Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!necntc!ci-dandelion!ulowell!ross From: ross@ulowell.UUCP Newsgroups: misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets Subject: Re: Re: Re:... Animal testing for Cosmetic and Household Products Message-ID: <779@ulowell.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 12:04:36 EST Article-I.D.: ulowell.779 Posted: Fri Nov 21 12:04:36 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Nov-86 04:04:21 EST References: <1083@rti-sel.UUCP> Reply-To: ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) Distribution: world Organization: University of Lowell Lines: 26 Summary: More stuff on animal testing. Xref: watmath misc.consumers:274 net.veg:998 net.pets:2846 In article <1083@rti-sel.UUCP> jbs@rti-sel.UUCP (Joe Simpson) writes: >In article <762@ulowell.UUCP> ross@ulowell.UUCP (Ross Miller) writes: >>Better the animal than me. Sueing someone when I am dead doesn't help. > >Better no animals (people included) when other alternatives are available >and accurate. I'd like to see if YOU could put acid in an animal's eyes >and then sit there and watch it squirm as its eyeballs burn away. > Sure, there are some times when it's unavoidable to use animals. But I >can't see how putting Draino in the eyes of 100 mice does anybody any good. >I can hear it now - "Yup, Vern, looks like we was right! Draino burns the >little suckers! Listen to 'em squealin'! Here - gimme another bottle." You give me no credit. I will concede that I was wrong based on some things. I had assumed that we were talking about necessary products or products that people use every day. Cosmetics are a big, and in my opinion wasteful, industry. But it is not going to go away. Better to test on an animal than humans. I have trouble believing that any company would do unecessary testing; what is being argued here it seems is what is necessary. Obviously Draino is going to hurt most life forms of this planet, and therefore it is not necessary to test for it. But, how can we be sure that the new brand X contact lens cleaner is going to hurt a human or not. [context switch] A rabbit in contact lenses? :-) [context switch] This is the type of testing I am refering to. Ross