UK to stop testing household products on

[Still Waters]

Household products like washing up liquid will no longer be tested on animals such as rabbits dogs and mice, the Home Office is due to announce.

Everyday goods like glue, air fresheners and lavatory cleaner have been tested on animals for years.

The experiments, usually involving rabbits, can mean shaving off hair to test irritation or force feeding animals to see if products are toxic.

However Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said the practice is no longer acceptable.

She is due to announce a ban on testing household products on animals shortly.

The UK Government banned testing cosmetics on animals in 1998.

But between 1997 and 2006, government figures showed 7,184 animals were used to test products like bleaches and disinfectants. Last year there were 24 tests for household products on animals. Rats, guinea pigs and sometimes dogs are used. The animals can be made ill or even killed in the process and are routinely disposed of.

The main reason for recent the decline is because of consumer pressure and Marks and Spencer, the Co-operative banning testing on animals for their household products.

Michelle Thew, Chief Executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said it had taken too long to ban testing of household products as well.

Read more...

[mattavich123]

All I can say is i'm very glad to hear it.

[voidla]

Better late than never I suppose.

[H.H. Holmes]

They didn't outline any alternative means of testing these products.

Is there a viable substitute to animal testing in assessing the safety of these products? If not, then I think it is a bad idea. I'd rather have a couple hundred rabbits die than to have unsafe products out on the market which could potentially harm a person. Just my opinion, though.

[Mr_Snstr]

They didn't outline any alternative means of testing these products.

Is there a viable substitute to animal testing in assessing the safety of these products? If not, then I think it is a bad idea. I'd rather have a couple hundred rabbits die than to have unsafe products out on the market which could potentially harm a person. Just my opinion, though.

They do offer alternatives, do a quick google search:

"All forms of testing previously done on animals will now be tested on...

...this guy:

H.H. Holmes of the UM forums. "

Or more realistically all testing will be deferred to countries who didn't care to make such "progresssive steps to a more humane world!!" and still be bought up by the bucketload. Probably in a covert or blantently dishonest matter too.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[mattavich123]

They didn't outline any alternative means of testing these products.

Is there a viable substitute to animal testing in assessing the safety of these products? If not, then I think it is a bad idea. I'd rather have a couple hundred rabbits die than to have unsafe products out on the market which could potentially harm a person. Just my opinion, though.

How many times do you have to kill an animal with bleach before you know it hurts them?

I'll be totally honest here. I'd rather then tested them on humans like you so I know they won't hurt me when I buy them.

I'm not even joking. Let's see what happens when we force feed you bleach, then we'll see if it cleans a blocked drain when I need it.

[H.H. Holmes]

How many times do you have to kill an animal with bleach before you know it hurts them?

I'll be totally honest here. I'd rather then tested them on humans like you so I know they won't hurt me when I buy them.

I'm not even joking. Let's see what happens when we force feed you bleach, then we'll see if it cleans a blocked drain when I need it.

Who said anything about bleach? I didn't see the part of the article saying that hundreds of animals die of tests that involve the digestion of bleach. I'm pretty sure those who do these tests won't waste their time and money on testing bleach, which has been thoroughly tested in the past.

Animal testing has nothing to do with the practical efficiency of such products, like drain cleaning, and more to do with the potential hazards of ingestion, either through the skin, eyes, mouth, throat, or whatever. So I don't see the relevance.

Also, humans are animals, too. Are you saying you support animal testing or not? I'm confused as to your position on this matter.

Edited July 19, 2011 by H.H. Holmes

[mattavich123]

Who said anything about bleach? I didn't see the part of the article saying that hundreds of animals die of tests that involve the digestion of bleach. I'm pretty sure those who do these tests won't waste their time and money on testing bleach, which has been thoroughly tested in the past.

Animal testing has nothing to do with the practical efficiency of such products, like drain cleaning, and more to do with the potential hazards of ingestion, either through the skin, eyes, mouth, throat, or whatever. So I don't see the relevance.

Also, humans are animals, too. Are you saying you support animal testing or not? I'm confused as to your position on this matter.

I believe that household chemicals are pretty similar. There's nothing undocumented coming into our household that hasn't been tested in similar solutions before, so why do we need to test tomorrows variety of bleach on animals when we already know what will happen.

My point about the human testing is to point out the atrocious attitude of some people. The "i'd rather test it on animals than cause me a problem" attitude is revolting.

That logic makes me very angry. It makes me feel like I wish it was people with those attitude who were being forced to endure the torture of testing all so I can polish my TV and not get a little rash.

It is just plain sickening.

Edited July 19, 2011 by mattavich123

[H.H. Holmes]

I believe that household chemicals are pretty similar. There's nothing undocumented coming into our household that hasn't been tested in similar solutions before, so why do we need to test tomorrows variety of bleach on animals when we already know what will happen.

