Mars Inc in ANIMAL TEST HORROR

[-Pickle-]

MARS MURDER, MAIM AND MUTILIATE
Animals screaming in silence as unaware consumers bite into a painful candybar
www.marscandykills.com

before you tuck into that chocolate bar or other candy, you should know that candymaker Mars funds deadly animal experiments even though not one of the tests is required by law, there are more reliable
human studies and Hershey’s, the company’s top competitor, has banned all tests on animals. Mars has funded cruel experiments in which mice
were fed a candy ingredient and forced to swim
in a pool of diluted paint. The mice had to find a hidden platform to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later. In another experiment
funded by Mars, experimenters fed rats cocoa and then collected their blood by injecting a needle directly into their hearts—a procedure that can
lead to internal bleeding and other deadly complications. Mars also supported an experiment in which baby mice were crammed into small Plexiglas chambers and submerged for nearly five hours in chilled water just to see if a chocolate ingredient affected their breathing rate.
Please don’t buy any of these Mars products
until the company drops its deadly animal tests:
• M&M’S
• SNICKERS
• SKITTLES
• MILKY WAY
• STARBURST
• THREE MUSKETEERS
• TWIX
• DOVE
• M-AZING
• COCOAVIA
• ETHEL M
• LUCAS
• MUNCH

[Karen]

I moved this to The Dog House.

Secondly, I take with a large grain of salt anything put out by PETA.

[Lady's Human]

These accusations don't even remotely pass the BS test. For the second time today.....


USE SOME JUDGMENT, PEOPLE!

[Argranade]

I heard of this before.

I like m & m's but have not had any for months.

I'll try and not use any other of those products.

[smokey the elder]

This SO doesn't pass the smell test! Where's the USDA and IACUC??

[moosmom]

I so agree with Smokey the Elder.

[-Pickle-]

oh sorry, i didnt realise animal testing didnt have a place on pet talk. + PETA arent insane as so many people seem to believe and i would like to ask that if you dont believe in what they are saying please do not post. even if it is fake, we all know animal testing like this actually does happen.
i would appreciate that there are no more obselete posts, i am not attempting to flame anyone here, nor do i wish for it to be done to me, im merely trying to raise awareness of these horrors. if you think its BS, im not going to try and change your mind.

[dukedogsmom]

This is a public forum and everyone is allowed to voice their opinion. If you want one sided views, then you might not want to post too many things here.

Snopes doesn't have anything on this so I don't know if it's valid or not. Those PETA people can be quite over the board sometimes. I agree with their cause but not their actions, a lot of the time.

I can't seem to find any links to prove that it's true. Just accusations.

[caseysmom]

Peta lost all credibility to me when they targeted my daughter who was 12 at the time and showed her graphic pictures, luckily my daughter didn't look but her friend threw up.

[Lady's Human]

i would like to ask that if you dont believe in what they are saying please do not post.

That's just not going to happen. PETA has made so many false accusations over the years that they have zero credibility. If you don't want negative comments, don't post about PETA.


even if it is fake, we all know animal testing like this actually does happen.

Faking reports like this and twisting facts to fit their viewpoint is WHY they have no credibility.

PETA funds have gone to terrorist groups (ALF and ELF), and they have used absolutely inexcusable tactics in their "awareness" campaigns (see CaseysMom's post). The harm they do in their campaigns far, far overshadows any good they may accomplish.

[Edwina's Secretary]

oi would like to ask that if you dont believe in what they are saying please do not post. even if it is fake, we all know animal testing like this actually does happen.

I read that the Taliban is made up of a great group of guys who treat women especially well. If you don't believe in what they are saying please do not post.

Sound silly? Of course!

Diluted paint....I mean that stuff doesn't even make sense. And you will notice it says "Mars is paying for..." not "Mars is doing"...because that makes it harder to prove/disprove.

There are enough real horrors in this world to fuss about and try and right. To say boycott this company because others may be doing bad things is...well again...silly... Even you admit it might be fake.

But boycott Snickers???? Over something that doesn't pass the taste test???

