Animal Testing

[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.

[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!!! 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

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!