Crosswords6 mins ago
animal testing
8 Answers
is it really necessary, especially as there are alternatives. i agree there possibly isnt a choice when it comes to saving lives. but cosmetics????
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you or a member of your family (or even your pet) were ill would you refuse treatment if it had been tested on animals?
As for testing cosmetics:
Cosmetics and animal tests
The Cosmetics Directive foresees a regulatory framework with the aim of phasing out animal testing. It establishes a prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals (testing ban), and a prohibition to market in the European Community, finished cosmetic products and ingredients included in cosmetic products which were tested on animals (marketing ban). The testing ban on finished cosmetic products applies since 11 September 2004, whereas the testing ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted, but with a maximum cut-off date of 6 years after entry into force of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests. The marketing ban will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted in EU legislation with due regard to the OECD validation process. This marketing ban will be introduced at the latest 6 years after entry into force of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, for all human health effects with the exception of repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics. For these specific health effects, a deadline of 10 years after entry into force of the Directive is foreseen, i.e., 11 March 2013, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests.
As for testing cosmetics:
Cosmetics and animal tests
The Cosmetics Directive foresees a regulatory framework with the aim of phasing out animal testing. It establishes a prohibition to test finished cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients on animals (testing ban), and a prohibition to market in the European Community, finished cosmetic products and ingredients included in cosmetic products which were tested on animals (marketing ban). The testing ban on finished cosmetic products applies since 11 September 2004, whereas the testing ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted, but with a maximum cut-off date of 6 years after entry into force of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests. The marketing ban will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted in EU legislation with due regard to the OECD validation process. This marketing ban will be introduced at the latest 6 years after entry into force of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, for all human health effects with the exception of repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics. For these specific health effects, a deadline of 10 years after entry into force of the Directive is foreseen, i.e., 11 March 2013, irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
If you or a member of your family (or even your pet) were ill would you refuse treatment if it had been tested on...
... somebody in Africa whose face you never had to see, whose name you never had to know, whose relatives you never had to answer to?
Probably not. That don't make it right. To me the philosophical smoke-and-mirrors lie in the use of the word "necessary". I have yet to hear someone justify our use of animals without ending up in "fist right". I don't know if that word exists in English but it means I do it because I can, I do it because I'm stronger than you.
Some decisions you make and then you stick by them. You don't say "We're in an awful hurry to get to the hospital but we'll really try to avoid running someone over - as long as it isn't necessary".
If superior aliens landed on earth and started using us in experiments, which experiments would you grant them the right to perform on us, as "necessary". What would give them the right. Their intelligence? Their physical strength? Or would it be a different matter because "we were here first"? Sorry but that doesn't count where fist right rules...
... somebody in Africa whose face you never had to see, whose name you never had to know, whose relatives you never had to answer to?
Probably not. That don't make it right. To me the philosophical smoke-and-mirrors lie in the use of the word "necessary". I have yet to hear someone justify our use of animals without ending up in "fist right". I don't know if that word exists in English but it means I do it because I can, I do it because I'm stronger than you.
Some decisions you make and then you stick by them. You don't say "We're in an awful hurry to get to the hospital but we'll really try to avoid running someone over - as long as it isn't necessary".
If superior aliens landed on earth and started using us in experiments, which experiments would you grant them the right to perform on us, as "necessary". What would give them the right. Their intelligence? Their physical strength? Or would it be a different matter because "we were here first"? Sorry but that doesn't count where fist right rules...
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank77 mins ago