Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Animal Testing - do you support it?

  • 17-01-2012 01:08AM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭


    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.




    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?

    Animal Testing - do you support it? 92 votes

    Yes, fully and unequivocally.
    0%
    No, I abhor it in all its forms.
    21%
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesarc0rk3rneilmhardCopygrizzlyPaparazzoBucephGran HermanoNothingbetter2dRabidlambEric CartmanJamieKCelly SmuntBEASTERLYc_manrxan90im invisibleMully_2011[Deleted User]Ian64 20 votes
    Yes, but only for medical research.
    25%
    phonyponyTar.AldarionBig KnoxWurlyEGARbronteClare BearBiggins[Deleted User]charlietheminxxAoifey!MaedbhishStaticNoiseAbsurdumsensiblekenItsAWindUpPawpad666KatieMMPrincess Peachwonderfulwoman 23 votes
    Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.
    53%
    super_furryMrPuddingRabiesghostchantRichieCrobinphslade_xelefantTheIrishGrover[Deleted User]Duggy747GLaDOSfrashMagicSeanScumLordThe guyAntigone05moonflowerblegI am pie 49 votes


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.
    Apparently I'm worth it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 733 ✭✭✭Eggonyerface


    How do they think guinea pigs got their name??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,332 ✭✭✭Guill


    Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.
    It's okay, most animals pass on the repeats anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Couldn't give a rats arse about it OP.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,047 ✭✭✭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?'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,390 ✭✭✭IM0


    ceegee wrote: »
    Presumably you also reject the concept of shower gels and deodarant?

    showers in bottles? um hmm rank


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,561 ✭✭✭hairyslug


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭ceegee


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,242 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,847 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Yes, but only for medical research.
    MagicSean wrote: »
    Apparently I'm worth it.

    Your last ex says diffrent! :p







    (Only joking!) :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Yes, but only for very serious areas of medical research.
    Biggins wrote: »
    Your last ex says diffrent! :p







    (Only joking!) :D

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


Advertisement
Advertisement