Animal experimentation - your opinions.... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2006, 01:51 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


No one is going to suffer permanent eye damage from a product marked "cruelty free" under current labeling laws, because said laws require that all the components have been tested at some point in time.
I fully understand the prior testing of components, and manufacturers relying on said prior tests. The extent we should permit such reliance is a different issue. For example, manufacturers of silicone breast implants relied on Dow Corning testing done decades earlier. That didn't help them on the litigation front.

While individual components may have prior testing, are their potential risks if such components are used in new combinations? At what point do you require new testing? Are manufacturers immune from prosecution if they reasonably rely on such prior tests?

My question to AchtungBono is independent of the existence of prior testing (so, assume there are none). Should a person be able to make a choice to use a non-tested product and accept the risk of harm (that would be revealed and avoided with testing)?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 03:39 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Actually, nbc has a great point - chemical interactions are the x-factor here. Who is to say that a new combination or new concentration of components will not be unfavourable in some way? For example, it could significantly alter the pH of the solution, which could affect you in a number of negative ways, whether we're talking about your skin or your scalp.

I guess what bothers me about that type of marketing is that the companies who are selling "cruelty free" products (usually at a premium price) are counting on the fact that most of their customers will never realize that at some point, individual components or combinations thereof have been tested. Maybe it's nitpicky of me, but when you look at some of their practices (like Body Shop, for example), they rely on other companies to essentially do the animal testing on their behalf. They look clean as a baby's ass and get to slap a 'cruelty free' sticker on their product because somebody else was the bad guy on their behalf. To me, it seems somewhat disingenuous, but it's just my opinion.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-09-2006, 10:13 PM   #18
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:14 AM
I believe most cosmetics are formulated to have a specific pH range to begin with--certainly shampoos and astringents are, for example; they simply will not work outside of a fairly narrow range, so I doubt the chemists would leave something like that up to chance. You don't need animal tests to check the pH.

I agree that many consumers probably think "Cruelty Free" implies more than it actually does, but what cosmetics products aren't marketed disingenuously? Think of all the conditioners that claim to "heal" and "restore" hair for example, when in truth your hair is dead from the scalp on out and nothing can "heal" and "restore" it. Or all the "natural" cosmetics that list "coconut oil derivatives" as their main cleansing agent--creates a nice romantic image of someone lovingly pounding out fresh coconut with a mortar and pestle, but in fact that just means plain old sodium lauryl sulfate, the "coconut oil derivative" found in everything from Breck to Prell. Or all the pricey "skin rejuvenation" lotions that throw in a bit of fish DNA or cow collagen, then try to suggest that it will magically mesh with your own DNA and collagen to "repair" your skin--erm, think about the calamities that would befall us on a daily basis if our skin really could incorporate foreign tissue elements in such a fashion. I don't really see what The Body Shop is doing as being anything above and beyond the usual marketing b.s.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 10:43 PM   #19
The Fly
 
vervex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 283
Local Time: 06:14 PM
We do currently need animals experimentations to progress, otherwise we'll destruct our own race, which would be fair, but unthinkable. Tests have already been done on Africans and poor people though... like if it would make the horror less... horrifying ? Human is weird.

As I was saying, the main problem, I think, are not the experimentations but the animal cruelty. I had to write an article about it at school last year and read about animals having their eyes boiled by lasers and their arms and legs shot until they fell, pets used for army experimentations. That is just terrible.

I'm for animal experimentations if they help for the Health Industry. Makeup and new firearms, bombs, whatever, are not good reasons to kill a living being.
__________________
vervex is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 10:55 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:14 AM


Test on poor people and Africans?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 05:22 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


Test on poor people and Africans?

Yes, actually, this is true. Many pharmaceutical companies will provide "free" drugs to Africans (for example to control the tetse (?sp) fly.) with the results being included for registrations in Western countries. So, while it appears an altrusitic gesture on behalf of the company there is a kick back in terms of scientific results as these are treated as experiments.

I agree with Anitram, to conduct a scientific experiment on an animal requires a lot of approvals here in Aus. There are federal and state regulations to be adhered to, you need to have a consultative committee made up of unrelated members (to the company conducting the experiments) who must review each experiment and determine its worth and give approval. This is not only for testing for "human" products but also for animal products.

