Cancer dye alert

[mareng]

"Sudan 1’s dark red properties make it an ideal colourant for petrol, oils, waxes and shoe polish. But its use as a synthetic dye is meant to end there. It was outlawed after tests revealed it has caused leukaemia in laboratory mice."

I wonder how many of the people that are expressing outrage at this event - also complain about testing on animals??

Without the testing, they would probably still be saying...... "Ooh! - doesn't that dye give the food a nice colour."

[Liz]

We don't need to consume red colouring so why test it on an animal? :roll:

[~~Tides~~]

I think all food colouring etc should be band. Theres no need for it.

[Margaret M.]

I wonder how many of the people that are expressing outrage at this event - also complain about testing on animals??

Animal testing sounds simple and one would think that the labs do all they can to limit the pain felt by the animal, not so. The needless torture that lab animals endure and it's not just mice, rats and monkeys by any means, it's cats, dogs, rabbits, someone's pet that has been swiped from their backyard, etc., is proving to be flawed and totally unnecessary. Cruelty aside, the results from animal studies are proven again and again not to translate well to humans. A prime example is the polio vaccine, animal studies led to a faulty interpretation of how the disease was transmitted and really sidetracked progress. The animal testing results translated to human injuries and fatalities before it was rectified through human experimentation. Thalidomide is another, seemed to do fine in animals but had tragic results when expectant mothers took it for morning sickness. Vioxx is the most recent example - none of the animal testing showed the results that have now come to light. In fact, Vioxx and other COX-2 drugs actually had a heart-protective effect in mice and other animals, exactly opposite of how the drugs later performed in humans.

Things are slowly changing. A survey conducted in August 2004 shows that 82% of British GP's are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and want an evaluation of the scientific value of animal experimentation.

In the US, there is a group of thousands of physicians actively seeking to end animal experimentation. The unspeakable toture that the animals endure oftimes serves no other purpose than to get a government grant. Some charities are still conducting the most inhumane testing on animals for experiments from which conclusions were reached many years ago, why not, the people donating to their charity don't make much effort to see what tests they are conducting.

[Capt_D_Bradstreet]

Another example of pointless animal cruelty is testing the effects of tobacco smoke on animals. We all know about smoking and cancer so why continue to be cruel to animals?

[Liz]

Very well said both!

Why on earth do we need to test subtances on animals which we don't need and common sense dictates aren't good for us?

Charities such as Dr Hadwen Trust and the Humane Research do a great work without inflicting cruelty to animals.
Of course they aren't funded by the huge drug companies!

[mareng]

Very well said both!

Why on earth do we need to test subtances on animals which we don't need and common sense dictates aren't good for us?

Charities such as Dr Hadwen Trust and the Humane Research do a great work without inflicting cruelty to animals.
Of course they aren't funded by the huge drug companies!

So - you won't have bought a coloured car, wallpaper, clothes etc? Everything now made, that will come into contact with humans - requires testing to some extent, otherwise possible litegation prevents any company from production.

Look at the public clamouring for a definitive pronouncement on the effects of mobile phones - How many human volunteers do you think you are going to get to strap a mobile to their head, on transmit - for 24 hours a day? Exactly! - strap it to a couple of rats.

Nice to be idealistic but, realistic is more........ well - "realistic".

[Liz]

Look at the public clamouring for a definitive pronouncement on the effects of mobile phones - How many human volunteers do you think you are going to get to strap a mobile to their head, on transmit - for 24 hours a day? Exactly! - strap it to a couple of rats.

Nice to be idealistic but, realistic is more........ well - "realistic".

The humans have a choice unlike the poor animals who are expiremented on just because they cannot defend themselves!

If not wanting to inflict suffering on an animal makes me an idealist then that's what I will be !

[Margaret M.]

Nice to be idealistic but, realistic is more........ well - "realistic".

Testing something on an animal and expecting to see similar results in humans has proven to be totally unrealistic. The director of toxicology and research for the physicians' group trying to end animal testing, previously worked for the EPA and as a consultant for the chemical industry which often required ordering animal testing. He now has this to say, "Once I started thinking outside the science-as-usual box, I began to see that animal research isn't just cruel - it's not good science, nor is it a wise use of resources. Animals are just not good models for humans. Years from now when we look back on this period in our culture, we will wonder why we took so long to change". He is now working at the national and international level to eliminate the use of animals in medical education, toxicity testing and medical research.

[Margaret M.]

How many human volunteers do you think you are going to get to strap a mobile to their head, on transmit - for 24 hours a day? Exactly! - strap it to a couple of rats.


Call me idealistic but I choose to believe that my brain differs, hopefully more than slightly, from that of a rat.

[Rheghead]

I am against pointless animal experimentation, it is unscientific and ultimately it proves or disproves nothing. Going back to the testing of tobacco products, smokers were the unwitting participants in human trials, so why do animal testing to unscientifically prove what we already knew by scientific means? Another example, the toxicity of lead drew speculation on levels of IQ in children, would animal testing prove that alternative paints will not affect children's IQ? I know that quantification of rat intelligence is not mainstream science!? Animal testing can only infer that there may or may not be a link to human side affects.

Ultimately the question of animal testing depends how much you value the other God's creatures above our own.