It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by ImJaded

Its pulled from other Peta vid's.

See I read about this back in 07 and it had me frustrated as well
I wish peta would stop spamming the net with false info thou.

Reason I say false? All info links back to them.
The only source with actual something with animal
is the cattle stomach enzymes to help the "curing "
( a lot of food companies and cheese companies uses this )

When they announced that it was to let the vegins know that their products is not longer 100% safe for vegin

Thats when later peta " broke" the story of animal testing with still over a year of no documents or anything to show.

What they like to do is take stock film and over lay some "facts" on top to make it look like the company film ( little mind trick there )

[ed] to add this link Peta kills

[edit on 9/29/2008 by EvilBat]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
Ok then, so if it's false info, with a spin put on it by PETA to further their own agenda, can anyone provide a link with info to the response from Mars contradicting the accusations?

What if the info was not presented by PETA..
Would it be more believable?

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:49 PM
No apparently all news sources do NOT just lead back to Peta. Here is an article quoting the Director of Communications at Mars and published on a confectionary business site...

Article says they are doing this to bolster the health claims of their candy NOT to make sure their candy is safe! That is EVEN WORSE!

Mars angers activists over animal testing

12-Dec-2007 - Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling for a boycott of all Mars confectionery products, after the company admitted testing flavanols, a "healthy" chocolate ingredient, on animals. Group spokesperson Shalin Gala told that PETA has decided to target Mars because of its "unnecessary and cruel animal tests that are apparently designed to help bolster health marketing claims for its chocolate candies."

The case highlights the conundrum facing chocolate manufacturers eager to cash in on the "healthy chocolate" product trend. While stringent scientific research is needed to validate the efficacy of these items, many consumers and advocacy groups are not willing to condone invasive investigative procedures on animals.

Christophe Dandoy, director of communications for Mars France, admitted that the business division Symbioscience does test on animals while developing "pharmaceutical and therapeutic food ingredients", including flavanols.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Sonya610]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by Sonya610

Thank you for researching that Sonya. I was beginning to wonder if it was just a spin by PETA.

Iam even more shocked, and I didn't think that possible after the original article I read.

I honestly will not support another Mars product.
Hershey chocolate tastes better anyway.

"Hershey's program of humane non-animal research is an excellent model that the rest of the confectionary industry should seek to emulate," Gala said. "We are currently looking into other confectionary companies' testing practices to determine whether unnecessary and cruel testing on animals is taking place."

However, Swiss-based company Barry Callebaut told that it is in fact necessary to test products containing flavanols on animals, as it is required by law.

I find this little tidbit disturbing though..

"But no animals suffer when Barry Callebaut carries out testing on animals," she said.

How in the world can anyone make such a statement.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:50 PM
Well since they KNOW these ingredients are safe, and they are simly trying to prove these ingredients may have health benefits so they can sell more, there is NO REASON not to test them on humans.

I would think no form of "safety" testing on animals in a lab would be humane.

If money wasn't an issue a lot of drugs could be tested on animals in humane clinical trials (i.e. cancer treatments offered to dogs suffering from cancer and still living with their owners, that does happen but not nearly as frequently.)

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:12 AM
Well this is just great... I used to love Mars-bars and Snickers before I read this. I'm just appalled now. As a lover of animals and long-time pet owner it truly sickens me how these animals are treated. I can't even find words to express how I feel about this...

I think I'm going to try to do some research on some of the products I often use, even though I've tried to keep it ethical before, candy or not. Just goes to show how disinformed the public is about these things and that looking at the label provided by the company can't be trusted anymore.

