Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Animal testing

The league against vivisection have won a court rulling against the government because they are not doing enough to maintain animal welfare standards - this will apparently lead to less testing in the UK.

Obviously everything needs to be done to make sure that animals used for testing are not unduely hurt, but its not like the tests are just going to stop. The control, the economic benefit and the jobs will just move straight to South Korea or some other country and they wont give a toss about animal welfare.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats really good news. Awknowledement (sp) of lab animal welfare is well overdue. Did you see the undercover footage of HLS with the beagle puppy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    The league against vivisection have won a court rulling against the government because they are not doing enough to maintain animal welfare standards - this will apparently lead to less testing in the UK.

    Obviously everything needs to be done to make sure that animals used for testing are not unduely hurt, but its not like the tests are just going to stop. The control, the economic benefit and the jobs will just move straight to South Korea or some other country and they wont give a toss about animal welfare.
    The UK or the EU?

    I know the BUAV have also been pushing for this for some time.

    Is this testing for medicine or cosmetics or something else?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I agree the animals need to be treated better, alot are treated like shit. But this shouldn't mean REDUCING animal testing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    I agree the animals need to be treated better, alot are treated like shit. But this shouldn't mean REDUCING animal testing.

    I dunno.

    Perhaps they could use chavs instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although I agree with animal testing in very few circumstances, we cannot get around not using it completly yet and its better it stays in a country that has strictly enforced welfare rules rather then someone where that really doesnt give a fuck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    personally, i think this is great, but needs to be an EU thing, if not world wide...

    and why can't cosmetics testing be banned? there is just no need, i'd be happy to be a payed tester...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    personally, i think this is great, but needs to be an EU thing, if not world wide...

    and why can't cosmetics testing be banned? there is just no need, i'd be happy to be a payed tester...

    The body shop (well they used to before there got sold to Loreal), and M&S refuse to test comestics on animals. It is utterly pointless when other alteratives are easily available.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    body shop now do test some of their new products on animals, and m&s are great, but i think lush (and i'm sorry that i harp on about them, but they are a fantastic company) have done a lot (as a company) to highlight it...is there a online list of companies that do and don't test?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    body shop now do test some of their new products on animals, and m&s are great, but i think lush (and i'm sorry that i harp on about them, but they are a fantastic company) have done a lot (as a company) to highlight it...is there a online list of companies that do and don't test?

    Lush was the other one I was thinking of. I think co-op dont test there own brand stuff either. They have done a lot to raise the profile of non-animal testing. I was wondering about a list as well because I really dont want to use animal tested products where nessacery. Protor and Gamble used to animal test, I dont know if they still do or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is utterly pointless when other alteratives are easily available.

    If this is the case then why do people still do it? Mass stupidity? To test one thing on one person for a few days (to monitor side effects) costs a company thousands. To use an animal, where things like skin reactions can be similar, its almost next to nil.

    It's all about money at the end of the day. People can vote with their feet so to speak and just choose not to buy medicines or cosmetics that have been tested on animals. No demand - no profit - no incentive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Home Office doesn't give licences for animal testings if it just for cosmetics.

    Animals are often used becasue they'd rather not test on humans until they check there's no unanticipated side effects on animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    To use an animal, where things like skin reactions can be similar, its almost next to nil.

    Im not sure this is true - its not cheap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps they could use chavs instead.

    This is an idea which I am very much liking
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    I agree the animals need to be treated better, alot are treated like shit. But this shouldn't mean REDUCING animal testing.
    Why not?

    Exactly how safe and cost effective is animal testing anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    body shop now do test some of their new products on animals, and m&s are great, but i think lush (and i'm sorry that i harp on about them, but they are a fantastic company) have done a lot (as a company) to highlight it...is there a online list of companies that do and don't test?
    Animal testing for cosmetics is difficult as many companies will say "against animal testing" on a label when the product is tested on animals. "This product is not tested on animals" could mean ingredients are but the final product isn't.

    Lush is pretty good though (so far as I know)...

    The only way to be sure that animals were not exploited when making a product is if it has a BUAV logo on it (like Co-op products), or if it is approved by Naturewatch and has a cut off point.

    sml_buav.gif
    ^ BUAV logo
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Exactly how safe and cost effective is animal testing anyway?

    It's a damned sight safer than testing on humans, and animals are cheaper to keep too...

    For a start they don't demand a £500k house to live in :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think animal testing for cosmetic purposes is disgusting.

    If it is done for medical research then I think fair enough, if the animals don't suffer.. they shouldn't be made to suffer, and shouldn't be treated like shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dunno.

    Perhaps they could use chavs instead.

    Oh do fuck off. Joking or otherwise. :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Oh do fuck off. Joking or otherwise. :mad:

    quite
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Namaste wrote: »
    Why not?

    Exactly how safe and cost effective is animal testing anyway?

    Cost effective? I don't CARE if it is cost effective.

