U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2019, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY
33,662 posts, read 10,001,655 times
Reputation: 31828

Advertisements

The lab is releasing 32 of the 36 beagles "ordered" for this study.

What happened to the other 4?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2019, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Looking over your shoulder
30,147 posts, read 27,463,413 times
Reputation: 80649
^^^ That's great news! thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 11:20 AM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,312 posts, read 22,776,473 times
Reputation: 47847
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
They need to breed massive rats to use instead. What could go wrong there? Lol
Rats are friendly animals who do not deserve to be tortured either. For me, this just is NOT FUNNY.

There is an entire industry built around these idiotic, repetitive, and senseless tests.

We should be using computer models.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:38 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,312 posts, read 22,776,473 times
Reputation: 47847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Beagles are the go to breed for animal testing due to their relatively small size and loving disposition. The beagle freedom project has been working for years to rescue beagles from testing facilities around the world.
Which, in and of itself says so much about the exploitative relationship between animals and humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:46 PM
 
Location: BFE
1,126 posts, read 324,710 times
Reputation: 3234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The lab is releasing 32 of the 36 beagles "ordered" for this study.

What happened to the other 4?
They escaped, disguised as The Beatles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:48 PM
 
257 posts, read 120,971 times
Reputation: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
You can't. The FDA requires a whole category of products to be animal tested - but once they are, the companies that also sell those ingredients don't have to retest.

Anyone who comes up with NEW products, they have to be tested before being put on the US market.

So companies who state they are "cruelty free" and don't use animal testing, are basically saying we're using products other companies have invented and brought to market and tested on animals.
You have several posts in this thread alleging that the FDA requires "a whole category of products to be animal tested . . . "

From the FDA site, under the topic "Animal Testing and Cosmetics," note the following:

"The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval."
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/scienc.../ucm072268.htm

The issue of FDA testing is discussed at the NVS (= National Anti-Vivisection Society site):
"The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require manufacturers of cosmetics, personal care and other household products to test their products and ingredients on animals for safety. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which administers the Act, actually encourages the use of testing techniques that do not use whole living animals."
https://www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep...ent-under-fda/

Devices (for implantation) that use stainless steel and ceramic have already been established to be biocompatible with human tissue do not require animal testing, but some devices with new materials "require biocompatability testing in animals": https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transpa.../ucm194932.htm

Admittedly, when the substance being tested is considered a "drug", then the products must comply with the drug testing requirements of the FDA. In this case, animals are usually used as test models. Agencies have been working on the development and validation of alternative toxological test methods; and "dozens of methods have been officially validated."

The continued use of animal testings in the medical research has been reviewed and serious questions have been raised. E.g.,

In "The Flaws and Human Harm from Animal Experimentation" -- I have cited the article's abstract below:
"Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/

In a article entitled "The Validity of Animal Experimentation in Medical Research," the Human Society concludes as follows:
"In conclusion, relying on animal surrogates of human illnesses both to formulate and to test medical
hypotheses is a seriously flawed approach. The value of animal models is constrained by evolution determined species differences and by inevitable dissimilarities between the conditions created in
animals and the human disorders being researched. A key tool of evidence-based medicine, called
systematic review, is now being applied to assess the validity of animal models. The results so far
indicate that fewer than 50% of animal studies have predicted human outcomes successfully. This
very poor performance argues powerfully for a re-appraisal of animal experiments and for a greater
commitment to developing alternative, non-animal methods of research
."
https://animalstudiesrepository.org/...text=acwp_arte

Why do companies continue to use animals in medical testing? I suspect that this deplorable practice continues because companies consider this as "business as usual", and they are loathe, primarily out of cost considerations, to develop alternative testing methods.

It really comes down to your view of animals rights, and how animals are valued. If you view animals only through utilitarian spectacles, then their value is dependent on how we humans use them. In this view, we are, after all, the superior species, and we can use them "as we please" when the goal is furthering human health.

I don't view animals through a utilitarian perspective. They are sentient beings who have their own value, independent of other species -- including humans, and they have the right to not only live, but also thrive.

So yes, I am opposed 100% against all animal testings. It grieves me to no end that beagles, of whom I have had the pleasure of living with two different ones, are being exploited -- an exploitation which is finally being reassessed and often found wanting. In the meantime, I am for a suspension of the use of all animals in medical testing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 04:28 PM
 
9,237 posts, read 3,601,463 times
Reputation: 23169
Townshend, from your website, there was this link:

https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeli...ucm2005202.htm

Basically, cosmetic companies can use the term "we don't test on animals" because that testing has already been done in the past, by different companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 10:33 AM
 
257 posts, read 120,971 times
Reputation: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
The lab is releasing 32 of the 36 beagles "ordered" for this study.

What happened to the other 4?
According to the video segment, a fungicide was tested on these beagles. The fungicide was placed in a gelatin capsule and forced down the beagles' throats.

What happened to the four beagles? According to the video, they died from the testing. These gelatin capsules had toxic levels of the fungicide.

Since this situation is about testing fungicides, the FDA is not involved. The EPA is charged with regulating fungicides. I don't think the EPA per se requires animal testing; however, animal testing is still in wide use in the chemical industry.

If this isn't animal cruelty, then I ask "what is?"

No individual could do this without having local law enforcement arrest them and charge them with animal cruelty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
1,505 posts, read 548,914 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
According to the video segment, a fungicide was tested on these beagles. The fungicide was placed in a gelatin capsule and forced down the beagles' throats.

What happened to the four beagles? According to the video, they died from the testing. These gelatin capsules had toxic levels of the fungicide.

Since this situation is about testing fungicides, the FDA is not involved. The EPA is charged with regulating fungicides. I don't think the EPA per se requires animal testing; however, animal testing is still in wide use in the chemical industry.

If this isn't animal cruelty, then I ask "what is?"

No individual could do this without having local law enforcement arrest them and charge them with animal cruelty.
Thank you for updating about the four beagles. Its awful companies can legally test fungicides on animals. And your absolutely correct it is animal cruelty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top