M&M Mars tortures animals to death

[Skip Intro]

I know PETA issues and animal rights issues are a flashpoint here at DU, but after reading this - these tests aren't necessary or required by law - it seems like something that most people would want to know about and put a stop to...


-------------------------
Got a sweet tooth? Think twice before picking up a Mars candy bar! You should know that candymaker Mars, Inc.—creator of M&M's, Snickers, Twix, Dove, Three Musketeers, Starburst, Skittles, and other candies—funds deadly animal tests, even though there are more reliable human studies and not one of the tests is required by law.

Mars is currently funding a deadly experiment on rats to determine the effects of chocolate ingredients on their blood vessels. Experimenters force-feed the rats by shoving plastic tubes down their throats and then cut open the rats' legs to expose an artery, which is clamped shut to block blood flow. After the experiment, the animals are killed. Mars has also funded cruel experiments in which mice were fed a candy ingredient and forced to swim in a pool of a water mixed with white paint. The mice had to find a hidden platform to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on. In yet another experiment supported by Mars, rats were fed cocoa and anesthetized with carbon dioxide so that their blood could be collected by injecting a needle directly into their hearts, which can lead to internal bleeding and other deadly complications.


Mars' top competitor, Hershey's, has pledged not to fund or conduct experiments on animals. Other major food corporations—including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Ocean Spray, Welch's, and POM Wonderful—have also publicly ended animal tests after hearing from PETA.

http://www.marscandykills.com/experiments.asp

[hedgehog]

1. WTF! Like we need an excuse to eat chocolate! Talk about twisting science ! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. "Cruel" strikes me as misleading.

Animal testing is an independently reviewed process, precautions are taken to make sure they're as done humanely as possible.

This isn't something Mars does just for the sake of selling chocolate. These companies donate money to scientists. The scientists are interested in human health. Animal research is necessary for research in human health.

[Skip Intro]

3. They're testing chocolate. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. What's your point?

[EV_Ares]

8. So, they can test anyway they want because they are only testing

chocolate.

[Skip Intro]

18. ? - no, it's not ok.

[Lorien]

67. So causing terror, suffering and death is OK even if there's no fucking point

to it all? I thought Bush and his cronies were the only ones who thought like that (and remember; Bush started out by torturing frogs).

[EV_Ares]

75. What the hell are you talking about? That was my question to the

poster who said they were testing choclate like it was ok. If you would read my posts here, you might know where I stood on this.

[Skip Intro]

79. I am that poster - also the OP. I was replying to someone who was acting like this was vital testing

LOL!

Confused yet?

[EV_Ares]

87. Oh, ok, I was taking it from that poster that just because it was candy

didn't make any difference how they tested. My apologies to you & yeah evidently I got confused here. I know where you are on this.

[Skip Intro]

95. No prob - it was kinda funny - like "who's on first"

rofl

[EV_Ares]

98. LOL, I know, when I looked back, I said oh fu_ _, saw what you were

talking about. Anyway, thanks for the post, have always had an interest in this type of thing. You know better than I probably but I have understood some of the cruelest testing happens in the womens makeup research labs. I just don't feel it is necessary for some of this testing to occur.

Thanks again,

Larry, Moe & Curly, we better take a break nowj from our confusion.

[jgraz]

96. More importantly, they're testing *shitty* chocolate

Now Scharffen Berger, they can cuisinart baby pandas as long as they keep turning out the 82% Dark.

[Book Lover]

106. Yes. Testing it for things like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=26059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=17259

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=13354

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=34682

[Critters2]

5. They're not testing the newest cardiac drug.

Animal research on chocolate is not necessary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Scientists disagree with you.

Chocolate contains numerous alkaloids and flavanoids which may be directly related to human health, and is the subject of much research.

[Critters2]

11. Scientists who make their living doing tests on animals

think tests on animals are a good idea.

Gee, I stand corrected. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Mmm, yes. Scientists who know what they're talking about.

As opposed to people who don't.

[Critters2]

15. Scientists who profit from animal tests

for the sake of chocolate :eyes:

A pretty objective bunch, I'm sure.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Oh, those high falutin' scientists...

drving around in their fancy sports cars with their supermodel girlfriends.

:eyes:

Tell you what, why don't you go cure something without using animal research.

[Critters2]

20. We're not talking about curing anything.

We're talking about candy bars.

Do you really think they'll come up with a better recipe for Snickers by cutting up animals?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Yes, we are.

"Do you really think they'll come up with a better recipe for Snickers by cutting up animals?"

It's got nothing to do with better recipes for candy bars.

That's very, very intellectually dishonest.

[JuniperLea]

182. What part of "health benefits" do you not understand?

Honestly...

[EV_Ares]

10. That is what I was wondering, n/t.

[EstimatedProphet]

142. How do you know?

Why are you in a position to decide what testing is necessary and what isn't?

[EV_Ares]

7. You have evidently been misled. Yeah, some companies do their

testing under strict guidelines and follow humanely principles. However, your comment indicating all animal testing is done humanely is false, false false and has been pr oven so many times.

You need to do a little research evidently. I don't know about Mars but your blanket statement is far from the truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Are you claiming Mars doesn't have an IACUC in place?

Do you know what an IACUC is?

[EV_Ares]

24. If you had read my post, you would know? So are you saying that

do or do not and what is your source and link & yes I know what the org is.

[JuniperLea]

72. so you are willing to believe a hate site...

with no corroborating reliable source cited?

evidently you need to learn a little something about research yourself.

