animal testing for cosmetic and household products
kol...@jumbo.uucp
> Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help.
> Also, would you seriously trust your life to a computer program, given
> current software engineering standards.
There are at least two aspects to testing using animals: (1) testing
cosmetics and other non-essentials, and (2) testing medicines. Possibly
someone can make a case for inflicting pain and death on an animal in the
latter case (although I wouldn't agree), but there is certainly no ethically
acceptable case for the former. Also, even if you believe that the latter
is justified, many tests on animals simply have no relevance to humans, many
are unnecessary duplications, many involve much more mistreatment of animals
than is necessary to get the test results.
> Also, there is a paradox here
> if the animals are not used for testing, than they will not be born.
> Supply and demand, gotta love capitalism.
This is a truly incredible statement. One of the major causes of animal
suffering is the tremendous number of animals born who are destined to be
homeless because people don't have their present animals neutered.
b...@bu-cs.uucp
1. Do you honestly believe that a non-human animal will serve as a
warning that people might suffer allergic reactions to a particular
cosmetic? I don't think the medical community has absolute confidence
in such things with *human* testing as allergies can be rare.
You presume that these animal tests actually yield valid, useful
results that protect you. I think the point is that this is highly
questionable and that the companies are only doing these tests because
they are relatively cheap and, if necessary, sound good in court
later.
Remember, cosmetics manufacturers don't fabricate products out of new,
untried chemicals in general, that would put them into the realm of
drug testing and for obvious reasons they usually avoid that (cost,
acceptance.) I think what we are talking about here is the typical
case where they throw together some lanolin, perfume, food coloring
and aloe gel and dump it in some animal's eye just to have it on
record that they did (I wonder how much their insurance carriers are
behind this?) Bad science, a bunch of flunky bio majors just 9-5ing it
in the back room for their $28K+benefits.
2. Re: If the animals are not used for testing, they will not be
born...
Better to not have been born than born to be constrained in a cage
and have random chemicals dumped in your eyes. Would the same apply
to people? What if we convinced women who were about to abort to
have the child instead and donate it to a slave class?
Anyhow, I'm mixed. I've worked in labs where animals were used, by and
large it's pretty disgusting and the folks involved get very callous
(years of practice denying the obvious.) I don't think I would support
complete, unconditional bans, but I would definitely get behind
anything that looks into it and demands justification for use of live
animals and can police practices, I saw some pretty disgusting things
that none of you would likely tolerate (eg. a person going through dog
after dog just to show off some surgical technique to a lot of people
who couldn't all be there at the same time.)
-Barry Shein, Boston University
an...@shasta.uucp
protection and liability laws changed. Make the customer,
not the manufacturer, take the responsibilty for damages
caused by violating safety instructions. (The other
alternative is to not buy new products; keep buying
what you used as a kid. If you won't do either of
these things but still object to animal testing, you're
blaming the mirror for what it reflects.)
Animal testing is not cheap (even when it is bad science);
the cosmetic companies would rather spend that money on
advertising. Give them the choice. (Animal testing is
used to defend cosmetic companies in court. A good
lawyer will clean up on a company that says "we tested
our shampoo on eggs".)
Product testing on human eyes from eye banks is dubious
at best. Suitable organs are used for cornea transplants
and the like. Testing with them instead of bunnies trades
bunny eyes for blind people.
-andy
ps - The results of animal testing are available to companies
that don't do it. If you sue one of the "pure" companies,
they'll defend themselves using animal test results.
--
Andy Freeman
UUCP: ...!decwrl!shasta!andy forwards to
ARPA: an...@sushi.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
j...@hropus.uucp
jsn...@uw-june.uucp
>Does this topic really belong in net.pets???
The obvious answer is NO, unless consumer products labs start kidnapping
our PETS for their nefarious purposes.
le...@ttrdc.uucp
>Does this topic really belong in net.pets???
Even if it does, why is it in net.veg?!?
--
------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are
| dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em-
| an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack.
| skokie, illinois |
-------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy