Five held in grave theft inquiry - Page 5

Ramrod · 27-09-2005, 13:59

Nice.....

punky · 27-09-2005, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Body Shop International

We operate a strict purchasing rule (view more) that ensures that we don't buy any ingredient that has been animal tested for cosmetic purposes by our suppliers since 31 December 1990.

http://www.thebodyshopinternational....at_believe.jsp

What's so special about the 31st December 1990? Any animals before then were SOL?

orangebird · 27-09-2005, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I do do my homework. Sticking with your point... cell, corneal and skin tissue cultures, these solely and exlusively come from volunteer human donors? And what garantees are there that if these tissues react well, that it won't cause a problem elsewhere?

Erm, I'd trust the test on human skin rather than rabbits skin.... I really don't get why people think because a little drop of something didn't burn a rabbits eye out that it won't burn a humans out...

Quote:

As was on here the other day, scientists are trying to 'cure' Down's syndrome babies. A worthwhile persuit, I think. They are inducing Doiwn's syndrom e in other animals, to help understand how to cure it. How on earth can you cure Down's syndrome without animal experimentation.

How does anyone manage to conclusively state that some chemical/product didn't make a guinea pig sick, so it won't make me sick?

Quote:

By the looks of it, what you are arguing for, will lead to more Thalidomide clones, where testing on animals was rushed, or just plain missed/faked. If Thalidomide was testing conclusively on animals, then we wouldn't have Thalidomide babies.

No I am not arguing for that and frankly, that's a ridiuclous suggestion.

And by the by, why would there ever be a case of someone faking an animal test?

The Body Shop have been selling products (and the ingredients in them) for 15 years that have not been tested on animals. Yet I haven't seen a single bit of bad press about a product reating badly with a human.

There are plenty of other ways to test. By pharmaceuticals do not want to spend the money researching and developing them. End of.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Nice.....

Nicer than this.

**Damien** · 27-09-2005, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Because I know what I take, I know who produces the medication I take, and I know their stances on animal testing.

Should you ever (and lets hope not) need treatment for a serious illness would you refuse that treatment on the grounds of animal testing? (Most cancer and HIV treatments are products of animal testing. Even if the actual treatment wasnt tested on animals. The technology and science behind the pill would have been found out via animal testing)

orangebird · 27-09-2005, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Should you ever (and lets hope not) need treatment for a serious illness would you refuse that treatment on the grounds of animal testing? (Most cancer and HIV treatments are products of animal testing. Even if the actual treatment wasnt tested on animals. The technology and science behind the pill would have been found out via animal testing)

Damn right I would! I'm not some 14 year old veggie (because animals are cute etc...) I'm a 30 year old woman, who has strong beliefs and the courage of my convictions. I will not in anyway supoprt any company or product that tests on animals. Period.

me283 · 27-09-2005, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

The Body Shop have been selling products (and the ingredients in them) for 15 years that have not been tested on animals. Yet I haven't seen a single bit of bad press about a product reating badly with a human.

There are plenty of other ways to test. By pharmaceuticals do not want to spend the money. End of.

AFAIK the Body Shop do not sell medication as such. It's more beauty type products. What about real medication?

Of course, if the protestors feel so strongly about it, maybe those that are caught for the crimes in question should have testing done on them? It would be a fitting punishment, plus they would be able to say that they were preventing animal testing in some small way...

**Maggy** · 27-09-2005, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Damn right I would! I'm not some 14 year old veggie (because animals are cute etc...) I'm a 30 year old woman, who has string beliefs and the courage of my convictions. I will not in anyway supoprt any company or product that tests on animals. Period.

How about if it was a relative of yours and the decision was yours to make?

orangebird · 27-09-2005, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

AFAIK the Body Shop do not sell medication as such. It's more beauty type products. What about real medication?

Of course, if the protestors feel so strongly about it, maybe those that are caught for the crimes in question should have testing done on them? It would be a fitting punishment, plus they would be able to say that they were preventing animal testing in some small way...

Your ignorance is almost endearing....

Not testing on animals DOES NOT mean that humans have to queue up to have substances squirted in their eyes. Scientists mamaged to create a whole frigging sheep and grow a human ear on a mouse FFS. Whats stopping the pharamaceuticals from running similar studies and tests to create human tissue to test on?????????????

**Damien** · 27-09-2005, 14:14

Can we make a point here of separating the cosmetic side and the medical side of animal testing.

