Animal Testing

[slleipnir]

I don't know if this still happens or not, but when I was having a shower earlier, I got some shampoo in my eyes. I was thinking like "This stings!" and washing it out or whatever. I thought about the animals that have to get that done to them. It almost makes me sick thinking about those poor little creatures who are so innocent and don't deserve that treatment. It's just cruel!!! I only buy shampoo and soaps and such that aren't tested on animals. I don't know if it matters, but i'm NOT supporting those cruel *word I can't use on PT*. I think that the shampoo I use is wonderful, maybe even better then ones tested on them. So it obviously doesn't make any point to do that! Can anyone tell me if this still happens??

[ilovehounds]

Good for you for not using products that use animal testing a big THUMBS UP !! :D

Unfortunatly it still occurs and about the only thing we can do is just what you are doing not buying their products.


I posted this before but I'll post it again

**Boycott These Products Until They Stop Using Animal Tests:

*Companion Animal Care

Iams

*Deodorant

Old Spice, Secret, Sure

*Diapers and Baby Care

Baby Fresh, Kid Fresh, Luvs, Pampers, Wash-a-Bye Baby

*Food and Beverage

Crisco, Eagle Snacks, Folgers, Hawaiian Punch, Jif, Millstone

Coffee, Olean/Olestra, Pringles, Puritan Oil, Sunny Delight,

Tender Leaf Tea

*Fragrance

Giorgio, Hugo Boss, Laura Biagiotti-Roma, Old Spice, Red,

Venezia, Wings

*Hair Care

Head & Shoulders, Ivory, Pantene, Pert, Physique, Prell,

Vidal Sassoon

*Hygiene

Always, Attends, Tampax

*Laundry and Cleaning

Biz, Bold, Bounce, Cascade, Cheer, Cinch, Comet, Dash, Dawn,

Downy, Dreft, Dryel, Era, Febreze, Gain, Ivory, Ivory Snow,

Joy, Mr. Clean, Orvus, Oxydol, Solo, Spic & Span, Swiffer,

Tide, Top Job

*Non-Prescription Drugs/Health Aids

DayQuil, Metamucil, NyQuil, Pepto-Bismol, Percogesic, Sinex,

ThermaCare, VapoRub, Vicks

*Oral Care

Cloraseptic, Crest, Fasteeth, Fixodent, Gleem, Scope

*Paper Product

Banner, Bounty, Charmin, Puffs, Royale, Summit

*Prescription Drugs

Actisite, Asacol, Brontex, Dantrium, Didronel, Macrodantin,

Peridex, Ultradol, Zebeta, Ziac

*Skin Care

Clearasil, Clearstick, Cover Girl, Max Factor, Noxzema, Oil of Olay

*Soap

Camay, Coast, Ivory, Safeguard, Zest


**Cruelty-Free Alternatives :

*Companion Animal Care

Choose from many alternative brands.

*Deodorant

Almay, Avon, Lady Mitchum, Mitchum, Tom's of Maine

*Diapers

Fancy Bottoms, cloth diapers

*Fragrance

Aramis, Avon, Bath & Body Works, Beautiful, Chanel, Charlie, Crabtree & Evelyn, Garden Botanika,

Liz Claiborne, Tommy, Tommy Girl, Victoria's Secret, White Linen

*Hair Care

Agree, Aveda, Bath & Body Works, Body Shop, Citré Shine, Flex, Freeman, Hälsa, Jheri Redding,

John Paul Mitchell Systems, Revlon

*Hygiene

Natracare, Seventh Generation

*Laundry and Cleaning

Bon Ami, Ecover, Seventh Generation, Sun

*Oral Care

Lavoris, Tom's of Maine, Topol Tooth Polish

*Paper Products

Marcal, Seventh Generation

*Skin Care

Almay, Aubrey Organics, Avon, Basis, Bobbi Brown, Body Shop, Clinique, Estée Lauder, Jane,

M.A.C., Origins, Revlon, Ultima II

*Soap

Basis, Bath & Body Works, Body Shop, Garden Botanika, San Francisco Soap Company, Yardley



Animal tests cannot be accurately applied to human experience because of the enormous physiological differences between animals and humans. More than 550 companies, including large corporations like Gillette and Avon, ensure their customers' safety by using more accurate, nonanimal tests, but some refuses to switch--even for cosmetics and household products, which make up the majority of products and are not required by law to be tested on animals.

