Is Animal Testing Necessary?

[severus68]

pg.com/science/PG_Q1_06.pdf

unilever.com/sustainability/people/consumers/animaltesting/

I posted 2 links, one for Proctor and Gamble, one for Unilever. Both conglomarates seem to be not using or phasing out animal testing.

Since, it is hard to find products not made by these two, where are these bunnies being tortured with shampoo? Does it actually happen on a wide basis?

It does seem mean to torture a bunny with a head clamp…but is that what is happening in the labs?

The rabbits are only in respect of shampoos. You just need to go into the internet to see this. It is not only Peta that says this. There are other organisations that would show what is done. There is Catholic Concern for animals.There are other products that are tested on animals. Loreal still tests on animals, that is why France has been protesting the passing of the EU law against animal testing on cosmetics. I believe Revlon does not test and has a wide range of affordable cosmetics. There is St Ives from Switzerland, Simple and Freemans. These are a few of the very affordable skin care/cosmetics/toiletries brands which produce without the need to cause suffering.

 

[Marfran]

The mental image of them testing makeup on cats and dogs cracks me up. sounds like something little girls would do to their overly patient pet.

I hope that you are just trying to be a comedian. Yes, this IS a comical image, but there is really NO comedy in the real life situation.

 

[mapleoak]

The Catechism states:

**CCC 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.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

.

.

This is quite correct.

 

[mapleoak]

??? ARE you purposefullymisportraying what TESTING ON ANIMALS MEans, or do you really not know???

We are not talking about shampooing an animal to test the effectiveness of a shampoo!!! TESTING PRODUCTS ON ANIMALS MEANS FORCEFEEDING THE PRODUCT TO DETERMINE THE TOXICITY–FORCEFEEDING SHAMPOO, laundry detergent, oven cleaner, etc… OR putting mascara, shampoo, skin products into the eyes of rabbits to gauge irritation and toxicity. (The living rabbits are placed in headlock devices that make it impossible to move their heads, and solutions of test products are placed in their eyes.) This is unnecessary and THIS IS needless suffering.

Obviously, if the product causes the animal to die or go blind, it would not be a shampoo that one would want to have in their shower. Would it be better if the hapless consumer washed their baby with toxic shampoo as a ‘consumer test’ and then have the manufacturer pull the product from the shelves after a tragedy? A large scale recall would certainly not make much economical sense.

 

[mapleoak]

There are numerous products that are very effective that do not use harsh chemicals/ingredients. It is safer for a household, especially where young children are present, to reduce access to toxic chemicals in personal and household cleaning products.

And if these products really are so safe, what would be the problem with testing them on animals to make sure. Surely, a safe product would not harm an infant, let alone an animal.

 

[severus68]

Obviously, if the product causes the animal to die or go blind, it would not be a shampoo that one would want to have in their shower. Would it be better if the hapless consumer washed their baby with toxic shampoo as a ‘consumer test’ and then have the manufacturer pull the product from the shelves after a tragedy? A large scale recall would certainly not make much economical sense.

These products are not new drugs on the market where the effescts are unknown. Animal testing do not always, give accurate results. Animal physiology is different, you say they are not humans. It is very evident what substances are toxic and corrosive. I was always very careful what I used on and fed my child. I did not need or want animal testing to have to know what not to buy. We neeed to use our minds and read all labels’. There are so many natural, non harmful substances that can be used for producys. Why choose the worse and then say the products need to be tested> What about the cumulative effects of using such products even if tested on animals?

 

[severus68]

And if these products really are so safe, what would be the problem with testing them on animals to make sure. Surely, a safe product would not harm an infant, let alone an animal.

What would be the purpose? To bring up the costs? To have some sense of security? The Driaze test involves dripping substances non stop into eyes, the “Lethal Dose” test involves forcefeeding to inter alia, ascertain when death occurs. Would you force feed your baby powder? No, so what would be the point of such tests.

Companies do test their products on human volunteers to test the efficacy.

You can make a face mask out of oatmeal and honey, why would I want it tested? I know it would not be harmful. I would know better than to push the oatmeal into my eyes. So again what would be the purpose of such tests? We are not hapless being. We have been given the intellect and free will to think and make informed choices.

 

[JaneGrey]

Respect for what: Putting animals above people?
No thank you.

You dont get to pick and choose which people you want to show respect to. With respect please realise that the most depraved of your fellow man, the ones actually not worthy of respect, are ones who think torturing living creatures is completely moral, and those who do it themselves and later graduate to children.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

You dont get to pick and choose which people you want to show respect to…

LOL. Animals are not people.
Wake up lady

 

[severus68]

LOL. Animals are not people.
Wake up lady

Janegrey never said animals are people, please read posts properly instead of telling others to wake up, tut tut.

