Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've not presented alternatives as I've been focusing on clearing up the hypocisy argument.
I'm not even sure it's worth suggesting them, as I reckon everyone here pretty much knows what they are, and either agrees or disagrees that they're valid.
But essentially, and I hope I'm not being presumptious with regard to those who oppose testing here, I would say the following: -
Firstly,let's acknowledge that there are degress of opposition to testing; Some would want all testing on animals stopped; others would want some of it stopped; others may simply want the thing I suggested, which is that drugs are made available which have not been tested on animals.
A fourth possibility may be a database of drugs that were tested on animals before a certain date; then those who oppose to some extent can choose, in a situation where they can have either a drug before that date, or a new drug- they can choose the former.
(the reasoning behind that is for stuff like aspirin- the testings been done, the damage (to the animals) has been done, it's unfortunate (from the anti-s point of view) but they'd be far happier to take such a drug than some new painkiller which has involved more, and recent, animal testing.
So that's a few ideas for alternative systems; I know that's not what you had in mind when talking about alternatives, but, IMO, they are valid approaches to this issue.
They give the end user varying degrees of choice, and the ability to show their committment and opinions. Similarly, when it came to exploitation of third world workers with things like cocoa production- the approach wasn't to ban all imports, but instead to offer the consumer a choice, with things like 'Fair Trade' chocolate.
The cynics no doubt said it wouldn't work, that people would not back up their views by paying more; but it worked, there's a substantial amount of people who do care strongly about the exploitation issue. And that's one of the values of this approach- we learn solid facts about what people really think, via their actions, not just their words.
------------
I'm still not, at this point, going to get involved in putting forward actual alternative methods of testing- that debate is well established, has been raging for decades, and is a mish-mash war zone of opinions, facts, half-truths and confusions.
What I'm looking for here is stuff that we can all see some sense in, and maybe even agree with some of. Look at some different/lateral approaches to the issue.
Written by: vanize
So even if we accept that there are alternative methods available (which no one has presented a single shred of evidence to support the supposition of
I've not presented alternatives as I've been focusing on clearing up the hypocisy argument.
I'm not even sure it's worth suggesting them, as I reckon everyone here pretty much knows what they are, and either agrees or disagrees that they're valid.
But essentially, and I hope I'm not being presumptious with regard to those who oppose testing here, I would say the following: -
Firstly,let's acknowledge that there are degress of opposition to testing; Some would want all testing on animals stopped; others would want some of it stopped; others may simply want the thing I suggested, which is that drugs are made available which have not been tested on animals.
A fourth possibility may be a database of drugs that were tested on animals before a certain date; then those who oppose to some extent can choose, in a situation where they can have either a drug before that date, or a new drug- they can choose the former.
(the reasoning behind that is for stuff like aspirin- the testings been done, the damage (to the animals) has been done, it's unfortunate (from the anti-s point of view) but they'd be far happier to take such a drug than some new painkiller which has involved more, and recent, animal testing.
So that's a few ideas for alternative systems; I know that's not what you had in mind when talking about alternatives, but, IMO, they are valid approaches to this issue.
They give the end user varying degrees of choice, and the ability to show their committment and opinions. Similarly, when it came to exploitation of third world workers with things like cocoa production- the approach wasn't to ban all imports, but instead to offer the consumer a choice, with things like 'Fair Trade' chocolate.
The cynics no doubt said it wouldn't work, that people would not back up their views by paying more; but it worked, there's a substantial amount of people who do care strongly about the exploitation issue. And that's one of the values of this approach- we learn solid facts about what people really think, via their actions, not just their words.
------------
I'm still not, at this point, going to get involved in putting forward actual alternative methods of testing- that debate is well established, has been raging for decades, and is a mish-mash war zone of opinions, facts, half-truths and confusions.
What I'm looking for here is stuff that we can all see some sense in, and maybe even agree with some of. Look at some different/lateral approaches to the issue.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
EXACTLY!
Now, it's one thing to dislike animal testing and to seek an alternative. I don't know a single person who thinks that animal testing is GREAT and that there are no problems with it. In fact, I'd lable such a person a sociopath. Believe me, every rat pup whose head I had to cut off made my chest burn. (Friday mornings in the LaPointe lab... I hated Friday mornings...that was when we got our rat pups in).
It's another thing to feel that it needs to STOP RIGHT NOW.
And it's group 2 that I have an issue with.
OWD, I have my M.S. and I'm weeks shy of my M.D. I *AM* part of the medical establishment.
There is no conspiracy. I don't know everything, but I do have a good handle on what we know and what we don't know. In order to test a drug without doing a real animal is to know every receptor, the exact structure and microchemical properties of every protein in the body and every single downstream effect of every possible mode of drug binding to said proteins, whether globular or transmembrane, and we'd have to be able to model physiology perfectly, including the effects of the drug and how that changes the physiology...
There comes a point where it's not simulatable.
Written by: coleman
i think a better analogy is:
"imagine there are no such thing as vegetables. now imagine someone who is against the killing of animals for food and demands that it be stopped. obviously they still eat meat at the moment to keep themselves alive, but as soon as there is an alternative, they will take it. but they want all killing of animals to stop now."
the only problem of course is that there are no viable alternatives and if the production of meat was stopped, that would be the end of the food supply.
is this person a hippocrite or are they moral crusaders forced to go against their own will due to the absence of an alternative?
looking at the analogy next to our actual topic, in the case of drugs, if vivisection was banned, since there are currently no alternatives, all drug development would cease.
EXACTLY!
Now, it's one thing to dislike animal testing and to seek an alternative. I don't know a single person who thinks that animal testing is GREAT and that there are no problems with it. In fact, I'd lable such a person a sociopath. Believe me, every rat pup whose head I had to cut off made my chest burn. (Friday mornings in the LaPointe lab... I hated Friday mornings...that was when we got our rat pups in).
It's another thing to feel that it needs to STOP RIGHT NOW.
And it's group 2 that I have an issue with.
Written by:
Medical research involves HUGE sums of money- for that reason alone, there's going to be a lot of biased propaganda put in motion against alternatives, and it's highly feasible that animal testing would continue even if there are practical alternatives.
OWD, I have my M.S. and I'm weeks shy of my M.D. I *AM* part of the medical establishment.
