Animal Testing/Abuse/cruelty

Thank you for going to the trouble of finding those sources.

The first two, I won't deny that those things don't happen occasionally, but the point is that mistreating the animals in that way IS illegal. There need to be better methods of regulating the labortories. Like I think it was the second article that said that these places are only visited by inspectors once a year, and they know which day that is. Obviously that's not good enough. Those visits need to be a surprise and perhaps more regular than once a year.

I've just been looking up how we regulate it in the UK. I keep seeing them saying we have some of the strictest controls in the world on animal testing, but nothing is telling me WHY that is! Frustrating... All I've found so far is on Wikipedia (as much as I hate wikipedia, an article of this nature I think is less likely to be tampered with in the wrong way, I'll try and find something better though.). It says that here the use of animals in experiments is highly regulated, and labs are visited around 11-12 times a year. It doesn't say if these visits are known about or surprise though. But there is much less chance on unneccessary cruelty having a chance to happen. But here's the page with regualtions from around the world... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing_regulations

Britain also banned the use of animals for cosmetic testing a few years ago now, and it will be banned right across the EU next year. (YAY)


As for that third site, that one is still quite propaganda-ish. The story with the monkey on the first page... that happened in 1981! The laws we have today regulating testing didn't come in until the late 80's (1986 in the UK), that story is over 25 years old, and isn't really relevant to today's arguement.

Well, I'm Swedish.

Ok... What are the Swedish regulations like? We were told in college that Scandanavian countries were well ahead in animal welfare.

The rules are pretty firm, its considered the most strict rules in Europe.Tests on chimps (all large apes) are or are in the process of becoming banned. From 2009 all cosmetics tested on animals will be banned. (With a few exceptions.)
All animal testing have to be tried in a ethic council (rules since 1979) and it will only get a go ahead if no other methods can be tried. It must mean that a few animals can save a large amount of animals or humans from suffering and the animals tested on can not be subjected to any unnecessary suffering.

Unfortunately I don't have any info in English though

Frank Anthony Iero.:

Why would you go and harm a pour animal. Its not like the affects on the animal is going to be the same on people. they need to leave the animals alone.

Well, they obviously wouldn't be testing on animals if the effects and reactions weren't going to be similar.

I think animal abuse is wrong. But that's stating the obvious. Anyway, as for animal testing. I'm against it being used for anything other then medicine. Apart from Anti-depressants, I'm a huge believer in medicine. If one animal dies to save several lives, then I personally think it's worth it.

Noel Fielding:

Anyway, as for animal testing. I'm against it being used for anything other then medicine. Apart from Anti-depressants, I'm a huge believer in medicine. If one animal dies to save several lives, then I personally think it's worth it.

Really, even if the medicine was something like Cymbalta or a weight loss pill?

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the huge animal rights group, PETA, is not all it's cracked up to be. First of all their violent messages of terror that are aimed at young children are just propaganda and secondly most of those animals that they 'save' end up being put to sleep, because PETA has neither the money nor the real desire to give the animals homes.

If the animal testing where to save humans lives yes other wise no as for abuse and cruelty hell no most of our pets have come from rescue centers as I like to think I'm giving them a nice new start

Its stupid when people hurt animals. I am against a few things involving animals; KFC, Animal Testing Labs, Animal abuse and cruelty.

Eponine:

Noel Fielding:

Anyway, as for animal testing. I'm against it being used for anything other then medicine. Apart from Anti-depressants, I'm a huge believer in medicine. If one animal dies to save several lives, then I personally think it's worth it.

Really, even if the medicine was something like Cymbalta or a weight loss pill?

That's a good point actually, sorry, I didn't think of that.

Noel Fielding:

That's a good point actually, sorry, I didn't think of that.

No harm.


What I really dislike are those that are anti-zoo. The claim that animals would be 'so much happier in the wild because they are free'. Animals don't think like that. Their brains don't function in that capacity.

As long as the animal is fed and the habitat provided is too their liking, they don't care whether they are in zoo. Zoos make absolutely sure that an animal has everything it needs in it's enclosure. They give them a place to drink, a place to eat, a place to sleep, a place to relieve themselves, and everything else that they need.

