animals, I feel sick when I see what people sometimes do with animals. I would feel sick if I saw what they do to animals in laboratories. But this is not my point.

I don't know how to put it not to sound cruel and ruthless... There is a difference between pets and animals you test on. There is no purpose in hurting a cat or a turtle. But there is purpose for the experiments, just like there is purpose for slaughterhouses. The second provide us with food the first - with evolution. And both are bloody, brutal and horrible, but they are needed. Even if they cause suffering.

[squealpiggy]

It wouldn't happen, lab animals have to be raised under lab conditions to control as many factors as possible during experimentation.

As for progress, who cares about progress in mascara?

[SemiCircle]

who indeed? i can't tell one brand from another.
zekey, i don't think you were reading what fat bear was saying.

in principle, it's ok if not done to an extreme (much like anything else).
i don't wear makeup, but i can be pretty sure that women won't buy a product that makes their cheeks swell up like a hamster's, or whatever. if animal testing prevents this, ok then. no need to test the poor creatures to destruction, though; it's one thing to rub a bit of moisturiser into a pig's skin to make sure it isn't corrosive, but it's quite another to squirt shampoo into a rabbit's eye until the poor thing keels over from the pain, just so they can say on the bottle "avoid contact with eyes".

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by SemiCircle
who indeed? i can't tell one brand from another.
zekey, i don't think you were reading what fat bear was saying.

in principle, it's ok if not done to an extreme (much like anything else).
i don't wear makeup, but i can be pretty sure that women won't buy a product that makes their cheeks swell up like a hamster's, or whatever. if animal testing prevents this, ok then. no need to test the poor creatures to destruction, though; it's one thing to rub a bit of moisturiser into a pig's skin to make sure it isn't corrosive, but it's quite another to squirt shampoo into a rabbit's eye until the poor thing keels over from the pain, just so they can say on the bottle "avoid contact with eyes".

Yeah it's that kind of stupidity that results in warning labels like "Do not iron clothes while they are being worn"

[Reddig]

As for progress, who cares about progress in mascara?My mom?

Then again look at the gian leap cosmetics did throughout the las 20 years. Creams, lotrions, soaps, whatever you desire. I guess our Pink fan could tell us better what has changed during that time. And if she uses these achievements of modern cosmetics <looks at Pinkerbell>. That leap wouldn't have been a fact if it wasn't for animal testing.


Yeah it's that kind of stupidity that results in warning labels like "Do not iron clothes while they are being worn

Is it? I thought it's because people who ironed clothes while wearing them sewn the iron making companies and won milions of dollars. I remember one trial like this - a woman had put a cat into a microwave. You can guess the effects. She had sewn afterwards the microwave company, because as she said - she didn't know that something like this could have happened, it wasn't in the instruction. Since then there should be notes on the instructions for microwaves - something like "Please do not put pets into the microwave" or something like that...

[Reddig]

Doesn't make it right.

Hard to argue with that - it does in my opinion, it doesn't in yours.

[squealpiggy]

I have to say that I disapprove of animals being experimented on for cosmetics, but I don't really spend a great deal of energy in thinking about them.

[Reddig]

Yes, I feel sickened, disgusted, I feel sorry for the animals, and I do find the whole site horryfying.

Then again, I have my views on this, but this time please excuse me, because I would like to keep them to myself this time.

[squealpiggy]

Your views are to test on criminals? That's the usual next step ;)

Incidentally I have no qualms about testing on animals for clinical and medical purposes, and as a meat eater it would be pretty hypocritical to be against the killing of animals in general. But there should be a line drawn an I think recreational animal torment should be outlawed, including cosmetics testing because they are not an essential or life affirming commodity.

[Reddig]

No, I wouldn't keep statesments like that to myself ;].

Besides, I don't think that crimminals should be tested on. That would be a wast of good criminals. Instead I'd put them in big spinning wheels (like ones for giant hamsters), and make them run in order to make cheap and enviroment-friendly electrical energy.

[SterlingTE]

Originally posted by Pinkerbell
Take a look at this site: CLICKY (http://www.boundaryschools.com/perley/classpages/kehlergidney/webpages/animaltestingBPT/animal_testing.htm)

Scroll down and LOOK at the pictures. Do you think we should do this to animals still?? If you look at this and aren't sickened and angered, then you need help.

And you can buy products that aren't tested on animals now. Matter of fact, EVERYTHING at the store Bath and Body works IS NOT tested on animals. There ARE other ways. And frankly, I'd sacrifice wearing make-up to keep poor, defenseless animals from being tortured.

Well, I had a look at that site...

It was probably the least informative 'reference' possible for this matter, as it gave no indication as to what kind of testing any of the subjects were going through, nor any reference for the pictures, nor any hard statistics on either abuse or testing.

Something some of you have overlooked here, is that often times in medical research, the animals are not healthy to begin with. Rats, mice, rabbits, frogs, and others, are bred to have predispositions to specific physical and/or genetic problems. The researchers and scientists then try to treat and cure their ails. The engineering naturally brings up more issues, but put them aside for a moment, and focus on the fact that the goal is to find cures.