It should also be remembered that the "animal experimentation" that most people are aware of are those such as debrasive skin treatments on guinea pigs and rabbits or eye tests on rats, rabbits and guinea pigs. There are a wide variety of other tests that can be conducted. Much of this testing is not repeated but used as background knowledge for the active and various inert ingredients. The formulation itself may undergo a series of much minor tests before it becomes available to market.

These background tests include everything from water fleas, fish, ducks, rats, mice, dogs, cats, and where some experimental work is available, even humans. It should also be noted that all the information gathered as a result of poisonings by the Poison Information Centre is provided to the regulatory bodies to ensure that any unexpected or unexplained "happening" is reviewed. This may result in a complete review of the chemical and the request for more information.

At this point, while wieldy and sometimes repetative, until a better system is developed this is what we have to ensure safety and health of not only ourselves but the environment and the animals in it.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 09:51 AM   #22
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


Test on poor people and Africans?
Phase I human trials for drugs are conducted for safety and tolerability and are voluntary. But generally only those that are desperate for money are willing to participate as guinea pigs.

Ever hear upbeat radio ads for free funky weekend vacation getaways for healthy males 18-34? lol
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 09:58 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


Phase I human trials for drugs are conducted for safety and tolerability and are voluntary. But generally only those that are desperate for money are willing to participate as guinea pigs.


i loved "the constant gardener."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-10-2006, 10:01 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
1stepcloser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 3,764
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by the iron horse
I saw Ted Nugent on a talk show several years ago.
He was surrounded by animal rights activists and getting grilled
by them and most of the audience for hunting animals for food.

Someone asked him this same question.

His response:

"If you told me that by killing a monkey, we could save the lives of human beings, bring me a hammer and I would kill a monkey."


i like that quote. i'm gonna use that whenever i debate this issue in the future
__________________
1stepcloser is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 12:06 AM   #25
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Wouldn't Ted Nugent use a gun though...

Anyway, loved The Constant Gardener too. Sadly it's not a stretch.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 11:37 AM   #26
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


The shampoo may not have been tested but every single component of it was tested on animals at some point in time.
Look up the word "interaction"
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 02-11-2006, 12:57 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by cardosino
Look up the word "interaction"
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
chemical interactions are the x-factor here. Who is to say that a new combination or new concentration of components will not be unfavourable in some way? For example, it could significantly alter the pH of the solution, which could affect you in a number of negative ways, whether we're talking about your skin or your scalp.
She did.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 08:41 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by vervex
We do currently need animals experimentations to progress, otherwise we'll destruct our own race, which would be fair, but unthinkable. Tests have already been done on Africans and poor people though... like if it would make the horror less... horrifying ? Human is weird.

As I was saying, the main problem, I think, are not the experimentations but the animal cruelty. I had to write an article about it at school last year and read about animals having their eyes boiled by lasers and their arms and legs shot until they fell, pets used for army experimentations. That is just terrible.

I'm for animal experimentations if they help for the Health Industry. Makeup and new firearms, bombs, whatever, are not good reasons to kill a living being.
Thanks Vervex, thats exactly what I meant.

To answer NBC's question, cosmetics are not meant for human consumption like drugs are. In order to test medications meant for human digestion, it is necessary to test adverse reaction in those who take it - therefore making animal testing imperative.

As for cosmetics, I'm sure that there have to be other ways to test reactions to lotions, eye shadows, etc....which AREN'T made for human consumption.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 10:49 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono


Thanks Vervex, thats exactly what I meant.

To answer NBC's question, cosmetics are not meant for human consumption like drugs are. In order to test medications meant for human digestion, it is necessary to test adverse reaction in those who take it - therefore making animal testing imperative.

As for cosmetics, I'm sure that there have to be other ways to test reactions to lotions, eye shadows, etc....which AREN'T made for human consumption.
Animals are not made to injest cosmetics - they are tested on skin or eyes - related to the general risk humans would be exposed to if they used the substance.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-12-2006, 02:51 PM   #30
The Fly
 
Ultravioletbabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 249
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Are you saying people should not use cosmetics, or should use only untested cosmetics?

How about just assume that all cosmetics probably shouldn't be eaten, and that you shouldn't get anything in your eyes, and if you do, wash it out immediately. Spare a lot of rabbits a lot of pain just to figure out what should be common sense.
__________________

__________________
Ultravioletbabe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com