 

[JaneGrey]

LOL. Animals are not people.
Wake up lady

Haha. Um I wasnt aware that there were animals posting on this thread? Silly silly me.
A hint for you Irish Catholic-it might be helpful to read posts before commenting on them dear.

 

[Marfran]

**Obviously, if the product causes the animal to die or go blind, it would not be a shampoo that one would want to have in their shower. ** Would it be better if the hapless consumer washed their baby with toxic shampoo as a ‘consumer test’ and then have the manufacturer pull the product from the shelves after a tragedy? A large scale recall would certainly not make much economical sense.

You would be wrong there. They*** do ***put toxic ingredients into shampoos, detergents, cosmetics, and other household products, etc. Part of the reason for the LD-50 tests (forcefeeding products to animals) is to determine the toxicity of the product, in the case of accidental ingestion of the product. So when you call *Poison Control *to tell them that your child just drank a capful of laundry detergent or swallowed an once of your ***Head and Shoulders ***shampoo, they will be able to direct you on what action to take. Why don’t we just use gentler and safer substances for cleaning and shampooing??? Better for us, better for the animals. And ***if ***a human were to ingest some shampoo or laundry detergent, most likely it would be a small amount–after tasting it–who–even a small child would continue to drink unpleasant tasting stuff??? So why forcefeed these products in increasing amounts to animals until 50% of them die??? Does that make sense???

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

You would be wrong there. They*** do ***put toxic ingredients into shampoos, detergents, cosmetics, and other household products, etc. Part of the reason for the LD-50 tests (forcefeeding products to animals) is to determine the toxicity of the product, in the case of accidental ingestion of the product. So when you call *Poison Control *to tell them that your child just drank a capful of laundry detergent or swallowed an once of your ***Head and Shoulders ***shampoo, they will be able to direct you on what action to take. Why don’t we just use gentler and safer substances for cleaning and shampooing??? Better for us, better for the animals. And ***if ***a human were to ingest some shampoo or laundry detergent, most likely it would be a small amount–after tasting it–who–even a small child would continue to drink unpleasant tasting stuff??? So why forcefeed these products in increasing amounts to animals until 50% of them die??? Does that make sense???

Marfran, most baby products say Non Toxic on them. Even diaper cream, my oldest ate some once, and poison control said he would be ok.

Laundry detergent isn’t food, and is diluted once it gets into the environment. If a child would drink a cup of it and not get sick, would it actually get the clothing clean?

anything could be toxic depending on the concentration. Even baking soda.

 

[torch621]

First off, animals do not have rights. Rights are something that are unique to humans because of our unique status as the apex of creation. God gave rights to humans, not to animals. Should we go willy nilly and abuse animals? No, of course not, but they do not possess rights as humans do.

Medical research involving animals has produced many cures and treatments for diseases, including:

Smallpox vaccine
Angioplasty
Parkinson’s treatments
Insulin therapy for diabetes sufferers
Tuberculosis treatments
AIDS research
Cancer treatments

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it at that. Suffice to say, animal testing is, and probably always will be, necessary.

pro-test.org.uk/
This group support scientists who engage in research using animals and fight back against animal-rights propaganda. Take some time to look at them.

 

[Marfran]

Marfran, most baby products say Non Toxic on them. Even diaper cream, my oldest ate some once, and poison control said he would be ok.

Laundry detergent isn’t food, and is diluted once it gets into the environment. If a child would drink a cup of it and not get sick, would it actually get the clothing clean?

anything could be toxic depending on the concentration. Even baking soda.

Exactly!!! Why forcefeed animals household products until 50% of them die??? That’s what the LD-50 test is. Is this necessary??? Do we need to know how many ounces, cups, or gallons of laundry detergent or other product it takes to kill 50% of animals in the test group???

Mary, I do believe there are also environmental issues involved with all that diluted laundry detergent getting into our water sources.

OK–I just asked a neighbor to see her laundry detergent bottle.That’s weird. It says “CAUTION: KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. EYE IRRITANT. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.” Says this in bold type **on the front & the back **of the bottle. Guess how they know that… What’s weird is that they do not list the ingredients. I didn’t realize that…apparently you only have to list the ingredients of food items???

Now to my laundry detergent. Seventh Generation. NO WHERE on the bottle does it say that it is an eye irritant or HARMFUL if swallowed. Instead it says: This product is formulated to be safe for your family and the environment. Our unique ingredient combination is a non-toxic, non-irritating, hypoallergenic, biodegradable alternative to conventional petroleum-based detergents."