[flvegan]

22. So this is philanthropy on the part of Mars?

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Yes.

:shrug:

[Critters2]

32. This is philanthropy?! :

"Mars has also funded cruel experiments in which mice were fed a candy ingredient and forced to swim in a pool of a water mixed with white paint. The mice had to find a hidden platform to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on."

And the point of this was, what? To see if candy helps mice find a hidden platform better after eating candy? To what possible purpose?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Yes.

"To see if candy helps mice find a hidden platform better after eating candy?"

This is called the Morris Water Maze Test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_water_maze

It's quite common in any sort of neurological research- alzheimers research, ALS research, etc.

[JuniperLea]

66. Not to mention...

There is no credible source cited here... only some hate site, which I tend to discount wholly until actual proof is shown.

[roguevalley]

82. this is torture. the only one not asked is the animal. those who don't

find this offensive or somehow peer review makes it acceptable should volunteer. I am not getting on anyone's wick but Marrs. THey had their last peso from me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. Actually, it's humane as possible.

Instead of the knee jerk reaction, you could take a little time to actually look closer at the story. But I guess that don't happen.

"those who don't find this offensive"

This is how science works. I wish we didn't have to do animal research. So do scientists. C'est la vie.

"or somehow peer review"

The process gets reviewed before the animals are even purchased, until the paper gets accepted in a journal.

[shireen]

6. sick!

:wtf:
This makes no sense. It's bad enough when pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies do it, but a goddamn candy manufacturer?!!!!

Geez! UNREAL!

Buying Hershey from now on....

[MonkeyFunk]

14. A candy company isn't doing it

this is about them funding scientists. They're not commissioning the research themselves, and they're certainly not conducting it themselves.

[Critters2]

16. And it's not about chocolate? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Here's how it works.

Some scientist is interested in a compound in, lets say hops, that might be effective against prostate cancer.

The scientist needs money to buy the instrument so he can do research, so he goes looking for grants.

Anheuser Busch offers grants for basic research in food chemistry of beer related things, so the scientist applies for the grant and gets a few thousand bucks, buys the instrument, and does his research.

In the course of looking for cures for prostate cancer, he has to sacrifice a few lab mice. Perfectly normal, as humane as possible, fully approved by an IACUC.

PETA, or some other nutty bunch of philistines, gets wind of it, exaggerates it, presenst the corporation as some sort of satan worshiping bunny raping terrorist organization, and their semi-literate readers fall for it.

[Critters2]

29. It's an effing candy company!!! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Yeah, it is.

Do you want to start offering grants for basic scientific research?

[Critters2]

34. Oh sure. I'm desperately concerned about whether mice

swim better after eating candy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. I'm desperately concerned about Alzheimers.

[Critters2]

41. In people, or in mice? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. People.

[Critters2]

48. Then, they're experimenting on the wrong species. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. No.

Cells first. Then rats/mice. Then healthy human volunteers.

[Critters2]

60. No need to experiment on non-human animals.

It's a profitable business, but unnecessary. The differences in the species are too great. The results don't translate. Only human tests are necessary for human results. This is pretty basic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Animal research isn't profitable at all.

You're running out of arguments.

"The differences in the species are too great. The results don't translate. Only human tests are necessary for human results. This is pretty basic."

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense, but it's simply not true. If it were, scientists wouldn't do it. Do you think scientists like to test on animals for shits and giggles?

[Critters2]

69. They're doing this for free? Of course not.

This is how they make a living. And it is profitable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Really?

How much money do you think Mars is making off of this research?

[Critters2]

78. Gee. It's a for-profit corporation. So, I'm guessing they're making a profit. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. How?

Does this make you want to go out and buy Mars bars?

How does giving a research scientist a few thousand bucks make Mars any money directly?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

121. LOL!!

:spray:

[Hippo_Tron]

97. IMO I think the idea is that if they do find some health benefits from cocoa

Mars will be able to advertise that and they will sell more chocolate. So yes, they are making long term profit off of the research, but only if the research has actual benefits.

[Godhumor]

163. From the Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium

Essentially, these guys compared the genetic data of lab mice to the genetic data from the Human Genome Project. Their findings:

-Mice and humans both have about 30,000 genes with 99% similarity (Mouse genome is shorter)

-90% of genese associated with disease are identical across both species

-The lab mouse is a very good genetic model to test on before moving to human subjects

[Skip Intro]

44. How the hell does injecting cocoa into an animal's veins help cure Alzheimers?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. It's a test for pharmaceutical activity of compounds within the cocoa.

Presumably the suppositories weren't effective.

[SidDithers]

155. Good post...

good summary. Especially the part about semi-literate readers.

:applause:

Sid

[MonkeyFunk]

37. I would guess no, not directly

but there are certainly many compounds in chocolate that are of scientific interest.

[flvegan]

17. Ooh...ooh...wait...

:popcorn:

Okay, have at it.

[Critters2]

21. You're late. It's already begun.

Starting at post # 5.

[flvegan]

23. I know but they're not all here yet.

Give it time.

:popcorn:

[Critters2]

26. Damn!! I gotta run some errands before the ice starts.

Have a good time :hi:

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. Gotta love wild claims with no footnotes or other backing up evidence.

I hear that Mars is also forcing toasters - that are plugged in and hot!!! - down the throats of endangered Bengal tigers just because the scientists at that lab like how it flavors their toast!! Then they kill the tigers and feed them to children at the local Vegetarian Montessori school!!!!

