You may want to think twice about eating that candy bar, or buying any of the products you have been buying in the store. You may be buying something that contributes,supports, or experiments on animals. This is not your average rant about animal abuse. More of a realization that animal experiments are still common and in abundance as we speak. These experiments don't seem to be proving what they are trying to prove because they are fallacy for many reasons.
A wide variety of animals are used in these experiments. Rabbits, monkeys, mice (because they are plentiful,cheap, and easy to access),guinea pigs, even cats and dogs. Besides monkeys, many of these animals do not have even close to the same chemical make up that humans have. They are smaller, therefore are more likely to die or get sick from alot smaller amounts of products admistered than a human would.
Over 3 million Americans use Botox each year. To make the product safe for humans to use animals must first tolerate painful experiments. Mice are injected with Botox during the safety test. The experiment is called "Lethal 50" 50% of the mice must die for a rough estimate to be established before the Botox is shipped off. Allergan Inc is the company who does these experiments. Sadly it is not totally their fault. The government is at fault. Since the product must first go through safety tests, the Botox can not ship out before these safety test. The government has not and still today will not approve another method to test the Botox.
You might want to put down that candy bar. PETA is trying to put a stop to Mars Inc testing on animals. They make candy such as; M&M's,Snickers,Skittles,Dove,Starburst, and many other candy bars and sweets. You may wonder like I did: Why would they experiment with animals, it is chocolate? Well here is how.
Mice are forced to have a tube shoved down their throats and chocolate is placed in the tube. This experiment is designed to see the effect of chocolate on the blood vessels. Their leg is then cut open, to show an artery. The artery is then "clamped down" to stop blood flow. After this the mice are killed. Mars has also funded many other experiments.
Although a slow process, PETA is trying to put a stop to animal experiments. Here is a list of products that experiment on animals and products that do not experiment on animals.
Products that experiment on animals:
-Mars Inc.
-Botox
-Bausch & Lomb
-Nivea
-Nair
-Johnson & Johnson (Clean & clear,Neutrogena,Aveeno)
-Loreal
-Procter &Gamble (Head & Shoulders,Old Spice)
-Woolite
-Suave
-Oust
-Glade
-Windex
-Pledge
-Arm & Hammer
-Bic
-Clariol
-Clorox
-Cover girl
Products that DO NOT experiment:
-Avon
-Milla
-Hersheys
-Welsh's
-Almay
-Aloe Vera (i'm happy about that because I just bought some for my sunburn)
-Aromatherapy
-Bare Essenticals
-Bath & Body works
-Bella
I could not find many names I recognize and there are alot more I did not have time to list, but feel free to check out the links
http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/index.en.php?id=335
http://www.caringconsumer.com/pdfs/companiesDontTest.pdf
Also if the bottle says they don't test on animals then normally they don't.
Check before you buy a product! Hope this helps.
http://www.caringconsumer.com/pdfs/companiesDoTest.pdf
http://www.marscandykills.com/index.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR200804...
http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/index.en.php?id=334
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Yes, this is your average rant on animal abuse- it lacks research and is highly biased.
First of all, what makes you think that "chocolate was shoved down their throats"? If you check PETA's references, ALL of them fed the mice ad libitum, which means food is available for the animal to eat at his or her own free will. Did you actually read those papers, or did you just believe what PETA told you to?
Actually, all of the animals you listed have approximately the same "chemical makeup" as humans. Genetically, most of the proteins found in different organisms are nearly identical, if not identical. We have genes coding for proteins with conserved sequence domains all the way down to fungi and bacteria.
As for dosages and size, this is taken into account during testing. This is why dosages are listed as mg/kg, g/kg, etc. Monkeys are very rarely used in research. Chimps are sometimes used, but oftentimes if a product is safe enough to be tested in a chimp it may be eligible for testing in humans. Animal testing standards require records similar to those for human medical care, anaesthesia, and humane euthanization with demonstrated necessity. Not just anybody can work with animals, and laboratories must meet strict guidelines for animal care. Unfortunately, lethality tests for some drugs are necessary- you wouldn't want your doctor to discover the lethal amount of a medication while prescribing it to you. The government has not approved another method for testing botox or any other implantable substance because there is no way to predict every reaction other than in vivo.
PETA is somewhat biased- they will take information and manipulate it in order to cause misconceptions. The research that Mars "funded" by providing one of the chemicals found in chocolate (they did not conduct the research) was a study to help determine the effects of flavanolsand other chemicals found in chocolate on heart disease, cancer, obesity, and artherosclerosis. I've seen one of the PETA blogs on this topic, read it, and read the papers the author refers to. The research funded by Mars is actually cited by the American Institute for Cancer Research.