I disagree with testing on animals to make cosmetics, there are now ways (such as recreating human skin) to test these safely.

I fully agree with testing on animals for medical gain. Curing diseases and life endangering illness are all right by me. Also we NEED to use animals for this as well as they need to be tested on real life objects, human made skin cells or organs wont work.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Your ignorance is almost endearing....

Not testing on animals DOES NOT mean that humans have to queue up to have substances squirted in their eyes. Scientists mamaged to create a whole frigging sheep and grow a human ear on a mouse FFS. Whats stopping the pharamaceuticals from running similar studies and tests to create human tissue to test on?????????????

Because we are talking cancer and HIV, the body is a lot lot more complex than human tissue.

orangebird · 27-09-2005, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

How about if it was a relative of yours and the decision was yours to make?

It would be down to the morals of the relative. ie. My dad doesn't give a hoot either way about animal testing. So I would l let the doctors used whatever they suggested.

My views are mine. I will not force them on other people. But when people tell me there's no other safe choices to animal testing, it ****es me off. Because there is.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Can we make a point here of separating the cosmetic side and the medical side of animal testing.

I disagree with testing on animals to make cosmetics, there are now ways (such as recreating human skin) to test these safely.

I fully agree with testing on animals for medical gain. Curing diseases and life endangering illness are all right by me. Also we NEED to use animals for this as well as they need to be tested on real life objects, human made skin cells or organs wont work.
__________________

Because we are talking cancer and HIV, the body is a lot lot more complex than human tissue.

And your point is?

me283 · 27-09-2005, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Your ignorance is almost endearing....

Not testing on animals DOES NOT mean that humans have to queue up to have substances squirted in their eyes. Scientists mamaged to create a whole frigging sheep and grow a human ear on a mouse FFS. Whats stopping the pharamaceuticals from running similar studies and tests to create human tissue to test on?????????????

And your apparent illiteracy isn't. I don't recall mentioning anyone having "substances squirted in their eyes". Unless you are so ignorant that you think that is the limit of animal testing?

clarie · 27-09-2005, 14:24

Personally speaking I find a lot of the actions of these extreme animal protestors appalling. I spoke to a friend recently who told me that the UK have much more rules and regulations regarding testing on animals. Therefore if these animal rights protestors succeeded in stopping all UK animal testing (which I very much doubt they will) then the testing will just be done elsewhere, without as much care taken over the animals.

Furthermore I abhor the actions of these people, who are, in my book, terrorists. I have heard awful stories about them, does anyone else remember a few years ago a journalist got branded witha hot iron for exposing a story on them? Also some guy got beaten to within an inch of his life for working for a company who has some dealings with animal testing.

Violence is an awful, awful way of getting your point across and it saddens me that in this case it has worked, because that will simply encourage this sort of behaviour. It is disgusting, and I would like to know how these extremists would act if a member of their own family needed life saving drugs that had been tested on animals.

SMHarman · 27-09-2005, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Erm, I'd trust the test on human skin rather than rabbits skin.... I really don't get why people think because a little drop of something didn't burn a rabbits eye out that it won't burn a humans out...

because we know the genetic makeup of thumpers eye is almost identical to the makeup of our own, just as rats have similar genetic predisposition and well monkeys and humans share something like 99+% dna and biological makeup, thus testing on them and proof that testing on them has not caused harm means less testing is needed (and with lower risk) on humans.
I don't think any scientist involved in this stuff enjoys testing on animals, just considers it a necessary part of the evolution of new lifesaving products (on the pharmacutical side), it is probably a lot less necessary for cosmetics, but what do I know about developments in that field (or medicine for that matter).

orangebird · 27-09-2005, 14:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

And your apparent illiteracy isn't. I don't recall mentioning anyone having "substances squirted in their eyes". Unless you are so ignorant that you think that is the limit of animal testing?

No, but I thought I'd better stay at the level of the company I'm keeping.

The best arguments to come up in this thread in favour of testing on animals is that there aren't enough human volunteers. Lame lame lame.

SMHarman · 27-09-2005, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

What's so special about the 31st December 1990? Any animals before then were SOL?

I believe it was picked as an arbitary date. What I find interesting about the date is that Body Shop commenced trading

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dame Anita Roddick - Founder of The Body Shop

I started The Body Shop in 1976

http://www.anitaroddick.com/aboutanita.php
14 years before the cut off date. And I bet a lot of useful products they sell today were tested on animals between '76 and '90.