RE: Ethical Shopping

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Ethical Shopping

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Ethical Shopping

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 4:57:36 AM

LillyBoPeep

Posts: 6873
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline

when i first got into "animal issues" i met this awesome 70 year old guy who had been a vegetarian for about 40 years. and he HATED Peta with a passion that burned hotter than a billion suns. at the time i didn't really understand why.
but at one time i lived near their headquarters, and they literally sent people out in the streets releasing people's pets! so many dogs were hit in the street that day, it was ridiculous! and kids i went to school with came home to find their dog gone, or dead down the street, or they never saw the dog again.

that's just insane.

i don't really like Peta in general, but they can be one of the quickest places to go for information; you just have to double-check it. and they've lead some good campaigns, like the chicken abuse campaign towards KFC, and the various elephants in circuses campaigns. but they always seem to go completely off the deep end, and .... uuuuuugh...

i haven't gone to a circus in i dunno how long. i convinced my late Person that the elephant issue was worse than he thought, and him being the truly open-minded person that he was, even though he disagreed with me at first, he spent several days looking for info, and concluded that i was right. =p whenever the circus comes into town, i spread as much anti-animal-circus propaganda as i can. =p haha

and i do not buy hair or skin products tested on animals. that's just the height of vanity, if you ask me.

i also don't believe testing on animals for medical purposes is necessary. if you read some of the documents that come in your medicine, they explain some pretty horrifying testing but in big-headed terms, and then at the ends of them all, they say "no conclusive evidence was found to show these effects in humans, however."
so then it's like "... well why did you do it?" they'll dose animals -- SMALL animals, like rabbits and mice, with 500 times the human dose of some medicine that treats something those animals won't ever even suffer from. testing on animals gives us conclusions about ANIMALS but it doesn't necessarily translate over to us. there are some animals that are similar enough to get some general conclusions from, like pigs, but i still don't think that's worthwhile.

there are more modern labs, particularly in Europe, who do their testing on human tissue samples collected from human donors. The Asterand company -- http://www.asterand.com/Asterand/ -- is one of the first I remember hearing of. most people are just so used to "this is the way it is," with regards to vivisection, that they are terrified of any other option because the powers-that-be have convinced them "if we don't do this, YOU won't be safe." well cripes, are you safe now? how many people still suffer from crazy side effects of medications? no matter how many cats, dogs, rats, rabbits, pigs, chimps, whatever they chop up in these labs, you really aren't all that safe, because their conclusions apply to creatures who AREN'T YOU.

it seems so simple to me.

and especially with primates because they're one animal that people do believe has the capacity for thought or sentience. and we subject them to all of this anyway. other animals are still in the "general grey area," though, not to me -- i've had enough experience with a variety of different kinds of animals to know better than to think that they have nothing going on upstairs -- they might be different from us, but it's about time we stopped judging everything in the world by a standard of "well can it do complex mathematics? does it believe European art is the height of artistic expression? does it watch Seinfeld re-runs?" =p

< Message edited by LillyBoPeep -- 8/24/2011 5:00:21 AM >

_____________________________

Midwestern Girl

"Obey your Master." Metallica

(in reply to DeviantlyD)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 5:38:47 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

As someone who has worked in cancer research in a lab and assisted with experiments using an animal model (rat) as well as having given a talk on some of the new developments in the cosmetics industry- allow me to chime in with a different viewpoint.

1) Animals used in research are treated humanely if the researcher knows what he/she is doing. Animals under stress produce lots of adrenaline which leads to a whole cascade of reactions that would lead to poor results. Most people in research know what they are doing. Animals are also expensive as is their long term care.

2) I know of no scientist that enjoys hurting/killing animals. One of my labmates had nightmares about the rats she was using. Yet we all feel that the work we're doing is important, that at the end of the day, the knowledge we're generating may help save human lives.

3) There is no substitute for animal experimentation in areas such as biology or cancer research. Cell culture results are not reliable- whole animals have a wonderful biology which can't be reproduced in a petri dish. Its not even close. Most petri dish experiments do use whole animals by the way- such as salmonella. But since bacteria are poor models for mammalian systems, a lot of what we find for bacteria doesn't work too well when we get to humans.

4) Humans are aggravatingly complex organisms. It's been pointed out for years that we can cure cancer in a rat, and if we sever a rat's spinal cord, we can get the animal to walk again. Human biology is more complex- although we're finally making some headway in understanding cancer. (the lack of progress to treatment is another thread.)

5) Most new anti-cancer drugs are termed biologicals- which means that they're a soup- a complex and poorly characterized mixture of proteins and other compounds. Some of these drugs are produced in chimeric mice, which means that the mice have human immune systems. Not only for cancer, people with rheumatoid arthritis are reporting amazing results in increased mobility by taking these drugs. (N.B. I'd have to look up the manufacturing process on some of these specific drugs- not all biologicals are made in mice.) Anybody want to deny these people their medicines?

6) Europe has passed a series of REACH regulations which are akin to the Cali prop. whatever that resulted in warning labels on everything. Manufacturers are being asked to identify all compounds in their products. Needless to say, if someone has developed a new compound, it needs to be tested on animals for safety-as noted above, there are no useable alternatives. Thus, animal testing is increasing in Europe.

7) In terms of cosmetics- cosmetics that make a health claim such as sunscreens need FDA approval in the US. Many makeups are now being made with UV protection to protect against wrinkles and melanoma, rates of which are on the rise. All ingredients by responsible cosmetics manufacturers have been tested on animals at some point in time, unless they are minor tweaks on an existing compound. Cosmetics manufacturers that do not do animal testing are generally not developing new compounds, or are relying on firms such as P + G to come up with new classes of ingredients. By and large, if individual ingredients in a cosmetic are proven safe, then the likelihood that there is a reaction that leads to something nasty is very small- and the firms that claim "no animal testing" know this.

So here's the bind....If cosmetics serve a health function such as improving skin health- and the existing palette of ingredients ain't cutting it, then we're going to need to develop new ingredients- and that can only be done with animal testing. Alternatively, we can just use all the compounds we've got and basically kill any new developments in this industry in the US/Europe. Of course, that will force manufacturing to go to China where the concerns about animal testing are basically non-existant.

Note- one of the standard tests in the cosmetics industry has been the Draize eye test- that's the bunny eye test. For some compounds, it works very well. For other compounds, it's not all that helpful. But a big part of the reason that cosmetics firms do this testing is to comply with FDA regulations.

Summary- be careful what you wish for- you might get it.....

Sam

(in reply to LillyBoPeep)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 5:53:54 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Guess I'm glad I don't take drugs either then. The thread started out "Ethical Shopping" and while animal testing is a huge part of it, drug companies are the least ethical when it comes to some things. You're right, this does not make drug users safe, look at all the class action lawsuits as I said. So all this was for nothing, yet it adds to the cost of prescription drugs. I see why they do it, it's simple, it justifies a higher initial cost and once that's established - well - to recoin a phrase, it's stuck up. Think they're going to lower it ? And they got the FDA to require it, and don't kid yourself the FDA works for the drug industry. Look at the people who run the FDA and their other jobs and it SCREAMS conflict of interest. They don't even quit their other jobs !

You would think they would have a vested interest in lowering costs, but they really are that fucking rotten. And to think, cosmetic companies, if you can believe it, are actually worse.

But animals ain't the half of it. Much of what people buy is made in China. Got a MAC computer or a PC with a Foxconn motherboard in it ? That's the company that treats their employees so well they commit suicide. Who makes those fancy iphones and shit ? Do we need a movie recorder in a phone that badly ? Well sometimes because there is nasty shit going on. If that Woman who got arrested for standing on her porch taking a video of a traffic stop had used a camera phone instead.......... "and I think to myself, what a wonderful world".

The fact is we'll never do away with all of this, but trends can be set. It's proven by the fact that everyhing is imported. It's simple, the US consumer bought cheaper imports so therefore industry supplied them. That is how money is made, to sell things that people will buy. That puts a hell of alot of power in the hands of the consumer. It's just a matter of using that power wisely - this time.

T^T

(in reply to LillyBoPeep)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 7:49:39 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

This isn't about shopping, but it sort of fits in with the theme of this thread. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/experiments-on-chimpanzee_b_933190.html

The article evokes such sadness, particularly the following:

quote:

These chimpanzees, hundreds of them, have been alone all those decades: no mate, no child, no friend to comfort them, to help them get through the pain of whatever experiment they are being subjected to.

Thanks for the links, DD.

I've read similar things about non human primates. And that most often, animals are euthanized after testing.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to DeviantlyD)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 7:51:59 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

i haven't gone to a circus in i dunno how long. i convinced my late Person that the elephant issue was worse than he thought, and him being the truly open-minded person that he was, even though he disagreed with me at first, he spent several days looking for info, and concluded that i was right. =p whenever the circus comes into town, i spread as much anti-animal-circus propaganda as i can. =p haha

I won't support the circus, either. I saw a few different documentaries on elephants - what their culture is, how they are treated in the circus, and how enormously stressful it is for them. I simply refuse to go to the circus. I love that you distribute propaganda - that's awesome.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to LillyBoPeep)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 7:55:18 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

samboct: While I don't argue that some animal testing is still necessary, I believe it's because of all the negative attention that testing / vivisection has received, that conditions have improved in many areas, and that the use of animals has decreased in many cases. Had a blind eye been consistently turned, improvements would not have been made. So eyes must still be on them, and new testing methods evaluated.

Having read what I've read, seen the photos I've seen, and talked first hand with someone who frequented the "Beagle Room" at Roche, I am not convinced the animals are not stressed.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 8:19:15 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Guess I'm glad I don't take drugs either then. The thread started out "Ethical Shopping" and while animal testing is a huge part of it, drug companies are the least ethical when it comes to some things. You're right, this does not make drug users safe, look at all the class action lawsuits as I said. So all this was for nothing, yet it adds to the cost of prescription drugs. I see why they do it, it's simple, it justifies a higher initial cost and once that's established - well - to recoin a phrase, it's stuck up. Think they're going to lower it ? And they got the FDA to require it, and don't kid yourself the FDA works for the drug industry. Look at the people who run the FDA and their other jobs and it SCREAMS conflict of interest. They don't even quit their other jobs !

You would think they would have a vested interest in lowering costs, but they really are that fucking rotten. And to think, cosmetic companies, if you can believe it, are actually worse.

But animals ain't the half of it. Much of what people buy is made in China. Got a MAC computer or a PC with a Foxconn motherboard in it ? That's the company that treats their employees so well they commit suicide. Who makes those fancy iphones and shit ? Do we need a movie recorder in a phone that badly ? Well sometimes because there is nasty shit going on. If that Woman who got arrested for standing on her porch taking a video of a traffic stop had used a camera phone instead.......... "and I think to myself, what a wonderful world".

The fact is we'll never do away with all of this, but trends can be set. It's proven by the fact that everyhing is imported. It's simple, the US consumer bought cheaper imports so therefore industry supplied them. That is how money is made, to sell things that people will buy. That puts a hell of alot of power in the hands of the consumer. It's just a matter of using that power wisely - this time.

T^T

Hi Termy,

You raise great points. This thread is not just about animals, it's about any kind of ethical shopping and how we can do better in all areas. You're right, there will always be unethical organizations and manufacturing, but we the consumer can change trends. We already have in many areas, and there is still a LOT we can do. It starts with a small step, and each small step is an improvement. Look how much negative attention Walmart received, after all, and justly so. Many folks were not aware at all of their questionable business practices, but the more information that got out, the better informed consumers became and could make shopping choices based on their new knowledge.

Here's an, albeit old, article on Walmart's practices. I'm not sure if they've improved since then. I certainly hope so.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 8:27:04 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Well, I will point out that added security measures have increased the costs of research and drug development- and that animal care facilities outside the lab have also raised costs. Furthermore, I've known a number of researchers that grumbled that the animal care facility didn't do as good a job caring for their animals as they did. This isn't to mention the strain on researchers and their families when dealing with bombs and death threats from animal rights activists.

Overall, I'm not sure that animal rights activists have had the successes they've claimed in terms of animal use in research. There are two reasons for my skepticism. 1) Animal trials are expensive. 2) Scientists don't enjoy hurting animals. In short, there were already forces in place to minimize the use of animals in research- I'm not sure that animal rights groups have had any impact on animal use except to make it even more expensive. This does have the effect of cutting back on the number of animals used in research- by cutting back on the amount of money available for researchers- and the amount of knowledge generated.