There is no conspiracy. I don't know everything, but I do have a good handle on what we know and what we don't know. In order to test a drug without doing a real animal is to know every receptor, the exact structure and microchemical properties of every protein in the body and every single downstream effect of every possible mode of drug binding to said proteins, whether globular or transmembrane, and we'd have to be able to model physiology perfectly, including the effects of the drug and how that changes the physiology...
There comes a point where it's not simulatable.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It seemd that way.
But I think I've isolated the misunderstanding here, from your past post-
In the eyes of many of those who oppose animal testing, the reason they don't have a choice is not the one you seem to have in mind ie that there is no alternative.
They see the lack of choice as being the fact that the establishment, due to its opinion (albeit, educated/expert, but nevertheless opinion) that there is no viable alternative, has dictated to all, that only animal-tested treatments will be permitted.
Whereas, in the opinion of the opposers, there are viable alternatives, and their lack of choice is purely down to the establishment legislation.
Let's not get bogged down here on whether the alternatives are actually viable (we can move on to that once this point has been cleared up); can we agree here that, in the eyes of the opposers, there is no hypocrisy?
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
Is that helping? Or are we just saying the same thing back and forth?
It seemd that way.
But I think I've isolated the misunderstanding here, from your past post-
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
Let me see if I can rephrase this. You're saying that it's OK for people who oppose animal testing to make use of life-saving therapies because they don't have a choice.
I'm saying that it is PRECISELY because there's no alternative that an anti-animal testing position is incompatible with using these drugs.
In the eyes of many of those who oppose animal testing, the reason they don't have a choice is not the one you seem to have in mind ie that there is no alternative.
They see the lack of choice as being the fact that the establishment, due to its opinion (albeit, educated/expert, but nevertheless opinion) that there is no viable alternative, has dictated to all, that only animal-tested treatments will be permitted.
Whereas, in the opinion of the opposers, there are viable alternatives, and their lack of choice is purely down to the establishment legislation.
Let's not get bogged down here on whether the alternatives are actually viable (we can move on to that once this point has been cleared up); can we agree here that, in the eyes of the opposers, there is no hypocrisy?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
agreed - preference was the wrong word.
but i'm not sure choice is the right one either.
[please excuse the use of the word 'you' here - it is used in the same sense as 'one' and is not meant to be directed at anyone in particular
]
my point is that if you declare that you truly believe something, i think you should follow that belief through to its conclusion - not 'only as far as it suits you'.
the bottom line for me is that banning vivisection could cause the deaths of thousands of humans in the future due to the delays in drug development.
if you are prepared to risk those peoples' lives, then i think your moral argument precludes you from using the treatments that have been made available in the past through the method you are opposed to.
i think in summary, my line of thinking is:
"if you want to force your morals onto others or society at large, the least you can do is lead by example."
if i believed that there were valid alternatives to testing drugs on animals, i would not be making this argument.
cole. x
Written by: flidWritten by: Coleman
so, the only difference i can see is that non-religious beliefs are more easily bent to your own will since there is no fear of punishment by a higher power - that doesn't sound like a belief to me, that sounds like a preference.
Not all recognised religions have higher powers or punishment. To me the word preference implies that you don't mind the other options, as opposed to choice which can be more black and white.
agreed - preference was the wrong word.
but i'm not sure choice is the right one either.
[please excuse the use of the word 'you' here - it is used in the same sense as 'one' and is not meant to be directed at anyone in particular
]my point is that if you declare that you truly believe something, i think you should follow that belief through to its conclusion - not 'only as far as it suits you'.
the bottom line for me is that banning vivisection could cause the deaths of thousands of humans in the future due to the delays in drug development.
if you are prepared to risk those peoples' lives, then i think your moral argument precludes you from using the treatments that have been made available in the past through the method you are opposed to.
i think in summary, my line of thinking is:
"if you want to force your morals onto others or society at large, the least you can do is lead by example."
if i believed that there were valid alternatives to testing drugs on animals, i would not be making this argument.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Coleman's more eloquent than me.
Er...than I.
Coleman's more eloquent than me.
Er...than I.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i think that is accepted by all no?
but the 'opposers' in this case do not have an opposing group that is 'for' animal testing.
we have two groups - one that wants to stop animal testing because it is cruel (in their opinion) and the other wants to stop animal testing but will not because there are no valid alternatives (in their opinion).
so no, neither side sees any hypocrisy on its own opinion but, as a direct reult of the natuire of the two sides of the argument, *must* see hypocrisy in the stance of the other group.
cole. x
[edit: no i'm not mike, and in any case, you are certainly the better person to comment on this topic as you are in an extremely well informed position and far less biased than i. i hope i manage to overcome it but i am probably very biased in discussions like this, not only because i've worked for pharma's quite a bit in the past but also because i am a strict carnivore and am a field sports supporter.]
EDITED_BY: coleman (1111426772)
Written by: onewheeldave
Let's not get bogged down here on whether the alternatives are actually viable (we can move on to that once this point has been cleared up); can we agree here that, in the eyes of the opposers, there is no hypocrisy?
i think that is accepted by all no?
but the 'opposers' in this case do not have an opposing group that is 'for' animal testing.
we have two groups - one that wants to stop animal testing because it is cruel (in their opinion) and the other wants to stop animal testing but will not because there are no valid alternatives (in their opinion).
so no, neither side sees any hypocrisy on its own opinion but, as a direct reult of the natuire of the two sides of the argument, *must* see hypocrisy in the stance of the other group.
cole. x
[edit: no i'm not mike, and in any case, you are certainly the better person to comment on this topic as you are in an extremely well informed position and far less biased than i. i hope i manage to overcome it but i am probably very biased in discussions like this, not only because i've worked for pharma's quite a bit in the past but also because i am a strict carnivore and am a field sports supporter.]
EDITED_BY: coleman (1111426772)
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Ok...well then you're cuter.
Ok...well then you're cuter.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I agree on most of your points, my 2 main reasons for saying this are:
- people then did have "more immediate problems" than animal rights... they luckily didn't have the mass food production for example that we have now, but they certainly killed animals to eat without thinking too much about if the animal suffered or not, simply because it was kill them or starve. Those cultures that cared more sacrificed some of it to Gods or animal spirits or whatever. (don't get stuck on correcting the details please, I know I'm making extremely broad generalisations here!!