My point about the human testing is to point out the atrocious attitude of some people. The "i'd rather test it on animals than cause me a problem" attitude is revolting.

That logic makes me very angry. It makes me feel like I wish it was people with those attitude who were being forced to endure the torture of testing all so I can polish my TV and not get a little rash.

It is just plain sickening.

Hey, I'm all ears if you know of a better means of testing the safety of various household products.

New compounds are being introduced all the time and I don't think it is responsible to just unleash them on the public without some kind of testing to ensure that it is safe to use.

I think that a little rash is the least concern, more like death and permanent damage.

If I had to choose between a human life and a non-human life, I will always pick the former over the latter. I am sorry if you disagree, but, for me, that is not an issue I am the least bit unsure of.

[mattavich123]

Hey, I'm all ears if you know of a better means of testing the safety of various household products.

New compounds are being introduced all the time and I don't think it is responsible to just unleash them on the public without some kind of testing to ensure that it is safe to use.

I think that a little rash is the least concern, more like death and permanent damage.

If I had to choose between a human life and a non-human life, I will always pick the former over the latter. I am sorry if you disagree, but, for me, that is not an issue I am the least bit unsure of.

Could you do it then? Could you take the solution over to a dog to test what happens when it drinks it and watch it die in pain so that you can wash the dishes with the next best fairy liquid?

I would honestly do without, I couldn't harm an animal like that. So no, I wouldn't choose either.

I really don't think i'd have a problem with animal testers drinking some household cleaning products. Yes, i'm completely sure of that.

[H.H. Holmes]

Could you do it then? Could you take the solution over to a dog to test what happens when it drinks it and watch it die in pain so that you can wash the dishes with the next best fairy liquid?

I would honestly do without, I couldn't harm an animal like that. So no, I wouldn't choose either.

I really don't think i'd have a problem with animal testers drinking some household cleaning products. Yes, i'm completely sure of that.

I don't believe they use dogs for animal testing in most cases, although I could be wrong. Most of these tests are done on laboratory mice and rabbits who have been specifically breed for use in research.

I am against the use of certain animals for testing like the great apes, pigs, orcas, certain species of birds, and others that have shown to have some form of higher thought processes.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

I don't believe they use dogs for animal testing in most cases, although I could be wrong. Most of these tests are done on laboratory mice and rabbits who have been specifically breed for use in research.

I am against the use of certain animals for testing like the great apes, pigs, orcas, certain species of birds, and others that have shown to have some form of higher thought processes.

Surely we are advanced enough nowadays to abolish animal testing.Should we not be looking for natural products to use instead of some chemicals..?.

[ShadowSot]

Surely we are advanced enough nowadays to abolish animal testing.Should we not be looking for natural products to use instead of some chemicals..?.

Think for a second. What do y'spose are in those "natural products" that create the effect we are looking for?

How are we to find out what those "natural products" do, or what (OMG!) chemical it is in that compound that causes the reaction we are looking for?

Take for example penicillin, the fungi itself varies between sickening and deadly, but the anti-biotics derived from it are what's useful.

And it's only through testing that we find out what chemicals are safe, what affect they have in a body, and what proportions are they safe to use.

Ape testing has already been stopped (and I applaud this), and there are lobbies to stop using pigs for testing and organ harvesting as well.

I support this as well, pigs are a creature like apes that in their proper habitat behave much like humans. (For those of you not familiar with the animal, a farm is NOT their natural habitat. It's what happens when you jam a bunch of pigs together in cramped confines.)

Now, right now there is a treatment being developed that has shown good promise towards regenerating brain tissue, another towards repairing spinal injuries.

The problem with these treatments is you need to be able to make repeated tests in order to develop the treatment, just waiting for someone to come along with the right kind of brain injury or back injury who's willing to go for experimental treatment isn't going to cut it.

[ThePhantomFlanFlinger]

Think for a second. What do y'spose are in those "natural products" that create the effect we are looking for?

How are we to find out what those "natural products" do, or what (OMG!) chemical it is in that compound that causes the reaction we are looking for?

Take for example penicillin, the fungi itself varies between sickening and deadly, but the anti-biotics derived from it are what's useful.

And it's only through testing that we find out what chemicals are safe, what affect they have in a body, and what proportions are they safe to use.

Ape testing has already been stopped (and I applaud this), and there are lobbies to stop using pigs for testing and organ harvesting as well.

I support this as well, pigs are a creature like apes that in their proper habitat behave much like humans. (For those of you not familiar with the animal, a farm is NOT their natural habitat. It's what happens when you jam a bunch of pigs together in cramped confines.)

Now, right now there is a treatment being developed that has shown good promise towards regenerating brain tissue, another towards repairing spinal injuries.