[flvegan]

36. Vegetarian Montessori schoolchildren can't eat tiger, silly.

[A HERETIC I AM]

126. They can if it is in a curry and served over rice.

Sheesh.

[Rabrrrrrr]

137. I know! That's what's so despicable about those scientists - they don't tell the kids

that they're eating bengal tiger. They tell them it's oatmeal or something.

[Richardo]

152. Not even if it runs around a tree until it turns to butter?

My source: http://www.ishipress.com/sambo.htm

[Mend]

33. just because something helps or hurts a rat doesn't necessarily translate

into useful information for humans. Don't let them convince you that anything real is going on unless it is tested in humans. The rest is outrageous animal torture from which animals don't even benefit. Rats and dogs and cats don't get clogged coronary arteries and don't have heart attacks. They are not the same medical model as humans.

[Critters2]

35. Exactly. Sooner or later, any useful experiments need to be done on

humans. There is no point to the aforementioned.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. And before they're done on humans, they need to be done on lab animals.

A direct point to the aforementioned.

[Mike03]

46. WRONG, as usual. NT

[Mend]

47. Why?

[Critters2]

51. No, they don't. Huge differences between rodents and humans.

Invariably, the experiments need to be done on humans. The results don't directly correlate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Again, science disagrees with you.

This reminds me of arguing with people who want to ban stem cell research.

[Critters2]

62. "Science" makes a living doing animal experiments. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. No, it doesn't.

Science makes a living getting results, curing diseases, and so forth.

And you can't do that without animal research.

[Critters2]

74. Again, they're not curing alzheimer's in mice. nt

[KaptBunnyPants]

132. Those global warming scientists just say that stuff for all that grant money.

Do people really believe that scientists drive around in corvettes from that fat science paycheck? People don't become scientists for money, and scientists don't test on animals for fun. Any food/drug has to be tested on animals rigorously before being tested on people, before finally being allowed to be sold. Either they are testing this stuff for product safety reasons, or because they believe they might have something with medical uses. Both reasons justify the use of rats in animal testing

[EstimatedProphet]

144. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[dropkickpa]

162. Bullshit

Scientifically, there's a HELL of a lot of point in doing animal work, and it's just plain ignorant to think otherwise. Are you not aware that many mice used in research HAVE human genes for specific diseases in their make-up, making them a very GOOD stand-in for humans? Safety, mechanism of action, and efficacy are first tested in animals to either give the go ahead for testing in humans and to give a big ol' stopsign saying "this will hurt people, do not proceed!!".

Human testing without prior animal trials smells way too much like what happened in Tuskegee (40 years of it), 1940's Germany, 30's and 40's british mustard gas experiments, unit 731 during WW2, etc etc etc.

The results of the Nuremberg trial of Nazi doctors led to the Nuremberg code (which has since been refined),

• Informed consent is essential.
  
• Research should be based on prior animal work.
  
• The risks should be justified by the anticipated benefits.
  
• Research must be conducted by qualified scientists.
  
• Physical and mental suffering must be avoided.
  
• Research in which death or disabling injury is expected should not be conducted.

Your insistence that there is no use for animal trials shows an extrmely poor understanding of biomedical research.

[Lorien]

86. I suspect that these tests are being done so that the company can continue

receiving government grant $$ for them, like so much animal testing. We've already discovered that most major corporations don't give a flying fuck about who they harm; human, animal, makes no difference to them. The bottom line is the ONLY thing that counts to these subhuman creatures.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Mm, no, Mars is the one awarding the grant.

Check your tinfoil.

[EstimatedProphet]

143. So you want to START the testing on humans?!?

And you're calling the scientists cruel? Maybe you should go find an orphanage and run the tests there!

[Mike03]

38. Thanks, good post..

I have to apologize for some or one of the other DUers. I'm really ashamed of the people here sometimes. It's really tragic when mental defectives are allowed to run roughshod around this place, contaminating intelligent threads with their ignorant drivel.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Agreed

[Mike03]

53. What's that line from FULL METAL JACKET?

"Didn't your mommy and daddy give you enough love as a child?"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Indeed they did.

They also gave me an education.

[flvegan]

57. That you don't seem to be using here.

[Mike03]

63. LOL

:yourock:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Then by all means...

prove me wrong.

[flvegan]

83. You already called this philanthropy.

Now it would be duplicitous to do that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Can you show that it isn't?

[flvegan]

94. Can you show that it is?

We could probably do this all night. I asked if it was, you verified. Fucking prove it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Sure.

They're giving away money for a good cause for which they will most likely never profit.

:shrug:

[flvegan]

115. That, my friend, is speculation.

That made me chuckle, thanks. :thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. Which part?

You showed downthread with your link that they've given money. Check.

It's for basic research, which is a noble cause. Check.

They're not going to make any money because a UCSF prof publishes a paper. OK, that's a bit speculative, but I don't think it's that speculative.

[flvegan]

118. Not gonna work for you, chilly.

Enjoy anyway.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. So you've got nothing?

That's what I thought.

[flvegan]

122. Nah, just not wasting my time

further discussing this with a poster famed across the internets for taking the shitbag side of any story and running it into the ground based on nothing but looking to piss folks off and be antisocial.

Now THAT, that's philanthropy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Huh.

You've got time for posting messages that don't have counterarguments, but not messages that do?

"based on nothing but looking to piss folks off and be antisocial."

Don't you think that's a little ironic?