)
- an important part of natural medicine has been, and still is today in some cultures, the use of animal body parts like rhino's horns or monkeys' hands, and even today, though people should know better, nearly extinct animals are killed for these purposes, so I don't think even people who relied on natural medicines would've had lots of inhibitions to sacrifice animals for their own health
Written by: flidWritten by: Birgit
And about herbal medicines not being tested on animals when they were first used: That's definitely true, but I think if people at that point in time had had the methods to test them on animals they'd been much less worried about the animals than we are now.
On what do you base this? If you are basing your comment on the fact that generally people had lower standards of living/rights than they do now then I can understand, I've worked with many non vegetarian human rights activists from around the world who either don't have the time or have never had the motivation to get into animal rights given the amount of human suffering in their countries. If your comment is that people in the past have cared less about animal rights, I'm not sure this is a fair comment. From my point of view, animal standards are far worse these days than they were 200 years ago. There was no such thing as battery (boiler) hens/factory farming then, nor were they able to afford the amount of wasteage that goes on today. I'm not saying that everyone had a deep respect for animals or that animals were only killed when absolutely nesecary and every part used, but it's nothing like what we have today. It's very easy to become completely mindnumbed and accepting in the way animals are treated today, but coming from an outside stance i'm not sure so many people would be so ready to accept. This is of course completely my opinion
I agree on most of your points, my 2 main reasons for saying this are:
- people then did have "more immediate problems" than animal rights... they luckily didn't have the mass food production for example that we have now, but they certainly killed animals to eat without thinking too much about if the animal suffered or not, simply because it was kill them or starve. Those cultures that cared more sacrificed some of it to Gods or animal spirits or whatever. (don't get stuck on correcting the details please, I know I'm making extremely broad generalisations here!!
)- an important part of natural medicine has been, and still is today in some cultures, the use of animal body parts like rhino's horns or monkeys' hands, and even today, though people should know better, nearly extinct animals are killed for these purposes, so I don't think even people who relied on natural medicines would've had lots of inhibitions to sacrifice animals for their own health
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I’m not even going to think about getting into this one, except to make a few comments on herbal medicine. OWD said “Herbal medicine, for example, is, and has always been around.”
Firstly I felt this statement implied that herbal medicines were innocuous, and they are certainly most not.
Second, how do you think they originally determined which herbs were useful, and which ones were dangerous ?
I’m not even going to think about getting into this one, except to make a few comments on herbal medicine. OWD said “Herbal medicine, for example, is, and has always been around.”
Firstly I felt this statement implied that herbal medicines were innocuous, and they are certainly most not.
Second, how do you think they originally determined which herbs were useful, and which ones were dangerous ?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I wasn't implying that herbal medicines were innocuous (harmless). I was just pointing out that they were an example of medicines that were not tested on animals.
I wasn't implying that herbal medicines were innocuous (harmless). I was just pointing out that they were an example of medicines that were not tested on animals.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Posted:
hmmm, I should probably not post here (*shivers as he remembers the vegetarian thread) but I feel that somebody needs to be on onewheeldave's side (forgive me my lack of eloquenticy):
in my opinion people who are against animal testing can moraly take animal tested drugs. like dave said: that harm already has been done. I really believe there are (or at least there should be) alternatives for this though. and I'd reckon some companies kill more animals than others, so maybe we can choose for the company that did less harm. for me everything always comes down to a matter of choice anyway. I try to be well informed about drugs and the company and will make a choice following my heart. but if you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice.
I'd rather not take any chemical drugs, but if I really had to, I'd for instance always chose any company over BEYER just because they did a lot of testing on the jews in the concentration camps during the WW2. they were really in there with all the really horrible (twins) experiments and torture...
so I would like to choose a company that doesn't endorse annimal testing or at least did less harm. and this will go further that just for medications: I haven't eaten "pringles" in years, because they are owned by "procter and gamble", one of the biggest animal testers in the world!
what I'm trying to say is that we can't change the past, but we can be aware of it. maybe more research can be put in discovering new ways of testing drugs: by now enough should able te be done with donor organs and blood... and in the mean time more facts about the drugs and their companies can be made public so people can make a conscious choice if they would want to...
hmmm, I should probably not post here (*shivers as he remembers the vegetarian thread) but I feel that somebody needs to be on onewheeldave's side (forgive me my lack of eloquenticy):
in my opinion people who are against animal testing can moraly take animal tested drugs. like dave said: that harm already has been done. I really believe there are (or at least there should be) alternatives for this though. and I'd reckon some companies kill more animals than others, so maybe we can choose for the company that did less harm. for me everything always comes down to a matter of choice anyway. I try to be well informed about drugs and the company and will make a choice following my heart. but if you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice.
I'd rather not take any chemical drugs, but if I really had to, I'd for instance always chose any company over BEYER just because they did a lot of testing on the jews in the concentration camps during the WW2. they were really in there with all the really horrible (twins) experiments and torture...
so I would like to choose a company that doesn't endorse annimal testing or at least did less harm. and this will go further that just for medications: I haven't eaten "pringles" in years, because they are owned by "procter and gamble", one of the biggest animal testers in the world!
what I'm trying to say is that we can't change the past, but we can be aware of it. maybe more research can be put in discovering new ways of testing drugs: by now enough should able te be done with donor organs and blood... and in the mean time more facts about the drugs and their companies can be made public so people can make a conscious choice if they would want to...
eRic.
I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
That obviates the need for vegetarianism, then. I mean, after all, the animal's dead, so why not eat it?
Sorry, the logic just doesn't follow to me.
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
in my opinion people who are against animal testing can moraly take animal tested drugs. like dave said: that harm already has been done.
That obviates the need for vegetarianism, then. I mean, after all, the animal's dead, so why not eat it?
Sorry, the logic just doesn't follow to me.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Agree with Lightning (once more...)
Yes. Probably because they make more products. Companies usually do not exceed the minimum required testing by much, cause that's expensive. But how do you know if one product has been unnecessarily tested on larger animal groups and another one hasn't? Or do you just judge generally, saying even if medicine A by company 1 has been tested the same as medicine B by company 2, company 2 has more testing altogether, so I go for company 1?
if anyone wants to join the boycot, they're spelled "BAYER".
Which crisps are safe to eat then? Those by companies that make ONLY crisps? (but usually will be part of a huge company anyways by now...)
Do you wash your clothes and hair?
Do you eat margerine?
Do you use instant-food products like soup powders?
Do you ever eat fish fingers?
