Tested on babies?
May. 15th, 2010 10:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deborahjrossAdvisory: If you feel strongly opposed to animal testing, this will probably upset you, so you might want to give it a pass.
Awhile ago (actually, at the San Francisco Zoo gift store), I picked up a copy of Shopping with a Conscience by Duncan Clark and Richie Unterberger. The book has a lot of cool info, with discussions pro and con. However, yesterday I idly flipped it open to a section on cosmetics. I found a long discussion of what "Not Tested on Animals" and "Cruelty-free" mean, as well as the labor conditions and environmental concerns of the industry. The assumption was that all readers would not want to buy products that had been tested on animals -- even if the product was intended for use on those animals. There was no discussion of the rationale and advantages of animal testing or how it might be done in the most humane manner.
I experienced my usual reaction to "Not Tested on Animals." Tested on WHAT? Computers? Plants? Babies? Not tested at all?? (So I'm to be the guinea pig? I'm amused how a species commonly used in animal research has entered common vocabulary.)
Does anyone else have this reaction? Or am I the only one who wonders about such things?
No one, least of all me, is arguing that lab animals ought to be subjected to needless and cruel testing. Where I part company with the "no testing ever" camp is that I think it's sometimes the best or only way to find out whether products are safe and effective. Test animals ought to be treated humanely and whenever possible transitioned into appropriate living environments once the experiments are completed. I'm all for close monitoring of lab facilities and high standards of care.
Animal testing is expensive, financially and ethically. Everything else ought to be tried first -- computer simulations, test tube stuff, petri dish stuff. But these methods aren't equivalent to intact living organisms, the closer to humans the better. There's no getting around the need to test in living systems, in vivo.Even ingredients that are Generally Recognized as Safe can have detrimental effects when combined or applied in certain ways or concentrations. Before a drug goes to clinical trial in humans, I think every measure ought to be taken to detect safety problems, and that means animal testing.
Me, I'm just as happy to know that such-and-such a product or medicine that has caused injury/cancer/birth defects/other diseases in lab animals is therefore not being aggressively marketed to us and our children.
Awhile ago (actually, at the San Francisco Zoo gift store), I picked up a copy of Shopping with a Conscience by Duncan Clark and Richie Unterberger. The book has a lot of cool info, with discussions pro and con. However, yesterday I idly flipped it open to a section on cosmetics. I found a long discussion of what "Not Tested on Animals" and "Cruelty-free" mean, as well as the labor conditions and environmental concerns of the industry. The assumption was that all readers would not want to buy products that had been tested on animals -- even if the product was intended for use on those animals. There was no discussion of the rationale and advantages of animal testing or how it might be done in the most humane manner.
I experienced my usual reaction to "Not Tested on Animals." Tested on WHAT? Computers? Plants? Babies? Not tested at all?? (So I'm to be the guinea pig? I'm amused how a species commonly used in animal research has entered common vocabulary.)
Does anyone else have this reaction? Or am I the only one who wonders about such things?
No one, least of all me, is arguing that lab animals ought to be subjected to needless and cruel testing. Where I part company with the "no testing ever" camp is that I think it's sometimes the best or only way to find out whether products are safe and effective. Test animals ought to be treated humanely and whenever possible transitioned into appropriate living environments once the experiments are completed. I'm all for close monitoring of lab facilities and high standards of care.
Animal testing is expensive, financially and ethically. Everything else ought to be tried first -- computer simulations, test tube stuff, petri dish stuff. But these methods aren't equivalent to intact living organisms, the closer to humans the better. There's no getting around the need to test in living systems, in vivo.Even ingredients that are Generally Recognized as Safe can have detrimental effects when combined or applied in certain ways or concentrations. Before a drug goes to clinical trial in humans, I think every measure ought to be taken to detect safety problems, and that means animal testing.
Me, I'm just as happy to know that such-and-such a product or medicine that has caused injury/cancer/birth defects/other diseases in lab animals is therefore not being aggressively marketed to us and our children.
