Boycott Mars Candy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 7:07 PM GMT

    Learn more at MarsCandyKills.com.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 8:07 PM GMT
    Don't single Mars out, there are many more.

    Pfizer
    Procter & Gamble
    Neutrogena
    Arm & Hammer
    Baush & Lomb
    The Body Shop Int'l
    Calvin Klein
    Colgate-Palmolive Co
    Estée Lauder Cos.
    Johnson & Johnson
    L'Oréal (Polo, Ralph Lauren)
    3M
    Braun
    Blistex, Inc.
    Kinarese
    Laboratoires Garnier
    Scott Paper Co
    Westwood Pharmaceuticals
    .....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 8:47 PM GMT
    Good point ebl, there are many companies that test, but I think whether people are pro/against animal testing as a rule of thumb can agree "candy" and "chocolate" do not need to be tested especially not in these horrendous fashions.

    Also Ebl, I think Estee Lauder and the Body Shop don't test, I could be wrong.

    http://www.stopanimaltests.com

    Here is a listing of cruelty-free companies that do not engage in animal testing.
    http://www.caringconsumer.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 10:18 PM GMT
    the list i saw include them. But the truth is, all testing is done for the sake of info that they need. I don't think any company would do testing for no good reason but just to kill animals. I'd rather them test it on animal then human.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 10:46 PM GMT
    well i mean im against all animal testing, but seriously chocolate and mascara lol why does that need to be tested? we know chocolate is good in moderation and bad in bulk. do we need to shove tubes down monkeys throats to learn that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM GMT
    wtf was that? i was hoping that video would be remotely informative as to the actual processes that are done and why. saying that mars candy submerges baby mice for hours without any additional knowledge is pretty much textbook propaganda.

    before i get huffy comments, let me say that i'm not making any statement about the validity or necessity of animal testing; however, i will go on the record as saying that video was asinine & a waste of my time. perhaps the producers of that video can come up with something better next time...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:25 PM GMT
    I boycott pretty much all candy because it's health-destroying garbage. As for Mars candy, the Mars family is a big supporter of right-wing causes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:27 PM GMT
    I think someone needs and M&Mema. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:40 PM GMT
    I'm going to go eat some M&M's right now.

    PETA activists show so much compassion for animals yet when it comes to the human suffering, it's like they've got blind-eyes.

    Animal experiments have done a lot for research in the understanding of humans simply because some of the experiments performed would be morally unethical to perform on humans.

    I am not an advocate of torturing animals. But, truthfully, there are restrictions to experimenting on animals. There are standards done, oversight boards, and harsh reprimand for any deviation.

    Unfortunately, there are instances were it seemingly gets way out of hand and the use of cosmetics and other such products on animals is regulated. Most of those videos you can clearly tell are fairly old from the quality (possibly 1970's or 1980's - at most, early 1990's).

    The knowledge gained from animal experiments as insight into humans is, in my opinion, invaluable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:45 PM GMT
    I'm not opposed to animal testing. you can test on animals or you can test on people. I say test it on the animals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:50 PM GMT
    Yesterday, I found what I thought was a brilliant squirrel in the road. He looked smart anyway. I took him home and told him to study an old computer science text book I had laying around. I warned him (I think it was a him) that there was going to be a test. I'm not sure if he studied, I was in the kitchen cooking, but you know what? He failed his test. I rubbed some lotion on his ears and sent him on his way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:50 PM GMT
    Does Mars really support the right-wing in what ways? That just strengthens my resolve to wage boycott on them. Not that I was eating their crap anyway lol.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2007 11:57 PM GMT




    My university already boycotts Coca-Cola and nestle whats left...


    I'm in favor of personal choice and that is a propaganda video full of lies and deception like everything PETA inflicts on the world...

    I'm sure they will listen to your complaints I don't ever use your products but I plan to boycott them

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2007 12:54 AM GMT
    You should only buy organic chocolage anyway. God knows what they are putting this that candy that requires testing on animals ... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2007 1:14 AM GMT
    hippie4lyfe,

    I hope you never need penicillin (experiments on mice), organ transplant (experiments on dogs), or a polio vaccine (experiments on mice, monkeys).

    What will YOU choose?

    "It is estimated that 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide, from zebrafish to non-human primates, are used annually and either killed during or after the experiments." - National Science Foundation

    Most are species that are purpose-bred, such as worms, flies, mice and rats, for experimentation.

    Why is it only the 'cute mammals' that get PETA angry?

    Why doesn't Pure Research, Applied Research, or Xenotransplantation, anger PETA as much as Toxicological testing?

    What about drug and cosmetics testing?

    " Most scientists and governments agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs" are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries:

    Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.

    Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.

    Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used." - National Science Foundation

    Unless you are a certified organis vegan, who lives in a completely organic home (a log cabin without electricity), and wear only organic fiber clothing; you owe most of the things you enjoy today to animal testing.