I see no need in unnecessary animal suffering just as you do. This is why I'm a vegetarian (hopefully you are as well, otherwise that would make you a hypocrite) and a researcher myself. We are always trying to find ways to minimize and improve animal testing without compromising the safety or benefit for humans and other animals. Animals recieve care that meets standards higher than most states' veterinary guidelines. They are treated with respect and appreciation for their sacrifice. I don't know of anyone that would shove chocolate down a rat's throat just to observe blood vessels when this could easily be done in other ways. I've seen people cry because they've had to euthanize a rat. Scientists are not mean people looking to kill animals or perform strange experiments like the ones you described. It takes a very caring person to go to school for 10 years only to make little over a teacher's salary when they're done. There are many misconceptions about research, and perhaps you should clear those up so you can better argue your point.
P.S.-
Bath and Body Works tests on animals, they just don't test the final product on animals.
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
I agree. I think all the people that are so against animal testing should sign up to be the first "guinea pigs" pardon the pun. But like you were saying most of these rats and mice are treated better in labs than they every would be outside. Have you ever seen how they kill them when a house is infested? icky!!!
I would much rather know that rats died to make a drug perfect before it was used on one of my children. Sorry to say but those rats do not mean anything to me. I would not hurt one just to hurt it and watch it suffer, however used in scientific research is perfectly fine with me. The also do not use dogs and cats as much as you would think. They stick to the rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. and I say cheers to these animals, they make things safer for our world!!
Jeanna Marie
Cosmetics are another. DrifterDani's list was of cosmetics and household manufacturers. I don't think it is necessary to put an animal at risk to test my pretty-smelling hand lotion. If it has so many chemicals in it that the creators are afraid to test it on their own hands, I don't want it. Life-saving medicines are a bit more important than things that make us look pretty.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I see no need in unnecessary animal suffering just as you do. This is why I'm a vegetarian (hopefully you are as well, otherwise that would make you a hypocrite)
What?! I'm assuming you're referring to the large meat industries that raise the animals at an insane rate and keep them confined to small, unclean areas. If so, then I agree with boycotting them. However, you don't have to go vegetarian to do so. There are tons of local and humane farms that not only kill the animals humanely, but also raise them naturally and humanely. It's just a matter of finding them.
It's not hypocritical to be against unnecessary animal suffering and eat meat as long as one is mindful of where said meat came from. Some of us can't go without eating meat.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Agreed!
McKenna Meat Market, which is about a half hour drive from my house, raises all their own meat (piggies, cows, chickens, etc.) and slaughters them humanely, treats all the meat themselves (the hanging, the smoking, the drying, the butchering, what have you) and it is not only delicious and more healthy, it's much more humane than a commercial slaughterhouse. Yay for local meat markets!!
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Kidding. I actually want to second the beauty of local meat markets! We have one across the street from us, and learning about it persuaded us to go local instead of vegetarian. Eating meat from a humane, organic farm we could visit is WAY more ethical than eating processed soy products.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
It is not bias and not an average rant on animals because alot of the sites used were not from PETA. The Mars candy company was just about the only site used. The Botox was from the washington post, not PETA.
Not being Vegetarian does not in anyway make me hypocritical. Like drangonwolf stated some people can't go without meat. Plus when one does not comsume meat they lack many esscential vitamins, that are better absorbed through animal meat. I am ok if animals have humane living conditions. Most animals being tested do not and even most places who raise livestock. Plus if everyone decided not to eat meat many animals would overpopulate, (unless stopped) and we would have to kill them anyway.
The main point of this article which I should of expressed better was many companies aren't following the Animal Welfare Act. In this act if you have even read it... it states through out it: that animals should be treated in "humane ways". They are not being treated in humane ways that is the main point. If they were treated better than maybe animal testing would be ok in a sense. They are not treated with respect when being tested. Mice are given injects of Botox so they can stagger around and be paralyed? That is not ethical or recpectful as you called it.
I know monkeys are used rarely.
I agree with Posion Ivy and what she had to say. The point I was mainly trying to make is the animals aren't being treated how they should be. Of course doing such a controversal topic was a stupid idea on my part because I noticed anything about animals people never agree with you on. I was not saying I am totally correct, but this is the problem with society today everyone thinks they are infact correct about everything.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
We can't expect everyone to agree all the time, right? I too hate conflict, but one thing being here has taught me is that people can disagree with you and you can remain intelligent, good, and valuable. Being "wrong" doesn't hurt as much as I thought it would when I started this!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
While not all of your sources where from PETA, you did mention them a lot (like, reading through it, I was also thinking that your only sources were PETA because you mentioned them so much).
