A list of products that still employ animal testing

[sandinista]

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/10/ ... ood-human/

for anyone who cares, here is an updated list of common products that still employ animal testing. Not trying to start a debate about animal testing, go ahead if you want, just sharing the list for anyone interested.

[Feck]

Only found one product from proctor and gamble in my house and I didn't buy that myself .

[JimC]

Hopefully, biotechnology will advance to the point where it is all done with cell cultures...

[Trolldor]

Maybe, but that depends on how limiting cell cultures are for testing side effects.

[Trolldor]

On a side note, I wonder if the anti-testing crowd would be opposed to an animal vaccine being tested on animals.

[JimC]

True. But never say never...

[Feck]

Maybe, but that depends on how limiting cell cultures are for testing side effects.

most product testing is done just the have a value for the LD 50 and LD100 as the tests are not done on humans the results are not even relevant .

animal testing did not stop thalidamide and you can hardly say that the results for testing Penicillin on guinea pigs can be used as any indication of it's safety on humans .

[Trolldor]

If a guinea pig reacts the same way to a particular component that a human might, then yes you can say it is an indication of its safety on humans.

[Feck]

If a guinea pig reacts the same way to a particular component that a human might, then yes you can say it is an indication of its safety on humans.

They drop dead quicker than Mousy would eating peanut butter !

It is all well and good saying that animal testing keeps us safe but I ask you why every time Proctor and Gamble bring out a new slight variation on Domestos bleach ,maybe add a different scent ,or a bit more thickener why many many thousands of lab animals should die horrible deaths ?

[Trolldor]

Would you like to point me to these statistics which state as such?

[Pappa]

If a guinea pig reacts the same way to a particular component that a human might, then yes you can say it is an indication of its safety on humans.

They drop dead quicker than Mousy would eating peanut butter !

It is all well and good saying that animal testing keeps us safe but I ask you why every time Proctor and Gamble bring out a new slight variation on Domestos bleach ,maybe add a different scent ,or a bit more thickener why many many thousands of lab animals should die horrible deaths ?

Especially when all the ingredients of the new products have themselves been tested to death on animals too.

[Feck]

LD 50's and LD 100's are performed by giving a large sample of animals serial dilutions of a product so maybe a hundred animals or more at maybe 20 or 30 dilutions .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_let ... s_concerns

and no strangely the figures are not available for how many animals are killed it's not something the company want to advertise .

[Animavore]

I thought this was going to be a list of cosmetics.
A lot of those companies are drug companies. Probably drugs that may save your kid one day. I doubt any one is going to say that they would refuse a life saving drug because its been tested on animals?

[Trolldor]

Right, so no figures are available and you want me to take, from you word, the assumption that thousands die every time they run a test?
Surely any changes to the forumla would only require they test a new ingredient? And only in the case where pre-existing testing doesn't already exist?

No business would run unnecessary testing and waste money unless either
A) They were regulated by law to do so
or
B) There were demonstrable benefits for doing so that outweighed the lost money

A business's concern is money, not morality. It is, by its nature, amoral. If these tests produce nothing of benefit to the product or the company, then the business is wasting money. It is either a very bad business, or a regulated one.

I thought this was going to be a list of cosmetics.
A lot of those companies are drug companies. Probably drugs that may save your kid one day. I doubt any one is going to say that they would refuse a life saving drug because its been tested on animals?

Even if we value one animal at '5' humans, more humans would be at risk from an untested drug released on to the market than animals through testing.

[Tigger]

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/10/ ... ood-human/

for anyone who cares, here is an updated list of common products that still employ animal testing. Not trying to start a debate about animal testing, go ahead if you want, just sharing the list for anyone interested.

Isn't that a list that someone says is a list of common products that still employ animal testing?