Not going to happen....

[caseysmom]

Posting something like this without proof is just irresponsible, thousands of people have jobs at mars, inc. Think about them this holiday season.

[TamanduaGirl]

I agree with their cause but not their actions, a lot of the time.

PeTA doesn't want any animals in human hands, including domestics. Domestics should go extinct and all others be free. That's their ultimate goal, that's their cause.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

HSUS is the same way they just wear a nicer suit(Image) for the public

There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”

The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

[-Pickle-]

i have another link for you, in which mars admits to testing a 'healthy' chocolate ingredient on animals.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=82017-mars-peta-animal-testing

Christophe Dandoy, director of communications for Mars France, admitted that the business division Symbioscience does test on animals while developing products containing flavanols.

He also claimed, however, that the Mars is still committed to animal welfare, and does not test on animals when developing other products for the food, beverage or pet care divisions.

[lizbud]

i have another link for you, in which mars admits to testing a 'healthy' chocolate ingredient on animals.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=82017-mars-peta-animal-testing


This link does seem to provide a little more information on the topic than
the last link but, don't wait around for some folks here to agree with you.

They won't because they are so busy shooting the messenger, they can't
look at anything objectively.Any mention of PETA ,and some folks here go
berserk. :)

[Karen]

This link does seem to provide a little more information on the topic than
the last link but, don't wait around for some folks here to agree with you.

They won't because they are so busy shooting the messenger, they can't
look at anything objectively.Any mention of PETA ,and some folks here go
berserk. :)

Hey, I didn't go bersek, I just said I don't believe anything PETA puts forth, based on their past performances and exaggerations. If PETA told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check for myself before agreeing with them. Nor did I shoot the messenger, nor do I think anyone else did.

[Ginger's Mom]

Hey, I didn't go bersek, I just said I don't believe anything PETA puts forth, based on their past performances and exaggerations. If PETA told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check for myself before agreeing with them. Nor did I shoot the messenger, nor do I think anyone else did.
Well, if you didn't do any of those things I think it would be safe to assume that lizbud probably wasn't referring to you, and anyone who feels they responded appropriately has no reason to feel this was directed at them.
Tamandua Girl I see you quoted something but I cannot figure out where that quote is from. Is it from the HSUS website?

[lizbud]

Well, if you didn't do any of those things I think it would be safe to assume that lizbud probably wasn't referring to you, and anyone who feels they responded appropriately has no reason to feel this was directed at them.
Tamandua Girl I see you quoted something but I cannot figure out where that quote is from. Is it from the HSUS website?


Thank you. You are right. :)

[Lady's Human]

You'll have to pardon my distaste for a "charitable" organization that gives money to terrorist groups.

[caseysmom]

I am sorry but objective and PETA don't even belong in the same sentence, I formed my opinion of them with my brain and yes I do discredit just about anything they say, my choice.

[-Pickle-]

please may i have solid proof that
a) PETA kills animals
b) PETA gives money to terrorist groups
and please not just a random news report, we all know what the media are like.
sorry for getting a little snotty with the last post, and i wont wait around for people to agree with me. if you dont agree, fairs fair.
and yes, i do agree with the shooting the messenger comment. please dont flame me for PETAs actions, im just posting this because i know alot of people eat mars candy, and i have posted proof that they do test flavanols on animals, and i care about the animals. if i didnt care, i would never have posted.
also, i dont mean to sound nasty, but to all the flamers out there, the ones that have posted, you just wasted a few moments of your precious life flaming, and to others that want to bash, go ahead and watse a little more time. yes, someone will probably use the response that i wasted my time. i didn't, i just raised a little awareness of the suffering of animals.

[-Pickle-]

I moved this to The Dog House.

Secondly, I take with a large grain of salt anything put out by PETA.

oh, and thankyou for moving this. i wasnt sure whether it went in the dog house or in general, so i guessed.

[Lady's Human]

YOu won't believe these, after all they are just "random news reports", but:

http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=154

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-04-2003/0001994926&EDATE

http://www.rickross.com/groups/animal.html

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3762033950.pdf

[dukedogsmom]

also, i dont mean to sound nasty, but to all the flamers out there, the ones that have posted, you just wasted a few moments of your precious life flaming, and to others that want to bash, go ahead and watse a little more time. yes, someone will probably use the response that i wasted my time. i didn't, i just raised a little awareness of the suffering of animals.
Obviously, you've never really been flamed. I thought my post was quite tactful, actually. And why the big chip on your shoulder about people that don't care for PETA? You seem a little bitter. All of us care deeply about animals and we all do different things for their well being. You need to spend some time here reading our other posts before you start slinging accusations of us like you have.

[TamanduaGirl]

please may i have solid proof that
a) PETA kills animals
b) PETA gives money to terrorist groups


The sites I kinked to have gathered the proof there quite nicely. You just ave to read them.

[TamanduaGirl]

Tamandua Girl I see you quoted something but I cannot figure out where that quote is from. Is it from the HSUS website?

Well there was supposed to be a link with the quote.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
It's a long page but I have read the whole thing before. Just grabbed some relevant quotes quickly since more people still support hsus than peta. If you still support them and read the whole thing and look into it you may feel differently.

[TamanduaGirl]

this site has more and is more up to date

hsus info
http://www.rexano.org/HSUSAustArticle.htm
http://www.rexano.org/HSUS_CCF_Vick_pit_bull_Frame.htm

[Miss Z]

Those PETA people can be quite over the board sometimes. I agree with their cause but not their actions, a lot of the time.



My thoughts precisely. On the whole, I agree with what they campaign for, but not how they campaign. I think, though, that the reason they have become so volatile is because peaceful protest has not worked for the animal rights cause in the past - your average person just doesn't want to know. I don't see a problem with showing young people graphic images of abused animals, unless that particular person is proved mentally unstable or very easily upset. I do have a problem with something, though, that actually harms another person or creature, something which PETA sadly seem to do often.

And I do agree with lizbud that it seems the cannons are out as soon as PETA is mentioned. -Pickle- is from the UK like me, and PETA don't bring quite so many of their more devious and dreadful plans across the pond, so over here they're seen as more moderate than extremists. I can understand why she would not instantly discredit them. And she is right - in some way or another this abuse does go on, all over the world, for medical or cosmetic purposes. At least this article raises some degree of awareness, albeit by more drastic and sour means.

[caseysmom]

My thoughts precisely. On the whole, I agree with what they campaign for, but not how they campaign. I think, though, that the reason they have become so volatile is because peaceful protest has not worked for the animal rights cause in the past - your average person just doesn't want to know. I don't see a problem with showing young people graphic images of abused animals, unless that particular person is proved mentally unstable or very easily upset. I do have a problem with something, though, that actually harms another person or creature, something which PETA sadly seem to do often.

And I do agree with lizbud that it seems the cannons are out as soon as PETA is mentioned. -Pickle- is from the UK like me, and PETA don't bring quite so many of their more devious and dreadful plans across the pond, so over here they're seen as more moderate than extremists. I can understand why she would not instantly discredit them. And she is right - in some way or another this abuse does go on, all over the world, for medical or cosmetic purposes. At least this article raises some degree of awareness, albeit by more drastic and sour means.

Do you think we shouldn't keep animals as pets?

[Miss Z]

Do you think we shouldn't keep animals as pets?

Of course? I never said I agreed with absolutely everything they did. If I believed that then I wouldn't keep any myself. :confused:

I personally can't imagine a world without pets; domestication has been present for tens of thousands of years, I doubt we can reverse it. Granted, that is one of PETA's stupid ideas. I do think, however, it should be made more difficult to obtain an animal by checking household income, home size, past records, etc, before an animal is brought into the home.

[caseysmom]

I think PETA started out with good intentions most likely but just seems to have taken off a life of its own. I know you have pets my point was just that what we all think they may represent has most likely gone sort of nutty now.

Miss Z, Do you have PETA in the UK?

