Places to Chat
Does anyone want
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Does anyone want
Does anyone want to talk about animal testing? In my opinion, it is terribly cruel, unnecessary, and ineffective. Please write in.
submitted by Hanna Q., age 10, Ontario, Canada
(September 27, 2008 - 7:45 am)
(September 27, 2008 - 7:45 am)
Oh! I was just going to say something about that. Our family doesn't buy things with animal testing. At least, just about every bottle in the house says "no animal testing." And I KNOW none of our shampoo has it, because I always get it in my eye, and can tell.
(September 27, 2008 - 5:17 pm)
How can you tell it isn't tested on animals when you get it in your eye?
(September 29, 2008 - 6:55 am)
Oh, well, the main reason they test shampoos on animals (especially baby shampoos) is to make sure it doesn't hurt peoples eyes... so yeah.
(September 30, 2008 - 6:39 pm)
Umm... Actually, shampoo isn't tested to make sure it doesn't sting your eyes. As far as I know, all shampoos sting when you get them in your eyes.
(October 5, 2008 - 7:40 pm)
Not baby shampoos. At the very least, not the brand we were buying for a while.
(October 6, 2008 - 10:47 pm)
My point is, most shampoos that are tested on animals sting your eyes. Baby shampoos are the exeption.
(October 12, 2008 - 8:44 am)
Many people think animal testing is cruel but it has its upsides. Although it can hurt animals, you have to remember: they are just animals. Many good things come out animal testing. Medicines have to be tested on animals before they can be tested on people. Scientists can also breed mice and rats to have certain diseases so they can learn more and try to help people with those same diseases. Pigs have almost the same internal anatomy as we do so many medicines and other things that deal with organs are tested on pigs. Thousands of people are saved because of animal testing. BUT I also think there is a limit. I mean testing lipstick and other cosmetics on animals (which is much more humane than it used to be) to make sure it won't cause allergic reactions is one thing--but making sure your soap doesn't sting your eyes is totally dumb. When people abuse animal testing it becomes something cruel and heartless, instead of the helpful thing it should be.
(October 1, 2008 - 4:10 pm)
Many people think animal testing is simply shampooing rabbits' fur. This is not the case. If it was, I woudn't have such a big problem with it, either. Here are two very common examples of animal testing in cosmetics: the Draize test and the Acute Toxicity test. The Draize test consists the following: An animal, usually a rabbit, is confined and products ranging from shampoos to nail polish are dripped into their eyes. Then, the rabbits' eyes are bandaged so that they cannot cry the substance out. The rabbits are left like that for an extended period of time, and the results are documented. The results are, as you can imagine, swelling, bleeding, and blindness. The Acute Toxicity test, often called the Lethal Dose (LD) test, consists of the following: A group of animals is forced to ingest or inhale a toxic substance. The scientists then wait to see what percentage of the group dies over a certain period of time. Also, animal testing is often misleading. For example: Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. If something is good or bad for animals, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the same for us.
(October 2, 2008 - 11:41 am)
That's horrific! Terrible! ):< On the other hand, though, I would rather have a medicine tested on animals than not tested at all.
(October 3, 2008 - 8:45 pm)
There are other, kinder, ways to test medicines and cosmetics. Human volunteers, genetically manufactured skin, and computer programs are some. I don't see any problem with testing products on humans, providing they know the consequences. And then there's genetically manufactured skin or, in other words, skin grown in a test tube. Isn't that cool? Oh, and then there are computer programs. All the data collected from animals and humans in previous experiments, loaded onto one program. We don't need to keep repeating the same experiments over and over and over again.
(October 5, 2008 - 5:45 pm)
Oh! I never saw this thread! Thank you for making it! Animal testing is terrible! It kills millions of innocent little rodents and even things like cats and dogs! My gerbils were ancestors of lab gerbils, and the yellow one, Sprite got a tumor on his stomach. We had to put a cream that the vet gave us on it. Later, he got another one under his arm, causing his arm to go up and scratch his face causing him to die. :( He was my first pet to die... :( Later my other gerbil, Pepsi, also got a tumor on his stomach, and we took him to the vet. He tied a string around it and pulled it really tight. :( Fortunatly, it worked, and the lump fell off! He lived to be an old and happy gerbil! He died two years ago... :( Anyway, animal testing is awful. It has broken thousands of little kids' hearts...
(October 2, 2008 - 5:20 pm)
You're welcome! I've been wanting to talk about animal testing for a while. Oh, and sorry about your gerbils... What do you mean by "My gerbils were ancestors of lab gerbils"? Do you mean their parents were lab gerbils? If so, how do you know? I'm confused...
(October 6, 2008 - 12:24 pm)
Sorry for confusing you. No, their parents weren't lab gerbils (my baby-sitter gave them to me when her's had babies!), but their parent's parent's, parent's, ect., were. Gerbils (and all rodents) multiply quickly. The ones used in testing were probably used around fifteen years ago. How do I know? The vet said that the tumors on them were a result from something that they did at the testing place. How does he know? Umm, there's no real proof, but there was a test a while back that produced similar results, and the gerbils were then used to reproduce and their babies reproduced, ect., so that's what happened to mine. Fortunately, mine were both males, so they never had babies, so we are slowly stopping this sickly generation of gerbils, of course, the last time I saw my baby-sitter (she moved a few years ago ((we miss you, Jackie!!)) ), she was stuck with thirteen baby gerbils, two adult females and two adult males...
(October 6, 2008 - 4:48 pm)
Oh. Okay. Interesting. But how did your baby-sitter manage to get lab gerbils? Usually they are killed afterwards. Anyhoo, just to stimulate discussion, does anyone else think animal testing is wrong (or right)?
(October 7, 2008 - 9:01 pm)
I don't know. Maybe they escaped. Maybe the person who did the animal testing had a slightly soft heart and donated them to the pet store. I don't know. I'm just saying what the vet said, and he is supposed to be the best vet in Maine with small animals.
(October 15, 2008 - 10:28 am)