Animal Rights - The fight back to rationality

[Ken L]

Animal testing is well regulated. Not just by government but by the market. It is simply to expensive to use large numbers of animals to test anything unless those tests are both necessary and justifieable.

 

No testing on animals for household goods, cosmetics, toiletries or clothing would see companies releasing products onto the market that might improve the quality of peoples lives but give them chronic health problems in the long term:

Anyone fancy bathing their baby in a new shampoo that burns their eyes out ? How about a new air freshener that causes severe allegies and asthma ?

Of course, you can avoid animal testing by simply saying that what we have is good enough - and never see another improvement in any product from wall paint to mascarra OR you can test it on people - but would you have it tested on you ?

Maybe all new products should be tested in the third world just to be sure.

 

I for one will support the rational regulated use of animal testing pretty much wherever the need for it exists.

Edited April 23, 2006 by Ken L

[Sportsman]

I dislike the idea of animal experimentation, but as I am diabetic I benefit from it everyday.

Signed

 

One of the problems with animal testing is that it can give misleading results. Witness the recent problems with a first human trial of a drug, which had been fully tested on animals. One of the worst cases was Thalidomide which had also been tested succesfully on animals. Unfortunately humans were 28 times more susceptible to its one side effect - birth defects, than the next most sensitive animal. Interestingly the development of Penicillin could have been delayed by years if it had first been tested on Guinea Pigs as it is a deadly poison to them.

The sooner technology comes up with a viable alternative the better IMO

Edited April 23, 2006 by Sportsman

[GlennB]

...... It is simply to expensive to use large numbers of animals to test anything unless those tests are both necessary and justifieable....

 

Hmmm, how about tens of thousands of beagles strapped into smoking machines, providing doubtful dog-related data, while thousands of millions of humans are busily smoking away providing all the epidemiological data anyone could ever need?

 

How about rabbits having cosmetics and hair products dripped in their eyes till they hit the magical "50% toxicity" legal requirement level, so humans can have (safe) bulked up eyelashes and (safe) nice shiny manageable hair?

 

"necessary and justifiable" might be right when it comes to cancer and diabetes (etc) research, but not, in my opinion, human vanity and stupidity.

[Guest rabbit]

Animal testing is well regulated. Not just by government but by the market. It is simply to expensive to use large numbers of animals to test anything unless those tests are both necessary and justifieable.

 

No testing on animals for household goods, cosmetics, toiletries or clothing would see companies releasing products onto the market that might improve the quality of peoples lives but give them chronic health problems in the long term:

Anyone fancy bathing their baby in a new shampoo that burns their eyes out ? How about a new air freshener that causes severe allegies and asthma ?

Of course, you can avoid animal testing by simply saying that what we have is good enough - and never see another improvement in any product from wall paint to mascarra OR you can test it on people - but would you have it tested on you ?

Maybe all new products should be tested in the third world just to be sure.I for one will support the rational regulated use of animal testing pretty much wherever the need for it exists.

 

Difficult to take that statement seriously. Worthwhile remembering that even after animal testing the product or drug is still not 100% guaranteed to be safe for humans, recent events have proved that.

[Ken L]

I believe that the animal testing of Thaidamide was described as inadequate and flawed by the public enquiry into it's use.

The enquiry called for more animal testing, not less.

 

 

Difficult to take that statement seriously.

Well, it was certanly flippant and deliberatly provocative but it was also misleading in that I used the term "Maybe we should". In fact, many drug companies do just that by staggering their global release of new products so that the places where their customers are wealthy and litigous will often get the products last - just in case.

 

"necessary and justifiable" might be right when it comes to cancer and diabetes (etc) research, but not, in my opinion, human vanity

Where do you draw the line though Glenn ? How about Achne treatments ? It's only vanity until some kid blows his brains out because he can't stand to look at himself in the mirror.

[cidermonkey]

As the strictest governed country in the world in respect of animal testing, controlled by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the horror stories that you mention GlennB are thankfully confined to this country's past. The antis make great use of old stories and photographs of practices no longer allowed under law. I don't have all the information to hand but cosmetic testing in this country has been against the law for a number of years.

[GlennB]

Where do you draw the line though Glenn ? How about Achne treatments ? It's only vanity until some kid blows his brains out because he can't stand to look at himself in the mirror.

 

I draw it way back. I'd be reluctant to blind thousands of rabbits in the hope of saving one insane person who might well kill themselves anyway, or at least live a life of misery because of some other perceived imperfection, an "imperfection" that has been put in their mind by the fashion magazines and TV ads. Just how many beauty products is it possible to have? Do we blind rabbits for the next 10,000 years to perfect skin treatments to the last fraction of a percent? Wouldn't it be better to teach people to lay off the pizzas and chocolate a tad?

 

As the strictest governed country in the world in respect of animal testing, controlled by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the horror stories that you mention GlennB are thankfully confined to this country's past. The antis make great use of old stories and photographs of practices no longer allowed under law. I don't have all the information to hand but cosmetic testing in this country has been against the law for a number of years.

 

Fair enough, I'm well behind the times then and should research a lot more before ranting

Although, after the briefest of neutral searches (Google : cosmetic +test +uk) regarding animal testing of cometics -

"For example, many French, American and Japanese companies still test new ingredients and finished products on animals, such as rabbits, guinea pigs and other animals. In the European Union alone, thousands of animal tests are still done by the cosmetics industry. And even British companies can commission animal tests overseas." Not from an animal lib site, by any means, and there are many similar serious sites...

So it's all OK then ?

Edited April 23, 2006 by GlennB

[Ken L]

I draw it way back. I'd be reluctant to blind thousands of rabbits in the hope of saving one insane person who might well kill themselves anyway

 

Ho Hum, Looks like "way back" goes all the way to medical research into treatments for mental illness.

 

(Yep, being flippant again)

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[cidermonkey]

You're quite right GlennB, the regulations abroad are ridiculous and cosmetic testing does continue. In this country apes are no longer used for research purposes (although, sadly, "lesser" primates are used) but even the Americans still use Chimpanzees. Other countries don't seem to have the same level of pressure from public opinion to affect changes in their laws. One aspect that the antis in this country don't consider when they terrorise research establishments is that they could potentially drive the research abroad, where the protection for the animals and the conditions under which they are kept are far worse than anything they might experience in this country.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

That'll teach me to be vaguely sarcastic without thinking!

 

The term 'dependent on cruelty to animals' was wording it from the anti's point of view, who seem to a quite rosey tinted view on life. In truth I am fully aware the petition was for medical research, and my mentioning of household goods etc (whilst perfectly valid - animals are tested for all sorts of things I expect), was just to raise the issue that people who are anti-medical testing probably use shampoos which have been tested on animals or deodorants or soaps etc

 

EVEN PRODUCTS WHICH SAY THEY HAVE NOT - TYPICALLY are based on test results for products which are - which is really no better at all. In that group we can include cosmetics, safety clothing, crash helmets.

 

I mean - was it really fair to send a dogs and monkies into space from 1957?? Possibly not, but these things have helped advance our way of thinking and our understanding of our planet and ultimately (one day) our beginnings and perhaps the way we move forward. Space exploration and technology has given us television via satellite, internet access, instant communication across the world......

 

My point was it would be very (very) difficult to lead a life which involved using products absolutely never tested or dervied from testing on animals - and quite a lot of people take a very moral high ground when in fact they are usually as guilty as the rest of us as taking things for granted.