[IRescue452]

Rather than boycotting boycotting boycotting, people should be trying to get a more credible, objective group to conduct an investigation into the company and their tests. Constructive measures work better than whining and they breed less hatred. People hate PETA because they don't do anything constructive, they just use negativity to get their word across.

[-Pickle-]

look, i know i'll be called a hipocrite for this, but,
i dont agree with some ways that PETA campaigns, and
i dont think that animals shouldnt be kept as pets. yeah, PETA are v.extreme the way they handle alot of things. BUT, i dont instantly discredit PETA for actions theyve done, i was 9 when i saw the first graphic pictures of animal cruelty (fox hunting, now banned in the UK) from a league against cruel sports magazine (which i am a member of :D) , and then i found PETA and the battery hen trust and ive seen more graphic pictures and found an everlasting way of how to stop it.

please read this next bit carefully before instantly bringing out the guns on me again:
even if this is fake, (which i am convinced its not, yet some people sway the other way) animal testing still happens at the hands of humans, and i know its wrong. im prepared to avoid any and all companies with even accusations of animal testing. if there could be an air raid and bombs would fall, i'd jump into the bomb shelter until i knew the threat had passed.
yes, i can take your criticism, and im not one to clam free speech down at all as its a right women and men had to fight for in the first place, so if you have something to criticise, or a point to make (thats preferably not personal attacks,) please add to the discussion :)

[IRescue452]

As long as unnatural ingredients are used, animal testing has to be done. I don't argue that because I am allergic to a lot of skin care products that are not tested on animals. However, the means in which the tests are done and how the animals are treated needs to be improved, majorly. Honestly, we don't need to be making animals swim around and find a platform in order to test a product unless the product is meant to be used while swimming.

[Lady's Human]

Yes, animal testing happens. In many cases it is legally required. If you want to avoid all products developed using animal testing in their development, I hope you're prepared to eschew all modern medical products in their entirety. After all, they were developed using animal testing.

[-Pickle-]

Yes, animal testing happens. In many cases it is legally required. If you want to avoid all products developed using animal testing in their development, I hope you're prepared to eschew all modern medical products in their entirety. After all, they were developed using animal testing.

yes, i know thats true. medical may be required, but
hairspray?
lipstick?
eyeliner?
mascara?
candy?
theres thousands of them, so do we really need another one at the expense of a baby rabbits eyes, or a kittens skin etc?

[Lady's Human]

im prepared to avoid any and all companies with even accusations of animal testing.

Which is it?

As to food products, any additives should be thoroughly tested before consumption by humans, and what is used in candy is more than likely used in more than just candy. Chances are it is used in other food products as well.

[-Pickle-]

Which is it?

As to food products, any additives should be thoroughly tested before consumption by humans, and what is used in candy is more than likely used in more than just candy. Chances are it is used in other food products as well.

i fully understand where your coming from, please allow me to clarify some things:

i believe mars tests on animals
i dont support animal testing
im not going to buy any of their products
i would advise anyone to follow suit
i understand this may be exaggerated
i avoid animal tested products whenever i can

just in case i'd muddled anyone up.

[Lady's Human]

In the US, animal testing is required for food additives.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/red-ivb1.html#necr

[-Pickle-]

In the US, animal testing is required for food additives.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/red-ivb1.html#necr

but humans are different than animals. they have different systems, how one thing affects animals could affect humans differently. we have willing volunteers and human tissue samples etc to test things on, so why do we still harm animals? they bleed, they feel pain, yet they suffer in silence, and all in vain.
this is why im against animal testing.

[lizbud]

As to food products, any additives should be thoroughly tested before consumption by humans, and what is used in candy is more than likely used in more than just candy. Chances are it is used in other food products as well.


I wonder how chocolate or Tylenol passed their animal testing since
they are both fatal to dogs. Did they kill the animals anyway?

Animal testing,as is, an outmoded method of testing & because it is still
codified in law doesn't make it right. We can change law in this country
and I hope more people, after they are aware of the law, will agree to
change it. There are now newer scientific means of testing that do not
require killing animals.

[IRescue452]

Chocolate has been around for centuries before animals testing. The chocolate itself is already known to be safe for humans, but they do test how much can do good or harm, and they test other additives to the chocolate. And you bet they did testing to find that the theobromide is what kills dogs.
Tylenol has a similar history.

Sure, we can use mechanical tests to see if something is innately safe, but what about long term studies? What if something was safe to eat, but gave you cancer 40 years later because the mechanical tests couldn't predict that reaction within the body over those years?

[Lady's Human]

Chocolate wouldn't require testing, it's a food, not an additive, and has been consumed by humans for ages.

If you want to change the law, then start a push to change the law.....but make damned sure your different testing methods have the same predictive accuracy that a multi-generational animal study does.

If PETA spent their time working with the scientific community and developing a testing regimen, they might actually do some good. Instead they prefer to deal with terrorists, shock children, and cost people their jobs. After all, hard to get press when you're engaged in serious science. That takes time and logic, as opposed to their preferred methods of shock, slander and playing on emotions.

[lizbud]

If you want to change the law, then start a push to change the law.....but make damned sure your different testing methods have the same predictive accuracy that a multi-generational animal study does.




Change will come, I'm sure of it and it can't happen soon enough for me.

Scientists have been working towards this goal for years now. But none
of it would have happened if they had not been nudged along by groups
such as PETA. Raising awareness is their job & commuicateing our concerns
about animal testing to our lawmakers is everyone's job.

http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?tax_level=1&info_center=3&tax_subject=183

[TamanduaGirl]

I found a online list of companies that test on animals but it's hardly all inclusive, it includes post it notes and scotch tape and most likely any other brand of tape will be tested on animals too. guess the glue part they make them eat and or put on the skin and watch for reactions. So if you don't believe in animal testing you can't use any adhesives like tape or post it notes.

http://pw2.netcom.com/~axleplus/stuff/hotstuff/company.html

[Lady's Human]

I gave a quick glance to the list, and it still lists Febreeze as being toxic to animals, despite this article from the ASPCA: http://www.aspca.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8352

At best it is outdated.

[smokey the elder]

I promised myself I'd stay out of this debate, but here goes.

In spite of propaganda to the contrary, alternatives to animal testing are sort of a "holy grail" for pharma. They would like nothing more than to be able to culture a load of cells, dump some drug in them, and see how they respond, and have it mean something in terms of response in the whole organism (ie human being.)

There is a new technique being looked at called "microdosing" in which a very small amount of drug is given to a healthy person, and tests are done on the blood and urine to look at the metabolites. The technique requires very sensitive testing equipment. It shows much promise, but has to be validated, which means that the results have to be demonstrated to be "real".

The pharma industry, and even more importantly, the FDA, EMEA and other regulatory bodies are very conservative. It will be many years before we even know if microdosing has potential or is another dead end.

Meanwhile, while animal testing is done, the places that do it are obligated to care for the animals in as humane a manner is possible.

[lizbud]

It was once common knowledge that the sun revolved around the
earth and took many years to prove otherwise. Scientists are notorious
for moving slowly with any change in held beliefs.

[TamanduaGirl]

I gave a quick glance to the list, and it still lists Febreeze as being toxic to animals,

Febreeze is not on that list(that I see) and if it was it's not about if it's toxic or not but if it was tested on animals. It must have been tested on them to prove it was safe to use around them, even if not on the list. A quick google of febreeze and animal testing shows they do test their air fresheners on animals.

[Miss Z]

It was once common knowledge that the sun revolved around the
earth and took many years to prove otherwise. Scientists are notorious
for moving slowly with any change in held beliefs.

Very well said! I agree with all your posts so far 100%.

[Catlady711]

Has anyone ever thought about how pet vaccines and medicines come to be approved or safe to use on our pets in the first place?

While I don't approve of needless testing that results in pain and death of animals, I certainly don't want a vet to use a vaccine or medicine that has not been proven to work or even be safe to use on my pet.