Is it necessary to test on animals?

Question

I know we need to test the makeup and medicine and face products (Like aveeno) to make sure we dont go blind or anything, but what about candy? Why would we need to test candy on animals? If we dont need to, than should I boycott all candy companys that test on animals?

Also why does KFC and Tyson abuse thei chickens? And should I still eat meat even though some of it is abused? Is the abuse necessary?

Also what do you think of my idea of using clones of people instead of animals?

Answer 1

June 23, 2006 The pharmaceutical industry and the National Institutes of Health spend billions of dollars annually on medical research techniques that have been rendered obsolete by technological advances.

Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical research. The continued use of animals to test the effectiveness of medications and health interventions for humans is akin to using smoke signals instead of e-mail as a method of communication.

Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly, strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.

In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much cheaper. Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. Among the most publicized are the delays of a polio vaccine by over three decades and a four-year delay in the use of protease inhibitors for HIV treatment - after animal testing showed these interventions to be useless.

We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very few diseases are species-unique, and the only efficient and effective way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells, tissues and organs.

The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and disease almost always fails, simply because humans and animals have different physiologies.

Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up beagles.

Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil. It is evil, but it's not necessary. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes, telegrams and bloodletting. It is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science, through tax dollars and research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices.

It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that continue to profit by charging patients, insurance companies and the state and federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and antiquated research. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past decade, with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those killed or disabled by dangerous medicines.

Regardless of one's feelings about animals, it is time for consumers and taxpayers to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and produces an inferior product.

The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies, mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments on animals.

The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat of biological terrorism. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and methodology.

Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical research. Researchers have proved ad infinitum that hitting a beagle on the head with a hammer causes trauma and forcing monkeys to smoke gives them cancer.

It's time to insist that they stop harming defenseless animals and wasting our precious health care dollars so they can get busy saving our lives by embracing technologies that work.

Answer 2

The Body Shop is a cosmetics line that does NOT test their products on animals, and they are soo good, they have make up and soaps and lip balm and everything else, and it  smells soo god! You should try it! :)

Answer 3

There is no law that requires companies to test their personal care and household products on animals before selling them to people. Companies do animal testing to protect themselves in case of lawsuits. (They can claim that they didn't know their product was harmful for humans because animal tests didn't show any problems.) Animal tests are inhumane, unreliable, and irrelevant. Sophisticated alternatives to the use of animals in consumer product testing exist and more than 600 companies in the U.S. have opted to use humane alternatives instead of animal tests.

I would try to avoid make-up, personal care, and candy companies that test on animals. This site has a good list: http://www.peta2.com/STUFF/s-cf.asp

(Just click on the product category for a list of companies and brands that don't involve animal testing.)

That's a good question about KFC and Tyson. KFC refuses to improve its animal welfare policies and has even ignored the advice of its OWN animal welfare advisory board. I'm not sure why KFC is so stubborn, but it would only cost the company 1 cent per meal to make the suggested changes. Part of the problem is that so many animals are involved -- about 1 billion chickens are killed for KFC food every year. It's impossible to give so many animals veterinary care or to treat them as living, feeling beings.

There is one form of animal slaughtering that is less cruel, called controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK). This would prevent live birds in slaughterhouses from being abused by workers, having their throats slit, or being scalded while they were still conscious. KFC and Tyson refuse to use controlled-atmosphere killing... I guess the companies don't care about animal cruelty enough to make changes to the way the animals are slaughtered.

It's up to you, but I'd boycott KFC and Tyson at least until they clean up their acts. Going vegetarian is one of the best ways to help reduce animal suffering, but just reducing the amount of meat you eat would make a big difference.

Hope this helps!

Answer 4

at some point in time, using animals to test stuff for use by humans will end as it becomes less necessary. there are still good reasons to use animals for testing some things, but those animals that are used for testing are generally well cared for.

as for what Tyson and KFC do, how much are you willing to pay for chicken? how about beef? pork? high volume is the key to low prices, but even the ranchers who raise these animals know there is a limit to how many chickens or cattle, or what ever that can be raised in a certain amount of space, and they avoid hitting that limit. as for abuse, dont buy into the PETA or other animal rights activists line of bravo sierra. their agenda isnt to get people to treat animals better, they want everyone to become vegetarians. they also dont practice what they preach. PETA is being investigated for illegally euthanizing stray and unwanted animals.

as for cloning people, and then testing on the clones, why not just bring back slavery instead since it would be much cheaper, and would accomplish the same thing.

Answer 5

i think they should clone people  and raise them  from infents to be grown soldiers  that way wed have heartless killing machines for a army   and  the female clones can  be the  reproduce of the next kids to grow up for a army also we can use them as body parts to cure for lung desease and stuff like the movie the island  cloning would be to much money any ways so why not select 50 people from the usa  and use there kids hmm?  good idea i think  an use the clones for the thing like the island yea!

Answer 6

i like the cloning idea,but it seems a little far fetched.but thats ok.u can do anything u set ur mind to.nahhh its not necciary to test on animals.i feel so bad for them! ugh.goood luck with ur ides tho.

-xoxoxox

mae

Answer 7

No man.... i mean come on. What would u like it if animals tested on u? i dont think so... you have to look at it like that. i think its wrong man. animals are beautiful creatures that have feelings and they are our friends.  i hope theres soon a law about it where that people cant do it. im going to start up a protest in summer about this stuff but right now im protesting about people not throwing out trash. peace man....

Answer 8

Not all animal research that's done inflicts pain on the animals, but as far as I'm concerned, any research that does should be considered 'abuse' and a crime--and I'm talking about medical research on animals too.  It's unethical, in my opinion.

The 'abuse' you're talking about regarding chickens is that they keep them cramped in horrible tiny little cages all their lives so they can raise more chickens per square foot.  This keeps the cost of chicken competitively low in the grocery stores.  I think it's cruel, too--but unless Americans are willing to pass laws against such practices and are willing to pay higher prices for meat, then we're stuck with it.

What you CAN do is buy chicken that was 'range-raised,' or some name like that--and I believe eggs might be sold like that too.  The more that people start buying these 'roam free' chickens and eggs,  the more incentive there will be for farmers to raise chckens humanely.

Answer 9

i dont think animals should be tested on. if u buy fairtrade products organic food and freerange food then no animals have been abused

Answer 10

Hey - I rather they test on animals then people.

I think the KFC and Tyson are over exaggerated by special interest groups.

Make up your own mind for what you should eat.

Answer 11

The bodyshop itself doesn't test its products on animals... however many ingredients in the products have been tested on animals in order to get FDA approval.  

No it's not necessary... but the government promotes it still.

Yeah dominion over animals... love that part of the bible.

Ethical standards for medical research dictate that subjects must be aware of the risks associated... i doubt animals are consulted... nor would human clones.

Just stop testing chemicals altogether dammit!

humans are more so on a quest for the "fountain of youth" than we ever have in history.  just look at all the **** made to make us look and feel younger.

I say **** it. Bring on the wrinkles and brittle bones - sure signs of my life well lived.