It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Killer Candy

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
First off, Mods..if this is not the correct forum, feel free to place it appropriately.

Most of us are probably aware that at one time, animal testing for beauty and cosmetic products was quite common, till the increase in outrage against it, forced many manufacturers to stop.
Please explain to me, why this is still going on, and for what reason..


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 recently funded a deadly experiment on rats to determine the effects of chocolate ingredients on their blood vessels. Experimenters force-fed the rats by shoving plastic tubes down their throats and then cut open the rats' legs to expose an artery, which was clamped shut to block blood flow. After the experiment, the animals were 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.



Anyone who has a pet, knows that chocolate is toxic and can be fatal.
What purpose does it serve to test candy bar ingredients on these animals, that will be consumed by humans?


# Mars funded a test in which experimenters forced rabbits to eat a high-cholesterol diet with varying amounts of cocoa, then cut out and examined tissue from the rabbits' primary blood vessel to the heart to determine the effect of cocoa on rabbits’ muscle tissue.
# Mars supported a test in which experimenters attached plastic tubes to arteries in guinea pigs' necks and injected cocoa ingredients into their jugular veins to examine the effect of cocoa ingredients on their blood pressure.



The full articles, info, and site are here..
www.marscandykills.com...
WARNING- there is a video there, that you have the choice to click on. Very disturbing images.

Let me say, that although the site appears to be put up by PETA..
That I myself am not endorsing the group nor it's sometimes radical ways of dealing with the mistreatment of animals.
But if these experiments are truly being carried out..someone has a lot to answer for.
And as I stare at the Snickers bar on the desk beside me.. I want to shove it down someones throat.


[edit on 28-9-2008 by AccessDenied]




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Thanks for the info. I couldn't watch the vid. No more Mars product for me. Any other companys doing this kind of cruelty?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
OK, no animal testing. Just where do we test and who do we test on? Convicts? Deathrow inmates? When something is tested on animals at least they have some idea of the toxicity before they legaly test on humans. Just what is the alternative? I've never seen these groups come up with a definative answer to this question!



Zindo



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
OK, no animal testing. Just where do we test and who do we test on? Convicts? Deathrow inmates? When something is tested on animals at least they have some idea of the toxicity before they legaly test on humans. Just what is the alternative? I've never seen these groups come up with a definative answer to this question!



Zindo

You DO have a valid point.
But what I don't understand is exactly what they are saying by, "Why test a product on an animal, when our biology is completely different"
How do you take the information they are gathering, and apply that to humans?
When's the last time anyone fed a rabbit a Snickers bar?
It seems to me, that they are creating new chemical, man made ingredients, to put into food, to lower the cost of production, to increase profits, and using the funding of animal testing to disgustingly prove that their NEW and IMPROVED formulas are safe for humans.
How many times do you need to reformulate a chocolate bar?
For what reasons would you put an animal in a tube and submerge them in water for 5 hours? How would you apply the results of that test, to the marketing of a candy bar?
In my opinion, after years of animal testing, I'm sure science has a pretty good idea what is safe for human consumption or not. Why they feel the need to continue experiments is beyond me.
As for testing on humans...that would be their own choice, and many DO make the choice to be test subjects. At least they can tell you what hurts, or what doesn't feel right. Who speaks for those who can't?
No- I'm not jumping on the animal rights band wagon. If people want to eat meat and wear fur that's their choice.
My argument right now, is simply testing animals for no good reason what so ever, for a human product.
You want to use animals to test a new pet food? Fine.
You want to use animals to test new veterinary medications? Fine.
Just don't use them to test products for humans.
It doesn't make sense.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
You've made quite a valid point...

Since marsbars and snickers are hardly necessary for the human race, why the countless suffering?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Many pet medications are identical to those used for humans. They work the same and they acomplish the same result. They do not have to be of the same purity however. Talk to your vet about the drugs he uses in his practice everyday. If he's honest, he'll tell you the names change but the drugs are identical.
Zindo

Edit to say, Cosmetics however, are another point. That they should curtail completely. As much as I love beautiful ladies, the prices and the utter BS used make them are dangerous!

[edit on 9/28/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   


Carefully bred rats with documented genetic histories are used in animal testing for a number of reasons, including their frequent reproduction, genetic purity and similarities to human biology.


This link provides further resources:

Why are rats used in animal testing?

Still - I won't be indulging in Mars' products anymore. Seems a bit barbaric to me. I would think at this point, everyone was well aware that anything done to excess is harmful to one's health.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Exactly. Animal testing does nothing to show how a human might react to a certain substance. There have been instances where mice did not react to certain medications and those same medications killed humans. Animal testing is incredibly pointless and cruel.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Human and animal physiology is very similar so these tests are valid when determining toxicity for humans. Insulin wouldn't have been developed if it wasn't for the use of animal testing along with a long list of other medications. Yes, some of the tests don't give you warm fuzzies on the inside but they are nessicary. You guys talk about cruel yet more than likely you consume animal products.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
This thread made me crave candy. I just had to go to the fridge for a Snickers. MMMM, it was delicious. Who says chocolate is not necessary for human existence?