I suspect that when large numbers of people are involved, i.e. with regards to research involving animals, you will always be able to find some bad apples. I get very aggravated when organizations such as PETA come up with such blatant misinformation about the benefits of using animals in research as well as their tactics (if not directly, then organizations which they support) which are violent and hurt people in the research community. Scientists are not cute and furry, nor do they look as good as actors when naked (on average), but the idea that the welfare of lab rats/mice etc. is more important than the work that scientists do is really a bit hard to swallow. And science has turned into a really crappy profession with significant unemployment after a decade of training. From a scientists perspective, the hypocrisy of individuals that want to both free lab animals and develop cures for cancer and other diseases is breathtaking. It's like criticizing the profession of butcher while ordering steak.

Sam

(in reply to NuevaVida)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 8:44:22 AM

kalikshama

Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

It's like criticizing the profession of butcher while ordering steak.

I'm fine with butchers. What I'm not fine with is CAFOs, chickens being debeaked and pigs being detailed. I've linked to CAFOs earlier in the thread and the pig torture previously.

I just put a chicken in the oven - Springer Mountain Farms says "low stress and "no debeaking." It was on sale for $.99/# and I bought 11 #.

http://springermountainfarms.com/Merchant5/merchant.mvc?Screen=cp_all_natural

It’s generally accepted as fact that stress on people can lead to a variety of health issues; many of those same issues similarly affect chickens as well. That is why Springer Mountain Farms chickens are raised in a “low stress” environment following the American Humane Associations “Free Farmed” guidelines that require up to 5 times more space than chickens raised in traditional commercial operations. “Low Stress” also means Springer Mountain Farms chickens ALWAYS have access to all the pure fresh mountain water they want, great high quality all natural grains, plus vitamins and minerals to help ward off disease NATURALLY. They spend their entire lives in controlled environment surroundings – warmed in winter and cooled in hot summer months. The end results are (1) a happier chicken and (2) a better tasting chicken for your family.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 8:57:49 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

I haven't bought a Perdue chicken in years. I do tend to get aggravated about the use of antibiotics in feed since we lose the use of antibiotics that way and I'm not convinced that eating a bunch of hormones etc is the healthiest thing for humans. I also agree about buying free range chicken and beef when I can find it- and I'll pay the extra bux. I often buy organic food- meat, dairy and vegetables.

I do tend to vote with my wallet- and I'll happily pay a premium for goods made in the US versus Asia. European goods are on par with US. How healthy a premium? Well, the last time I went shopping for a pocket knife- the Chinese made knife was $30- and the US knife was $70, although it was also a bit bigger. I spent the extra money on the US made knife....

In terms of buying gasoline, I still tend to avoid Exxon/Mobil and now BP- both for their lousy environmental track record.

Sam

(in reply to kalikshama)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 8:59:05 AM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

I don't think anyone here is saying testing should NOT be done for medical research. But it's been shown, over the years, that alternative testing methods should be, and are being used, when available. Growing awareness has pushed that issue, which I think is a good thing.

I will also point out that even the best of us can become desensitized to our surroundings over time. Having worked in the medical field for a long time, I have seen first hand the detachment medical staff can become toward the suffering. It's a self-preservation thing. I'm not foolish enough to believe that scientists, particularly those who feel that non-humans are merely "subjects" and not seen as viable life, have much empathy for the objects of their experiments. Particularly when years of desensitization has occurred.

However, consumers can't actually vote with their pocketbooks when it comes to meds. If we're sick, we need our medicine. Understandable. This thread is more about the efforts people CAN make with their pocketbooks.

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Ethical Shopping - 8/24/2011 10:10:28 AM

LillyBoPeep

Posts: 6873
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NuevaVida

samboct: While I don't argue that some animal testing is still necessary, I believe it's because of all the negative attention that testing / vivisection has received, that conditions have improved in many areas, and that the use of animals has decreased in many cases. Had a blind eye been consistently turned, improvements would not have been made. So eyes must still be on them, and new testing methods evaluated.

Having read what I've read, seen the photos I've seen, and talked first hand with someone who frequented the "Beagle Room" at Roche, I am not convinced the animals are not stressed.

exactly.
i am totally unconvinced that animals aren't stressed. at my previous university, they had a lot of student workers who took care of some of the lab animals, and i talked to enough of them to know that there's the "we don't enjoy doing what we're doing" story the labs give you, and reality that regular people don't generally see.

the eye NEEDS to stay on labs that use animals because it's far too easy to let them use big words and convince us that they do no wrong, even if we know otherwise. as long as people keep an eye on them, progress will continue to be made.

_____________________________

Midwestern Girl

"Obey your Master." Metallica

(in reply to NuevaVida)

Profile

Post #: 52