Also, it's generally better received to include your links within the document, instead of at the end. Since it appears you don't know how to use HTML, I give you the Webmonkey HTML Cheat Sheet, which provides a good reference for anyone not familiar with HTML.
Finally, ProU is for all intents and purposes a debate site. The primary themes are things that are up for debate in our society, therefore controversial matters are the norm. They also tend to get more reads and comments.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Don't worry about it, Dani. You are entitled to your opinion and you stated it very well.
I honestly don't think make-up should be tested on animals, for the very reason ediblewoman pointed out.
Chocolate and household cleaners I'm sort of on the fence about. I would want to know the effects the products I buy could possible have on me.
Maybe I can use an example to illustrate my point - I was driving in busy traffic once and a squirrel ran out in front of me. I could have either swerved and hit the car in the next lane possible injuring another person or I could squash the squirrel. I squashed the squirrel. In the same token, I am pretty anal about keeping my house clean. I would rather scientists test the cleaning materials for any and all possible side effects before I let the kids inhale the fumes from them.
I do agree that an animal should NEVER be tortured just for the hell of it, and putting makeup and lotions on them just seems like torture. People shouldn't want to buy anything to wash with that would have any reason whatsoever to be tested on animals. If a chemical in certain make-ups are iffy, I wouldn't want to wear it at all.
And don't EVER feel bad for stating your opinion! Disagreeing is what makes everyone unique! I'd be bored if everyone agreed with everything I said! I would never get to play devil's advocate!
You both have good points that I agree with. I think sometimes I picture what I write better then it turns out to be. Sometimes I can't get my point across. This raises a question though since they do test medication on animals and even study groups of people they don't test it long enough. How come there are so many flaws in the future where the medication is recalled because it killed someone? Doesn't that seem to be a waste of animals and people? I think so.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
How come there are so many flaws in the future where the medication is recalled because it killed someone?
I could be mistaken, but I think it's possible that the reaction someone in the general public had was not something that came up in the test groups. Although any company tries to get a good cross-section of the population, the chemical makeup (as well as the combination of medications) of people are just too varied to really be able to find everything. If it ends up killing someone, they then have to take it back in and find out why it killed them.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of your Rx drugs are actually still somewhat experimental. It's kind of like open beta on a video game, it's pretty easy to get into and it's near release quality, but they still need to test it on a larger population. The meds still Rx so that they can be kept track of better. After years of being Rx, some of them, such as Claratin, become over the counter. Now, obviously your heavier drugs, antidepressants and whatnot, stay as Rx, but ones that have OTC variants generally become OTCs themselves ("now you can get Rx strength Claratin without a Rx!")
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I understand that, but sometimes it will kill many people. You had good points though. in my opinion I honestly don't think they test these drugs long enough
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
Okay, then. How long do you think they should be tested before being released?
Adverse reactions from things like aspirin (which has been around for over a century) still kills people.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
But maybe they should keep testing them while they are on the market. So they don't lose profits. still test them for a few years even when they are still on the market.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
You might want to reread my first reply in this particular thread (where I replied to someone else who commented). I mentioned the fact that prescription drugs are still being tested, even after they've been released to the public. It's the general public that are the guinea pigs, though.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Sorry my memory is quite bad. I remember now.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that every person reacts differently to different things. I think it is almost impossible to get a test group that is able to represent everyone on the planet. I, for example, am probably one of the few people who seems to experience the "rare" side effects with almost every medication I have been prescribed. I have had neurological seizures to hives. I am allergic to practically everything, so add an environmental factor to a medication I am on and watch out! Test groups can never really even hit the surface of the millions prescribed a medication once it is FDA approved. Unfortunately, if too many experience the "rare" side effects, a medication is pulled from the market or a class action suit is filed. No medication can really be considered "safe" even after years of tests and study.
If you read closely, the packaging reads "This finished product not tested on animals." They make the providers of their ingredients sign a form that says they don't test on animals, but they don't do anything to make sure. It is better than just out and out testing on animals, but it is not the strictest standard out there.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
This theory just doesn't work for me, either it is okay or it isn't... did you know that mentally some make-up can do for some what Zoloft does for others?
Jeanna Marie
I assume that was a reply to my comment. My question for you is why so black and white? There are a lot of things in the world that are justified in some situations and not in others. Saving lives is, in my opinion, much more important than full hair and shiny lips. You may disagree. I've never seen studies that prove make up to be as effective an anti-depressant as actual anti-depressants, but if you can provide the evidence, I will happily change my tune, and recommend make up to my suicidal mother.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I had no idea they fed candy to animals to test their effects!