[flvegan]

124. No, I don't.

Have a good evening.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Touche.

:shrug:

[riverdeep]

146. It's already been mentioned why this may not be pure philanthropy.

A very possible reason for them funding research into cocoa and the like is that if found to have health benefits, it can be touted on the advertising. Remember the heart health benefits of oatmeal campaign? That went on long after the health benefits were retracted.

Nothing wrong with that, but is it pure philanthropy?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

189. Well, yes.

Maybe the libraries that Andrew Carnegie built helped educate a scientist who went back and worked for U.S., making Carnegie more money.

But building the library in the first place was still philanthropic. It's not like this research money is anything like a sound investment.

[riverdeep]

196. It looks like an argument about degrees of seperation.

A vague someone helping the U.S. maybe, someday, and then eventually helping Carnegie (not his competitors?) seems far more removed than testing compounds in a product the company directly manufactures for health benefits. I'm assuming for health benefits only. If the compounds are found to have deleterious effects (unlikely), I don't know if Mars will be forthcoming.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Well, we could play the credentials game.

But I'd just duke it out in the open. If you've got any legitimate complaints about my scientific beliefs, please state them.

"You have no clue what:

Intelligent Design is."

Intelligent Design is Creationism. A predominately American Evangelical movement determined to remove science from public school classrooms for some rather nefarious political/religious motives. Creationist was ruled a violation of the 1st amendment back in the eighties, so they repackaged it as "Intelligent Design," quite literally. They got sloppy and called it "cintelligent designreationism" back when they just re-edited everything with their word processor.

"What Evolution theory is based on."

Fossil record. DNA evidence. Basically, every piece of biological evidence collected over the lastt hundred fifty years. If memory serves me correctly, you were the one taking the Creationist stance last week.

"What the Big Bang is."

In short, it's the beginning of the universe. That is, 15 billion or so years ago there was nothing, which exploded, and it rapidly expanded and cooled and eventually evolved into the current universe. As evidenced by the currently expanding universe, CMB, and so on. I could go on, but I think this demonstrates I know what it is.

"What the Anthropic Principle is."

The Anthropic Principle is the philosophical idea that since the laws of physics are such that human life could only exist if those laws were that way, then those laws were designed that way in order for human life to exist. Really, it's putting the cart before the horse. It's Creationism warmed over. Not that I want to continue with the Pratchett references, but it's like saying the whole universe was designed just for the sake of the existence of the jerk who came up with the Anthropic Principle. It reminds me of Pascal's wager, for some reason. Very egotistical. I believe it was you who said the AP was going to destroy physics, whatever that means.

"Why any of the above matter."

ID doesn't matter for shit. Except in politics. Scientifically, philosophically, theologically... it's irrevelant.

Evolution and the big bang are obviously relevant to biology and physics respectively.

And the AP is just philosophical mumbo jumbo, but that's my opinion.

"Why it's not necessary to do studies on animals anymore."

It's not? So what's the alternative?

Quid pro quo, Mike.

[Mike03]

105. You should stop talking while you can still salvage your credibility.

It's really amazing to me how brave you are about demonstrating your total ignorance.

I tried to tell you that AP was bullshit, but you argued against me. I don't think you even know what you think about any scientific principle; you just want to argue and spew.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. Actually, no, I was arguing that AP wasn't going to destroy physics.-

Whatever that meant.

"you just want to argue and spew."

I want to argue, you want to spew.

Which is why I've come up with arguments, and you haven't any.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Then by all means, Mike...

Demonstrate why I am a damned fool. Back that observation up with data.

Show me where I'm wrong, or ignorant, or naive.

Because so far in this thread it seems like I've demonstrated considerable more knowledge in this subject than you have.

Have at it.

[Skip Intro]

59. 'preciate it.

I honestly didn't think they'd be cheering on killing rabbits to test effin' chocolate. Maybe it's the "PETA" word - elicits some Pavlovian-type response?

[dropkickpa]

165. The whole site is shit

Because they OBVIOUSLY don't have an agenda, right?

The actual research isn't "Heh heh, let's give bunnies chocolate heh heh!!".

The research is "There's organic compounds in chocolate that we have no clue as to what they do/can do. Research others have done on this and/or similar compounds shows it may be a valuable tool in the fight against cancer/heart disease etc etc. Let's see what it actually does!"

The wording of everything on the site and in the OP is designed to elicit an inflammatory response. That type of progandiist bullshit is what elicits a response in me.

[JuniperLea]

77. that's pretty harsh, considering there's no credible source here...

just a hate site that could have been started by anyone, including a disgruntled employee.

where's the corroborating credible evidence? or are we just going to beat up on a company without it?

[flvegan]

88. It's a PETA site, which

depending on what side of the fence you fall on, might be 'nuff said.

I linked to a Reuters article that verifies Mars funding to another of your posts, but here it is again.

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CUSN/ndomesticNews_uUSN0731748320071208?src=RSS-USN

[Mike03]

89. You may be correct on that matter.

My issue is with anyone who would argue that it's necessary in this day and age to test molecules on animal subjects in order to determine what damage they can do.

No offense intended to anyone questioning the source.

My problem is with people who don't understand how computerized models have replace the need to torture animals.

Peace.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. "computerized models have replace the need to torture animals."

:rofl:

Mike, Mike, Mike...

That's a myth.

There's no way you can use "computer" models to test for pharmaceutical/toxicological activity in whole organisms.

