Do you think animal testing is right or wrong? explain?!
Answers:
Every year, millions of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed in crude tests to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products and their ingredients!. Rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals are forced to swallow or inhale huge quantities of a test substance or endure the pain of a chemical eating away at their sensitive eyes and skin !.
But the suffering and death of these animals is entirely unnecessary in the making of products like your shampoo, eye shadow, and toilet cleaner!. No law requires animal testing of cosmetics or personal care and household cleaning products, so manufacturers of these products have no excuse for inflicting suffering on animals!. Companies that test these types of products on animals should be boycotted until they change to a non-animal-testing policy!.
You may think companies that test on animals do so for your safety, but these tests usually aren’t reliable in determining a chemical’s effect on humans!. Reactions can vary greatly from species to species so it is quite difficult to come to any conclusions about what a substance will do to humans by testing it on a rabbit!. In fact, a product that made a test animal go blind could still be sold to you!. In addition to being cruel and unreliable, animal tests also tend to be more expensive than alternative methods, making them both unkind and inefficient!.
Many of the companies that manufacture cosmetics and household-products have turned their backs on animal testing in favour of the various non-animal test methods available today!. These include human cell cultures and tissue studies (in vitro tests) and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” that mimic the body’s natural properties, and a number of computer virtual organs that serve as accurate models of human body parts!. One example are EPISKIN? and EpiDerm?, multi-layered skin models made up of cultures of human skin cells, which have been scientifically validated and accepted around the world as total replacements for rabbit skin corrosion studies!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
But the suffering and death of these animals is entirely unnecessary in the making of products like your shampoo, eye shadow, and toilet cleaner!. No law requires animal testing of cosmetics or personal care and household cleaning products, so manufacturers of these products have no excuse for inflicting suffering on animals!. Companies that test these types of products on animals should be boycotted until they change to a non-animal-testing policy!.
You may think companies that test on animals do so for your safety, but these tests usually aren’t reliable in determining a chemical’s effect on humans!. Reactions can vary greatly from species to species so it is quite difficult to come to any conclusions about what a substance will do to humans by testing it on a rabbit!. In fact, a product that made a test animal go blind could still be sold to you!. In addition to being cruel and unreliable, animal tests also tend to be more expensive than alternative methods, making them both unkind and inefficient!.
Many of the companies that manufacture cosmetics and household-products have turned their backs on animal testing in favour of the various non-animal test methods available today!. These include human cell cultures and tissue studies (in vitro tests) and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” that mimic the body’s natural properties, and a number of computer virtual organs that serve as accurate models of human body parts!. One example are EPISKIN? and EpiDerm?, multi-layered skin models made up of cultures of human skin cells, which have been scientifically validated and accepted around the world as total replacements for rabbit skin corrosion studies!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
this is a very complicated question!. i have a health condition that requires a medication that was developed through animal testing!. i would not be alive if not for that medication!. that simple fact makes things a bit hazy for me when it comes to this subject!.
i do think that animal testing for ANYTHING that is not a matter of life and death is wrong!. it makes me ill to think that we spend a fortune every year on cosmetics and other frivolous items that were tested at the expense of animals!. HOWEVER, i simply cannot say (as a patient and as a student nurse) that animal testing is wrong when used to save millions of human lives!. i'm not talking about drugs like viagra and alli that simply make our lives easier or more pleasurable!.!.!.!.i'm talking about life sustaining medications!. there will be plenty of people on here that disagree with me, but i am grateful every day for the animals that gave me and tens of thousands of others like me the ability to live past childhood!. knowing that, i simply can't say that animal testing for life-sustaining medical purposes is wrong!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
i do think that animal testing for ANYTHING that is not a matter of life and death is wrong!. it makes me ill to think that we spend a fortune every year on cosmetics and other frivolous items that were tested at the expense of animals!. HOWEVER, i simply cannot say (as a patient and as a student nurse) that animal testing is wrong when used to save millions of human lives!. i'm not talking about drugs like viagra and alli that simply make our lives easier or more pleasurable!.!.!.!.i'm talking about life sustaining medications!. there will be plenty of people on here that disagree with me, but i am grateful every day for the animals that gave me and tens of thousands of others like me the ability to live past childhood!. knowing that, i simply can't say that animal testing for life-sustaining medical purposes is wrong!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think once all the available routes for simulation and artificial testing are exhausted, then testing the final product ( more like VALIDATION rather than TESTING ) on animals is reasonable!. I would support this if it was done on the minimum number of animals with the minimum amount of discomfort!.