[carrie]

Yes, it is still a huge industry and sadly many companies have jumped on the bandwagon of "Not Tested on Animals" without changing a thing!!
As they buy in the ingredients for the final product from other companies they can claim that the final product is not tested on animals. This does not mean that each and every seperate ingredient has not been tested on animals, just the end product. To be really sure you need to visit each website and if the information is not clear then email them and ask! That's what I do!
It's very interesting to ask how they know their products are safe if they are not tested on animals and how the company does test.

[AmberLee]

Thanks for the info ... I had no idea of how wide-spread it is! :( :o

[AdoreMyDogs]

Unless they have changed their ways, Proctor & Gamble is a HUGE supporter of animal testing! They are a huge company, and they have many, many products of all types, so there's ALOT of animal testing that happens due to that company.

I boycott all Proctor & Gamble products because of this.

[lizbud]

At the risk of sounding the death knell to this topic,
LOL.
I will post what I know about animal testing. Yes, it is
unfortunately still being done. P & G is by far the largest
congomerate , producing the most products which ,
(as Carrie has already said) test the ingredients to all
their products on animals but not the end product name.
It's a matter of semantics designed to confuse the
comsumer.

[slleipnir]

Hmm..wow, thats a lot of info! I always look to make sure it's not tested on animals, but I never really realized before about what carrie said. Thanks for all the info

[ilovehounds]

Is Iams owned by Procter and Gamble ???? I know Iams is animals tested so I never even look at a bag but I thought someone had said they took it over ? And Eucanuba (sp) ..lol.. is an Iams product yes or no ???

Does anyone know if Iams was animal tested before P&G took it over if in fact they did take it over ??? Thats something Im going to look into.

[Logan]

I am pretty sure that P&G now owns the Iams and Eukanuba labels, Angie. And at the same time, I will also admit that my girls are thriving on an IAMS food (weight control in the blue bag) which I hesitate to stop, even after Lilly achieves the target weight. But it is good to be informed. All testing is probably not bad for the animals, but there are horrible stories out there. Like the sled dog topic, you have to balance your opinion and not believe the first thing that you read.

Logan

[Phred]

Inserting the term "animal testing" into the http://www.google.com search engine brought up hundreds of web pages. Here are just a few...

Humane Society US page... (http://www.hsus.org/programs/research/ms_testing_cosmetics.html#draize) Many other related pages on the subject at this HSUA site. Towards the bottom of this page they explain a few of the animal tests; and how they have been modified (and in some cases eliminated) to minimize test animal suffering.

Animal Defense Leage site... (http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/news/pandg100501.html) Comments on Proctor & Gamble and Iams.

P&G company site... (http://www.pg.com/about_pg/science_tech/animal_alternatives/category_main.jhtml) This page links to many P&G pages dealing with animal testing.

US Food & Drug Administration site... (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html) Pages of information from one of the Federal Agencies that in some cases require animal testing.

Can we ever eliminate all animal testing of products?
Sadly, no - we probably can't do that and still have new products that are safe for both humans AND animals. :(

BUT - We CAN insist and demand that the tests be humane, limit suffering and pain, AND be conducted on the absolute Minimum number of animals required to achieve valid test results.

[Logan]

Thanks, John. :)

[Phred]

Anyone who looked before...
Check my post again ~
Had to fix my links - had the same page 3 times.
{Sorry} :o /s/ Phred

[ilovehounds]

Oh please don't get me wrong, I know alot of pet talkers who feed their babies Iams and Im not saying you shouldn't. I was just wondering if P&G now owns it and if Iams did animal testing before they did.

If Iams works for your babies then I wouldn't stop feeding it to them either. Its hard to keep dogs at a healthy weight (been there done that :D) and finding that right food to do it is also hard.

[lizbud]

Phred,

Hi and thanks for posting links & suggesting that people
who are interested in finding out more info on this topic,
to search around for All the current info available on
testing chemicals on animals.
I must say that I can't agree with you that animal
testing is a necessary evil.
Yes, this "business practice" is evil; and No , it is not
at all necessary. There are many more modern & humane
ways to test consumer products.

I've had a LONG DAY at work today and I'm pooped,
so I'm calling it a day. I would like to post more later.
Give Cinder & Smokie a hug from me. Liz.

[C.C.'s Mom]

I read somewhere that the European Union has now said, that it's forbidden to market any product that's tested on animals.

There's a website where you can check out which product are safe and which aren't:

Tested On Animals (http://www.animalfrontline.nl/testjanl.htm)

Not Tested On Animals (http://www.animalfrontline.nl/testneenl.htm)

[C.C.'s Mom]

I forgot to mention something. It was only for cosmetics...

[carrie]

The EU has closed the door on cosmetic testing on animals - this has left thousands of lab animals in terrible conditions with no funding.
One facility in Sweden that used Chimps has over a hundred waiting to be rescued by Monkey World in Dorset. Monkey World is having to build new housing and paddocks for the animals.
Less lucky creatures such as cats, dogs, rats and mice have been simply destroyed.