As for cosmetic testing, I believe it is perfectly acceptable, and should be done as needed.

I am not for the abuse and torture of animals. However, I realize that the need for the testing is there. What happens if you do not test a product? Cosmetics, medicine, food, even software; they all need to be tested to ensure effectiveness and safety. There are some things that computers just can't simulate and plan for in this physical world.

And again, there seems to be another misconception about cosmetic testing on animals. The do not purposely set out to kill and horribly maim their subjects. If there's a problem that leads to say, irritation, or an allergic reaction, on the animal, it is minor, and will not cause terrible distress. The product is then worked on to improve it. If there is a serious or fatal reaction, it is probably for the best that a rabbit was the first to recieve it, rather than 50 or so human test subjects. These researchers want healthy animals in the end, because it means the product was a success. It is not in their interest to have ill subjects.

The only exception to that rule I can think of, (refering to cosmetics), is when they have to determine how much of a substance is a lethal dose. That is valuable information with any industrial or consumer-available compond. You may not sit down and eat a tub of cold cream, but a four year old might. Are the lives of a few animals worth the potential of saving hundreds of lives? In my book, they are...

Incase anyone is interested, I do not wear any make-up, and I do keep pets....

(Testing on criminals would require a whole different thread, heh)

[squealpiggy]

I think you are slightly naive as to the care that these animals get. The animals are tested to death and then discarded, just like a crash test dummy. That's not being sensible, that's being realistic. The animals are a commodity in these labs, like pens and paper in other places of work. They are not there to be cared for, they are there to experiment on and the people performing the experiments quickly get a sense of detatchment from their subjects and treat them like office furniture...

[often Ndisguise]

any normal human who has ever had a beloved pet knows that animals have personalities. This is especially true of mammals (particularly the more intelligent ones such as dogs, cats and horses).

Most people have had pets they love. Therefore most people care about animals to some extent. Some more than others.

Killing animals is not to be taken lightly. They are life and feel pain and suffering just as much as humans can. Yet they are not human.

Humans should matter the most to other humans and if the lives of some animals can help develop drugs to cure cancer then i think it is a good sacrifice.

Most people consume animals for food. I look at animal testing to help modern medicine in the same way: sacrificing an animal for a worthy cause. However, there should definitely be some standards to how the animals are treated.

I think testing cosmetics on animals is wasteful. No one needs mascara to live.

[ZekeyLizard]

Semi-Circle? What are you babbling about?

Look it all boils down to the fact that we have nothing else to test it on. Scientists figure they need something to test these products on. They cant do it on a human so they use a rabbit or possibly a monkey. Why a monkey?
Because a monkey cant sue.
Thats why.
Its money. The root of all evil.
Why not test it on themselves if they made it? Because they are cowards. It doesnt matter if you beleive an animal to be inferior. It is STILL a living creature. So there.:mad:

[often Ndisguise]

a monkey is not as important as a human's life. if u got cancer or something i am sure u would want something to cure it. If i had cancer i would want something to cure it. These drugs that are a hallmark of modern medicine are the result of many years of research. Some of which takes place on animals.

Humans mean more tome than a monkey. And if testing on monkeys results in effectiv cancer drugs , etc then i am all for it

[evilsupernasty]

Listen to your selves. All so damned self-important.

[GorillaBearBear]

As for the animal testing Issue, sterling is right. First off, cosmetics companies aren't allowed to harm animals pointlessly. They go through routine inspections to make sure they aren't. I think. As for you squealpiggy, yes, there are fatalities among the animals, although this happenes more in the medicine field, where they are working with complex drugs that could have drastic effects if not used correctly. However, the usage of words like "discarded" etc isn't exactly fair. Yes the scientists don't care about the animals personally, but it's not as though they go out of their way to be cruel to the animals. It's not as though they just poke them with electrodes until they die and then throw them in a waste bin. I admit it's not the most humane conditions, but it's not the least, yes they are kept in small cages and are could die, but I would rather the drugs/cosmetics harmed a few hundred animals and were improved than they harmed a few hundred thousand consumers because they weren't teted.

[evilsupernasty]

GuerillaBaaBaa, I don't know if that comment was aimed at me or not , but I'll presume (ha ha) that it was.

My comment will probably be misunderstood. So, I'll make it more clear.

The main justification for animal-testing brought up in this topic has been that humans are more important than animals. I question this rationale. But who are humans important too? Only themselves, there is nothing else on this planet that requires humans besides ourselves. Who is the life of a rat important too? Itself of course. Whose life is more important? What grand universal constant of value are we judging our importance against?

That's what my self-important comment was about. I think humans in general are too self-important, like we have some grand purpose that excuses our naughty behaviour.

Maybe I should have made myself more clear the first time, but I couldn't be arsed. So is it fair to say that you presumed that I made presumptions about peoples personalities?

Also, this board is far too anal about getting off-topic, like it's a mortal sin or something.