Go on the Procter and Gamble, Henkel and Unilever websites and look at all the products you shouldn't eat or use! There's so much produced by those gigantic companies!! Even if you use stuff from smaller companies, as soon as it's cosmetic it WILL have been animal-tested, and again, P&G probably don't do it for fun (or test pringles on their rats), I guess they follow legislation.
Apart from that not being the case, I'd rather give organs and blood to the people who'd die without them. There are not enough organs for transplants, and hardly enough body donations for medical research and training, so you'd have to make people donate their bodies to get nearly enough organs.
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
that harm already has been done.
Agree with Lightning (once more...)
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
I'd reckon some companies kill more animals than others
Yes. Probably because they make more products. Companies usually do not exceed the minimum required testing by much, cause that's expensive. But how do you know if one product has been unnecessarily tested on larger animal groups and another one hasn't? Or do you just judge generally, saying even if medicine A by company 1 has been tested the same as medicine B by company 2, company 2 has more testing altogether, so I go for company 1?
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
I try to be well informed about drugs and the company (...)I'd for instance always chose any company over BEYER just because they did a lot of testing on the jews in the concentration camps during the WW2.
if anyone wants to join the boycot, they're spelled "BAYER".
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
I haven't eaten "pringles" in years, because they are owned by "procter and gamble", one of the biggest animal testers in the world!
Which crisps are safe to eat then? Those by companies that make ONLY crisps? (but usually will be part of a huge company anyways by now...)
Do you wash your clothes and hair?
Do you eat margerine?
Do you use instant-food products like soup powders?
Do you ever eat fish fingers?
Go on the Procter and Gamble, Henkel and Unilever websites and look at all the products you shouldn't eat or use! There's so much produced by those gigantic companies!! Even if you use stuff from smaller companies, as soon as it's cosmetic it WILL have been animal-tested, and again, P&G probably don't do it for fun (or test pringles on their rats), I guess they follow legislation.
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
by now enough should able te be done with donor organs and blood...
Apart from that not being the case, I'd rather give organs and blood to the people who'd die without them. There are not enough organs for transplants, and hardly enough body donations for medical research and training, so you'd have to make people donate their bodies to get nearly enough organs.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Hop's Kitten Jester.
1,803 posts
Location: Wonderland igloo, Vic, Australia
1,803 posts
Location: Wonderland igloo, Vic, Australia
Posted:
WRONG
SO VERY VERY WRONG
WRONG
SO VERY VERY WRONG
.:Pink Exocutioner:.
I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct...
Loving you from the deepest part of my loins.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
instead of getting into the finer points, I'll answer this one
>Which crisps are safe to eat then? Those by companies that make ONLY crisps?
Not nessecarily, there's many companies out there that are good, including Kettle and Seabrook. Is your comment about boycotting a product made by a company which tests on animals for non medical purposes, or a product which contains E numbers and chemicals which have been animal tested? I neither have eaten Pringles in years, and all Proctor and Gamble products have been on my boycott list for the past 5 years, but I don't boycott all products by companies with slightly better environmental/human rights/animal rights records. Infact, i personally feel its good to support companies who are transitioning and bringing out more vegan friendly products. After all, if a company tries but can't sell ethical produce, it probably won't bother in the future!
>(but usually will be part of a huge company anyways by now...)
not all. I'm not exactly a crisp connoseiur, but it's generally the cheap crap which is made by multinationals
> Do you wash your clothes and hair?
yes, all of my household products from loo cleaner to conditioner are made by Ecover, Co-op, Lush, Original Source
> Do you eat margerine?
yes, Pure
> Do you use instant-food products like soup powders?
only ones which I know to be vegan
> Do you ever eat fish fingers?
Non-Https Image Link
no
instead of getting into the finer points, I'll answer this one
>Which crisps are safe to eat then? Those by companies that make ONLY crisps?
Not nessecarily, there's many companies out there that are good, including Kettle and Seabrook. Is your comment about boycotting a product made by a company which tests on animals for non medical purposes, or a product which contains E numbers and chemicals which have been animal tested? I neither have eaten Pringles in years, and all Proctor and Gamble products have been on my boycott list for the past 5 years, but I don't boycott all products by companies with slightly better environmental/human rights/animal rights records. Infact, i personally feel its good to support companies who are transitioning and bringing out more vegan friendly products. After all, if a company tries but can't sell ethical produce, it probably won't bother in the future!
>(but usually will be part of a huge company anyways by now...)
not all. I'm not exactly a crisp connoseiur, but it's generally the cheap crap which is made by multinationals
> Do you wash your clothes and hair?
yes, all of my household products from loo cleaner to conditioner are made by Ecover, Co-op, Lush, Original Source
> Do you eat margerine?
yes, Pure
> Do you use instant-food products like soup powders?
only ones which I know to be vegan
> Do you ever eat fish fingers?
Non-Https Image Link
no
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Flid- as someone who boycotts companies whose ethics you disagree with, would you be happy to use the option of drugs not tested on animals, if they were made availabe?
Flid- as someone who boycotts companies whose ethics you disagree with, would you be happy to use the option of drugs not tested on animals, if they were made availabe?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
> or test pringles on their rats
are you sure all those chemicals in their flavourings haven't been tested by them? flavourings are BIG business to multinationals, there's always a need to simulate new agents. Whether they're testing them inline with laws or not, do we really need a new flavour that much? People have a bizarre view of testing food on animals takes the form of taste testing where the dog lifts it's right paw if it thinks this one is the nicest.
>Go on the Procter and Gamble, Henkel and Unilever websites and look at all the products you >shouldn't eat or use! There's so much produced by those gigantic companies!!
absolutely, but out of millions of products available in the 1st world, they don't account for even half of those available. Sure you may have experience the trauma of going without crisps once in a while if the selection is particularly dire, but you're hardly going to go malnutritioned boycotting them
>Even if you use stuff from smaller companies, as soon as it's cosmetic it WILL have been animal-tested
that's just not true.
depends what the drugs is, what its for and whether I need it or not
I've already stated towards the beginning of this thread my views on using animal tested products
> or test pringles on their rats
are you sure all those chemicals in their flavourings haven't been tested by them? flavourings are BIG business to multinationals, there's always a need to simulate new agents. Whether they're testing them inline with laws or not, do we really need a new flavour that much? People have a bizarre view of testing food on animals takes the form of taste testing where the dog lifts it's right paw if it thinks this one is the nicest.
