Obama Signs Groundbreaking Animal Testing Law

FinalFight

FinalFight

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,685
Reaction score
1,148
A step in the right direction imo.

President Barack Obama signed a new law last week that will set unprecedented protections for animals by restricting animal testing and requiring regulators to develop new technology-based alternatives. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act updates the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, forces non-animal tests to be used whenever possible, and establishes a precedent for the developing of animal-free testing, such as in vitro and in silico methods. “The Lautenberg Act is a meaningful step forward for public safety because it promotes superior, human-relevant chemical test methods over slow, costly and unreliable tests on animals,” Kristie Sullivan, MPH, vice president of toxicology for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said.

Read More: http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=8017&catId=1
 
The Lautenberg Act is a meaningful step forward for public safety because it promotes superior, human-relevant chemical test methods over slow, costly and unreliable tests on animals,” Kristie Sullivan, MPH, vice president of toxicology for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said.

Its always nice to see a non-scientist political activist telling scientists with Ph.D who are working at major labs with huge money on the line that their tests are "slow, costly, and unreliable", and that they should be forced to do things her way instead.
 
I support this as long as ways to test are just as good (I hope as they say they are better).

All animal test should be keep to as little as possible and if they must it should be overseen so it is not cruel. The animals need to be keep in suitable conditions and not be caged in small areas.

I would like to see all primate testing unless proven there is no alterative restricted (also dogs and cats).

Not going to get in to animal farming and processing too much but most farmers (not all ) do take care (but I would like to see some drugs that are for profit only eliminated) but processing needs much better oversight.
 
While China is genetically engineering monkeys with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Guess who is going to be ahead on the curve of treatment.

It sucks to test on animals, but I'd like to know what's this superior human relevant chemical testing.
 
We are perfectly okay with slaughtering animals by the millions so we can eat them and suffer the ill effects. But testing on animals, on a much smaller scale, to improve our lives as a species is wrong ?
 
Poser Caust said:
We are perfectly okay with slaughtering animals by the millions so we can eat them and suffer the ill effects. But testing on animals, on a much smaller scale, to improve our lives as a species is wrong ?
Click to expand...
They're both wrong, but improving upon one of them is still a step in the right direction, yes?
 
kpt018 said:
They're both wrong, but improving upon one of them is still a step in the right direction, yes?
Click to expand...
I'm not against any form of animal testing when it benefits or saves human life.
 
kpt018 said:
They're both wrong, but improving upon one of them is still a step in the right direction, yes?
Click to expand...

No. You are limiting science that harms no one, and has minimal impact on the environment (most lab tests are done on animals bred in labs. They aren't kidnapping apes from the wild), because of MUH FEELINGS. Animals testing is instrumental in drug and pharmaceutical design, and other fields like cosmetics. Think of all the human lives and suffering it prevents. Do you really want to find out in 50 years that your shampoo actually causes brain cancer, and that it wasn't found out sooner because it is illegal to put shampoo on mice?
 
Pixelated Porn said:
But wouldn't this be the place to pontificate about the irony of Obama giving more of a fuck about monkeys than unborn human babies?
Click to expand...

To be fair, Obama does support uniform treatment of both unborn monkeys and unborn human babies.
 
klnOmega said:
No. You are limiting science that harms no one, and has minimal impact on the environment (most lab tests are done on animals bred in labs. They aren't kidnapping apes from the wild), because of MUH FEELINGS. Animals testing is instrumental in drug and pharmaceutical design, and other fields like cosmetics. Think of all the human lives and suffering it prevents. Do you really want to find out in 50 years that your shampoo actually causes brain cancer, and that it wasn't found out sooner because it is illegal to put shampoo on mice?
Click to expand...
We can talk about whether testing on animals is morally right or wrong and weigh that against the benefits we receive, but there is no way of getting around the idea that mice do die during experimentation and very likely experience some levels of suffering, but that is what I meant when I said it's wrong. I may even agree with you here and lean towards doing the testing anyway. My only point is killing animals for food and experimentation are two different things and you can make progress on one and not the other.

And to be totally honest eating meat is something I struggle with morally as it makes me a bit of a hypocrite and feel badly about how cruelly animals are treated.
 
I really think if there was a superior method, scientists would be doing it already. Animal testing for medicine is fairly vital sadly, but testing makeup and stuff on animals should probably be banned.
 
About time i heard something good come out of him..animal testing is the most evil shit
 
RhinoRush said:
I really think if there was a superior method, scientists would be doing it already. Animal testing for medicine is fairly vital sadly, but testing makeup and stuff on animals should probably be banned.
Click to expand...
This is where I sit. If doctor's were testing brand new treatment methods on humans FIRST rather than having the clinical trials LAST like they are now people would be accusing them of taking advantage of the poor/destitute more than they already are accused of doing that.
 
"First passed in 1976, TSCA was intended to protect the public and our environment from new and existing chemicals in the marketplace. However, the government has restricted just five chemicals under TSCA, out of the tens of thousands in use—and even failed to ban asbestos"

top kek
 
There is tons of animal testing that is not needed, especially with regards to cosmetics. It should be for science only, and wrg to primates I agree with shadow, even more restrictions are needed.
 
reading some of the verbiage of the bill, it sounds far from ground breaking for animal testing. Any lab that already abides by general animal use ethics will already follow all the things that are said in the bill that i've read. the only thing is that it says research towards finding suitable alternatives will be funded. doesnt say how much.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/697/text/rs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,468
Messages
56,648,898
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top