Animal Testing - do you support it?

Mr.Biscuits

Today Morrissey (and others such as Joanna Lumley) put their name to a petition calling for an end to animal testing for cosmetics sold in the European Union. I too have signed it as I feel Animal Testing for such trivial ****e as make-up is quite despicable. More than that, I am actually against all forms of experiments on animals that cause suffering as I just don't think humans are that important quite frankly.

Here's an extract from an article today regarding the above:

- Morrissey, the singer and former Smith, has signed a petition run by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection calling for an end to animal testing for new cosmetics sold in the European Union. "Say no to injecting, force-feeding or forcing animals to inhale substances for a new lipstick or shampoo," he said. "Please join me in signing the Buav No Cruel Cosmetics petition to stop the sale of new animal-tested cosmetics in the EU."

I do eat meat though (non-intensively raised) and I suppose some would see a contradiction there in that I must think humans are more important than animals if I am willing to take their lives in order to live. My response would be that there is a vast difference to killing an animal humanely for sustenance and making it suffer some quite barbaric experimentation, no matter what good for mankind is ultimately yielded as a result.

I think the extremely low budget film Bold Native (below) was certainly a catalyst in where my thinking is now, but perhaps you can change my mind and convince me that the undeniable cruelty that is done to animals in the name of medical research is somehow worth it - I doubt it, but be interesting to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JToC6l9Xx_c

So what says you ..

Do you support Animal Testing in all it's forms?
Including if carried out by cosmetic companies?
Or do you only support it when done in the field of medical research?
If so, to further the understanding of all illnesses?
Or just major ones such as cancer/paralysis?

El Weirdo

Well how else will we know if they're good enough for employment?

MagicSean

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

Apparently I'm worth it.

Eggonyerface

How do they think guinea pigs got their name??

44leto

Sorry but until a better way is found to test new drugs and products I have to be for the safety of people over animals.

Guill

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

It's okay, most animals pass on the repeats anyway.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Couldn't give a rats arse about it OP.

kylith

While I disagree with it for cosmetics I believe it is a necessary evil in the testing of medicines.

partyatmygaff

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

At the moment, it's absolutely unavoidable in medical research so yes i'd say I am in support of Animal Testing. Only for Medical Research and similar though. Not for testing out cosmetics.

ceegee

kylith wrote: »

While I disagree with it for cosmetics I believe it is a necessary evil in the testing of medicines.

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

Doesnt really matter whether a cream is being used for ulcers or to mask the signs of ageing, youll be equally f**ked if it causes chemical burns

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

At the moment, it's absolutely unavoidable in medical research so yes i'd say I am in support of Animal Testing. Only for Medical Research and similar though. Not for testing out cosmetics.

No more lipstick for Harney then.

Da Shins Kelly

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

If there was any other way, animals wouldn't be used. Unfortunately there's no other way of testing the reaction of different medicines/vaccines/etc. on an entire body system without using animals.

Cosmetics, absolutely not, but medical research, unfortunately it has to be.

With regards to Morrissey, the man is mental. He has said some truly insane and terrible things, especially with regards to the massacre in Norway. He always makes me think of that scene in High Fidelity:

'Is it unfair to criticise a formerly great artist for their latter day sins?'

kraggy

ceegee wrote: »

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

Doesnt really matter whether a cream is being used for ulcers or to mask the signs of ageing, youll be equally f**ked if it causes chemical burns

How about this. Don't wear any ****ing cream cause you don't need it despite L'Oreal and other horrid companies telling you that you do.

Testing for cosmetics is absolutely unnecessary.

kylith

ceegee wrote: »

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

Doesnt really matter whether a cream is being used for ulcers or to mask the signs of ageing, youll be equally f**ked if it causes chemical burns

I think that by now we can make perfectly good moisturiser with the compounds we already have.

AnonoBoy

I believe things like kennels and dog collars should definitely be tested on animals.

billybudd

we should test these things on convicted sex offenders rather than animals.

starbelgrade

billybudd wrote: »

we should test these things on convicted sex offenders rather than animals.

Yeah. Make them wear make-up. See how sexy they feel then.

ceegee

kraggy wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

Doesnt really matter whether a cre
am is being used for ulcers or to mask the signs of ageing, youll be equally f**ked if it causes chemical burns

How about this. Don't wear any ****ing cream cause you don't need it despite L'Oreal and other horrid companies telling you that you do.

Testing for cosmetics is absolutely unnecessary.

Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

later12

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

For human medical research yes: almost unequivocally.

For cosmetic purposes; yes, under certain circumstances in a manner which should be laid down by local lawmakers.

I would never be totally opposed to it.