[GorillaBearBear]

Haha, sorry I jumped down your throat then, post edited in accordance. And I have to say I used to agree with you, and in most ways I still do, but I figure that if we're gonna be the dominant species, then I'd prefer to be dominant in a comfort, call me harsh, but that's just what I think.

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by evilsupernasty
But who are humans important too? Only themselves, there is nothing else on this planet that requires humans besides ourselves. Who is the life of a rat important too? Itself of course.[/B]
We ARE humans, therefore we value our own lives over the lives of rats. Rats don't look out for us do they?

[evilsupernasty]

OK, put it this way:

Your life is important to yourself, but does it make the life of a (human) stranger any less important to his/herself, if it came down you or him/her?

edit: it's getting late, the typos are getting the better of me.

[Mister Ben]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
who cares about progress in mascara?

Exactly. Testing makeup on animals is stupid. Haven't we got enough already?

But testing medicine on animals may actually save more damage to us than it causes to them, as you only need to test a product once before you can use it hundreds of times. And there are some animal tests that don't actually harm the animal - however not many. There is also the problem of animal testing not guaranteeing a safe formula - what animals are immune to doesn't necessarily have a correlation with what humans are immune to. In general though, I'd say it is a practical and relatively useful solution to a big problem.

[Wally]

Testing medicines on animals is okay.. but testing make up is not.. testing hammers not either...

[squealpiggy]

The main justification for animal-testing brought up in this topic has been that humans are more important than animals. I question this rationale.

The rationale is very simple: I am human, and so place a higher value on animals that are of my species than those who aren't. It's not self importance, it's species awareness.

I think it is a good point that testing on a hundred animals could prevent ill effects on a hundred thousand humans, but personally I think that there are more important things than makeup and hair gel to shove into rabbit's eyes.

And also regarding the humane-ness ("humanity" would be grammatically correct but semantically misleading) of the labs, look at it this way: If you don't work with computers and you buy one you treat it with care. If you work with one you don't treat it with the same care. Same as people who work with animals. These are not cuddly little animals to a lab tech, they are tools to be used. If you left the office every day thinking that you cause physical pain to a hundred odd animals every day it would very quickly unhinge you. To avoid this you objectify the animals to the level of "things" in order to desensitise yourself against them.

In fact this is one thing that the human race is very good at, adapting to situations using intellect.

[often Ndisguise]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
The rationale is very simple: I am human, and so place a higher value on animals that are of my species than those who aren't. It's not self importance, it's species awareness.



*clapclapclap* lol:p

A rat will never be as important as a human being. lol. Rats have no higher thoughts. They live only to make more rats with no higher thoughts. Most of them have no distinguishing features from each other.

Anyone suggesting that a rat is in any way as important as a human being is *according to my standards* irrational/.

this is not to say that purposely being cruel to rats for no reason is good. It is evil. However, performing tests on a rat for the benefit of mankind is not evil

[Death]

Animals are put through a great deal at our expence

zoos, battery farming, forrestation and, of course, testing.

I guess they deserve the right to live but what I find is that those who have a bleeding heart for animals in disgusting conditions often know little of the facts. I do hate zoos but I do eat alot of meat, without checking its origin, I use alot of paper, I know nothing of the companies re-forestation policies and I have never checked if my soap has been tested on animals In my life and I am sure alot of people in this forum hold a similar case. I have seen a bunch of 'undercover videos' of disgusting conditions that monkeys and various other animals must endure and the government does nothing because like us, wether you are willing to admit it or not, they have more personally important things to deal with and honestly they do not care.

[ZekeyLizard]

Wally.
Thank you for that comment.
It has made my day.

[squealpiggy]

do hate zoos

I have a friend who works at Toronto zoo, I often go to Chester zoo, even themeparks like Flamingo land have cleaned up their act. In the UK and in North America zoos are humane places that are concerned with conservation, rather than having the style of old style menageries. Sure they let people come and look at animals but the money they get is put back into keeping then animals alive in the wild.

[Wally]

Originally posted by ZekeyLizard
Wally.
Thank you for that comment.
It has made my day.
No problem man... I allways make days......;)

[CooCooChaLoo]

I think aimal testing for cosmetic reasons is completley wrong: we can live without lipstick and mascarra, yet some people cannot live without penicilin, which was discovered with animal testing. i think for medical purposes, animal testing is useful and worthwhile, has nobody thought of that?

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by CooCooChaLoo
I think aimal testing for cosmetic reasons is completley wrong: we can live without lipstick and mascarra, yet some people cannot live without penicilin, which was discovered with animal testing. i think for medical purposes, animal testing is useful and worthwhile, has nobody thought of that?

Penicilin was discovered by accident when a mould got onto a culture of bacteria and Alexander Fleming noticed that where the mould had grown in the culture no bacteria touched it.

[Reddig]

i think for medical purposes, animal testing is useful and worthwhile, has nobody thought of that?Most people who had something to do with this thread did, furthermore - many have already stated that. But who would care reading the whole thread before writing down his wisdoms...