Also–and this is really interesting–it says: “We Disclose All Ingredients. You have the right to know what makes our cleaning products SAFE for people and the environment as well as effective at getting the job done, so we include a full ingredients list on all of our cleaners (just peel back the label)…”

OK, so I peeled back the label, and there it is…the whole list of ingredients… I’m not typing this whole thing…they are plant-derived cleaning agents… And the product IS NOT tested on animals. Gentle, smells good, gets the clothes clean, good for the environment, and the price is comparable to conventional products…and NO animals have to drink it…

 

[Marfran]

Haha. Um I wasnt aware that there were animals posting on this thread? Silly silly me.
A hint for you Irish Catholic-it might be helpful to read posts before commenting on them dear.

I apologize!! It was my animals!!! I have some very smart, intellegent animals and unfortunately they figured out my password (never use the name of your pet as a password, if you have brainy animals in your house).

 

[severus68]

Exactly!!! Why forcefeed animals household products until 50% of them die??? That’s what the LD-50 test is. Is this necessary??? Do we need to know how many ounces, cups, or gallons of laundry detergent or other product it takes to kill 50% of animals in the test group???

Mary, I do believe there are also environmental issues involved with all that diluted laundry detergent getting into our water sources.

OK–I just asked a neighbor to see her laundry detergent bottle.That’s weird. It says “CAUTION: KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. EYE IRRITANT. HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.” Says this in bold type **on the front & the back **of the bottle. Guess how they know that… What’s weird is that they do not list the ingredients. I didn’t realize that…apparently you only have to list the ingredients of food items???

Now to my laundry detergent. Seventh Generation. NO WHERE on the bottle does it say that it is an eye irritant or HARMFUL if swallowed. Instead it says: This product is formulated to be safe for your family and the environment. Our unique ingredient combination is a non-toxic, non-irritating, hypoallergenic, biodegradable alternative to conventional petroleum-based detergents."

Also–and this is really interesting–it says: “We Disclose All Ingredients. You have the right to know what makes our cleaning products SAFE for people and the environment as well as effective at getting the job done, so we include a full ingredients list on all of our cleaners (just peel back the label)…”

OK, so I peeled back the label, and there it is…the whole list of ingredients… I’m not typing this whole thing…they are plant-derived cleaning agents… And the product IS NOT tested on animals. Gentle, smells good, gets the clothes clean, good for the environment, and the price is comparable to conventional products…and NO animals have to drink it…

I have not found Seventh Generation products where I leave but have found green non toxic products, non tested household cleaners.

 

[severus68]

I apologize!! It was my animals!!! I have some very smart, intellegent animals and unfortunately they figured out my password (never use the name of your pet as a password, if you have brainy animals in your house).

It was those darn cats of mine!

 

[severus68]

First off, animals do not have rights. Rights are something that are unique to humans because of our unique status as the apex of creation. God gave rights to humans, not to animals. Should we go willy nilly and abuse animals? No, of course not, but they do not possess rights as humans do.

Medical research involving animals has produced many cures and treatments for diseases, including:

Smallpox vaccine
Angioplasty
Parkinson’s treatments
Insulin therapy for diabetes sufferers
Tuberculosis treatments
AIDS research
Cancer treatments

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it at that. Suffice to say, animal testing is, and probably always will be, necessary.

pro-test.org.uk/
This group support scientists who engage in research using animals and fight back against animal-rights propaganda. Take some time to look at them.

Isn’t it the fact we are made in the image of God, given free will and superior intellect the very reason we should show compassion to lesser beings? This is without going into the rights issue.

Yes animal testing and experimentation has done a lot for medical research. There have also been a lot of medical experimentation and testing that has been unneccessary. With regard to your link, I have posted another re the John Hopkins research facility which is working to find alternatives. There are many others. There have been testing of drugs on animals, released into the market and then withdrawn as they were not safe for humans. Animal physiology is different. What is wrong with using viable alternatives?

I could say too that there is also much propaganda to support animal testing.

We don’t have to do something just because we can.

 

[mapleoak]

First off, animals do not have rights. Rights are something that are unique to humans because of our unique status as the apex of creation. God gave rights to humans, not to animals. Should we go willy nilly and abuse animals? No, of course not, but they do not possess rights as humans do.

Medical research involving animals has produced many cures and treatments for diseases, including:

Smallpox vaccine
Angioplasty
Parkinson’s treatments
Insulin therapy for diabetes sufferers
Tuberculosis treatments
AIDS research
Cancer treatments

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it at that. Suffice to say, animal testing is, and probably always will be, necessary.

pro-test.org.uk/
This group support scientists who engage in research using animals and fight back against animal-rights propaganda. Take some time to look at them.

And testing shampoo on animals is a far cry from the experimentation that takes place in the development of drugs, medical research, surgical technique, and even psychological research. All of which are highly beneficial to human beings and that which would not be possible if it weren’t for experimentation on animals. Needlessly making animals suffer for the sake of suffering is not acceptable, but then, inflicting suffering on animals by drug companies and the medical profession just for the sport of it is not a very commonplace practice.