|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 1:09:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
They test on animals [ Rate Link] - Known animal testing companies
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 1:43:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
I agree it's unnecessary for cosmetics and such. But the drug companies are REQUIRED to test on animals before the FDA will allow them to start human trials. That's my understanding anyway.
|
|
Chickenman
Male,
13-17
Western US
Joined: 15 yrs, 11 mos ago
754 Posts
|
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 8:20:24 PM EST (GMT-5)
What would be better to test on? Humans? You're telling me you'd rather test a product on humans than an animal?
|
|
bwaybabe137
Female,
13-17
Eastern US
Joined: 14 yrs, 11 mos ago
179 Posts
|
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 8:31:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
Well, its possible to make human skin as long as you have living skin cells... I'm disappointed in companies that do this, and yet, I use so many products from those companies.
|
|
jennsync415
Female,
13-17
Western US
Joined: 14 yrs, 6 mos ago
1,899 Posts
|
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 10:44:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 10/13/2006 8:31:38 PM bwaybabe137 wrote: I'm disappointed in companies that do this, and yet, I use so many products from those companies. | Oh so true. *sigh*
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Friday 10/13/06 - 11:38:27 PM EST (GMT-5)
^^ likewise. i feel bad about it, but what other alternative is there? and if it advances our medical technology, i don't see it being so wrong. yes, i'm against testing a bunny for anti-wrinkle cream or foundation, but i'm all for reasonable medical experiments. *runs away before the PETA crew finds this thread*
|
|
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Saturday 10/14/06 - 11:40:54 AM EST (GMT-5)
"Max Factor (Procter & Gamble)" AAAAAAARGH! THOSE POOR, DEFENCLESS ANIMALS WILL HAVE LONGER, THICKER, MORE DEFINED EYELASHES! NOOOOOOOOO!
|