- Joined
- Nov 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,446
- Reaction score
- 0
Can we get some actual talking points instead of “hurr durr torture the prisoners!”
California Just Became The First State To Ban Sales Of Animal-Tested Products
- Thread starter Lord Coke
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 72,000
- Reaction score
- 51,363
Nah, I don't think this includes the medical industry. That would just be insane.
Although, it is California, so...
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 19,769
- Reaction score
- 4
because it isnt sustainable.
This is a breakdown of land use as it stands currently. Look at the outsized percentage devoted just for cattle. Never mind the other environmental concerns (which are substantial), but just the land necessary to feed 300 million people. Now consider there are BILLIONS of people in the developing world emerging into the middle class. Their tastes will mirror ours and the planet is already at its limit.
Not to mention habitable land is shrinking and will continue to contract as sea levels rise and climate change wreaks havoc on ecosystems.
But sure, let's make sure Jamel gets a nice steak dinner because it's all about appeasing his appetite.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2016
- Messages
- 11,789
- Reaction score
- 13,312
I was reading some studies the other day and the researchers were describing, in science-y terms, how they had disposed of the mice and guinea pigs they were experimenting on via decapitation and collected their brain. They then cut the brain into slices, and took measurements of various brain structures and fluids to figure out how effective the drug was.
If you think bunnies getting stuff in their eyes or whatnot is the worst thing that can happen, you've got another thing coming. It's a meaningless gesture.
If you think bunnies getting stuff in their eyes or whatnot is the worst thing that can happen, you've got another thing coming. It's a meaningless gesture.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2017
- Messages
- 9,813
- Reaction score
- 4,603
Get violent eh? Watch out protestors, internet badass coming through!
Meat is murder and all these dairy and meat farms are cruel beyond belief.
Humaine meat is a big lie.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2003
- Messages
- 4,634
- Reaction score
- 2,304
Man and when yall cant replace nutrients in soil as fast as yall use them, then what?
Soylent Green and Protein Powders?
The next big trend is going to be- being powdertarians..
Just watch.
"I. dont. eat. mother. nature. everything I need is provided by MuscleTech and Kellogg."
Soylent Green and Protein Powders?
The next big trend is going to be- being powdertarians..
Just watch.
"I. dont. eat. mother. nature. everything I need is provided by MuscleTech and Kellogg."
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
I have no issues with the current scope of the law however California has a tradition where law firms will lobby to have the scope expanded to ridiculous proportions so that they have a fertile crop of class action suits they can file against just about everyone. This law won’t remain confined to cosmetics. It will eventually be expanded to include everything from bottled water to television sets. Products that have never had anything to do with animal testing will eventually be forced to navigate an onerous and retarded regulatory burden for no legitimate reason and face crippling lawsuits should they fail to do so. This is the California way.
F
franklinstower
Guest
I don't know man, that sounds off to me. Have you got specific multiple examples of this that are not bullshit? Also I assume this present legislation IS just a step in a better direction and that the plan IS to go further. These things are done in stages.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
Sure, proposition 65 was passed in 1986 to protect consumers from drinking water contaminated by chemicals known to cause cancer. Sounds perfectly reasonable right? Since then the list of cancer causing chemicals and types of products has been ballooned to cover just about everything to the point that the required product labeling itself is essentially meaningless in terms of protecting the public as it is so ubiquitous that no one even pays attention. All that remains is the potential for law suits as that is one of the explicitly stated enforcement methods. Recent changes to the law now require us (a furniture manufacturer) to include prop 65 labeling which states that our product may expose consumers to cancer causing “wood dust”. Yes, you read that correctly. Don’t know when, where or how but someone sometime said wood dust can potentially cause cancer so it’s included as carcinogen for the purposes of this law. The absurdities of this aside, the real problem is that California also never bothered to establish a safe exposure level which means if some law firm can test a product and discover even trace amounts of wood dust, the manufacturer and retailer selling the product are at risk for massive class actions.