>Go on the Procter and Gamble, Henkel and Unilever websites and look at all the products you >shouldn't eat or use! There's so much produced by those gigantic companies!!
absolutely, but out of millions of products available in the 1st world, they don't account for even half of those available. Sure you may have experience the trauma of going without crisps once in a while if the selection is particularly dire, but you're hardly going to go malnutritioned boycotting them
>Even if you use stuff from smaller companies, as soon as it's cosmetic it WILL have been animal-tested
that's just not true.
Written by: OWD
Flid- as someone who boycotts companies whose ethics you disagree with, with you be happy to use the option of drugs not tested on animals, if they were made availabe?
depends what the drugs is, what its for and whether I need it or not
I've already stated towards the beginning of this thread my views on using animal tested products GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Everyone else-
any comments on what Iposted before about choice?
Everyone else-
any comments on what Iposted before about choice?
Written by: onewheeldave
But essentially, and I hope I'm not being presumptious with regard to those who oppose testing here, I would say the following: -
Firstly,let's acknowledge that there are degress of opposition to testing; Some would want all testing on animals stopped; others would want some of it stopped; others may simply want the thing I suggested, which is that drugs are made available which have not been tested on animals.
A fourth possibility may be a database of drugs that were tested on animals before a certain date; then those who oppose to some extent can choose, in a situation where they can have either a drug before that date, or a new drug- they can choose the former.
(the reasoning behind that is for stuff like aspirin- the testings been done, the damage (to the animals) has been done, it's unfortunate (from the anti-s point of view) but they'd be far happier to take such a drug than some new painkiller which has involved more, and recent, animal testing.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Flid, sorry, I suppose I didn't get my point across properly (may be due to getting up awful early to start a 12-hour work day
)
The comment was meant to be about medical testing, but iI'm willing to extend it to cosmetics etc, because their ingredients HAVE to be tested (legislation) as well. Which is why even Original Source ingredients will have been tested at some point, though maybe not by Original Source themselves.
My questions were going to parliament of peace though, I know from what you've posted so far that you are thinking a lot about what you eat and which products you use. I think I got a wrong impression about the Pringles story... shouldn't be patronising anyone on here as to which products are made by multi-thingy-companies. Sorry!
Where did you get the story with testing flavours on animals for their taste from though? I can imagine people testing for the safety of the colouring or flavouring, but the tasting surely wouldn't have been done by animals?!?
Flid, sorry, I suppose I didn't get my point across properly (may be due to getting up awful early to start a 12-hour work day
)The comment was meant to be about medical testing, but iI'm willing to extend it to cosmetics etc, because their ingredients HAVE to be tested (legislation) as well. Which is why even Original Source ingredients will have been tested at some point, though maybe not by Original Source themselves.
My questions were going to parliament of peace though, I know from what you've posted so far that you are thinking a lot about what you eat and which products you use. I think I got a wrong impression about the Pringles story... shouldn't be patronising anyone on here as to which products are made by multi-thingy-companies. Sorry!
Where did you get the story with testing flavours on animals for their taste from though? I can imagine people testing for the safety of the colouring or flavouring, but the tasting surely wouldn't have been done by animals?!?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
As far as other companies testing chemicals, companies that don't endorse it, pay for it, want it, can't be hold to blame. A lot of companies won't want to share their results, just becausesomething has been tested by companies it doesn't mean no other ethical company can use it. I'm sure water has been tested on animals, can we not use water anymore? From the point of view of soap and toothpaste, we're talking about basic (possibly natural) freely available chemicals here, not new products. Making an over generalisation here about people: people seem to think that toothpaste with all natural ingrediants won't be effective enough to use because of so much advertising by companies like colgate about wonder ingrediants.
Well, some companies do do taste testing, for instance dog food (my story comes from seeing it on tv), but of course this isn't the normal way that ingrediants are tested for things such as toxicity.
As far as other companies testing chemicals, companies that don't endorse it, pay for it, want it, can't be hold to blame. A lot of companies won't want to share their results, just becausesomething has been tested by companies it doesn't mean no other ethical company can use it. I'm sure water has been tested on animals, can we not use water anymore? From the point of view of soap and toothpaste, we're talking about basic (possibly natural) freely available chemicals here, not new products. Making an over generalisation here about people: people seem to think that toothpaste with all natural ingrediants won't be effective enough to use because of so much advertising by companies like colgate about wonder ingrediants.
Well, some companies do do taste testing, for instance dog food (my story comes from seeing it on tv
), but of course this isn't the normal way that ingrediants are tested for things such as toxicity. GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
A question to lightning and any others with knowledge of testing procedures: -
as I understand it, Thalidamide was found to be generally safe except when taken by pregnant women (where it caused major birth defects in the child).
Currently drugs are tested by various means which include animal tests, and end with tests on human volunteers.
Presumably drugs are not tested on pregnant women?
So what procedures are used to ensure that such drugs are not harmful during pregnancy?
A question to lightning and any others with knowledge of testing procedures: -
as I understand it, Thalidamide was found to be generally safe except when taken by pregnant women (where it caused major birth defects in the child).
Currently drugs are tested by various means which include animal tests, and end with tests on human volunteers.
Presumably drugs are not tested on pregnant women?
So what procedures are used to ensure that such drugs are not harmful during pregnancy?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
basically, they test pregnant animals and then do studies after the drug has been approved for the general population.
its often a serious dilemma for mothers-to-be who require medication.
from "pregnancy and the drug dilemma" (source: fda):
Challenges in Clinical Research
Data from animal studies and small studies in humans suggest that use of Zoloft during pregnancy does not pose a high risk of birth defects, but the data are insufficient to state that there is no risk.
Zoloft's product labeling indicates that there are no well-controlled studies on the drug in pregnant women, that the effect of Zoloft on labor and delivery in humans is unknown, and that it also isn't known whether, or in what amount, the drug is excreted in human milk.
Unless research focuses on a pregnancy-related condition such as labor induction, drugs typically aren't studied in pregnant women because of the fear of exposing the woman to an experimental drug and harming the fetus. Catherine Stika, M.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University School of Medicine, says the research approach for pregnant women has to be different than that for non-pregnant people who consent to participate in clinical trials.
Drugs are first studied in animals to make sure they are sufficiently safe to test in non-pregnant people. Human safety is evaluated from results of clinical trials, in which patients are observed for adverse events. To be well-controlled, a study needs to involve an adequate number of patients and have a control group--patients who are similar to the group being studied but who are receiving a different treatment regimen. Sometimes, the different treatment is another drug already approved to treat the disease; other times, it may be an inactive pill (placebo).