    I'd rather have medication tested before release than having it released and finding that instead of say, helping to reduce the effects of dementia, the drug is less effective than current ones and also has the side effect of making the veins in your eyeballs burst.

    As for using Chavs - why not? I'd agree to that. And people serving life sentences for things like rape or murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Cost effective? I don't CARE if it is cost effective.

    I'd rather have medication tested before release than having it released and finding that instead of say, helping to reduce the effects of dementia, the drug is less effective than current ones and also has the side effect of making the veins in your eyeballs burst.

    I have one thing to say and that, Mr. Gerbil, is Thalidomide.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Franki wrote: »
    I have one thing to say and that, Mr. Gerbil, is Thalidomide.

    The issue here was inadequate and far from thorough testing - nowaday before a trial on human patients there is (hopefully, anyway) thorough and fairly long processes of animal tests. One hopes most lessons such as this have been learnt - before getting a drug out into the real world, long term and in depth tests are needed - what are the long-term effects? Effects on reproduction? And so on and so forth.

    Yes, I accept that some drugs have effects on humans not shown in animal tests - but this particular example is one of not testing enough, or in enough depth. But we should test on animals first - if the lab rat drops DEAD after taking a drug, that's better than having a human test group all dropping dead.

    Also WTF do I put on Monster if I don't CARE what job position I get?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    does anyone actually know the full testing method for drugs these days?

    it's along the line of:

    -computer simulation to find suitable molecules types
    -then you have to put them through more simulation tests
    -then you test them on individual cell types to see if they have the desired effect
    -then you test on tissue samples
    -then you test on animals
    -then you test on human small scale
    -then human big scale

    what is so wrong about this?

    keeping the tests appropiate is fair and ethical

    -the numbers increase is due to increases in fish and mice being tested on



    ps - thalidomide caused birth defects despite testing because it was unknown at the time it was a racemic mixture, of the left and right handed version, one treated symtoms, one caused birth defects in humans.... the drug itself if it was made correctly would of been fine, and if the chemistry at the time was advanced enough
    pps - most sugars would rotate light to the right (right handed), honey does it to the left, which is why is lasts (as well as having anti-oxidants in)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the next time one of the protestors who is against animal testing falls ill, or is injured in an accident, they should be denied all healthcare that might, have some point been tested on animals.

    That way, we're not turning them into a bunch of hypocrites.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I think the next time one of the protestors who is against animal testing falls ill, or is injured in an accident, they should be denied all healthcare that might, have some point been tested on animals.

    That way, we're not turning them into a bunch of hypocrites.

    Thank you, I agree here.

    Half the fuckers I bet wouldn't even be alive if it were not for animal testing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I think the next time one of the protestors who is against animal testing falls ill, or is injured in an accident, they should be denied all healthcare that might, have some point been tested on animals.

    That way, we're not turning them into a bunch of hypocrites.

    Like it's hypocritical to get angry about a man who tortures a kitten for pleasure, but not somebody who eats meat for pleasure?

    Why do people get so angry at people who want to defend animal rights? Just because you're anti-vivisection, anti-hunt, vegetarian ect why do people get on their high horses and search ways to denounce you as hypocrits?

    It gets old and cliche.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    does anyone actually know the full testing method for drugs these days?

    it's along the line of:

    -computer simulation to find suitable molecules types
    -then you have to put them through more simulation tests
    -then you test them on individual cell types to see if they have the desired effect
    -then you test on tissue samples
    -then you test on animals
    -then you test on human small scale
    -then human big scale

    what is so wrong about this?

    keeping the tests appropiate is fair and ethical

    -the numbers increase is due to increases in fish and mice being tested on



    ps - thalidomide caused birth defects despite testing because it was unknown at the time it was a racemic mixture, of the left and right handed version, one treated symtoms, one caused birth defects in humans.... the drug itself if it was made correctly would of been fine, and if the chemistry at the time was advanced enough
    pps - most sugars would rotate light to the right (right handed), honey does it to the left, which is why is lasts (as well as having anti-oxidants in)

    So... How effective is animal research? We only hear the good stuff, what about the bad stuff? How close are animals to people anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    It gets old and cliche.

    Cliche's often become cliche's because they're true...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    So... How effective is animal research? We only hear the good stuff, what about the bad stuff? How close are animals to people anyway?

    More effective than the alternatives...Its not like scientists are torturing animals for fun.

    The point about animal research often isn't to replicate humans but to check that the theory of the drug is right.

    If the drug's supposed to have no side effect, but the animal starts frothing at the mouth and dies the scientists can see that there is something that's unexplored and they go back to look what it is. Better that these side effects are found out because a cat dies than a human...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Like it's hypocritical to get angry about a man who tortures a kitten for pleasure, but not somebody who eats meat for pleasure?

    because torturing a person or animal for sheer pleasure is blatantly out of order and eating meat still serves a purpose (and a tasty purpose)
Sign In or Register to comment.