The problem with these treatments is you need to be able to make repeated tests in order to develop the treatment, just waiting for someone to come along with the right kind of brain injury or back injury who's willing to go for experimental treatment isn't going to cut it.

So you think it right then to test say make up on animals(or other NON essential products)..?..I do understand that chemicals still have a need and use but to test products on animals time and time again just seems to be barbaric in my opinion.By the way i do not agree with intense animal farming or having chickens couped up in archaic conditions JUST to give us eggs and i much prefer animals to humans..but thats just me..i can think of a damn few people id like to test products on..JMO

[Funky Poacher]

I don't believe they use dogs for animal testing in most cases, although I could be wrong. Most of these tests are done on laboratory mice and rabbits who have been specifically breed for use in research.

I am against the use of certain animals for testing like the great apes, pigs, orcas, certain species of birds, and others that have shown to have some form of higher thought processes.

And you quote Gandhi in your signature, huh? That's pretty hilarious. You clearly don't know a lot about animal testing. Dogs have been a staple of testing for years. The fact that 'intelligence' is your criteria for not testing on a specific kind of creature is also abominable. Intellignce escapes the majority of people, so why not test on them?

[Dougal]

Hey I love animals as much as anybody barring the hippies at greenpeace but like Holmes said, I'd rather have a hundred dead bunnies than 1 dead baby... Personally I value human life over animal and unless a suitable method of alternative testing is in place I'd have to suggest sticking with animal testing.

[mattavich123]

I'm not even going to enter this thread. I feel so strongly against watching an animal suffer that I could EASILY watch someone drink bleach and die for doing it to another animal.

I'm not joking, I really want to see these people die in the same manner they force other innocent animals to suffer.

I would surely 100% accept some humans deaths in order to save animals from complete torture.

[FLOMBIE]

And you quote Gandhi in your signature, huh? That's pretty hilarious. You clearly don't know a lot about animal testing. Dogs have been a staple of testing for years. The fact that 'intelligence' is your criteria for not testing on a specific kind of creature is also abominable. Intellignce escapes the majority of people, so why not test on them?

All kinds of products, including household-products, medicine and make-up, are tested on humans as well. And the fact that they test their products on dogs does not make it any better, or worse. Maybe for you, because you have a closer relation to dogs, but I don't differentiate between animals used for necessary tests.

I am thoroughly with H.H.Holmes explanations.

[hetrodoxly]

I'm not even going to enter this thread. I feel so strongly against watching an animal suffer that I could EASILY watch someone drink bleach and die for doing it to another animal.

I'm not joking, I really want to see these people die in the same manner they force other innocent animals to suffer.

I would surely 100% accept some humans deaths in order to save animals from complete torture.

I'm going to refuse to buy any product that hasn't been tested on blind orphaned puppies,just as a mater of principle mind you.

[Mr_Snstr]

I'm going to refuse to buy any product that hasn't been tested on blind orphaned puppies,just as a mater of principle mind you.

"For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three."

[Dougal]

I'm not even going to enter this thread. I feel so strongly against watching an animal suffer that I could EASILY watch someone drink bleach and die for doing it to another animal.

I'm not joking, I really want to see these people die in the same manner they force other innocent animals to suffer.

I would surely 100% accept some humans deaths in order to save animals from complete torture.

That people value human life so little scares me quite alot...

I wonder how many drugs used by vets every day to save animal's lives were found to be so beneficial through animal testing?

[H.H. Holmes]

And you quote Gandhi in your signature, huh? That's pretty hilarious. You clearly don't know a lot about animal testing. Dogs have been a staple of testing for years. The fact that 'intelligence' is your criteria for not testing on a specific kind of creature is also abominable. Intellignce escapes the majority of people, so why not test on them?

Why don't you volunteer yourself to be tested on? How about your mother or father?

Seems like people want all benefits of modern medicine and products, but don't want to make any sacrifices for it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by H.H. Holmes

[mattavich123]

I'm going to refuse to buy any product that hasn't been tested on blind orphaned puppies,just as a mater of principle mind you.

If anyone tried to test a product on my dog, I would kill them, literally.

Think about that.

[mattavich123]

That people value human life so little scares me quite alot...

I wonder how many drugs used by vets every day to save animal's lives were found to be so beneficial through animal testing?

No, that people value animal's life so little is what scares me.

[Dougal]

No, that people value animal's life so little is what scares me.

I can assure you that most scientists who conduct studies using animals as test subjects have the utmost respect for the animals, however they feel (rightly so in my opinion) that the potential benefits of what they're testing outweighs the loss of life caused by this testing.

Let me ask you this as you seem to feel so strongly about it, if you get diagnosed with a curable disease, however the cure was tested on animals, will you refuse it?

Or how about if you have a child who's got MS, and current medical practices have the ability to greatly enhance their quality of life, but it was developed with animal testing, will you deny your child the right to live like others because of that?