I think that much, but maybe not all, animal testing is redundant with the current knowledge of chemisty, simulation and biology!.
There is no way I would stop the death of 10 monkeys if it hindered finding a cure for cancer, aids, dementure or any other life impacting major illness!.
However, i think the current testing world is too keen to jump to animal testing in fairly random or speculative experiments!.
Thats for high-impacting medical conditions!. For makeup or to test the latest hair transplant process !? No, not a chance of me agreeing with that!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think that much, but maybe not all, animal testing is redundant with the current knowledge of chemisty, simulation and biology!.
There is no way I would stop the death of 10 monkeys if it hindered finding a cure for cancer, aids, dementure or any other life impacting major illness!.
However, i think the current testing world is too keen to jump to animal testing in fairly random or speculative experiments!.
Thats for high-impacting medical conditions!. For makeup or to test the latest hair transplant process !? No, not a chance of me agreeing with that!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
people who may have benefited or know someone who may have benefited from drugs tested on animals may see nothing wrong with it!. Those who are detached from medical issues and see it simply as an animal right issue will obviously disagree!. The important thing is, whether you see it one way or the other it is still considered a legal practice which companies can choose to utilize or not!. People will always disagree or see things differently!.
Personally, given today's improvements in medical science and technology, I no longer see the need for animal testing!. I especially disapprove if the test is being done on behalf of vanity products such as cosmetics!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Personally, given today's improvements in medical science and technology, I no longer see the need for animal testing!. I especially disapprove if the test is being done on behalf of vanity products such as cosmetics!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think it is both right and wrong!.
Its right,because if the product isn't tested on the animals before we used it,if the product have any bad effects,we will get hospitalised or even worse situation will happen!.
Its wrong,because animals have a life too!.We test products or medicine on them is very cruel to them!.
I think we should not test on animals!.We should find a different way of testing,instead on living things!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Its right,because if the product isn't tested on the animals before we used it,if the product have any bad effects,we will get hospitalised or even worse situation will happen!.
Its wrong,because animals have a life too!.We test products or medicine on them is very cruel to them!.
I think we should not test on animals!.We should find a different way of testing,instead on living things!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
it depends!. for cosmetics and the like, i don't think it's needed!. for drug testing it is the only real way!. take, for example, snake antivenom!. it is produced by injecting horses with small amounts of venom!. the horses build up an immunity to the venom and it is able to be manufactured for use for humans!. it saves thousands of lives every year!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think it is a sometimes necessary tool to increase our understanding of some science problems!. To the extent that it advances science and makes the world a better place, I think it can be used!. But I would only use it wear it is the only good way to get this data and the data is for something useful not frivolous!.
Testing a medical device that could save thousands of lives makes more sense than test cosmetics so someone can look pretty!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Testing a medical device that could save thousands of lives makes more sense than test cosmetics so someone can look pretty!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
For medical research that really is going somewhere, I don't see anything wrong with it!. For cosmetics that are just being produced to fleece women out of more money, I think they should have to come up with paid, human volunteers from within their own company!. Think your product is so great!? Good, then you should have no trouble getting your CEO to test it out!.
also, the findings on "new" and "revolutionary" new cosmetics should be made public so that we can all see, once again, that the $200 an oz!. "age defying cream" really does no more for you than the $2!.99 bottle of Suave lotion from your corner drug store!. It's been proved over and over!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
also, the findings on "new" and "revolutionary" new cosmetics should be made public so that we can all see, once again, that the $200 an oz!. "age defying cream" really does no more for you than the $2!.99 bottle of Suave lotion from your corner drug store!. It's been proved over and over!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I dunno!. I think I'm neutral!. On the first side, I think it's kinda cruel u know, torturing them!. I believe they also have the right to live a good life!. But on the other hand, if it's not done to the animals, who will be it's guinea pig!. If it's not tested first, maybe humans can get severe disease as the product is actually poisonous, it can even lead to death!. So I guess I'm on the neutral side!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
To quote comedian Nick De Paolo: "If hooking a monkey up to a car battery is going to cure cancer in five years, then I only have two things to say -- the red is the positive and the black is the negative!."Www@FoodAQ@Com
I don't have a real big problem with it!. I guess im not big on the whole anti-animal thing!. As long as they're not killing humans and testing them im okay!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I like Pinky's answerWww@FoodAQ@Com
I agree with Pinky!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
huh!? i don't get you!.Www@FoodAQ@Com