REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tearjerker alert: Former lab beagles see the sun for the first time

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, December 2, 2011 05:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1711
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Your "awwww" story for the day:
Quote:

Dog videos never fail to conjure up some sort of emotion. And this one really brings the waterworks. The above footage shows male beagles that were rescued from a lab in Spain seeing sunlight and stepping on grass for the first time.

The rescue mission is the largest yet for the group that undertook the cause, Animal Rescue Media Education (ARME). A total of 72 dogs were rescued in the effort, 32 of them having already been adopted in Europe, according to NBC Los Angeles.

ARME’s Beagle Freedom Project spokesman Gary Smith told the station that the beagles, all between ages 4 and 7, had lived in cages their entire lives.

Unfortunately, beagles’ notoriously obedient dispositions makes them ideal for experimentation. According to the Beagle Freedom Project’s website, they are the breed of choice for lab testing of pharmaceutical, household, and cosmetic products due to their ability to adapt to life in a cage and the fact that they are relatively inexpensive to feed.

When the beagles are no longer needed for research, some labs contact organizations such as ARME, who then work to find good homes for the dogs.

This heartbreaking (that soundtrack!) video was filmed back in June, when the organization gave nine lab beagles a second chance at life. We dare you not to be moved by that first beagle’s initial tentative steps and soulful eyes.

ARME is a non-profit advocacy group and 501(c)(3) organization funded by tax-deductible contributions. Information on how to make a donation or adopt a beagle is available on the organization’s website. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/29/tearjerker-alert-former-lab-beagle
s-see-the-sun-for-the-first-time/
really heartening to know there are such efforts in the rest of the world. Okay, so those first frightened, tentative steps outside, and smile/cried at the photos of them in their new homes:


"Our second rescue from beagles who have lived their entire lives inside a research laboratory. These beagles have known nothing except the confines of metal cages. They have known no soft human touch, no warm bed, no companionship, no love. They have never been outside or sniffed a tree or grass. Finally, after years of being poked and prodded, these beagles are FREE! ARME got the call that a facility was willing to release them to us after they had been used in several tests. We picked them up on June 8th and now they are all in loving foster homes, and one has already been adopted. If you are interested in adopting any of these special beagles, please email us at: shannon@beaglefreedomproject.org. If you cannot adopt, but would like to help, ARME is a non-profit organization and we rely on your donations to continue this work. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation. You can donate here: http://www.beaglefreedomproject.org/donate.php
PLEASE DO NOT BUY PRODUCTS TESTED ON ANIMALS! You can see their faces now..... buy only products that have the cruelty-free symbol."

ETA: Lists of companies who and don't test on animals can be found on PETAs website (while I lothe PETA for many things and think they do more harm than good to the cause with many of their "actions", I'm going to be following those two lists from now on.

Companies who do test on animals: http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdotest.pdf
Companies who don't test on animals: http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdonttest.pdf

Some of those who do test currently have a "moratorium" on animal testing, and it urges people to write to them and encourage them to make it permanent. I have been using "All" for decades now because it's the only popular detergent from a company which doesn't test on animals. I'm going to expand that greatly now. Not just because of this story, although this story has admittedly motivated me consider the situation more seriously.

On another note, it's sad to see that the companies who do test are almost all well-known companies, whereas the list of those who don't will be harder-to-find products. Our mentality may be changing, but awfully slowly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


To make it easier for you, and just as a general rule, anything made by the following comes under the "do test on animals" category:

Proctor and Gamble
Unilever
Johnson & Johnson
Clorox
L'Oreal
Reckitt Benckiser
Pfizer
Dial
S.C. Johnson
Church & Dwight
Colgate-Palmolive
Mary Kay
Bausch + Lomb
Marck
GlaxoSmithKline
Walgreens

BIC is the only one with a current moratorium.

They make almost ALL the products on the (very long) list provided by PETA. And yes, I know; they are the biggest manufacturers of common products, so it's not easy. Nothing important generally is.

There are no huge manufacturers on the "don't test" list, and at least half of the companies make only vegan products. The only names I recognized were Este Lauder, Garden Botanika (which I've used for ages), Newman's Own (no surprise there!), Nature's Miracle (GREAT for cleaning cat piss, I should know!), Norelco and a few Estee Lauder products. In other words, it ain't gonna be easy!

Easier when it comes to pet food, some of the brands which I recognized: Honest Kitchen, Natural Balance, Newman's Own, Nutri-Vet, Pet Guard and Wysong.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Also add to that list - IAMS, which kinda shocked me when I heard about it, but I never bought their brand anyways cause it's crap regardless.
http://www.iamscruelty.com/

Honestly I fail to see any logical REASON for this, none, as what a pets nutritional needs are happen to already be well known, and creating a diet that fulfills them in no way requires this awfulness.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx Frem. I agree. Don't use Iams either (for the same reason), so it doesn't affect me, but yeah, lab testing of animals for animal FOOD seems ironic...and absurd!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:47 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


One of my broadcast professors told the class last night he personally killed 50,000 dogs and cats. Now he's on the board of directors on the "Humane Society". He said one of his TV adverts was a barrel of dead puppies he killed.... Ironically, his confession was due to his bringing his purebred puppy to school.

This is the kind of "people" in power today. Because killing you is good for you...and They LIKE IT.

Quote:

Merck brags Vioxx killed more people than Americans killed in the Vietnam War
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/11/25/vioxx-scandal-news/
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40946

"If we do a great job on vaccines, we can lower global population."
-Billionaire Bill Gates, T.E.D. Con
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42117&m=762472

"In 2003 I had a patient who was a patient in my drug-free medical practice, who was a head of state. One day she said, 'You know, it's almost time for the Great Culling to begin. The Great Culling, when you thin the herd. It's almost time for the Useless Eaters to be culled. Those are the people who are consuming our unrenewable natural resources.' I said, 'Who's behind that?' She said, 'We, the aristocrats.'"
-Dr Rima Laibow MD, wife of General Albert Stubblebine (commander of Men Who Kill Goats in CIA's Project Stargate), Bilderberg Conspiracy Theory with Govenor Jesse Ventura
youtube.com/watch?v=4Az0csNr5B0
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=300
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
youtube.com/watch?v=dIuYNaDIFm0

Endgame
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Dr Laibow's husband General Stubblebine is featured in the current George Clooney movie, The Men Who Stare at Goats, previously a book and BBC TV show by Jon Ronson (played by gay Jedi Knight Obi Wan Kenobi), who helped Alex Jones infiltrate Bohemian Grove.
youtube.com/watch?v=GC2TzspJn5Ahttp:// www.jonronson.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=680
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

"'People are too trusting, people don't ask the right questions.' Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that and say, 'People don't ask the right questions,' it was almost with a sense of regret, as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting."
-Dr. Lawrence Dunegan MD, quoting Dr. Richard Day MD who was director of Planned Parenthood paid $1-billion by the U.S. Govt to successfully genocide 100-million U.S. citizens, New Order of the Barbarians
http://100777.com/nwo/barbarians

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. We're too many people; that's why we have global warming. Everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves to one or two children. Communist China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States, and Russia wants to be our friends, too. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid. A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
-Ted Turner, bi-polar founder of CNN News who was paid $3-billion salary tax-free in one day and owns 1,910,000 acres (more land in USA than any other US citizen), father of 5 kids, Bilderberg Secret Society
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=47451



"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
-Georgia Guidestones

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:01 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I love my dogs and cats, but I am very ignorant on the topic of animal testing.

My understanding was that products are tested on animals before they are used on humans in order to ensure the safety of the product before human lives are placed at risk.

Perhaps I have swallowed some kind of Kool Aid there. I do not enjoy seeing animals suffer, but I have always believed that such suffering was endured for some kind of purpose?

Also- What is involved in testing pet food? Don't they just feed it to the dogs and cats and see if they like it? I feel like I'm missing something.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:11 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


They have to test the dead human baby products on the animals first, to make sure it kills them as fast as possible before the mass culling begins.

That's what all the Disaster Moviews are about -- Predictive Programming to get you to lay down and die.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Also- What is involved in testing pet food? Don't they just feed it to the dogs and cats and see if they like it? I feel like I'm missing something.


Dude, you're better off not knowing the answer to that question, lets just say it often involves the painful, suffering death of the animal and leave it at that, okay ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 7:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Anthony, just FYI:

As to testing for pet foods, here are a few examples:

Hills Pet Nutrition (Hills scientific and Hills Prescription diets): Fed puppies a special diet as part of a 5-week trial. Their claws, testes and teeth were removed for zinc analysis . "It is believed the dogs then died or were put down"

IAMS company An experiment commissioned by IAMS involved inducing kidney failure in 28 female kittens. Each then had a kidney removed. The surgery killed two of the kittens, others suffered weight loss and severe vomiting, then were put down by lethal injection

IAMS (again) 15 beagles had their bowels cut out for analysis before being destroyed.

That gives you a small idea of the supposed "whys" of animal testing for pet foods. There's lots more, but as Frem said, you don't want to know the details.

On the subject of laboratory testing on animals:

It's impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use, but it’s estimated that 90% of lab animals are mice and rats.