If an animal could understand the concept of the wild and a zoo, and could choose between the two, they would probably choose to live in a zoo.

Would you rather live in an precarious environment, with predators lurking everywhere, waiting to kill you, and the food supply is erratic, or in a safe place where you are provided with everything you need.

I think that if an animal is going to die out in the wild, then put it in a safari park, and if you can't do that, for some reason, then put it in a zoo.

If the medicine is going to save people's lives, then test it on animals. Obviously, I don't like the idea of it, but I think it is the lesser of two evils so to speak. If 100 chimps have to die to save thousands of people, then go ahead. I don't agree with the LD-50 test, and I think in a lot of places it is banned, although I'm not certain, so don't quote me on that.

What do you think of eating veal, and other young animal meat? not the vegan arguement, the rights arguement.

I don't eat veal, but thats not to say I wouldn't, it just happens to be something we don't buy. Oooh I do love my Nan's lamb roast dinner though...

To be honest, I can't really see what difference there is between eating an younger and older animal?

Firegarder:

To be honest, I can't really see what difference there is between eating an younger and older animal?

First of all, in the case of veal the animals are not only young, they are usually 'culled' at 35 weeks at the latest, but the conditions that they are in when they are alive are terrible.
There is scientific evidence to support the claims that, despite careful management a significant proportion of "special-fed" calves will inevitably experience health problems including pneumonia, clinical anemia, and stomach ulcers. The animals are kept in tiny stalls and not allowed to socialize like they normally would be able too. The small stalls also prevent the calf from moving.

I don't know much about the treatment of normal cows, though they probably aren't treated well, they most likely have it better than veal calves.

I knew about some of the poor conditions. But what I know of this mainly is that because veal is not a common meat to be eaten here in Britain, so a lot of our veal animals are exported abroad to France in what are called "Veal Crates." Cos obviously the majority of male calves have no other use. The Veal crates were awful and a lot of animals would die in transit. But those have been banned now. The veal animals can be transported abroad, but not in poor conditions like that.

There are also laws about how animals can be kept here, so adult animals are definately not kept in poor conditions (and I've seen this first hand with a tour around my college farm), and this will apply to the younger animals that are kept here to be eaten as veal by Brits! I can be confident in Brit meat in knowing that the animals haven't been kept in cruel conditions. Except chickens. But that is slowly being changed too as new laws are coming in on battery farms.

Firegarder:

I knew about some of the poor conditions. But what I know of this mainly is that because veal is not a common meat to be eaten here in Britain, so a lot of our veal animals are exported abroad to France in what are called "Veal Crates." Cos obviously the majority of male calves have no other use. The Veal crates were awful and a lot of animals would die in transit. But those have been banned now. The veal animals can be transported abroad, but not in poor conditions like that.

There are also laws about how animals can be kept here, so adult animals are definately not kept in poor conditions (and I've seen this first hand with a tour around my college farm), and this will apply to the younger animals that are kept here to be eaten as veal by Brits! I can be confident in Brit meat in knowing that the animals haven't been kept in cruel conditions. Except chickens. But that is slowly being changed too as new laws are coming in on battery farms.

My mistake, I didn't know you where talking about Britain.
America is really far behind when it comes to animal rights.

Bill Kaulawaweisitz:

So I'm against cosmetic animal testing but not scientific lab rat testing.

Agreed, Alot of the treatments we have nowadays, we wouldn't without animal testing.

Eponine:

My mistake, I didn't know you where talking about Britain.
America is really far behind when it comes to animal rights.

hehe I'd probably have the same attitude as you if I was eating American meat (The only meat I don't eat is Cod, and that's not a cruelty issue!). And I am doubtful of eating any meat that isn't marked as British, cos I don't know what I'm getting really.

I think that does make something like this more difficult to discuss, we all have very different regulations.

Like I don't have to worry about cosmetic testing, cos it's banned here.

i hate people who hurt animals. it makes me so sick. like micheal vick, in my opinion, should suffer the same pain he made those poor dogs experience.