A few years ago, some people developed computer programs that would let you dissect a frog virutally, to replace doing it in biology class. Some people figured that if you can do that, you can do the same with real animal research; but you can't.

[JuniperLea]

129. However, in this particular case...

What we really have is an organization who has written the most strict guidelines on the treatment of lab animals, who are testing a common product used by millions of people worldwide every single day, in an effort to prove, and here's the clincher... HEALTH BENEFITS. There's not a chance in hell these animals are being mistreated in any way when their supreme health is what is being hoped for.

Any rat who is fed chocolate and is living in optimum health conditions is far better off in the lab than in the sewer, imho.

[Occam Bandage]

49. "Cruel" is misleading, as is "tortured to death."

[Lorien]

76. The animals are hardly being killed with kindness. All mammals can know

pain, terror, and suffering. The tests are unnecessary and downright Medieval. I'm guessing that Mars is receiving government subsidies for them, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. The source mentions carbon dioxide.

That's the standard humane method for euthanizing lab animals.

[Occam Bandage]

92. They're euthanized after testing, not

"tortured to death."

[Mike03]

100. Thank you.

I'm with you.

I'm sick to death of this human egocentricity that we are superior or that other animals don't feel pain or are any less intelligent.

It's just ignorance that leads people to believe this.

Think of the plight of the Mountain Gorillas in the Congo. Their DNA is 95% the same as ours. They have families, they have feelings, they have intelligence.

It's so shocking that any human being with a brain or any experience with animals could ever doubt that they are nearly our equal in every respect, and maybe some of them are far more intelligent, judging from some of the posts here.

[JuniperLea]

131. I'm with you on the gorillas...

But we are talking rats here... rats who would normally be living in the most horrid conditions imaginable... sewers and the like. These rats are being tested in the hope that they are far healthier than normal because of their eating chocolate. There's no way these animals are being tortured or treated badly in any way! They are living in the lap of luxury in the hope they live a very, very long and happy life which can then be attributed to eating chocolate!!

Where is the logic people??? Where the hell are the human brains and critical thinking on this one???

[Sanctified]

54. Why are they using rats, I will voluteer.

They won't have to use a tube since I will gladly eat all of their chocolate, the cutting my leg kind of sucks but I won't complain if they use something to numb the pain.

[Critters2]

64. In due time. First, they've got grant money to waste!

Err, I mean, spend.

[htuttle]

58. Hell's Bells!!! When I make candy, I only need to test the temperature of the chocolate!

What the fock are they putting in those things???!!!

[JuniperLea]

61. So, we're supposed to believe "marscandykills"?

Do you have any supporting links from credible sources??

[flvegan]

80. Reuters story link inside

UCSF verifies it.

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CUSN/ndomesticNews_uUSN0731748320071208?src=RSS-USN

[JuniperLea]

90. Not by a long shot...

PETA isn't a credible source. Not by a long shot.

[flvegan]

93. Hi, there. Didya read it?

"The University of California, San Francisco, confirmed in a statement that it was conducting a Mars-funded study of the potential health benefits of cocoa flavanols involving testing on rats."

I get from your tone that it won't matter, regardless.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. UCSF, eh?

:rofl:

http://www.iacuc.ucsf.edu/

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. Adios, Mike.

Thanks for the fun.

[JuniperLea]

128. How dare they make those rats live in the lap of luxury...

peeling them grapes, picking them roses and making their tea with the petals!

I always get a chuckle when DU goes into full blown disgust before they know what they are talking about.

A chocolate company wants to prove health benefits by eating chocolate... so the natural assumption around here is that the rats are being mistreated!!! Instead, we find them living far above their normal station in life! Where do I sign up??? Obviously the chocolate company wants the rats to be as healthy as possible, maybe even healthier than possible!!!

:rofl:

[riverdeep]

147. Isn't this a little dubious?

It's one thing to say testing on animals is brutal yet necessary, and another to say they have it well off. Great, even. The taunting does not come off well.

[JuniperLea]

167. You have no idea what you are talking about...

You need to think in terms of what the company is trying to prove here.

[riverdeep]

181. John Stossel, is that you?

If you aren't on the payroll as an apologist for some corporation, you should be. You've got a knack.

[JuniperLea]

185. Your insults don't give credence to your lack of knowledge

I still have my fingers.

[riverdeep]

188. Admittedly an aside, but what do your digits have to do with this? n/t

[JuniperLea]

194. It's a test to see if you have a clue on how to think outside the box...

Here is another clue...

[riverdeep]

199. Thanks for the reply. n/t

[JuniperLea]

127. That doesn't mean they are being cruel to the animals

Especially when it's regarding health benefits. In this type of testing, rats are living in the lap of luxury! Far better than in the sewer that's for sure.

You assume too much. That is a huge problem on DU, and the Internets in general.

[superduperfarleft]

150. My god that's naive.

Look, being pro- or anti-animal testing is one thing, but I thought we as a society had progressed past the point where even the most marginally informed people believe that animals kept for food, clothing, or testing are "living in the lap of luxury."

[JuniperLea]

166. You are the naive one...

How many animal testing labs have you seen? How much exposure have you had to scientific experiments or routine lab work? How many hate-sites have you fallen for?

Marginally informed my lilly white ass... you have no idea what you are talking about.

Go check out a sewer rat, or a dock rat some day. Then think with some logic about what this company is trying to prove.

