🚀 go-pugleaf

  
>>	Take the following two examples.  By a structure-function
>>relationship, Thalidomide should be perfectly safe.  As a matter of fact,
>>it is perfectly safe - in rabbits, and in humans beyond 20 weeks gestation.

>>	Or take Dioxin, this should also be a fairly innocuous compound.
>>It does not induce mutagenesis in bacteria and is fairly stable.  Rats
>>and certain strains of mice can literally eat it by the pound, but just
>>a few millionths of a gram will kill a guinea pig (or is it a gerbil).
>

It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing
for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc.  There are lots
of animals suffering in these horrible experiments, only to arrive at 
results like the above.  "Does it cause cancer in rabbits?" "Yes." "Can
we assume it causes cancer in humans, then?"  "Uh...I can't say."

What the heck are all these animals dying for?  Rather useless information,
and potentially dangerous assumptions.


And as far as household cleaners, and the like.  My great-grandmother in
Italy was cleaning her house with the same chemicals I am using today:
bleach, lye, etc.  She didn't need someone to stick lye in a rabbit's eye
to tell her that it was dangerous stuff and that skin contact should be
avoided.  And neither do I.  Have they really added any new chemicals to
the household-cleaning and make-up arsenal in the past 20 years?  If so,
why?  The old ones work fine.  And if not (new and improved = ga ga, in
my opinion) then why are they continuing to torture animals with repetitive
tests.

At any rate, thanks to Julie for sharing her list of good-and-evil manufact-
urers with us.  I will not be buying very many of the same products I used to.
For those of you who care, make your dollars talk!  Corporations that don't
know the meaning of the word "ethics" are still very tuned in to the word
"money".