IM0

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

showers in bottles? um hmm rank

Mr.Biscuits

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

Nobody has to reject anything of the sort.

The 'Leaping Bunny' logo was brought in a few years back which allows manufacturers to show that their products have not being tested on animals and so it's quite easy for consumers now to buy such products if they wish.

hairyslug

Hey, if they can make a pig look sexy in purple eyeshadow im all for it

ceegee

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

Nobody has to reject anything of the sort.

The 'Leaping Bunny' logo was brought in a few years back which allows manufacturers to show that their products have not being tested on animals and so it's quite easy for consumers now to buy such products if they wish.

Most of these companies use it as a gimmick to attract consumers. The Body Shop sells itself as a love the planet brand despite being owned by L'oreal.
The ingredients have mostly been tested on animals by someone at some point, unless these companies vow to never use new ingredients developed using animal testing (regardless of who tested it) after they signed up then I'll take their logos with a pinch of salt

Eric Cartman

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

Animal testing is essential , animals are our servants here to further our quality of life, ofcourse we should use them for testing

ScumLord

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

ceegee wrote: »

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

The formula for soap has been perfected for years, there aren't loads of different soaps there is basically one formula and it's in everything from shampoo to washing up liquid.

The cosmetics industry is a complete farce, there are very few reasons people would need to put toxic chemicals all over their faces. If you have a genuine cosmetic problem like rampant spots or rashes, that's a medical problem. If you think your skin isn't glowing enough your an idiot and should take your own risks instead of using a rat to test whether that chemical will burn off just the right amount of skin tissue.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes, but only for medical research.

Against it. I don't eat meat, i'd hjardly agree with it being tested for somebodies face crap then :-p At least there are some regulations for it in the EU, unlike a lot of places!

Unrelated -> The new battery cage laws for hens are also in this year, small step in the right direction, giant leap for chicken kind.

bleg

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

I have conducted medical research on animals in the past.

Through effective study design and appropriate housing conditions the animals are kept in good nick. The people that look after the animals and the researchers are separate so there are checks and balances in place. There is also a serious legal framework in place and in the institution where I conducted the research there was a rigorous ethical framework also.


Anyway, just to point out, people who test on animals aren't crazy and bloodthirsty. We are usually dedicated scientists who take no pleasure whatsoever in seeing another animal suffer and minimise it at all costs.

blatantrereg

I'm also vegetarian and also dislike animals being tortured to make cosmetics. I didnt vote because I didn't feel any of the options pinpointed my position on the matter.

The "very serious areas of medical research" is a gray area. For example banning depleted uranium would be a good thing, but stuff like:

A laboratory study on rats produced by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute showed that, after a study period of 6 months, rats treated with depleted uranium coming from implanted pellets, comparable to the average levels in the urine of Desert Storm veterans with retained DU fragments, had developed a significant tendency to lose weight with respect to the control group. Substantial amounts of uranium were accumulating in their brains and central nervous systems, and showed a significant reduction of neuronal activity in the hippocampus in response to external stimuli

Well this sort of thing seems a bit like shooting animals to see if they bleed when bullets hit them... Only a bit more twisted.

The sorts of testing that is carried out in the name of "serious medical research" often seems to be extremely cruel in nature and somewhat pointless in application. I know someone who used to do it, incidentally.

edit after seeing bleg's post: Not all places of research demonstrate anything like what you describe. However a lot of the stuff I heard about was outside the EU and in the area of psychiatry/treatment of drug abuse. It was in government agencies in a developed country though.

Biggins

Yes, but only for medical research.

MagicSean wrote: »

Apparently I'm worth it.

Your last ex says diffrent!







(Only joking!)

CrazyRabbit

I have no problem with products being tested on scummers...plenty of them around as well, with no risk of extinction (unfortunately).

MagicSean

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

Biggins wrote: »

Your last ex says diffrent!







(Only joking!)

Bitch didn't know a good thing when she saw it.

blatantrereg

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I have no problem with products being tested on scummers...plenty of them around as well, with no risk of extinction (unfortunately).

Actually that is close to an idea that occurred to me. An alternative to animal testing might be some sort of programme where convicts could volunteer for testing to be carried out on them in exchange for commuted sentences in some cases. When you consider that sexual offenders can already opt for chemical castration in exchange for commuted sentences in parts of America, maybe it's not that weird an idea...

Deus Ex Machina

As long as it is in aid of actual research and not just wanton cruelty and that it happens behind closed doors away from anywhere where I could be confronted with an imagine like an enormous syringe full of yellow liquid being inserted into the face of a new born baby, I am in favour of any form of medical testing on animals or humans.