[superduperfarleft]

172. Wow, thanks for not getting my point.

I don't care where you stand on animal testing, that's irrelevant to what I was saying. All I'm saying is that the assertion that these animals have to be treated like someone's pet to produce "reliable" results is also ridiculous (and the assertion that lab animals have luxurious lives is so ridiculous it's not even worth debating). Psychological experiments are a perfect example of an animal being abused to the point of insanity and still producing "reliable" results. Burn experiments are another.

And then there's your statements throughout this thread that these rats have it "better" than a rat living in a sewer. Better according to who, the rat or you? By that reasoning, a tapeworm living in a jar is better off than a tapeworm living in someone's digestive tract, because "people's insides are icky."

[JuniperLea]

180. Have you a clue on logic?

What is the research attempting to prove?

I am against animal testing, but having seen first hand how medical research is conducted when, now listen up here because this is the critical part, when the research is trying to prove HEALTH IS BENEFITED BY one thing or another, the subject's HEALTH is of paramount concern. No rat can be healthy if it is tense, if it is mistreated, if it is under stress... all of these things are counter indicative to the health that is want to prove. So, the rats are going to be treated extremely well FROM A RAT'S PERSPECTIVE! That is the only way this study can prove increased health benefits.

[superduperfarleft]

183. Someone who is arguing that an animal's natural environment

is somehow worse for the animal's quality of life than a research lab where their life ends under the knife should not be lecturing others on logic. Just because you think sewers are icky and gross doesn't mean the rat does.

I already explained my position further down in the thread, in a discussion with a poster that doesn't write like a 12-year-old AOLer. I think I'll stick to that one, considering how this one is turning out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

186. Actually...

Juniper's arguments are really quite clear, maybe if you didn't have a knee jerk reaction your comment about 12 yo AOLers wouldn't be so ironic.

[superduperfarleft]

190. I guess it's an aversion to all-caps types of speech.

Sure, she/he was clear about her/his opinion that animals in labs have luxurious lives. I was clear in my opinion that stating something like this is profoundly stupid.

Glad we got this settled. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

193. Well, sometimes people have to shout.

Especially when other people have their fingers stuck in their ears.

[JuniperLea]

207. You could have saved yourself the all-caps...

Had you an inkling as to what was being said the first 20 times.

You are confusing opinion and facts. The facts are, if a company wants to prove health benefits, it will require their test subjects to be exceedingly healthy... and happy, since you cannot have one without the other. And it makes no sense to kill animals you are hoping will have a long and healthy life!

[JuniperLea]

192. Knee jerk functionality is at the center of this thread...

Some people cannot for some strange reason think in terms other than pure hatred for animal testing. I'm sure they are quite willing to allow their children to be immunized without benefit of the same. Let's just try out all these life-saving drugs on our kids and ourselves.

This particular research doesn't come close to what many here think it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

195. Indeed, it's good propaganda.

It combines a conspiracy theorists fear of corporations, with a luddite's fear of science.

[JuniperLea]

187. Right... stick to someone who understands your flavor of pretzel logic

Your insults mean nothing, especially since I'm a professional writer.

Their lives DO NOT END UNDER A KNIFE!!! The research is trying to prove health benefits and longevity!!! What part of that can you not grasp?

The research is set to optimum health and comfort for these rats! Good God... get a clue. Their environment is extremely important to their mental and physical wellbeing! The rat's utmost desires are what the rat gets! In addition to chocolate bars, which they would eat anyway if given the chance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

170. I think she's being a bit sarcastic.

But then again, lab animals live under considerably less stress than their wild counterparts.

[JuniperLea]

171. When their supreme health is the desired outcome...

You damn betcha they are living well above the level they would be in the wild. This company is trying to prove health benefits; therefore, they want these rats to be as healthy and happy as possible.

[superduperfarleft]

173. I would hope so. Because for someone to seriously suggest

that these animals lead "luxurious" lives is so stupid I almost clawed my eyes out when I read it.

And I disagree with you regarding the stress. See my post above about pyschological experiments. The stress is oftentimes an integral part of the experiement.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

175. Indeed.

Stress is an integral part of some experiments. Which implies stress is removed the other 99% of the animals life. Now compare a lab rat to a wild one that has to spend its whole short, painful life avoiding predators and scavenging food.

[superduperfarleft]

176. But you do realize that your opinion on the quality of life is subjective

And based on your experience as a human being. As far as the rat is concerned, they just want out of the cage. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on the ethical implications of animal testing, it's really dishonest to claim that researchers are doing the rats a favor by confining them to a lab.

"Which implies stress is removed the other 99% of the animals life."

In some psychological experiments, natural stress is not removed, it is simply replaced with an artifical stressor that BECOMES the animal's life (as in isolation and deprivation experiments or the infamous Monster Mother experiments).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. No, and it's not really an opinion.

I'm not saying the animals feel happier.

It's objective. Lab animals live longer, healthier lives than their wild counterparts.

[superduperfarleft]

178. Sorry, I misinterpreted.

I think I was still inadvertently arguing with the poster above.

Objectively longer & healthier I guess I can agree with, with the caveat that I am in no way endorsing animal testing. I would not agree with the idea that the quality of these animal's lives (their happiness) are better than if they were in the wild.

As I am someone who as serious problems with the ethics of animal testing (that stem from looking at it from the animal's perspective), you can see why that would bother me.

[JuniperLea]

203. Oh bull...

A rat will crawl into a cage when it's optimum desired atmosphere is being provided! And that is what this experiment is providing!

I'll say it very sloooooooooowlllllllyyyyyy....



The researchers want the rats to live long, happy, healthy lives....

The researchers want the rats to be exceedingly happy, because a happy rat is more likely to be a healthy rat....

What is happy to a human is not necessarily happy for a rat; therefore, these extremely intelligent scientists are going to make damn well sure that the place these rats are raised is a very, very happy place... from a rat's perspective!!! That is the only perspective that matters in this research!!!!

Good God!!!

[superduperfarleft]

205. It must be so easy for you

to argue if all you do is pick one thing out of the larger point of a post and ignore the rest.

"And that is what this experiment is providing!"

Well, I'm not arguing whether what the OP says is true or not, but if we're basing this solely off the OP, then the concern stems from the fact that this is incorrect, and that these animals are being treated cruelly.


"What is happy to a human is not necessarily happy for a rat"

You're right. That's been my point all along. Which is why it's ridiculous for you to claim that these rat's lives are "luxurious" simply because they're not living in the sewer.

[JuniperLea]

206. No, I'm sticking to the subject and OP at hand

You are interjecting things that may very well be true for other research, but are clearly not related to this particular study in the slightest.

You must know what science is about, and how controls are set to give the optimum possible outcome for the company asking for the test. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this company is wanting anything but the optimum health and happiness for the test subjects since the health of the subject is the absolute question!

I'm the first one to cry foul when a study is released in an attempt to show one thing or another, and I'm the first to start picking away at the research methodology. I've done it right here on DU in a food pyramid discussion (funded by grain industry, who naturally put themselves in the largest consumption level on the pyramid) and many others.

Your arguments have no legs in this particular study.

[JuniperLea]

And the lack of stress is critical to the health of all animals

So when researchers are trying to prove the product in question increases health, you can be sure we're talking about very happy rats here. An unhappy rat would not live long and would not give the desired data.

[Mike03]

81. Kick and Rec by the way. NT

[Annces]

99. thanks for posting n/t

[Blue-Jay]

104. Chocolate is MURDER!

What is meat? MEAT IS MURDER!

What is chocolate? THAT'S ALSO MURDER!

Shoes? MURDER!

Ummmm. Canned beets? MURDER!

Mouse traps? HOMICIDE!

Eggs? CHICKEN ABORTIONS! (yuck.)

Lawn clippings? THAT'S OK!

[JuniperLea]

130. Breathing is suicide in many US cities...

On the subject of these particular lab rats, they eat chocolate every day and the main hope for the scientists is that these rats will be super healthy. I think that precludes any harsh or harmful treatment... that would actually be forcing these particular rats out of the lab and into the sewer where they belong! Damn rats are taking advantage and living way beyond their means in this lab!

[EstimatedProphet]

145. The thread is a bunch of woo-woo anti-science crap.

[SidDithers]

156. Yup...nt

Sid

[Marrah_G]

148. Why do you hate grass?

[RC]

114. This reads like another PETA fantasy.

[liberalla]

133. Turns my stomach...

Thanks for the info. It seems totally unnecessary and cruel.

It will be EASY to choose Hershey's over Mars whenever I need a chocolate fix. I don't eat much chocolate, but it's good to know!

[shireen]

134. good website for alternatives to animal testing

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)
http://caat.jhsph.edu/index.htm

[Maine-ah]

135. I have to say, I agree with hooligan....

which doesn't happen often.

I pose question to all who have replied to this thread regardless of their opinion of the matter..

How many here have taken prescription medications?

[piedmont]

136. He's one of the best at mental Jujitsu...

which is pretty enjoyable to watch when I agree with him, like in this thread.

[flvegan]

138. How specifically, and be precise here,

does prescription medications tie in with chocolate and potential profit?

Mars ain't curing cancer here. When one makes it all or nothing, one buys into the literal bullshit purported by your aforementioned little friend.

And yes, I have taken scripts. So, I guess...bring it.

[Maine-ah]

140. well, my though is,

if they are testing the properties of chocolate for medical reasons, and the research turns out positive for things like alzheimers, then it is possible that they may come up with some kind of medication for it.

I'm also guessing that with most meds that they test rats and mice before they start on human testing as well. So, even though most of us don't like medical testing on animals, we have all used products (most of us anyway) that have been and don't have a second thought about it. The poster below me also had it correct that if these guys were in your kitchen, they'd have their necks snapped in a trap. I play mouse relocation so it's not so true in my house, but in many homes if it's not a broken neck, it's poison.

Do you see my point?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

168. That's true. They're not working on cancer.

It's heart disease. But for some reason PETA doesn't mention that.

Oh, by the way, you still haven't shown where or how anything I've said is wrong.

[riverdeep]

149. Not exactly the best agrument.

That's like saying if you believe that global warming exists, why are you driving a car? Things are set up so there is very little alternative, and being 'pure' will mean living in a unabomber shack in Montana.

[Maine-ah]

157. no, not the "best" argument

but it is one.

I hate animal testing, but I use animal products. I hate global warming, but I drive an suv. I'm honest about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

174. Mmm, not really.

It's like saying burning gas should be banned while driving an SUV.

I want to fight global warming by reducing emissions, I don't want to ban the internal combustion engine.

[riverdeep]

184. Is there a viable alternative for most people to avoid burning gas today?

Or doing a hundred other things contributing to GW, while wishing for GW to be reduced? No? Then shut up, because you are hypocrite. THAT was the original point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

191. Walking, bicycle, horse-riding.

There certianly aren't any alternatives to animal research.

"Or doing a hundred other things contributing to GW, while wishing for GW to be reduced?"

