Animal rights - are they serious? Animal research & sustainable meat

[henryscat]

I know this is exactly what happens (I thought I made that clear) cows would naturally get pregnant and give birth as they do when dairy farmed (which is why wild animals never go through menstruation). Yes they would normally raise their offspring, however isn't this more of a evolution-al thing to protect the next generation, and there are plenty of times when mothers will ignore and even kill their child because they don't want it so I don't think your very sarcastic argument here is really very objective. I know elephants mourn the loss of a family member and thus mother cows do feel some distress when they are separated from their child, however I don't think, in the grand scheme of their lives and the amount of information and level of emotions they are able to process this actually "bothers" them this much. There are automated dairy farms now - whenever a cow wants to be milked it goes into the parlour and is milked - if they didn't like it surely they wouldn't do it. yes they need to be relieved from the ace of a full udder but if it was really unpleasant surely they would choose not to go in.

Cows do not "naturally get pregnant" when dairy farmed. They are artificially inseminated.

Milk production per cow has been doubled since the 1940s and this vast increase is at the expense of welfare.

Cows show a great deal of distress when their calves are removed, so you're just demonstrating your ignorance yet again.

by safely and correctly I meant in line with rules and regulations on rearing animals.

Rules and regulations don't optimise welfare and neither are they adhered to.

pretty much everything we consume/absorb has been linked to increased likelihood of cancer of some kind so I don't really see this as a very strong argument.

Then do your homework...

"The Food Standards Agency does not recommend vegan diets for young babies. That’s because it can be difficult to provide them with enough energy and nutrients. A vegan diet excludes milk, dairy products and eggs, as well as all the other foods already excluded from a vegetarian diet."

Their choice of words is "difficult", not "impossible".

I believe I have repeatedly answered this. medicine SAVES LIVES... lipstick DOES NOT SAVE LIVES. Apologies if this was not clear before.

I know exactly what you're saying. But as the end result is the same for the animal - it suffers - how do you justify inflicting suffering? If you were force fed some noxious substance, the effect on you is the same regardless of the motivation for administering it.

 

[henryscat]

Are you seriously saying that animal testing doesn't ever help develop medicines

Animal testing has both resulted in dangerous drugs being released onto the market and beneficial ones being held back (because they were harmful to animals, but it doesn't follow that what kills an animal will kill a human).

Its not just the medicines either, new medical techniques often get trialled on animals to see how they react before humans. I hope you or your family never need an organ transplant, or for that matter any major surgery, or even a headache for that matter, because its all based on animal testing. Anaesthetics?

Development of heart bypasses and organ transplants were held back precisely because they were trialled in animals.

We got where we are today because of animal testing, not in spite of.

Nope, this is just another fantastic leap of faith assumption which just does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical advances have come about through other means - even through simple clinical observation. A lot of discoveries were subsequently tested in animals which then gets conflated and animal testing credited with the discovery which is a complete fabrication of the truth.

 

[tek-monkey]

Animal testing has both resulted in dangerous drugs being released onto the market and beneficial ones being held back (because they were harmful to animals, but it doesn't follow that what kills an animal will kill a human).

Of course they have, nobody is saying animal testing always produces the same results as human testing. Its a good start though, if it kills the animals outright its probably not a good idea to feed it to your mum (even if she is already dying from something we've not managed to cure yet). Can you provide figures for drugs which work comparably on humans and animals to those that don't?

Development of heart bypasses and organ transplants were held back precisely because they were trialled in animals.

Any chance of a link for this, I was always under the impression they trialled it on pigs first before doing it with humans but will happily admit to not being sure?

Nope, this is just another fantastic leap of faith assumption which just does not stand up to scrutiny. Most medical advances have come about through other means - even through simple clinical observation. A lot of discoveries were subsequently tested in animals which then gets conflated and animal testing credited with the discovery which is a complete fabrication of the truth.

So are you honestly telling me animal testing has never helped make drugs for humans? Do you think the clinical labs just do it for fun, when their entire purpose is to make a profit? Do you have a better source for this than the crap one I posted? And again, would you refuse medical assistance for your child if the drug/procedure had been tested on animals?

I am not saying animal testing is infallible, it is obviously far from this, but if it wasn't beneficial why would they do it? I would rather test something on animals than test it on myself, if that makes evil then so be it. It is after all only your defintion of evil, not my own.

 

[shoes]

I think you should all calm down, light a foot long and rock out to this:

Converting Vegetarians

 

[MyCult]

I think you should all calm down, light a foot long and rock out to this:

Converting Vegetarians

Class

 

[Vault_girl]

Lol I've been enjoying this thread. It's been a great distraction!