But, unfortunately, the question keeps popping up in my mind - if drugs, food, make-up, etc are tested on animals, how would these products get tested? Should people just stop experimenting for the cure for cancer and AIDS to save the mice? Darwin's theory of evolution states that the strongest will survive. If humans just "give up" and don't work to fight against diseases that seem to be infecting humans more often than ever, than maybe humans will simply cease to exist. Who are we helping if the human race dies off and the entire world is left to the mice?
If humans just "give up" and don't work to fight against diseases that seem to be infecting humans more often than ever, than maybe humans will simply cease to exist.
No, we won't just cease to exist. We'll be put back under the same natural population control measures as every other living thing on the planet. Yes, a good portion of the species would die because of it, but overall, our population would actually be better once it's all said and done.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
So you're suggesting that we just let all of those with cancer and AIDs and every other terminal disease just die to control the population? I would hate to be the one to break it to their families.
I didn't initially intend it as it was an answer to your question, but now that you mention it, it is a possibility in a utilitarian sort of way.
Our desire to find medications come from our fear of death. However, it has led us to massive overpopulation. In nature, when an area becomes overpopulated, famine and disease set in as part of regaining balance. The ones that survive do so because they are more able to survive because they are heartier (better immune system, increased tolerance for starvation, etc) or slightly better adapted to obtain food (longer neck or arms to reach further, perhaps a little faster). They also live to see more prosperous days. Ergo, the population as a whole is, in fact, slightly better off than they were before. This is the essence of "survival of the fittest."
However, our fear of death has ultimately resulted in more famine, more disease, and more people. The issue will only continue to escalate. If it's not disease, then it'll be mass starvation and global warfare over what precious few resources that are left. We're trying so hard to play "God" that we'll eventually end up destroying ourselves. It's entirely possible that letting nature takes its course could actually save the species.
I never said it was pretty.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I have too many family members suffering from cancer and heart problems to just throw in the towel. If our chances of coming down with certain diseases are base on genetics, I'm completely screwed on both sides. If one of my family members were to say, "don't take me to seek medical care, I would like to stop the overpopulation of the earth by allowing myself to die," I would honestly knock them unconscious and drag them to a doctor. I'm selfish. I won't sacrifice my family for some warped sense of "greater good" or to save a few mice.
Love is a powerful determining factor in decisions regarding prolonging life. My family and friends mean more to me than anything, so I'd rather a few mice suffer in the process towards the cure for cancer than to lose another family member to the disease.
Guess I'm pretty biased, but if I end up with cancer, I sure as shit want someone out their fighting for a cure. I'm not afraid to die, but I want to lead a full life, first. Many others deserve that chance, as well.
There's a song I think you'll appreciate. It's called Live Like You Were Dying. It's about a man who had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and instead of worrying about what he didn't do, he did what he had never done (because he had thought he would have his whole life to do so).
To be frank, you never know if today might be your last day (If Tomorrow Never Comes is another good song about this matter). I think humanity as a whole has forgotten how short and precious life is. Because of that, we end up living and then when something hits close to home, such as the death of a family member or a terminal illness, they start regretting all the thing they didn't do.
If you want to live a full life, the time is now to do so, because regardless of how much we advance in medicine, we as individuals are still going to die.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm so conflicted over this issue! I've read the posts above and at first I totally agreed with Dani that the animals don't deserve to be tested on. The picture in my mind of rats wearing makeup is totally absurd.
But then there's the animal testing for vaccines and medicines. Is it fair? I'm leaning towards yes, but I think humans should volunteer themselves for more studies like these.
And then there's the idea that these things were testing animals for should be populations controls. Maybe. I can't help but think of the movie Batman though. Does anyone remember the toxic makeup that the joker made that made people laugh and then killed them? Should there have been more cosmetic testing on animals in Gotham City?
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
Now don't get me wrong.I hat mice and rats but the treatment done upon them is injustice. They have feelings too. ut scientists believe their feelings pertain to those of humans and these "humans" can't tlak about the first, second, third , fourth, and so on amendment. It's sad how they die too. All that so they can just please our tounge palettes, fragile, skin, and wrinkles of time. Good title.
I realize my arguement was quite flawed after all the comments. It is so hard sometimes to get across what you actually mean sometimes. Thanks about the title I believe I should at least get brownie points for that. lol :)
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
That's what this place is for, refining your views, opinions, and beliefs.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge