Bag's Rants

How people views will change.

Evan Harris, a former hospital doctor now a politician, has come up with a suggestion that medicines tested on animals should have a label on saying so. The view is that if people knew what was going on then they would come to accept animal testing. Other views are that it won't prove animal testing is required and could lead to putting people off taking medicine. Read more here.

I also have a view. A couple in fact. The first is that this is a ploy to remove the support of the fanatics by showing the benefits of animal testing. As usual it is pointless and doomed to failure.

The second view is that Animal Testing should be avoided where possible. Minimised as much as possible and used only where necessary. The dividing line is identifying risk to humans. Any risk or unsure then a full test is mandatory. This means that things like eyeliner can be modified and providing only certain components are changed, it can be computer tested and released. Final decision on tests to a responsible body. Of course with this comes risk and all products must be labeled 'Not tested on animals'. Most cosmetics probably don't need testing nowadays. I could be wrong though. The key caveat is that users using such material cannot sue the suppliers unless they have misled the testing team and screwed the results. Onus on the supplier to show compliance. Lack of evidence or botched results leading to a massive compensation claim. Only problem is that who will look after these people. A discussion for another time.

For myself I could live with some things not tested on animals and others where I would only want things that have been fully tested on animals. I would take a certain amount of risk compared to testing my cream for piles on poor animals eyes just in case it should get in my eyes. I'm not willing to take the same risk with my heart pills so want them fully tested.

At the same time the research that was ostracised is already gone. No longer do we see rabbits and dogs smoking all day as a test. To be honest I don't think there should be any testing like that any more. That particular test result is well known. Test for the new wonder drugs and modified drugs as necessary.

I also found it interesting that the firms that test on animals don't like it either but see it as a necessary evil. Bit like taxes and government bureaucracy. It's too expensive, takes too long and causes them too much grief. Mmmm, just like government bureaucracy. People do get upset about rabbits with tumours. Computers have been used more and more to cut testing down to a minimum but we still need tests. At this point we have no alternatives. It is testing on animals or on humans. Animal rights believe it should be on humans as we are the end users. It does make logical sense but we also eat animals too should we stop that. Most people would draw the line there because that does inconvenience them. Both uses are for our own benefit and we try to do our unwanted tasks behind the scenes so we can ignore what goes on to keep us in our cozy little lives.

But when you look at it closely, in reality animal rights is one of the areas where the terrorists have for all intents and purposes won. Nobody nowadays does any more testing than they need to by law. Data is published and shared and the minimum amount of animal distress is allowed. There are only the die hards now who are persecuting this and most people now have a view that animal testing is bad. A necessary evil. How PC we are now and we are still being pushed along further.

From this point of minimal animal testing, reached maybe ten years ago, the pendulum has started swinging the other way. Public support is swinging away from these fanatics. Nevertheless, we will never get back to the waste of life we had before and rightly so. Computer simulations are cheaper and quicker with less hassle. Technology and understanding have moved on. Now it is only the fanatics who continue to push to zero testing. Let the fanatic animal rights people boycott what they don't want. Let's also identify treatments that were pioneered on animals. Let them boycott them also then we can see where they draw the line as they miss out on the benefits gained from those deaths.

As far as the labels go; who cares. All those companies concerned already have labels saying 'Not tested on Animals' or 'Our test subjects were all politicians' to alleviate concerns. Give them the choice rather than forcing them to meet a political agenda. Let the government imprison these nutters rather than attempt to remove their already waning support. These people don't need encouragement they are driven by their own beliefs.

posted by Bag @ 2:35 pm