Mars Inc in ANIMAL TEST HORROR

[-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 ) , 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

[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.