The limitations that go with conducting research on pregnant women don't mean we shouldn't do any research, Stika says. "We have to improve education for researchers about other ways to do clinical studies in pregnancy."
According to Maria Palmisano, M.D., director of clinical pharmacology-experimental medicine at Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the natural population to recruit for research is pregnant women already needing to take a drug. But we need to first know a drug is safe in the general population and that it works before heading in that direction, she says.
Drugs enter the market based on clinical trials of several thousand people, and sometimes adverse events aren't revealed until later, after the drug is used in greater numbers in the general population. So the difficult part is determining when it is safe enough, Palmisano says. "There are some crucial mileposts in determining when a drug should be tested in pregnant women," she says. "Chief among them are establishing a drug's safety and effectiveness in the general population and knowing when a disease occurs in childbearing years."
Yvonne Maddox, deputy director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, says she is putting together a consortium of experts to focus on advancing clinical research in pregnant women. "We want to try to find at least a couple of drug companies willing to take on what many have said is too risky," she says. "Academicians are asking why research in pregnant women should be any more risky than other high risk/high payoff research areas. But this type of research makes pharmaceutical companies worry more about financial loss from lawsuits."
cole. x
basically, they test pregnant animals and then do studies after the drug has been approved for the general population.
its often a serious dilemma for mothers-to-be who require medication.
from "pregnancy and the drug dilemma" (source: fda):
Challenges in Clinical Research
Data from animal studies and small studies in humans suggest that use of Zoloft during pregnancy does not pose a high risk of birth defects, but the data are insufficient to state that there is no risk.
Zoloft's product labeling indicates that there are no well-controlled studies on the drug in pregnant women, that the effect of Zoloft on labor and delivery in humans is unknown, and that it also isn't known whether, or in what amount, the drug is excreted in human milk.
Unless research focuses on a pregnancy-related condition such as labor induction, drugs typically aren't studied in pregnant women because of the fear of exposing the woman to an experimental drug and harming the fetus. Catherine Stika, M.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University School of Medicine, says the research approach for pregnant women has to be different than that for non-pregnant people who consent to participate in clinical trials.
Drugs are first studied in animals to make sure they are sufficiently safe to test in non-pregnant people. Human safety is evaluated from results of clinical trials, in which patients are observed for adverse events. To be well-controlled, a study needs to involve an adequate number of patients and have a control group--patients who are similar to the group being studied but who are receiving a different treatment regimen. Sometimes, the different treatment is another drug already approved to treat the disease; other times, it may be an inactive pill (placebo).
The limitations that go with conducting research on pregnant women don't mean we shouldn't do any research, Stika says. "We have to improve education for researchers about other ways to do clinical studies in pregnancy."
According to Maria Palmisano, M.D., director of clinical pharmacology-experimental medicine at Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the natural population to recruit for research is pregnant women already needing to take a drug. But we need to first know a drug is safe in the general population and that it works before heading in that direction, she says.
Drugs enter the market based on clinical trials of several thousand people, and sometimes adverse events aren't revealed until later, after the drug is used in greater numbers in the general population. So the difficult part is determining when it is safe enough, Palmisano says. "There are some crucial mileposts in determining when a drug should be tested in pregnant women," she says. "Chief among them are establishing a drug's safety and effectiveness in the general population and knowing when a disease occurs in childbearing years."
Yvonne Maddox, deputy director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, says she is putting together a consortium of experts to focus on advancing clinical research in pregnant women. "We want to try to find at least a couple of drug companies willing to take on what many have said is too risky," she says. "Academicians are asking why research in pregnant women should be any more risky than other high risk/high payoff research areas. But this type of research makes pharmaceutical companies worry more about financial loss from lawsuits."
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Posted:
wow ! birgit, you MUST love nitpicking...
ok, let me elaborate a bit and get another vegetarian example in:
I do not eat "regular" cheese because the rennet is made out of the stomach of a calf (they need the enzymes). there is a vegetable option that works (almost) as good, but there are also companies who've been around so long that they started before that option was there. of those companies some have once used stomachs to get the enzymes, about 30 years ago, but ever since then have never used them again, because the used the original enzymes to breed new ones...
now I would consider eating cheese from that company. that harm has already been done a long time ago, but they are not continueing with doing harm. (man my spelling sucks today, but I can't be arsed to get the dictionary out)
well for instance: there are a lot of companies in the cosmetics or cleaning branche who don't test on animals full stop (see flid's post)
NITPICKER... it was 4 in the morning when I wrote this, but I'm shocked
that the only reaction you could give to this fact, is to correct my spelling mistake, when the extreme cruelty should at least have made you wonder. but all you do is sound sarchastic about it.
I have to go with flid again. and I do not eat or use ANYTHING made by those companies. I buy most my stuff from brands like ecover and there are companies who advertise being "animal friendly". the world is not as dark as you might think... and again: it's about choice. having a choice and making a cruelty free one makes me feel better about myself. you should at least respect that.
since this is only half of it you quoted, I'll repeat what I said: maybe more research should be put into finding ways to test without harming those who have no choice in being harmed... (I'm trying real hard about a quote, I think it's from the book "ishmael", where the main comclusion is that humans are different from animals in the way how they treat their invironment: that they don't only change it (or kill for it) for their inmediate needs, but that we "plan ahead" and actually take more than we need. and that's why we are all stuck in jobs working 40 hours a week, when it would be sufficient to work only a little bit to support yourself (offtopic I know)).
and about crisps: have you ever tried to fry up the peels from the potatos that you peeled for dinner? add some salt (and maybe ome curry or paprika powder (or: fennel, kumin or koriander) and you'll have delecious potato crisps!!!!! no harm done (exept for maybe the worms that lived next to the potato when it was ripped from the ground )
wow ! birgit, you MUST love nitpicking...
Written by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
that harm already has been done.
Agree with Lightning (once more...)
ok, let me elaborate a bit and get another vegetarian example in:
I do not eat "regular" cheese because the rennet is made out of the stomach of a calf (they need the enzymes). there is a vegetable option that works (almost) as good, but there are also companies who've been around so long that they started before that option was there. of those companies some have once used stomachs to get the enzymes, about 30 years ago, but ever since then have never used them again, because the used the original enzymes to breed new ones...
now I would consider eating cheese from that company. that harm has already been done a long time ago, but they are not continueing with doing harm. (man my spelling sucks today, but I can't be arsed to get the dictionary out)
Written by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
I'd reckon some companies kill more animals than others
Yes. Probably because they make more products. Companies usually do not exceed the minimum required testing by much, cause that's expensive. But how do you know if one product has been unnecessarily tested on larger animal groups and another one hasn't? Or do you just judge generally, saying even if medicine A by company 1 has been tested the same as medicine B by company 2, company 2 has more testing altogether, so I go for company 1?
well for instance: there are a lot of companies in the cosmetics or cleaning branche who don't test on animals full stop (see flid's post)
Written by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
I try to be well informed about drugs and the company (...)I'd for instance always chose any company over BEYER just because they did a lot of testing on the jews in the concentration camps during the WW2.
if anyone wants to join the boycot, they're spelled "BAYER".
NITPICKER... it was 4 in the morning when I wrote this, but I'm shocked
that the only reaction you could give to this fact, is to correct my spelling mistake, when the extreme cruelty should at least have made you wonder. but all you do is sound sarchastic about it.Written by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
I haven't eaten "pringles" in years, because they are owned by "procter and gamble", one of the biggest animal testers in the world!
Which crisps are safe to eat then? Those by companies that make ONLY crisps? (but usually will be part of a huge company anyways by now...)
Do you wash your clothes and hair?
Do you eat margerine?
Do you use instant-food products like soup powders?
Do you ever eat fish fingers?
Go on the Procter and Gamble, Henkel and Unilever websites and look at all the products you shouldn't eat or use! There's so much produced by those gigantic companies!! Even if you use stuff from smaller companies, as soon as it's cosmetic it WILL have been animal-tested, and again, P&G probably don't do it for fun (or test pringles on their rats), I guess they follow legislation.
I have to go with flid again. and I do not eat or use ANYTHING made by those companies. I buy most my stuff from brands like ecover and there are companies who advertise being "animal friendly". the world is not as dark as you might think... and again: it's about choice. having a choice and making a cruelty free one makes me feel better about myself. you should at least respect that.
Written by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
by now enough should able te be done with donor organs and blood...
Apart from that not being the case, I'd rather give organs and blood to the people who'd die without them. There are not enough organs for transplants, and hardly enough body donations for medical research and training, so you'd have to make people donate their bodies to get nearly enough organs.
since this is only half of it you quoted, I'll repeat what I said: maybe more research should be put into finding ways to test without harming those who have no choice in being harmed... (I'm trying real hard about a quote, I think it's from the book "ishmael", where the main comclusion is that humans are different from animals in the way how they treat their invironment: that they don't only change it (or kill for it) for their inmediate needs, but that we "plan ahead" and actually take more than we need. and that's why we are all stuck in jobs working 40 hours a week, when it would be sufficient to work only a little bit to support yourself (offtopic I know)).
and about crisps: have you ever tried to fry up the peels from the potatos that you peeled for dinner? add some salt (and maybe ome curry or paprika powder (or: fennel, kumin or koriander) and you'll have delecious potato crisps!!!!! no harm done (exept for maybe the worms that lived next to the potato when it was ripped from the ground
) eRic.
I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!
BRONZE Member
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Posted:
PS. now you've made me hungry !!!
*runs off to kill a vegetable...
PS. now you've made me hungry !!!
*runs off to kill a vegetable...
eRic.
I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
sorry, but i don't see how the cheese analogy supports your argument any better pop.
you are talking about choosing to support a company that has switched to a fully vegetarian production scheme once it was made available, not about choosing a product that was developed through cruel treatment of animals.
your analogy does not support the argument of anti-vivisectionists using drugs that have been developed through animal testing in the past, but rather suggests that if a company such as bayer were allowed to go ahead and open a non-animal tested drugs division, that you would happily rescind your boycott and use the products that they produce - i can see 'the harm has already been done' in that case but not in the way that you described it.
if instead you said that, up until the development of the vegetarian replacement for the cow stomach enzyme, "it is okay for vegetarians to eat the cheese because although they would like to see an alternative and are campaigning for it, its the only way to get cheese right now", then it would be more comparable to the case of anti-vivisectionists using drugs that were developed and proved safe through testing on animals.
drug testing has not got to the point that the cheese company has yet - the drugs companys are still testing on animals.
and as an aside, you mentioned boycotting all of bayer's products because of their alleged involvement with drug testing on jews during the second world war?
yet it was bayer who originally developed aspirin - now that aspirin is generic does 'the harm has already been done' argument apply to that too...?
cole. x
sorry, but i don't see how the cheese analogy supports your argument any better pop.
you are talking about choosing to support a company that has switched to a fully vegetarian production scheme once it was made available, not about choosing a product that was developed through cruel treatment of animals.
your analogy does not support the argument of anti-vivisectionists using drugs that have been developed through animal testing in the past, but rather suggests that if a company such as bayer were allowed to go ahead and open a non-animal tested drugs division, that you would happily rescind your boycott and use the products that they produce - i can see 'the harm has already been done' in that case but not in the way that you described it.
if instead you said that, up until the development of the vegetarian replacement for the cow stomach enzyme, "it is okay for vegetarians to eat the cheese because although they would like to see an alternative and are campaigning for it, its the only way to get cheese right now", then it would be more comparable to the case of anti-vivisectionists using drugs that were developed and proved safe through testing on animals.
drug testing has not got to the point that the cheese company has yet - the drugs companys are still testing on animals.
and as an aside, you mentioned boycotting all of bayer's products because of their alleged involvement with drug testing on jews during the second world war?
yet it was bayer who originally developed aspirin - now that aspirin is generic does 'the harm has already been done' argument apply to that too...?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
yes... *blush*
I'm not really getting your cheese analogy, so I won't nitpick on that one...
yes... if you go by the "the harm's done" argument, then you're fine there. My opinion is that if company A uses substances company B developed using animal testing, then it makes no difference if I buy them from nice-and-friendly A or evil-testing B. I wasn't talking about basic soap stuff that didn't need testing though, but about deodorants, hairsprays, shampoo etc, that did... if you don't use anything like that ignore me.
The extreme cruelty involved doesn't make me wonder, it disgusts me. I didn't comment on it because I was trying to stay on the topic and starting into World War II would've messed this whole discussion up properly.