My final points in response to henryscat's last post quoting me is yes cows are artificially inseminated but only when the farmer sees other female cows trying to mate with it (whilst shows when it is in season) and thus if it were a "wild cow" it would be being inseminated by a real male cow at this time rather than a big syringe. Also I have seen dairy cows giving birth and afterwards trotting off to their food supply leaving the baby behind to be taken away by the farmer - clearly not being severely distressed so no I'm not ignorant!

aaaaaaand I'm done! :-D

 

[tek-monkey]

I doubt cows would actually roam wild if we didn't farm them. Horses only exist in one place in the UK as actually wild, and they are able to run away from cars. Pigs too, very doubtfull. Sheep might, they seem a bit more adaptable, dunno about the others though. Is there any point in wasting land on them if we don't eat them? It'd be given over to crops instead, so whats best for the animals is to die back by 99% as a species I suspect.

Is it better to have a short life as a food animal, or no life at all?

 

[Gramaisc]

Would it be acceptable to ... milk you on a daily basis...

Wet nurses used to make quite a decent wage back in the 17th and 18th C. Still used in some parts of the world today i believe.

But i digress.

Well into the 19th and possibly early 20th in the UK..

 

[ToriRat]

I'm fairly sure that domesticated cows cannot exist without human intervention, to many years breeding the clever out of them. I suppose their closest "wild " relative would be something like bison/buffalo or possibly Yak, which although still around in the wild are mostly herded to some extent.

Wild pigs (boars) still roam free in alot of Europe, once a year they are generally allowed to be hunted.

I will be keeping my own opinions of animal rights to myself I don't like to share

 

[Trumpet]

My own diet is predominantly meat, with vegetables being very much by way of an accompaniment. Which to me seems to be natural.

It isn't though. Excessive meat consumption is a modern day western phenomenon. The nation was at its healthiest just after WW2, when rationing was still in place (and Jack Drummond who was the nutrionist behind rationing set the quantities so that people could eat a balanced diet).

Dunno about modern day western phenomenon, I reckon that our appetite for meat came about as a process of evolution, no-one gave prehistoric man a cook book and told him to start eating meat, he followed his instincts and stopped grubbing around eating fruit, nuts etc and found ways to kill and eat animals. In much the same way as the natural instinct to reproduce, no-one gave him a sex manual, he just did what came naturally.
Just my opinion of course as I wasn't there.

 

[tek-monkey]

Why bother farming if meat gave us worse food than crops? Why bother dairy farming if we can get better nutrition from plants? Why fish when we can eat potatoes?

I often eat vegetarian food, I just have it next to a slab of meat.

 

[shoes]

Why bother farming if meat gave us worse food than crops? Why bother dairy farming if we can get better nutrition from plants? Why fish when we can eat potatoes?

I often eat vegetarian food, I just have it next to a slab of meat.

 

[Trumpet]

I'm fairly sure that people peddling vegetarian food make a few bob too!

 

[shoes]

For sure, but, as a farmer, supermarket etc. why limit your market?

Anyone for a pork and apple bap? Sounds like a tasty compromise to me

 

[henryscat]

It isn't though. Excessive meat consumption is a modern day western phenomenon. The nation was at its healthiest just after WW2, when rationing was still in place (and Jack Drummond who was the nutrionist behind rationing set the quantities so that people could eat a balanced diet).

Dunno about modern day western phenomenon, I reckon that our appetite for meat came about as a process of evolution, no-one gave prehistoric man a cook book and told him to start eating meat, he followed his instincts and stopped grubbing around eating fruit, nuts etc and found ways to kill and eat animals. In much the same way as the natural instinct to reproduce, no-one gave him a sex manual, he just did what came naturally.
Just my opinion of course as I wasn't there.

Key word being "reckon"...

Meat consumption is increasing far more quickly than population. People are eating more meat now than they ever did. Obesity is getting ever more prevalent and the population more unhealthy (with meat/dairy consumption playing its part in that).

 

[henryscat]

Sticks head further into sand in a further bout of utter ignorance

 

[henryscat]

Of course they have, nobody is saying animal testing always produces the same results as human testing. Its a good start though, if it kills the animals outright its probably not a good idea to feed it to your mum

Penicillin will kill some animals, it does not kill humans: just one example. So, no it isn't a good start.

"How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised" - Fleming....

Can you provide figures for drugs which work comparably on humans and animals to those that don't?

From a report in 1991 by the FDA in the US - between 1976 and 1985 the FDA approved 209 new compounds for use in the USA, after extensive animal testing. Of the 209, 9 didn't get to market as deemed unprofitable. The FDA tracked 198 of the remaining 200: 102 of the 198 medications (52%) were withdrawn or relabelled "secondary to severe side effects.

So are you honestly telling me animal testing has never helped make drugs for humans? Do you think the clinical labs just do it for fun, when their entire purpose is to make a profit?

Precisely, to make a profit. That and legal arse covering (which amounts to protecting profits).

I am not saying animal testing is infallible, it is obviously far from this, but if it wasn't beneficial why would they do it? I would rather test something on animals than test it on myself, if that makes evil then so be it. It is after all only your defintion of evil, not my own.

Simple - money. Nothing to do with scientific advancement.

 

[tek-monkey]

Penicillin will kill some animals, it does not kill humans: just one example. So, no it isn't a good start.