You can see similar absurdities in the topic of flame retardant chemicals. California initially required them in foam for furniture and mattresses and you could be sued for failing to include. Then they discovered the chemicals themselves were toxic so then they altered the law to require labels stating that the chemicals they themselves mandidated could kill you. And again, the preferred enforcement method is class action suits brought by private for-profit law firms. The California way.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 29,299
- Reaction score
- 11,879
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2015
- Messages
- 13,021
- Reaction score
- 5,498
Wow you dont. How edgy
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,443
- Reaction score
- 0
Not eating meat is the morally correct position.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2015
- Messages
- 13,021
- Reaction score
- 5,498
Like I give a fuck about other people's morals.
I buy my meat at the farm and know how it's been treated.
You don't like it? I don't fucking care
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,443
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't say that. Also, your incredible level of defensiveness clearly indicates that you know it's wrong.
Just accept your own personal weakness, and do the best you can. No need to be ultra-butthurt about it.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2017
- Messages
- 9,813
- Reaction score
- 4,603
That's why vegans are better people.
F
franklinstower
Guest
Everyone I know pays attention to ALL of this man. None if it is meaningless. Fucking cancer KILLS people....... I want all of that labeled on everything...... I dont know anyone who doesn't. Maybe you just dont care enough about your health and the health of your loved ones to want to be informed?
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
Well then enjoy this from the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-pro-con2-2009nov02-story.html
I'll even give you some quotes...
"Prop. 65 has made it harder for consumers to make reasonable choices
Lisa Halko is a defense lawyer with Greenberg Traurig in Sacramento and has written extensively on the problems she sees with Prop. 65.
"I don't believe Proposition 65 has been good for California. It exaggerates a particular class of long-term theoretical risks related to cancer and reproductive health and makes it harder for people to make reasonable choices.
"For instance, there are very real and immediate risks from malnutrition, food spoilage and obesity from foods, but Prop. 65 creates alarm about trace amounts of chemicals that have no actual risk or have a risk that is obviously outweighed by the benefit of the food. Vegetables may contain a certain amount of lead if they grow in the ground, and fish contain mercury because they live in the sea. If we make trace chemicals the salient fact, then we discourage the consumption of healthy foods. Having so many warnings also undermines real warnings about real risks such as unpasteurized milk.
"How do we keep people informed? There are better ways to get that information to people than putting a warning on just one theoretical risk. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has more complete, better targeted information on possible risks from fat and forms of cooking and possible contaminants, but also on benefits from a varied diet high in fresh fruits, vegetables, lean proteins and fish.
"I think it is wrong for the state to undermine national policies crafted by people who are experts in the field. The FDA has done years of research on food labeling and on what words are effective and how people process this information, and it has led to paradoxical results. For instance, if you qualify a statement with words like 'may' and 'suggest,' people are more likely to believe it is true. The FDA uses this and other information to maximize public health by providing information to people in a meaningful way.
"It should be a health and communication issue, not a legal issue. Why would we think that a bunch of lawyers, however well-meaning, know best how to communicate risks and benefits?
"Early on, there were some reformulations of products because of Prop. 65, but the problem is that the law allows anybody to bring a case by finding a listed chemical in a product even if it is present in an amount 1,000 times below the 'no observable effect' level. The defendant can prove the level is meaninglessly low -- but that is extremely expensive to do in court. Defendants end up settling with the plaintiff even when they are not liable, to avoid the expense of litigation.
"Changing a product does not necessarily make you free from litigation, so the settlement amounts are increasing. In 2007, the average settlement was $76,000 and in 2008, the average was $123,000. The incentive for companies to use labeling to avoid that is becoming stronger and stronger. If you walk into a store, hotel or parking garage today and look around, you will find more and more warnings. That undermines public health instead of promoting it."
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,025
- Reaction score
- 4,196
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 19,769
- Reaction score
- 4
I'm not a vegan but I will always defend their choice because it is the only ethical option. I've cut down meat from eating it 3x a day to 3x a week, but I am not ready to make the full leap. I'm working up the courage to get there and perhaps one day you will too. What is truly ridiculous is meateaters attributing some sort of manliness to their dietary habits like they're the ones bludgeoning live bulls to death.