Global warming isn't caused because somebody drove a car. It's caused by billions of people driving cars wastefully. So being against GW, and driving a car is not hypocritical. Being against animal research and taking prescription medicine is.

[riverdeep]

197. Notice I said 'viable alternative' and 'most' people.

For most people, those things you mentioned aren't going to work right now, because our system is set up that way. Riding a horse 45 miles to work from the suburbs to someone's job in the middle of a Northern winter? Also, do you believe that there will never be an alternative to animal testing in the future?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

198. Certainly not in the near future.

Except Mike's mysterious magical computer program.

Why, do you think there will be?

[riverdeep]

202. There's also little alternative to fossil fuels in the near future.

For the next twenty years, at least, fossil fuels are likely to be a large part of our lives. I don't recall the exact number, but all alternative fuels taken together account for under five percent. (I'll shut up about this now.)

As for the future of alternatives to animal testing, yes, I see that as a possibility, but not in the near future. For reasons somewhat similar to the fossil fuel use. We don't feel any need to do so. If or when it becomes a priority, alternatives could go forward. Like growing tissues separate from a nervous system. Or, when testing is done, more down to earth things like better pain monitoring and management. I don't know if it could be eliminated, but greatly reduced.

[originalpckelly]

139. Oh give me a fucking break. They're rats and mice!

If they were in someone's kitchen they'd either have their heads/neck/other parts slammed down in a trap or their insides rotted until they died! What is wrong with these freaks? What's next, cockroach rights?

[Midlodemocrat]

141. LOL.

:thumbsup:

Just what I was thinking.

[riverdeep]

151. You must not know of rats as pets.

"Despite popular belief, rats aren’t disease-ridden, dirty creatures that bite and scratch – in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Domesticated rats make clean, friendly, playful, quiet, inexpensive, low-maintenance and entertaining pets that are often described as miniature dogs. Rats are suitable for children and adults alike. Rats are friendlier than hamsters, gerbils and mice – these are sociable creatures that love company. Rats can also be taught tricks, such as to come when called and to hop through a hoop. Some dedicated rat owners have even succeeded in housetraining their pets."

http://www.petpeoplesplace.com/resources/articles/small_pets/004-01.htm

Pigs, by the way, can also make excellent pets, even though we often make them live lives of suffering and cruelty in factory farming. While dogs, as you must surely know, are food in other parts of the world. The ways in which the dogs are kept and slaughtered, is something I'd rather not get into here.

Yes, there is a difference between a dog, or a pig- and a rat. I just wanted to point out that outright dismissal of a rat's value is not justified.

[snooper2]

160. Thank You...

People get their panties in a twist over anything...

The alley cats that hang out around our house do actual torture to the mice they catch....After the rain the other day Scrappy the cat was waterboarding some poor chap.

[riverdeep]

153. The greatest irony of this thread is that Mars sucks!

They produce some of the shittiest chocolate around. Go get yourself some good dark chocolate from independent sellers. They're all around now, many even in supermarkets. Who cares if it does or doesn't cure a disease? It's still chocolate!

[DainBramaged]

154. iS THERE ACTUAL DOCUMENTED PROOF TO THESE CLAIMS

Or has PETA determined that rats and mice are more important than my physical well being and safety?

[xultar]

158. Those tests have absofuckinglootely NOTHING to do with the safety of chocolate.

If they want to test the safety of chocolate they can test my arteries. I'm sure I've eaten more in my 38 years than what they can force feed into a rat in 10 minutes.

And as for your fucking wellbeing and safety...are you so biologically close to a rat that those tests would mean anything.

I don't know about you but...I'm not a rat so why test on them?


Plus, hasn't chocolate been on the market for like centuries? Why do they still need to test to the point of killing.

[DainBramaged]

161. You didn't answer my question, and I don't give a rat's ass about rats

[truth2power]

159. Thanks for posting...

I haven't yet figured out why there's so much generalized animus toward PETA on this board.

[dropkickpa]

179. A general dislike of lies and propaganda?

Hypocrisy? Unethical fund-raising schemes such as was put in place during the whole Vick thing, soliciting funds with the implication that said funds would go to help those dogs, when Ingrid Newkirk supports the wholesale destruction of the pit-bull breed and none of the funds went towards those animals?

[Deep13]

164. So is this true or did you just an e-mail chain letter?

Food products need to be tested for safety. I would rather they experiment on rats than on their customers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. Half truth.

UCSF is working on certain compounds found in chocolate that could be important for treating heart disease. They're using standard, humane animal research techniques to do so.

PETA is simply taking the work, removing it from any context, exaggerating some stuff, making up other stuff (i.e. torturing animals to death), and so on.

Like the Yiddish proverb says, half a truth is a full lie.

[redqueen]

200. And this, in a nutshell, is why PETA is so well-liked.

And by well-liked I mean "Thought of as mostly a bunch of nutsos".

[HuffleClaw]

201. *snicker*

or should that be 'snickers'?

what a load of malarky

[Maine-ah]

204. /

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

208. Bump

[hannahdn]

209. This animal testing is wrong

I don't know if what goes on in the laboratory is true or not.
If you know please tell me.But if it is it's absolutely out of order. animals should not suffer
pain and torture for human benefits surely there are other ways to find out about the chocolate?
It does sound slightly exaggerated but many cruel things happen in laboratories and I've seen evidence so it might just be the whole truth. If you agree that this sort of animals testing is wrong please reply back
thankyou x.