Animal Testing - do you support it?

blatantrereg · 17-01-2012 07:32PM

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 · 17-01-2012 07:40PM

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 · 17-01-2012 08:46PM

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 · 18-01-2012 12:35AM

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 · 18-01-2012 01:00AM

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 · 18-01-2012 01:42AM

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 · 18-01-2012 02:05AM

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 · 18-01-2012 02:07AM

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 · 18-01-2012 02:09AM

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 · 18-01-2012 02:43AM

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

Sums up my opinion...:p

AngryBollix · 18-01-2012 03:44AM

Steak.

RichieC · 18-01-2012 04:09AM

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 · 18-01-2012 04:11AM

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

Holly1978 · 18-01-2012 03:40PM

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 · 18-01-2012 04:15PM

Top Gears stance on animal testing.

Ian64 · 18-01-2012 04:40PM

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 · 18-01-2012 04:43PM

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 · 18-01-2012 06:13PM

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 · 18-01-2012 06:21PM

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 · 18-01-2012 06:42PM

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

robinph · 18-01-2012 06:58PM

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

I'd be long dead without the sacrifice of a bunch of dogs and various other animals a few decades ago in order to discover some vital medical stuff that now benefits me. So for medical research, hell yeah.

Cosmetics, nah, don't see the point.

Mully_2011 · 18-01-2012 08:12PM

No, I abhor it in all its forms.

I'm all for it I can't think of a better way off hand to test cosmetics and drugs before they hit the shops its not nice but thats just life if you have a problem with Animal Testing heres an Idea dont buy the product simples !!

18-01-2012 11:21PM

I find animal testing for cosmetics to be abhorrent and a disgusting reflection of the disregard for animal welfare that humans can express. This is largely a product of greed. I have no doubt that if the cosmetics industry could get away with involuntary human testing, they would be all over it.

Animal testing for drugs has been very useful in the past, but as our knowledge of chemistry and pharmacology advances with every passing year, it is becoming a largely unnecessary practice. As such I do not believe it will be justifiable in the coming decades. It is also not entirely reliable. For example, if one were to test paracetamol in cats or chocolate in dogs, one would conclude that these are poisonous substances.

ThOnda · 19-01-2012 01:00AM

Testing, not tasting!
Wrong thread, sorry...

LH Pathe · 19-01-2012 01:02AM

If it produces a spider-goat proper then go for it. Something to gawk at

jaffacakesyum · 19-01-2012 01:08AM

I love (most) animals but I think this whole 'animal testing is wrong' is naiive and stupid. I don't like the fact that animals have to be subjected to this sort of stuff but what would you prefer, creams and drugs be tested on humans and potentially cause chemical irritation, skin disorders (for creams etc.) or major side effects, death even (medication)? :rolleyes:

Until there is another way to test products, animal testing is necessary. All we can ask for is that they are not treated humanely in other ways.

earpiece · 19-01-2012 01:23AM

I don't understand the whole make-up thing....... Didn't Bertie Ahern get his face done everyday, and yet he is still ugly as fúck!!!!

Animal Testing - do you support it?

Comments