Arent they developing a kind of super anti oxident chocolate that is supposed to be good for our hearts etc?? Thought I read that somewhere. This is probably what the tests are for. So maybe its for the good of mankind, we can eat our way to health.. The good ol' American way.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I've always wanted a reason to stop eating chocolate, I finally have one.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
Human and animal physiology is very similar so these tests are valid when determining toxicity for humans. Insulin wouldn't have been developed if it wasn't for the use of animal testing along with a long list of other medications. Yes, some of the tests don't give you warm fuzzies on the inside but they are nessicary. You guys talk about cruel yet more than likely you consume animal products.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ghaleon12]

I'm trying very hard to remain objective here and not sound like I'm going all radical.
To me, it's like this...
A die hard meat lover might quickly change their mind if they visited a slaughter house and saw how the animals were treated.
They may stop buying as many meat products.

Does the world need chocolate? Sure why not. I'm a chocoholic and proud of it. But I won't be supporting Mars any more. I'll stick with Hershey bars.

And like I pointed out before..being redundant here..I don't care how similar you find human and animal physiology, IT"S NOT THE SAME.
Science already knows what a human being can safely consume or not.
STOP CREATING FRANKENFOOD, and TESTING IT.
STOP SCREWING AROUND WITH MOTHER NATURE, she may come back to bite you in the ass.
How can you compare the discovery of Insulin to testing animals for no good reasons as a Candy company is doing?
www.discoveryofinsulin.com...

I see the benefits of testing on dogs that were diabetic, the same disease as in humans, and then testing on humans. I truly do.
I don't see the reasons for testing the effect of cocoa on the blood stream and heart of a rat.
Surely, we has humans have been eating chocolate long enough for those effects to be measured on US rather than animals.
My point is/was never STOP ALL ANIMAL TESTING. But For god sakes if it must be done, it better be for a damn valid reason, and closely monitored by somebody.
I fail to see the validity in the tests Mars is doing.

Edit to add..
What type of person does it take to inflict pain on an animal for experimentation?
If this person were doing it in a basement, they would probably be labeled insane and go on to become a serial killer.
If the same person does it in a laboratory, they are called a scientist.

Funny how corporate funding changes things..isn't it?

[edit on 29-9-2008 by AccessDenied]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
My, My, My...
yet another reason to stop buying from Mars.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
(Eating a rare steak and a snickers bar while i type this),
Come on i mean really animals are here for one purpose and one purpose only to be used as man sees fit. I for one am tired of hearing about animal rights. They have none they are animals. One may call me cold or inhumane but i have been to slaughter houses and i really don't care as long as i can have my steak, hamburger or pick your meat the only thing that does scare me is genetic engineering but that is another topic entirely. Eat , Drink and be merry for no one noes what tomorrow may bring. You certainly don't see a shark or bear being remorsefully for killing and eating a human.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
OK, no animal testing. Just where do we test and who do we test on? Convicts? Deathrow inmates?


Nahh...there aren't enough death row inmates. All those doing life, or felons convicted of violent crimes should be suitable (hey, offer them $10 a day if they sign up!)

There are a lot of horrid, sadistic tests being performed for no good reason and it is sickening. There are plenty of people in this world with NO CONSCIOUS or empathy whatsoever and decent people should stop defending their actions.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by chimpy38
 



You certainly don't see a shark or bear being remorsefully for killing and eating a human.


Why should they? Payback is a biotch. Besides, shark attacks are usually a case of mistaken identity, and bear attacks are either very territorial males, suffering hunger, or protective females of their young. That hardly compares.
Enjoy your e-coli, and possible melamine poisoning.
OH I mean steak and snickers bar.


[edit on 29-9-2008 by AccessDenied]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Sonya darlin',
The screams of nazism and Mengele would tie up the airwaves for months if ever anyone actualy offered that as a reason to use convicts. There are already tests being done on them with their permission but thats very controversial on many fronts. I agree though that they are the ones to use if thats what must be done to insure our safety. It still kinda bothers my conscience a bit.

Zindo



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Mars Inc got caught....

Which ones haven't been caught yet?

Herseys could be a likely candidate as well



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Is all the footage in the video posted on the site from Mars conducting this testing ?
Just curious, horrified all the same but I was wondering if it was pulled from other footage via PETA or was what they are doing.

I for one don't have a sweet tooth as such, I rarely even eat chocolate and if I do it is never from Mars, Nestle, Hersheys etc... they wouldn't know what chocolate should taste like if it was put in their mouths.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by ImJaded]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
A couple of things:

While animals are not 100% analoges for humans, certain systems are very very close. Like the heart of a pig etc. So you test on a variety of animals to see the effects on a variety of organ systems.

I did not nor will i watch the PETA video. PETA is basically much like a main party politician. They alter, spin, cherry pick thier propaganda with the best of them.

Are some of thier exposes true? Sure, but alot of it is just propaganda. Are there labs that have and continue to treat test subjects in inhumane ways? Sadly that too occurs but perhaps not with the frequency that PETA would have you beleive.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join