VeggieBoards

VeggieBoards (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/)
-   Vegan Support Forum (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/60-vegan-support-forum/)
-   -   Animal Testing BY LAW. ?? And animal testing for sickness ? (https://www.veggieboards.com/forum/60-vegan-support-forum/70323-animal-testing-law-animal-testing-sickness.html)

VEGIHEAD 08-28-2007 06:51 PM

Hello,

What do you think of a company that only uses animal testing when required by law?

Estee Lauder does this.





Also what are peoples opinions on animal testing for cancer cures and other sicknesses..??





Thnaks

Beachbnny 08-28-2007 06:55 PM

I think we need to change the laws. We also need to support companies that don't use ingredients that require animal testing.



I think that animals are not adequate "test subjects" for human illnesses. Animals are not "test subjects".




TheGoldenEel 08-28-2007 06:57 PM

If it's required by law, I think it's time to change the laws. I believe medications should be tested on willing humans if I had terminal cancer or AIDS I would be willing to receive experimental treatments.

Marineluvr26 08-28-2007 10:00 PM

I don't see what animal testing would be required by law. And as far as medical testing, now that we have ways of doing the research without the animal testing I think we should go the alternative route. Back 31 years ago when I was 7 and having heart surgery and even into my teens and 20s I don't think we had the ability to do medical testing without animals, so I was for it. Cause my life was saved, I believed, at the time, due to animal testing. Now I wonder, but I'm glad I'm here.

lunatilian 08-28-2007 10:42 PM

i'm not sure what estee lauder products would be required by law to be tested on animals. i emailed them recently and they replied that none of their cosmetics are tested on animals and that they do not purchase ingredients that have been tested on animals.



unfortunately pharmaceuticals are required by law to be tested on animals so i personally don't hold the company responsible for that (although i am aware that those same companies often also make products that aren't required to be tested on animals and still are, i just try to avoid them)

VEGIHEAD 08-28-2007 11:59 PM

Here is there response.....



Thank you for taking the time to contact us and for your interest in EstéeLauder. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is committed to the elimination of animaltesting. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and bringing to marketproducts that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our productsare sold. We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor askothers to test on our behalf, except when required by law. We evaluate our finished productsin clinical tests on volunteer panels. Estée Lauder fully supports the development and global acceptance ofnon-animal testing alternatives. To this end, the Company works extensively with the industryat large and the global scientific community to research and fund these alternatives. Very few animal derived raw materials are found in Estee Lauder products. Animal ingredients are used only when their efficacy cannot be duplicated by anyother source of ingredients. When an ingredient can be obtained from either animals orplants, we use the plant derived material. We trust that the above addresses your concern. We hope you will look toEstée Lauder for all your beauty and fragrance needs. Sincerely, Alexandra ClarkConsumer Communications 2,715,285

JayBaby 08-29-2007 12:57 AM

I am against all animal testing.

Katezinha 08-29-2007 02:16 AM

As many people wrote, it's probably time to change the law. Nowadays, we can test products or treatment without doing it on animals.

Bios 08-29-2007 05:46 AM

As a professional biologist and former medical researcher, I assure you that we cannot adequately test new treatments without animals (given that humans also qualify as animals). The cell cultures and other new tools have dramatically reduced the need for such tests, but not eliminated them.



When push comes to shove, nothing reacts like a real complex living body except a real complex living body. And a computer cannot model what we don't yet know; it can only show us permutations of known rules. Further, you've got to use reasonably healthy animals (including the human animals). Someone with terminal cancer or AIDS is so messed up physiologically already the results are not trustworthy.

Tom 08-29-2007 07:18 AM

Bios, I think you’re right about the limitations of our current non-animal test methods. My natural science background isn’t nearly as extensive as yours (BA in biology back in the 70s). I’m not sure about results from testing on seriously ill humans being invalid, though. Since a therapeutic procedure is probably intended for use on sick people anyway (except maybe preventive procedures), wouldn’t a test on an ill human be the gold standard as to whether a treatment is effective?



There are serious ethical issues about testing on humans (and I would say animals also, although at this point I’m not ready to ban it). But if I were terminally ill I’m quite sure that I would be willing to try something experimental. Even if it didn’t save me, it might provide some useful information to help someone else.



I can’t help thinking that nonessential testing, such as on cosmetics, is unjustifiable. Don’t we have enough soaps and perfumes? As you can see from my avatar, I’m bald- and I don’t like it. But I’m not going to use rogaine or anything like that, because I know those products were tested on animals.