The animals that scientists do have to report using in experiments include dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates. Since more than 1.4 million mammals other than rats and mice were used in research, and since mice and rats probably make up 90% of the animals in labs, we can guess that about 14 million rats and mice were used in research in 2002. More than 100 million animals are poisoned, burned, crippled, and abused in other ways in U.S. labs each year.

Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments..

No experiment is illegal, no matter how cruel, irrelevant to human health, redundant, or painful. Even when valid alternatives to animals are available, the law doesn't require that they be used. Ninety two percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they don't work or are dangerous.

As to cosmetics companies:

Every year, cosmetics companies kill millions of animals to test their products. These companies claim they test on animals to establish the safety of their products and ingredients for consumers. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results.

Add to that the fact that a lot of testing is done where none is necessary; the availability of animals for laboratory usage means that, for example, cosmetics companies can test and test and test, way beyond finding out what is "safe" for human use.

Regulatory agencies don’t require animal testing of cosmetics, and the effectiveness of non-animal product testing methods has been thoroughly demonstrated. In 2003, the European Union passed a ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing starting in 2009, and a complete sales ban effective in 2013. So why do some American companies still insist on conducting tests on animals?

The resistance of industry technicians and researchers trying to protect their jobs accounts for some of the reason. In addition, corporate legal departments typically use animal testing as a way to evade liability in the event of a lawsuit.

In general:

Not only is animal testing inhumane; it is inherently inaccurate. For example, numerous tests do not measure human health hazards, but only determine how toxic the product is to the type of animal it was tested on. Test results cannot be extrapolated from a mouse to a rat, let alone from a rat to a human. Each species reacts differently to various substances. Moreover, test results can be affected by the age and sex of the animals tested, their housing and nutritional conditions and how the compound is administered. Also, because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment

Non-animal testing methods that are more reliable and less expensive have been developed. These make use of cell and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Some companies avoid testing altogether by using non-toxic natural ingredients or those that have already been safety-approved by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”

No medicines or vaccines were created using animal testing, but their efficacy (i.e. the fact that they worked) and lack of toxicity (i.e. were not harmful) were established in animals before they were put into humans. Obviously, many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more. There are individuals who are against animal testing for cosmetics but still support animal testing for medicine and the development of new drugs for disease.

Many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice, as it seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred.

Animal testing generally costs an enormous amount of money, as the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of months, which means that additional costs are incurred. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation. There are companies who breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them.

In the U.S., Class A breeders are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals for research purposes, while Class B dealers are licensed to buy animals from "random sources" such as auctions, pound seizure, and newspaper ads. Some Class B dealers have been accused of kidnapping pets and illegally trapping strays, a practice known as bunching. It was in part out of public concern over the sale of pets to research facilities that the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was ushered in — the Senate Committee on Commerce reported in 1966 that stolen pets had been retrieved from Veterans Administration facilities, the Mayo Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Harvard and Yale Medical Schools. The USDA recovered at least a dozen stolen pets during a raid on a Class B dealer in Arkansas in 2003.

And no, all that didn't come from PETA or other animal-rights groups. It's a compilation of facts and figures from a number of sources, including Wikipedia and sites arguing pro-testing. There are obvious pros and cons regarding animal testing, some of each having validity. As far as I'm concerned, however, there is little or no excuse for using animals to test in the cosmetics industry, since other, more reliable methods are available and there is much misuse of lab animals in that particular industry. Beyond that (tho' I hate it), if animal testing is done humanely and for a good reason, and can produce reliable results which will help humans, I can't argue against it.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 12:07 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Yucky.

But for things that are important like medicines etc. I can understand testing on animals first, I think it should be done more humanely though. For cosmetics etc. it doesn't seem so important to test on animals.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:30 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Obviously, many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and many more.


Animals are also intentionally infected, induced, bred, or modified to have the condition new treatments are tested against, and there is no guarantee that the treatments will work, therefore all those animals are condemned to short, miserable, and painful lives the moment they come into the possession of the laboratory (sometimes at conception).

I may be a scientist, I may have great respect for science itself as an ideal, but I can't deny some science is indisputably evil.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm all for testing on mosquitoes, wasps, fire ants, and cockroaches.

But not puppies.



"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


It is mean and I wish there were more humane ways to do it Byte, but if I have to choose between me and mine (aka humanity) finding cures and treatments for stuff and animals all being left alone I'm going to choose the former.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2011 5:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Unimportant but just amusing; everyone's response in this thread is exactly what I would have predicted (except that PN's posts didn't have enough "Jew" in them).



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:31 - 564 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:06 - 952 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL