Animal experimentation - your opinions....

[AchtungBono]

There was a report in one of the Israeli papers today about the rise in animal experimentation worldwide and in Israel in general.

I have mixed feelings about this subject. New research is done each day leading us closer to cures for cancer, AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. I am against cruelty to animals, but until someone thinks of an alternative, I believe that these lab experiments ultimately lead to the saving of millions of lives.

On the other hand, I am TOTALLY against animal experimentation for cosmetics. It is just horribly cruel to submit animals to abuse just to achieve a better shade of rouge or lipstick.

What do you think?

 

[verte76]

We need to do experiments on animals to continue progress in medical science. If we don't do any animal experimentation the only thing that will happen is make PETA happy.

 

[nbcrusader]

On the other hand, I am TOTALLY against animal experimentation for cosmetics. It is just horribly cruel to submit animals to abuse just to achieve a better shade of rouge or lipstick.

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

 

[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."

 

[anitram]

You can't not test cosmetics - either the final product or the components of it, because it is unethical. You can't put something on the market which you cannot vouch won't give people a skin irritation, exacerbate their eczema, make their hair fall out or trigger an allergic response.

 

[VertigoGal]

Actually I don't see how you could be so supportive of testing for medical purposes and against testing of cosmetics. Most people would deem a cure for cancer more important, but it's not as if the animal cares what's being tested on him.

Anyway I think it's fine...cruelty or torture etc should be minimized as much as possible, but ultimately there are greater problems in the world to devote your time and effort to than the plight of a rat, in my opinion.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Cruelty and torture is a different issue, in my humble one. I'd think that even for cosmetics, the testing is done in an humane way or at least it's attempted to prviding your country has standards which need to be met.

Apart from that, I dont see it as a stretch to be opposed to one and not the other.

 

[yolland]

There are cosmetics companies which do not test any of their products or ingredients on animals. They do it by limiting their formulations to the 10,000 or so ingredients already approved for human use, or, where appropriate, using cell toxicology or in vitro methods instead.

Some of these animal tests do indeed involve considerable suffering (dripping eye makeup into an immobilized animal's eyes, applying face makeup to their shaved and abraded skin, force-feeding them large quantities of makeup to ensure low toxicity, etc.). While anitram is right to point out that it would be unethical to introduce new ingredients for human use without conducting such tests first, it seems to me a worthwhile enough sacrifice to limit oneself to using products whose ingredients no longer require this. Unless, perhaps, you have sensitivities which bar you from using any of them.

 

[anitram]

There are cosmetics companies which do not test any of their products or ingredients on animals. They do it by limiting their formulations to the 10,000 or so ingredients already approved for human use, or, where appropriate, using cell toxicology or in vitro methods instead.

That's true, but it's also a technicality in the sense that at some point, some animal had to be tested for their product.

I think people who don't work in animal research are for the most part, not aware of just how strict the guidelines and regulations are. For example, there are more federal (and provincial where I am) regulations I have to follow when working with mice than the regulations my PI has to follow with me.

There are strict protocols which have to be handed in for every experimental procedure you are doing. They need to be approved and then you are capped at a certain number of animals per year. There are guidelines for sacrificing animals, guidelines for injecting and anaesthetizing them, guidelines for how many can be kept in one cage together, the size of their accomodations, how often they are changed, fed, etc. Anyone who has worked in a barrier unit knows that it's a loooooooong procedure to even get near the mice, involving anything from a full get up including those cool sterile space boots to sterile showers.

You can't not have animal research because no governmental agency will ever allow human phase 1 onwards testing without animal models first. That is the bottom line. Another reason why people use animals in research when it is sometimes not absolutely necessary to do so is because when it is time to publish a paper, these days you need to provide data from an in vivo system for all the top papers if you want a decent shot at publishing. In vitro systems won't get you very far with Nature, Science, Cell. And since your publication record directly correlates to your funding, you bet your ass if 50 mice are needed, you'll order 50 mice.

 

[Liesje]

I'm not opposed based on what anitram said (regulations).

I have two cats who were from a local research lab. When I tell people where I got them, their initial reaction is horror. But really, these cats were taken in from overcrowded rescues and shelters and given a completely clean, sterile, and healthy environment (where they are free to socialize and not confined to cages all day). They receive brand name meds and the best foods. The only "tests" done to them is that they are put under anaesthesia and used for pre-med lessons on intubation. I guess a cat's throat is similar to a human baby's, so while the cat is down, students learn how to intubate. It's painless and has no effect whatsoever. Also, the cat is then neutered/spayed and front declawed if the owner requests. They are treated by vets and lab technicians. My two from the lab are the most lovely, happy, healthy, and social cats I've ever known, certainly compared to our additional two from overcrowded rescue situations.

In the past, I've also adopted two hairless guinea pigs from the lab. Each of them had a small red patch on their backs. It was basically sunburn because I think they were testing sunscreen or something like that. The guinea pigs were thoroughly checked by vets before being put up for adoption.

I know this lab has very strict policies about accepting research projects involving animals. Your project proposal has to be reviewed and voted on by a board composed of scientists, civilians, veterinarians, none of whom have any association with the lab or the project.

 

[AchtungBono]

Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

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

There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.

 

[fly so high!]

Me too!

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.

If you used a shampoo that wasn't tested, and you suffered permanent eye damage, would you accept that as part of the consequences of no animal testing?

 

[anitram]

Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.

The shampoo may not have been tested but every single component of it was tested on animals at some point in time.

 

[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 don't really get why the fact that all components were once tested would defeat the purpose of buying such products, though--from the standpoint of someone concerned about it, the point is that no new tests had to be done for this particular product. Callling that a meaningless distinction is like saying that recycled paper is a meaningless distinction, because it still involved killing a tree at one point or another, so why bother using it.

 

[nbcrusader]

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)?

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[yolland]

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.

 

[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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Test on poor people and Africans?

 

[Tania]

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.

 

[AliEnvy]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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."

 

[1stepcloser]

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

 

[AliEnvy]

Wouldn't Ted Nugent use a gun though...

Anyway, loved The Constant Gardener too. Sadly it's not a stretch.

 

[cardosino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

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"

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Look up the word "interaction"

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.

 

[AchtungBono]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[Ultravioletbabe]

Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

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.