Thanks to the OP for this thread! It's truly appreciated by this one.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:47 AM
I have pet rats. Tinks and Lily. They are so sweet. I know some people might find that "icky", but domestic rats are really great pets. I have had a few over the years, one of them I took home after a Lab Rat course at college. They don't offer those courses anymore in schools. It was banned.
The cruelness doesn't stop there. There are all kinds of inhumane things going on out there towards animals. Someday I hope we can find balance. In the old days, they had "no guilt" in treating animals badly, but today we know better. Animals most certainly have emotion and love, just like us.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:43 PM
There is a huge problem in testing chemicals/drugs on animals to see if they are safe for humans.

Almost all animals produce abundant amounts of vitamin C in their livers. When stressed, by eating something toxic for example, their livers will pump out extra vitamin C fast to counteract the toxin and strengthen the body.

However Humans cannot do this. At some stage in our ancestors evolution they had so much vitamin C in their diets of fresh fruit that a mutated strain of primates, lacking the enzyme needed, was able to prosper and pass its mutation on. Now our diet has barely enough vitamin C in to keep us healthy. A stressed 200 lb pig will produce as much vitamin C as you get in a truckload of supermarket oranges. When we're stressed we are likely to forget fruit altogether and go for comfort foods.

So when we eat a chemical that is proven safe for rats and pigs, it can have dire effects on us.

There is also a problem with any new chemical that it might take 20 years of eating it to get sick, and by then it will be too complicated to work out which food affected you. Besides, if the chemical is pervasive enough in the food supply it affects everyone, so the health problems it causes are seen as just normal.

The only answer is to try to eat food that has been interfered with as little as possible. If we don't eat manufactured food we are not funding so many cruel tests.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 05:49 PM
animals are 'officially' tested on because they are viewed as lesser beings than humans.
They are cheap commodity.
plenty of evidence that is not 'spun' to show the innaccuracies of animal testing for human products.
And the stupidity and needless cruelty and suffering caused by them.
And also how scientists continue to keep the myth going on that this is the only way and that without animal testing no 'safe' products would be around.And how some of the actual cases they use in the media to promote animal testing didnt actually stem fro animal research and the research regarding animals that they have now included as 'vital' has added nothing at all towards the original thing.

on a wider scale it carries an imprinting legacy that its ok to do this thing to lesser beings for the good of mankind.
interesting to see where that would take 'societies' if the 'lesser beings' thing was spread to minority groups of humans maybe hehehehehe......
or just 'humans' in general hehehe!
if people condone this to be done on other species other than man then what righthave they got to moan when other species other than man do this to man. the other species only do this to man cos man does this to other animals......full circle in the 'we create our own reality' stuff hehehehehe!!!

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 02:45 PM

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!


We put a man on the moon in 1969 but we need still to resort to cruelty just because we can....Humankind thinks it is entitled to anything because there are no consequences (except attacks from terrorist animal rights groups). I am not even interested in the argument that animals are not humans, therefor the whole premise of animal testing is flawed.

Let's put our famous intelligence to the test to find ways to replace all animal testing.

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 03:09 PM
I am a member of PETA.

People Eating Tasty Animals

Sometimes i even shot them so i can eat them.

if they want to feed candy to them they will just be fat and juicy.

just what i like a fat and juicy steak.

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by chimpy38
(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.

chimpy, to be clear, i'm not busting your balls nor am i trying to save the whales here, but what gives people the idea animals are here for us? the fact that humans automatically regard themselves so superior is goofy damn it!

evidently they're not for eating seeing that we're likely not natural carnivores? actually, eating meat contributes greatly to our death due precisely to that very fact. animals also may be telepathic, which some could consider advanced of us? they have exhibited very human like emotions and feelings, compassion beyond that of their own species us included. this is strong evidence of a souled being with individual consciousness at least our equal, is it not?

besides that, what the hell are the testing for? i don't know about you guys, but i am feeling pretty confident about chocolate, peanuts and caramel at this point. we should have sufficient test time on this stuff by now. if continued testing is due to continued new ingredients then i'll pass thanks. if the candy needs dangerous additives requiring endless animal testing to make it profitable, i'm taking back my whole "man is equal to animal" statement?

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in