stop thinking so negatively, humans are not all bad Lazarus Long
Animal Testing: For or Against?
Sort:
<--- the state of the animal before being killed inhumanely.
Companies that advertise no animal testing,just means they prefer to test their products on their customers.
By law, animal testing is compulsory for pharmaceuticals, including neutraceuticals and vaccines according to the ICH.
There are many other exploitations of amimals that don't sit very well on the rational side of an argument, medicines is the only one that has a leg to stand on.
Companies don't prefer to test on humans with initial studies, it's always 'rodents' or tissue extracted from such animals.
Farmed fish, I feel as though this is another area just totally exploited. Our greed is a major driving force.
Pangas fish (basa fish) farmed in Vietnam and Thailand, are apparently teeming with high levels of poisons but sold across Europe in many supermarkets.
Anyone know or have more reliable sources for this?
by scientific convention, yes
The UK government is committed to the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research - the “3Rs”.
The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work both in health and disease, and in the development of new medicines, treatments and technologies. Underpinning this research is a strong commitment to maintaining a rigorous regulatory system which ensures that animal research is carried out only where no practicable alternative exists and under controls which keep suffering to a minimum. This is achieved through robustly applying the principles of the 3Rs to all research proposals involving the use of animals.
Implementing the 3Rs requires that, in every research proposal, animals are replaced with non-animal alternatives wherever possible; that the number of animals is reduced to the minimum needed to achieve the results sought; and that, for those animals which must be used, procedures are refined as much as possible to minimise their suffering. The government is committed to ensuring that any licence we grant under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 must rigorously and demonstrably apply the 3Rs principles.(https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testing-using-animals)
With the conservatives winning a majority, the 3R's manifesto needs critical reviewing.
kiwi wrote:
By law, animal testing is compulsory for pharmaceuticals, including neutraceuticals and vaccines according to the ICH.
There are many other exploitations of amimals that don't sit very well on the rational side of an argument, medicines is the only one that has a leg to stand on.
Not feeding 7.1 billion people?
Jennbeloved, those committees only concern pharmaceuticals. World hunger is something the UN is supposed to tackle, its up to the people to donate and share from wealthy nations (me you etc). If we all really gave a crap, we would of drastically reduced the poverty levels in 3rd world countries and war-ridden countries.
For
Too busy watching YouTube and on Facebook, then busy buying absurd amounts of food to overfill our shelves.
Thomas, why 'for'? Usually interesting and fun to learn about other opinions :)
michael432000 wrote:
There’s heaven on earth and there is hell on earth. It’s what we make it. Consciousness is now so degraded that the mind can convince itself that animal testing has some benefit for humanity. How much lower are we willing to go?
Medicine does have a benefit for humanity.
One is speaking on the essence of things and one is speaking on the detail.