Temptamperu

When I think of animal testing I think to myself how do they hold pens with no thumbs and can you really get them to concentrate for two hours without going mad because theres a beaver with glasses sitting at the top of the room making sure they dont cheat.

kraggy

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

Eh, no I don't. What sort of question is that? There are plenty of non-animlal-tested shower gels, shampoos, deodarants etc on the market.

Why? Because it's quite easy to develop sufficiently good products without testing them on animals.

adamski8

well anyone against animal testing should know that the big industries dont want to do it anyway as animals are very expensive and trials are lengthy. there is very little of it going on nowadays from talking to people in the industry

StaticNoise

Yes, but only for medical research.

Just FYI, here's the petition link:
www.nocruelcosmetics.org

It's actually getting serious backing. Nearly on half a million right now.
Fingers crossed it goes through.

Buceph

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

Temptamperu wrote: »

When I think of animal testing I think to myself how do they hold pens with no thumbs and can you really get them to concentrate for two hours without going mad because theres a beaver with glasses sitting at the top of the room making sure they dont cheat.

I've heard they're going to dodgy doctors and getting prescribed Ritalin.

Buceph

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

StaticNoise wrote: »

Just FYI, here's the petition link:
www.nocruelcosmetics.org

It's actually getting serious backing. Nearly on half a million right now.
Fingers crossed it goes through.

I notice the body that's running it and asking for donations doesn't limit themselves to banning cosmetics testing. So, in short, they can shove a rabbit up their bumhole.

bleg

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

adamski8 wrote: »

well anyone against animal testing should know that the big industries dont want to do it anyway as animals are very expensive and trials are lengthy. there is very little of it going on nowadays from talking to people in the industry

Your industry sources are wrong.

JamieK

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

Sums up my opinion...:p

AngryBollix

Steak.

RichieC

Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.

medical research is unavoidable so I really cant oppose that.

but makeup and soap and all that stuff, no.

Coriolanus

For medical issues, sure, knock yourselves scientists.
For cosmetics, no, don't agree with it.

Holly1978

Yes, but only for medical research.

ceegee wrote: »

Surely its almost equally important to know if ingredients in cosmetics cause major reactions when in contact with skin?

Doesnt really matter whether a cream is being used for ulcers or to mask the signs of ageing, youll be equally f**ked if it causes chemical burns

Why should Animals be the ones to get the chemical burns, etc. :eek:

It is crazy what animals go through for us. You only have to search the internet and you tube to see the impact on amimals. We are still in the dark ages if you ask me, companies are using new ingredients all the time for softer hair and better skin, but nobody really knows the impact to our selves in regards to cancer etc.

It is very important to know if ingredients could cause reactions etc, but do you really want to put something on your skin that has a slight chance of giving you a reaction, which I have experienced a few years ago. When I heard that animal testing was still going on, I started using natural products and make my own now.

I am totally against Animal testing and do not eat meat. I cant understand with all the technology etc there is now that there is not other ways to do these tests. I am training in the Beauty industry, and there are so many great natural products that have brilliant effects on skin and hair etc. Most of the cosmetic industy is all about profit and it does not matter how much money you spend on creams etc, it wont have the same effect as eating healthy and using natural products.

I have also seen on the internet about household products (ingredients used in them), that are tested on animals. eg Dishwasher tablets. This is crazy :mad:

Cormic

Top Gears stance on animal testing.

Ian64

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

erm, I'd sooner the cute little bunny died in animal testing than the cure some horrible disease such as aids, malaria, cancer, blackheads,acne or skin blemishes went untreated!
No, seriously by and large I have to support it.

Nothingbetter2d

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

i fully support animal testing

if i had to do my leaving certificate just to get a job so should horses and sheepdogs, and gardai sniffer dogs

Irishchick

Everything that comes into contact with the skin, or may come into contact with the skin must be subjected to animal testing before it can be sold to the public. This includes moisturisers, shampoo conditioner, hair gel, cleaning products etc.

This is the law. Dont be fooled by claims like "all natural". This term means absolutely nothing legally.

If a company says they don't test on animals its because they pay someone else to test the product for them. This allows them to fool the consumer into thinking their products is "animal friendly".

Cupcake_Crisis

I understand that when it comes to medication that it's sometimes animal testing is unavoidable, but there should be laws in place to make sure they are treated well before they die trying to find a cure for our illnesses.

But when some wrinkly old bint want a new face cream she should offer herself up to be tested on. Animals should never be used for cosmetic testing, they are a luxury we could all live quite happily without so animals shouldn't suffer for our benefit.

Galtee

I don't support animal testing. They should be able to tell just by looking at them. :pac: