Is Animal Testing Necessary?

[severus68]

We know drugs, skin care and beauty products and even shampoo are tested on animals before being sold to the public. Is all this testing necessary? Is testing of drugs on animals valid and accurate when animal physiology is different from ours? Can we justify causing suffering for the sake of beauty and vanity? The Cathechism teaches that we should not cause unnecessary suffering. I would like to know what others think. Thank you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.

The Catechism seems pretty clear.

I guess the discussion will focus on whether cosmetic use is justified or not. Since you also mentioned shampoo, then since I would prefer to not be stinky, I think it would be a need.

Also, there are many main-stream products that don’t use animal testing…so is it really an issue?

 

[Marfran]

Yes, I think that a lot of people are not aware that many of the products that they use are tested on animals, in some very inhumane ways. Everything from lipstick to laundry detergent is tested on animals. LD-50 tests are tests where doses of oven cleaner or laundry soap are forcefed to animals in increasing amounts until 50% of the test subjects die (lethal dose 50% fatality). Every batch of Botox is tested on animals. The manufacturer of Botox says that they are looking into alternatives, but really hasn’t made any progress towards this. (So boycott Botox until they stop doing this!!!)

I make a concerted effort to only purchase products that are ***not tested on animals ***. ***Seventh Generation ***is a good company that produces laundry and dish soaps and they do not test on animals. ***Trader Joe’s ***carries their own line of products not tested on animals. European countries are well-ahead of the United States in outlawing some of these practices. A good make-up line of not-tested on animals products is ZuZu. Many of these ***not tested on animals ***products in the United States have a symbol on their packaging: it is a rabbit with a slash through it. More and more companies are voluntarily choosing to discontinue animal testing but some of the larger companies still do this. You can vote to stop these practices by simply purchasing items that are not tested on animals. The companies still doing this will get the picture when their sales drop.

And when in doubt you can always contact a manufacturer and ask them if they test their products on animals. Nowadays, with the internet, it is easy to look up a manufacturer and to send an email.

Product testing…it’s in OUR HANDS: hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/the_coalition_for_consumer_information_on_cosmetics/product_testing_its_in_your_hands.html

 

[severus68]

The Catechism seems pretty clear.

I guess the discussion will focus on whether cosmetic use is justified or not. Since you also mentioned shampoo, then since I would prefer to not be stinky, I think it would be a need.

Also, there are many main-stream products that don’t use animal testing…so is it really an issue?

I have done some reading. A lot of testing is unnecessary. There are altenatives and some medical researchers are using and looking or new alternatives. The Cathechism does not make it an absolute, unconditional right. I use shampoo too (of course) but buy only those not tested on animals. I do agree that animal testing of drugs has helped but not alwats. An exmple is viox.

 

[Marfran]

The Catechism seems pretty clear.

I guess the discussion will focus on whether cosmetic use is justified or not. Since you also mentioned shampoo, then since I would prefer to not be stinky, I think it would be a need.

Also, there are many main-stream products that don’t use animal testing…so is it really an issue?

There are many main stream products that DO still use animal testing, especially US companies. Do you know if your brand of shampoo is tested on animals? If you found out it was, would you switch???

 

[JaneGrey]

The Catechism seems pretty clear.

I guess the discussion will focus on whether cosmetic use is justified or not. Since you also mentioned shampoo, then since I would prefer to not be stinky, I think it would be a need.

Also, there are many main-stream products that don’t use animal testing…so is it really an issue?

You dont have to forgo shampoo if animal testing was banned. Many (but not many enough) shampoo/cosmetics companies go to great lengths to publicise how they dont test on animals as they know that consumers are troubled by this. Yet they still are able to produce goods for us that make us look and smell nice.

I think it is an issue. If there was only a handful of abortions taking place a year that would not make it any less of an issue.

 

[Marfran]

The Catechism seems pretty clear.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice ***if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives. ***

Well that eliminates pretty much all the animal testing done on cosmetics and other household products.

As a Catholic, can you ethically have a Botox injection, knowing that animals died in LD-50 tests??? Every batch of Botox is tested on animals.

 

[Marfran]

Is testing of drugs on animals valid and accurate when animal physiology is different from ours?

This is a very good question. The general public is not familiar with drug testing on animals and assumes that it is necessary and contributes to the safety of drugs for human use–but a deeper and more thorough look into this practice is warranted. The vast majority of testing human drugs on animals is repetitive and unnecessary. I am not saying that there is no value to the process, but that much of it is unnecessary. Once a drug has been tested and cleared for sale to the public there is a patent. When the patent expires and other manufactures are allowed to produce said drug, they often make slight changes in the drug such as shape of pill or a different shade of color. Even in changes that do not alter the chemical composition of the drug, the drug must go through the same animal testing that the first supplier did. So animals die so that our pill will be a different shade of blue.

I have to run…but the physiology of animals being different is also an important consideration…

 

[severus68]

Yes, I think that a lot of people are not aware that many of the products that they use are tested on animals, in some very inhumane ways. Everything from lipstick to laundry detergent is tested on animals. LD-50 tests are tests where doses of oven cleaner or laundry soap are forcefed to animals in increasing amounts until 50% of the test subjects die (lethal dose 50% fatality). Every batch of Botox is tested on animals. The manufacturer of Botox says that they are looking into alternatives, but really hasn’t made any progress towards this. (So boycott Botox until they stop doing this!!!)

I make a concerted effort to only purchase products that are ***not tested on animals ***. ***Seventh Generation ***is a good company that produces laundry and dish soaps and they do not test on animals. ***Trader Joe’s ***carries their own line of products not tested on animals. European countries are well-ahead of the United States in outlawing some of these practices. A good make-up line of not-tested on animals products is ZuZu. Many of these ***not tested on animals ***products in the United States have a symbol on their packaging: it is a rabbit with a slash through it. More and more companies are voluntarily choosing to discontinue animal testing but some of the larger companies still do this. You can vote to stop these practices by simply purchasing items that are not tested on animals. The companies still doing this will get the picture when their sales drop.

And when in doubt you can always contact a manufacturer and ask them if they test their products on animals. Nowadays, with the internet, it is easy to look up a manufacturer and to send an email.

Product testing…it’s in OUR HANDS: hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/the_coalition_for_consumer_information_on_cosmetics/product_testing_its_in_your_hands.html

Absolutely. I look for and only buy products that are not tested on animals. I don’t know of laws that require detergents etc to be tested on animals. You areight Europe s ahead wih its laws. France has filed a case against a proposed EU law because of the prsence of a large cosmetics.

People have stopped much animal testing of cosmetics by choosing not to buy animal tested ones Many do not know that other products like the oven cleaners you mentioned, are also tested on animals…

 

[severus68]

Well that eliminates pretty much all the animal testing done on cosmetics and other household products.

As a Catholic, can you ethically have a Botox injection, knowing that animals died in LD-50 tests??? Every batch of Botox is tested on animals.

I confirm that btox is tested on animals. Wasn’t planning to try it but nw definitely not.

 

[severus68]

This is a very good question. The general public is not familiar with drug testing on animals and assumes that it is necessary and contributes to the safety of drugs for human use–but a deeper and more thorough look into this practice is warranted. The vast majority of testing human drugs on animals is repetitive and unnecessary. I am not saying that there is no value to the process, but that much of it is unnecessary. Once a drug has been tested and cleared for sale to the public there is a patent. When the patent expires and other manufactures are allowed to produce said drug, they often make slight changes in the drug such as shape of pill or a different shade of color. Even in changes that do not alter the chemical composition of the drug, the drug must go through the same animal testing that the first supplier did. So animals die so that our pill will be a different shade of blue.

I have to run…but the physiology of animals being different is also an important consideration…

This is a link on the alternatives to animal testing available and being sought fo medical research.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Johns_Hopkins_Center_for_Alternatives_to_Animal_Testing

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well that eliminates pretty much all the animal testing done on cosmetics and other household products.

As a Catholic, can you ethically have a Botox injection, knowing that animals died in LD-50 tests??? Every batch of Botox is tested on animals.

You seemed to not notice the word “care” in the Catechism. You interpret it to mean that cosmetics and household products don’t fall under the category “care.”

Botox has medical uses too. Actually, the primary use of Botox was medical, the cosmetic use was discovered afterwards.

I truthfully, am not going to judge anyone who uses Botox. Really, is it our business?

 

[bigfootbob]

Here is my opinion: If something like shampoo, drugs, medical procedures etc. needs to be tested, then it is much more ethical to test it on animals then humans. (You better not disagree on that…) But to feed an animal oven cleaner like Marfran said seems unethical.

 

[severus68]

You seemed to not notice the word “care” in the Catechism. You interpret it to mean that cosmetics and household products don’t fall under the category “care.”

Botox has medical uses too. Actually, the primary use of Botox was medical, the cosmetic use was discovered afterwards.

I truthfully, am not going to judge anyone who uses Botox. Really, is it our business?

It was usedfor migraines. Now its just known an used extensively for wrinkles and lines. How does Botox care for human lives? Surely “care” is not meant to mean for any want or desire. If it was so, the Cathechism would not qualify at all such use of animals.

 

[Marfran]

I truthfully, am not going to judge anyone who uses Botox. Really, is it our business?

What’s with the word judge??? How does that word even fit into this discussion??? How many women who use Botox (for cosmetic reasons) ***even know ***that it is tested on animals in LD-50 tests??? Does the manufacturer make this known?? Does the doctor tell the patient before he injects it into her forehead??? (I believe that cosmetic Botox must be administered by a physician.)

Do you see all these Botox ads on TV??? Do they mention in any of them that animals die so that you can have a cosmetic Botox injection??? NO, they don’t. And if women knew about this aspect of Botox, do you think they might take pause, and reconsider???

I know women who have had cosmetic Botox for the furrow between the eyes and the wrinkles in the forehead. Marvelous results!!! (And not like the celebrities who have so much that they can’t move their faces.) And I bet not one of them knew about the animal testing. I just recently learned of this myself. The point is–that there is much unnecessary animal suffering and death in the name of cosmetics. And if someone becomes aware of this aspect they can make choices that do not contribute to this situation.

 

[Marfran]

It was usedfor migraines. Now its just known an used extensively for wrinkles and lines. How does Botox care for human lives? Surely “care” is not meant to mean for any want or desire. If it was so, the Cathechism would not qualify at all such use of animals.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[severus68]

Here is my opinion: If something like shampoo, drugs, medical procedures etc. needs to be tested, then it is much more ethical to test it on animals then humans. (You better not disagree on that…) But to feed an animal oven cleaner like Marfran said seems unethical.

Actually there are also tests done on humans, was on one for a new drug. Animal testing of drugs does not always help humans.

Why do you need to drip shampoo into the eye of a rabbitwith its head clampd until the eye ulcerates? I is obvious that some substances should not form part of the ingredients of a shampoo when shampoo des get into eyes. What is the point? How do some companies manage to produce good shampoo without such testing?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Here is my opinion: If something like shampoo, drugs, medical procedures etc. needs to be tested, then it is much more ethical to test it on animals then humans. (You better not disagree on that…) But to feed an animal oven cleaner like Marfran said seems unethical.

Totally agree!

Is there that much to discuss on this topic?

As for Botox, Cosmetic surgery is not considered sinful. Use of Botox could be used to create more symmetry in the faces of stroke victims, it is still used for migraine treatment. It is used to treat incontinence, hyperhydrosis.

And even if someone chooses it for purely cosmetic reasons, are we to judge? It is less invasive than a face lift, and costs less. There is no need for a general anesthesia, less risk for blood loss than there would be with surgery.

Are we too judge every cosmetic use as being vain?

 

[Marfran]

Here is my opinion: If something like shampoo, drugs, medical procedures etc. needs to be tested, then it is much more ethical to test it on animals then humans. (You better not disagree on that…) But to feed an animal oven cleaner like Marfran said seems unethical.

Good key word: needs. How can they make shampoos and make-up and laundry soaps that are NOT tested on animals (and there are many companies that do NOT test their products on animals)??? How can they make them if there is a concern for human safety??? The products that are NOT tested on animals are generally gentler and many of them also contain the biodegradable symbol (it’s a leaf). They contain less potent chemicals and are generally also better for the planet/environment. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Laundry detergent that will take your scalp off if you grab it instead of the shampoo, or laundry detergent that you can wash a baby’s behind in??? But gentler laundry detergent won’t get my clothes clean… Baloney!!! I use ***Seventh Generation ***Laundry soap–NOT tested on animals–and it does a fantastic job getting fabric clean–and it smells great too!!!

 

[Graubo3]

Animal testing is necessary. One only has to look at the extensive research of the long-term side effects of the H1N1 vaccine on its control group. Oh wait, we are the control group.

Peace, Graubo