I have to admit though that I did find it quite funny that you wrote about being well-informed about companies, boycotting them etc and got the name wrong. Shouldn't have mentioned it but it was early in the morning for me too
see my answer to Flid's reply there... I misunderstood you, and I never said I didn't respect you eating animal friendly crisps.
most definitely. I am involved in this research, and that's why I know that what we have now isn't sufficient yet. It sounded to me as if you really thought research could be done using only blood and organs.
yes. though I rarely eat crisps, and haven't had Pringles for years... sorry
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
wow ! birgit, you MUST love nitpicking...
yes... *blush*
I'm not really getting your cheese analogy, so I won't nitpick on that one...
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
well for instance: there are a lot of companies in the cosmetics or cleaning branche who don't test on animals full stop (see flid's post)
yes... if you go by the "the harm's done" argument, then you're fine there. My opinion is that if company A uses substances company B developed using animal testing, then it makes no difference if I buy them from nice-and-friendly A or evil-testing B. I wasn't talking about basic soap stuff that didn't need testing though, but about deodorants, hairsprays, shampoo etc, that did... if you don't use anything like that ignore me.
Written by: Parliament Of PeaceWritten by: BirgitWritten by: Parliament Of Peace
I try to be well informed about drugs and the company (...)I'd for instance always chose any company over BEYER just because they did a lot of testing on the jews in the concentration camps during the WW2.
if anyone wants to join the boycot, they're spelled "BAYER".
NITPICKER... it was 4 in the morning when I wrote this, but I'm shocked
The extreme cruelty involved doesn't make me wonder, it disgusts me. I didn't comment on it because I was trying to stay on the topic and starting into World War II would've messed this whole discussion up properly.
I have to admit though that I did find it quite funny that you wrote about being well-informed about companies, boycotting them etc and got the name wrong. Shouldn't have mentioned it but it was early in the morning for me too
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
I have to go with flid again. and I do not eat or use ANYTHING made by those companies. I buy most my stuff from brands like ecover and there are companies who advertise being "animal friendly". the world is not as dark as you might think... and again: it's about choice. having a choice and making a cruelty free one makes me feel better about myself. you should at least respect that.
see my answer to Flid's reply there... I misunderstood you, and I never said I didn't respect you eating animal friendly crisps.
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
since this is only half of it you quoted, I'll repeat what I said: maybe more research should be put into finding ways to test without harming those who have no choice in being harmed...
most definitely. I am involved in this research, and that's why I know that what we have now isn't sufficient yet. It sounded to me as if you really thought research could be done using only blood and organs.
Written by: Parliament Of Peace
and about crisps: have you ever tried to fry up the peels from the potatos that you peeled for dinner? add some salt (and maybe ome curry or paprika powder (or: fennel, kumin or koriander) and you'll have delecious potato crisps!!!!! no harm done (exept for maybe the worms that lived next to the potato when it was ripped from the ground
yes. though I rarely eat crisps, and haven't had Pringles for years... sorry
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I think people are taking their good health for granted here. Turn back the clock a bit and imagine surgery and dentistry without anaesthetics, for example.
Perhaps if people feel so strongly about animal testing in medicine, then they should abstain.
Dave, I don’t understand your ethics. You want drugs made available which have not been tested on animals to protect the animals, but you don’t mind if a million or so humans are killed as the result of the non-animal tested product/procedure or whatever.
flid, I’m making an over generalisation of my own here when I ask why do people think products made with “all natural ingredients” are safer, better for the environment and effective?
Evidence suggests that people in areas that opposed fluoridation have bad teeth
I think people are taking their good health for granted here. Turn back the clock a bit and imagine surgery and dentistry without anaesthetics, for example.
Perhaps if people feel so strongly about animal testing in medicine, then they should abstain.
Dave, I don’t understand your ethics. You want drugs made available which have not been tested on animals to protect the animals, but you don’t mind if a million or so humans are killed as the result of the non-animal tested product/procedure or whatever.
flid, I’m making an over generalisation of my own here when I ask why do people think products made with “all natural ingredients” are safer, better for the environment and effective?
Evidence suggests that people in areas that opposed fluoridation have bad teeth
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Playing OldSchool Poi
593 posts
Location: amsterdam, Netherlands
Posted:
I don't know if does, and that makes it hard...
although I must admit I'm more on the vegetarian train, then the medical one.
the cheese argument was there to help support a view that i read on the first page (I think) not really my own view. I said "I would consider", but actually I don't.
so my choice of not taking bayer products is just a mental crutch untill I know ALL about this medical world, I never take aspirin anyway. and does ibuprofen come from aspirin as well?
I don't know if does, and that makes it hard...
although I must admit I'm more on the vegetarian train, then the medical one.
the cheese argument was there to help support a view that i read on the first page (I think) not really my own view. I said "I would consider", but actually I don't.
so my choice of not taking bayer products is just a mental crutch untill I know ALL about this medical world, I never take aspirin anyway. and does ibuprofen come from aspirin as well?
eRic.
I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!
old hand
725 posts
Location: Chester, UK
725 posts
Location: Chester, UK
Posted:
Brigit - what are you involved in? I'm due to start a bio sci course myself this September myself, with the view of eventually doing research myself into non-animal alternatives.
Written by: Birgit
most definitely. I am involved in this research, and that's why I know that what we have now isn't sufficient yet. It sounded to me as if you really thought research could be done using only blood and organs.
Brigit - what are you involved in? I'm due to start a bio sci course myself this September myself, with the view of eventually doing research myself into non-animal alternatives.
Spoiling Christmas for small children since 2003.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I didn't study advertising and marketting at uni, so I'm not sure, but I guess because it coungers up thoughts of the way things used to be, before all these nasty chemicals came along. They had it good back then didn't they?
I don't beleive at all that all natural substances are better for health or the environment over their synthetic counterparts, and have written posts about this in the past (vegetarism thread I think)
Written by: Stone
flid, I’m making an over generalisation of my own here when I ask why do people think products made with “all natural ingredients” are safer, better for the environment and effective?
I didn't study advertising and marketting at uni, so I'm not sure, but I guess because it coungers up thoughts of the way things used to be, before all these nasty chemicals came along. They had it good back then didn't they?
I don't beleive at all that all natural substances are better for health or the environment over their synthetic counterparts, and have written posts about this in the past (vegetarism thread I think)
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [testing animal * acceptible] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible? [305 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com