Mars Inc in ANIMAL TEST HORROR

[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...ax_subject=183