Some, not others. All tests are required to take place on at least 2 animals, one of which can't be a rodent IIRC. Nobody has ever said animals are a perfect model for humans, far from it, but testing on some that carry similar traits is sensible in my eyes if only to help pinpoint where we do indeed differ. There is no reasoning behind deliberately testing on animals you know will react wrongly, if the resultant lawsuit for dodgy drugs wipes out your profits.

"How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised" - Fleming....

Fine, thats one example of where it didn't help. There are lots of examples of where it did though, to quote a source that is pro animal testing:

Smallpox (cow): The vaccinia vaccine against smallpox was derived from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner following his observation that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox - It has now been eradicated from earth. Polio has been eradicated from North America and people in countries all over the world are being successfully treated (mouse and monkey). Insulin is now able to help control diabetes (dog, fish). There are vaccines for tetanus (horse), rubella (monkey), anthrax (sheep), and rabies (dog, rabbit).

Animal testing has also led to advances in our knowledge that may help us develop additional cures, including an understanding of the Malaria lifecycle (pigeon), tuberculosis (cow, sheep), Typhus (guinea pig, rat, mouse), and the function of neurons (cat, dog). Vivisection was also crucial in the discovery of anti-blood-clotting drugs for the treatment of haemophilia (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgery and cardiac pacemakers (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig), laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey).

I'm quite happy with those advancements TBH.

From a report in 1991 by the FDA in the US - between 1976 and 1985 the FDA approved 209 new compounds for use in the USA, after extensive animal testing. Of the 209, 9 didn't get to market as deemed unprofitable. The FDA tracked 198 of the remaining 200: 102 of the 198 medications (52%) were withdrawn or relabelled "secondary to severe side effects.

So 48% didn't need to be withdrawn as they were fine, I'm cool with that. How many didn't get approved because the animal tests went badly, and how many of those are actually useful drugs? Without that data no comparison can be made.

Precisely, to make a profit. That and legal arse covering (which amounts to protecting profits).

But testing on animals costs money too, why bother at all? It'd be much cheaper to jump straight to the human trials and bypass all this animal testing, yet they still do it.

Simple - money. Nothing to do with scientific advancement.

If they don't make a scientific advancement, it doesn't sell, they don't make money. Their reasoning may be flawed but the results are still obtained. Plus, as you don't seem to want to answer the question, I'll assume you would allow your family to have life saving treatments that have been tested on animals? I certainly hope so anyway, principles are fine but I don't believe many are worth dying for.

 

[Gramaisc]

There's an interesting-sounding programme about the Future of Vaccines just starting on Radio 4..

 

[henryscat]

Some, not others. All tests are required to take place on at least 2 animals, one of which can't be a rodent IIRC. Nobody has ever said animals are a perfect model for humans, far from it, but testing on some that carry similar traits is sensible in my eyes if only to help pinpoint where we do indeed differ.

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand seemingly accepting animals are not a model for humans but then testing is sensible? No animal is an accurate model for a human. So you test on a series of animals - half give you apparently favourable results half don't, which do you go with....?



"How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a license and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised" - Fleming....

There are lots of examples of where it did though, to quote a source that is pro animal testing:

Pro-test. How very predictable.

, and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey).

I'm quite happy with those advancements TBH.

Alleged advancements.

AIDS is one of the biggest scandals there is as far as animal testing goes.

You won't find a primate in the wild that has been infected by HIV. Thousands of chimpanzees have been injected with HIV, none developed classic human AIDS. They only get a flu-like illness in response whereas humans will develop full blown AIDS. Animal models are useless for HIV / AIDS research. Even scientists who have been involved in said research have admitted that.

Advancements in AIDS treatment have come about through other means. For instance... AZT's efficacy against HIV was proven in test tube research - animal models did not contribute to this - and AZT bypassed animal trials and went straight to patients. Protease inhibitors were computer designed, then tested in vitro, and went straight to human trials (due to political pressure). Equally other inhibitors were developed without animal models. Combination therapy was developed without animals, and could not have been developed in them.

So 48% didn't need to be withdrawn as they were fine, I'm cool with that. How many didn't get approved because the animal tests went badly, and how many of those are actually useful drugs? Without that data no comparison can be made.

So 52% is an acceptable failure rate for drugs declared "safe"? Thousands of people die from adverse reactions that do not occur in animals, but you're "cool with that"?

Yes, a lot of drugs nearly didn't reach the market because animal tests results declared them dangerous, when in fact they weren't. People die because of that too.

But testing on animals costs money too, why bother at all? It'd be much cheaper to jump straight to the human trials and bypass all this animal testing, yet they still do it.

There is a huge amount of money and vested interest in animal testing and it isn't as simple as just drug companies.... Universities, animal testing equipment suppliers (huge huge business), animal breeders all have a financial motive for perpetuating animal testing. As far as the drug companies go, they pass on all their costs, as does any manufacturer...

Plus, as you don't seem to want to answer the question, I'll assume you would allow your family to have life saving treatments that have been tested on animals? I certainly hope so anyway, principles are fine but I don't believe many are worth dying for.

It isn't a black and white question.... Should I refuse a medical treatment that was developed without animals, but was then later tested on animals?