Edited to add: I see that some preliminary testing on healthy subjects might be needed to find out about possible bad side effects.

Bios 08-29-2007 07:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post

Bios, I think youre right about the limitations of our current non-animal test methods. My natural science background isnt nearly as extensive as yours (BA in biology back in the 70s). Im not sure about results from testing on seriously ill humans being invalid, though. Since a therapeutic procedure is probably intended for use on sick people anyway (except maybe preventive procedures), wouldnt a test on an ill human be the gold standard as to whether a treatment is effective?



There are serious ethical issues about testing on humans (and I would say animals also, although at this point Im not ready to ban it). But if I were terminally ill Im quite sure that I would be willing to try something experimental. Even if it didnt save me, it might provide some useful information to help someone else.



I cant help thinking that nonessential testing, such as on cosmetics, is unjustifiable. Dont we have enough soaps and perfumes? As you can see from my avatar, Im bald- and I dont like it. But Im not going to use rogaine or anything like that, because I know those products were tested on animals.



Edited to add: I see that some preliminary testing on healthy subjects might be needed to find out about possible bad side effects.



I'm entirely with you here. I'm conflicted about some of the testing done, but cosmetics and personal care stuff --- no conflict. It's not worth the distress being caused and we should not do it.



Drugs on the other hand ... yes, I was thinking of two things when I said you needed healthy subjects. Side effects certainly. I know when I was on chemotherapy there was just no way to tell which effect was due to what. Also, it is important to see if the drug's actually doing physiologically what was expected, in the absence of the bazillion complications of illness and other treatments. It would be just too confusing to start with the very ill patients; you'd never be sure what the new treatment was doing.



The final testing certainly needs to be, and is currently, done on human volunteers who need the treatment. But some earlier toxicity and dosage testing is currently done on nonhuman animals. There aren't a whole lot of human volunteers excited about taking treatments that may cause long-term problems or even death. Animal testing doesn't alleviate those risks, but it sure makes them less.



Is it worth it to do the animal testing? I lean toward thinking some of it is (ok, I value humans more than other species), but not as much as is currently done. It's a tricky area ethically, to me.

jeneticallymodified 08-29-2007 08:19 AM

i beleive that animal testing on cosmetics and their ingreidents is only legally required with new ingredients or in new formulations which aren't already proven/generally accepted as safe.



i think the problem is that in trying to out do each other for your cash, many cosmetic companies are contantly searching for, developing, and introducing new innovative ingredients (requiring animal testing to confirm safety) for their amazing pore minimising, light refracting, anti-aging, pro-vitamin, delta-hydroxy, nano-sphere fortified and rare guatamalan stink-weed containing face cream.



this all works becuase the customer is fickle, and will run out and buy the latest thing, based on the airbrushed magazine model and what she portrays, exotic sounding terms, mysterious magical ingredients, and half statements saying things like 'lines appear dramatically smaller' (when puffed up by the water and humectants in the product, compared skin with nothing on it, under a microscope) and 'skin feels 57% softer' (than skin thats been washed with dish soap for 3 weeks).



if big companies like Estee Lauder really cared, they'd stick to using existing proven safe ingredients, and wouldn't need to use the 'except when required by law' statement. but without some major spin, that'd hurt their wallets, and their shareholders wallets, so they won't- they'll just imply that they don't want to do it, but have to, cos the government makes them (the classic finger pointing 'he made me do it' line).



some other mainstream companies like "Simple" - a big brand in the UK- have decided to avoid the whole animal testing issue by only using already proven safe ingredients- which for products like moisturiser and lipstick and foundation and cleanser and toner makes a huge amount of sense to me- how much more innovative and amazing does ones hand soap or mascara need to be, to justify it being poked in a rabbits eye?

Marineluvr26 08-29-2007 05:44 PM

I emailed Kimberly-Clark and told them I was glad to see them striving to end animal testing, but how come they couldn't do like other big name companies and fully stop it. That they didn't need to do animal testing by law.

manics_fan 08-29-2007 06:08 PM

1. I would never buy a product from any comany that tested on non-human animals, even if it were "required by law". I don't even understand why some companies would be required to test non-medical products, when other compaines, who sell the sametypes of products, don't.



2. I don't agree with testing on non-humans animals for anything, products or disease. Non-human testing is pretty redundant, and other animals DNA is too different from human DNA to get any results. However, even if (by some miracle) they found a cure for cancer through non-human animal testing I would still disagree with it just as much as I do now. I think the following quote sums up perfectly how I feel about vivisection:



"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesnt. ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further." Mark Twain.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.