[slleipnir]

Thats so terrible! Those poor animals :[ It's good atleast some are being saved though

[sabies]

It's so hard to imagine that not all dogs are spoiled little creatures that play in a park and sleep on a bed like mine!

I hope that any testing that is done is only absolutely necessary, not for cosmetics, and the animals are given excellent living conditions. As long as pressure is kept on companies to stop animal testing that goal should get closer to being realized. What about research for cures to diseases? From what I've read it seems necessary and every prescription drug has to go thru dog then on to monkey testing before human testing and final approval.

[lizbud]

Sabies,

Hi, could you please give me a link to the research
information that you mentioned in your earlier post?
I would really like to read it. Thank you. Liz.

[laXgrrl5]

*Sighs*

I fully disagree about testing on animals. However, apparently, the government often doesn't listen to what people say.

In my city, London, Ontario, they plan to host 2500 LAB ANIMALS in a facility. Give me a break...

I reckon it'll raise up the protesters in us. Me among them. :mad:

[lizbud]

Spencer,

Hi, just wondering what 401k mess has to do with
this topic ??
Are there inferences to be drawn from these two
seemingly unrelated topics ?
Or, am I just being way to serious about this discussion ?
LOL.
Thanks, Liz.

[*LabLoverKEB*]

I agree with all of you... it is soo cruel to do this to animals!!!:mad: :( How could people do such an awful thing?? I wish that there was a way to stop things like this!:(

[sabies]

Animal testing seems to be part of the pre-clinical stage, right before phase 1, when human volunteers are tested. There is this web site: FDA faqs (http://www.fda.gov/cder/about/smallbiz/faq.htm)

quote from that site: "During preclinical drug development, a sponsor evaluates the drug's toxic and pharmacologic effects through in vitro and in vivo laboratory animal testing. Genotoxicity screening is performed, as well as investigations on drug absorption and metabolism, the toxicity of the drug's metabolites, and the speed with which the drug and its metabolites are excreted from the body. At the preclinical stage, the FDA will generally ask, at a minimum, that sponsors: (1) develop a pharmacological profile of the drug; (2) determine the acute toxicity of the drug in at least two species of animals, and (3) conduct short-term toxicity studies ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months, depending on the proposed duration of use of the substance in the proposed clinical studies. "

I used to be a chemist and have worked for a company that was developing new drugs and they did use dogs and monkeys, from what I was told. I was only a temp there for less than a month. I tried to ask questions to learn all I could about the whole process but I never saw any animals or where they were kept. All I do know is the building was new, every room immaculate, and the one person I met who had contact with the animals cared about them.

As for the scientific process it does require multiple testings of many samples in order to have a certain amount of statistical accuracy. I have no idea how that works when dealing with animals. The impression I have been given is that dog and monkey testing is done only when they truly believe the drugs are ready for humans - and there is evidence to back that belief.

[mary_jsn]

I don't want to be cruel or anything but i think that they test stuff on animals 'cause if they didn't test ir it could have something that made us sick or even get cancer or some cerious allergy. I don't think they use young puppies on this. They might even get dogs from animal shelters, instead of killing them 'cause of the over population of dogs. For instance, here in Chile you can see at least 10 dogs in the street why? 'cause we don't have shelters here. Many people leave unwanted pregnant females on street and they give birth on the street. I think we use animals to test on products 'cause in here we have lots brands that there are in other countries. Sometimes animal testing isn't that cruel.

[slleipnir]

Mary. I think some testing like for cancer is kinda different. What I was talking about was everyday products, such as shampoo and stuff. Shampoo doesn't need to be tested for it to work properly and most other things, it's just cruel and heartless, thats my opinion anyway

[sabies]

I think that's why a lot of cosmetic animal testing is ended - it is unnecessary. Research into diseases such as cancer is beneficial to dogs too, much more important than a tube of clearasil!

[lizbud]

Sabies,

It's a Big step forward in the humane treatment of all
animals and happened in part because consumers were
made aware of the plight of "research companion animals".

Would like to suggest another good site for info on this
subject, (Thanks for your link by the way).

http://catt.jhsph.edu

It is a link to the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to
Animal Testing. It's an international online clearinghouse
of alternative resources.

[sabies]

I am glad that animals are treated better now and know that was not always the case. I believe there will always be room for improvement and we as consumers need to keep an eye out for any backwards steps or illegal actions and we need to keep pressure up for continued improvements. Every little as well as every big thing we can do counts!