    Especially the computer you are using today.

    Personally - given your shrill extremist views on a variety of subjects - I have no objection if you want to give up posting here ever again, give up using your computer, and retire it.

    But again - if you got rid of it, that would cause a certain amount to toxic waste; and of course the reason we know it is toxic - and how to handle it - comes from animal testing.

    If you keep using however, then you owe something to experiments done on vertibrate mammals to determine toxicological responses to chemicals and electronic fields.

    Tough choice huh? Don't trouble your pretty little vacant head over the above questions.

    Don't worry, I have 100% certainty that I know the choice's you will make. icon_lol.gif







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2007 1:55 AM GMT
    hippie4lyfe is only talking about chocolate testing. not everything else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2007 4:02 AM GMT
    ITjock I am an organic vegan, and if you want to give up all those things you mentioned you are more than welcome to. My gosh people get so angry over threads, it is the internet man. Smile and laugh, it is better for your health.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2007 6:13 AM GMT
    ebl333 wrote : "hippie4lyfe is only talking about chocolate testing. not everything else."

    OH, Really?

    Actually the information he is using above pertains specifically to Pedigree, Masterfoods (a subsidiary of Mars, Inc.), and includes the following brands:

    Bounce, Cesar, Chappie, Frolic, James Wellbeloved, Katkins, Kitekat, Pal, Pedigree Chum, Royal Canin, Sheba, Techni-cal (US & Canada), Whiskas, Pedigree Thomas rabbit food, and Trill bird food.

    Products designed for ANIMAL consumption.

    Further the video he posted is totally non specific to Mars, Inc's candy division; and contains 0 original content based upon actual Mars corporate testing policies and proceedures.

    It is in fact a paste effort of many videos - some over 25 years old - go ahead look up some of the images if you care to: or look at the video source coding. In fact all of the video is from other outside sources - not one single frame can be traced to Mars, Inc..

    As usual he rants on with wildly slanderous accusations on topics about which he knows little or nothing and tries to support his views with incindiary propoganda.

    So what you say? he just got the wrong division - he really wants us to punish the consumer animal food mfg division, and of course from other threads he would like us to do the same with 90% of the worlds meat producers, the vast majority (80%) of the worlds processed grains including wheat and corn, etc.

    I am tired of hearing the Luddite view.

    No our world is not perfect, but nescessary animal testing saves millions of lives annually.

    If you firmly believe that it should not be done on animals - who is left? When human testing becomes nescesary, are you volunteering for the previously untested trials of consumer products and pharmaceauticals?

    I thought not.

    ----------------------------

    hippie4lyfe wrote : "...My gosh people get so angry over threads..."

    No hippie4lyfe, usually just your overly PC, baiting, uninformed, sensationalist progaganda threads.

    R


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2007 12:02 AM GMT
    As far as human testing goes ITJOCK , many companies DO test on human volunteers. In college I made some nice extra cash testing AVEDA products before they were approved. Furthermore in cities like austin you can check yourself in voluntarily and test anything from AIDS medication to heart pills etc. They actually never had a hard time finding participants. Many of these things DO REQUIRE HUMAN VOLUNTEERS. The truth is , humans will do almost anything for money and sick people who are desperate for a cure are willing to test drugs and procedures in clinical trials not yet approved by the FDA. Its certainly more relative to test on humans. Here at the University of MN they dope monkies up on coke every day to study the effects of addiction. I have seen it first hand. They should test on the addicts wanting help, not some monkey locked in a cage and force fed coke every day of its life. Some animal tests are required by law. The ones that Mars does are not. The idea that you have to test all of these foods and cosmetics on animals should speak volumes of the shit they put in there.
    Look at POM juice , coca cola and pepsi co .. they stopped animal testing after PETA lead boycotts.
    And finally, PETA is people for the ethical treatment of animals. They are not remotely responsible for ending human suffering, that is not their agenda. They are sympathetic to other causes , but just as you wouldn't expect the NAACP to defend animals, don't expect that PETA is responsible to care for people. And mentioning that peta is only concerned about cute mammals is also untrue. Are albino rats, fish, turkeys and reptiles stolen from the rainforests and sold by "exotic pet dealers "cute mammals" ITJOCK?
    As far as regulations go, Unfortunately all of the attention PETA has drawn to american companies and universities doing experiments has lead to a boom in animal testing facilities overseas in Asia where there is little to no enforced regulations. This idea that it's not as bad as they make it out to be is untrue. Labs across the world are filled with animals testing things as mundane as artificial fruit juice, hair color and anti aging eye creams, not just medicines and transplants. That hasn't ended or even slowed down since PETA began 25 years ago. Natural foods and lifestyle products don't have to be tested on animals because they aren't full of disease causing crap. Instead of just boycotting MARS, maybe try supporting companies that aren't worried that their products are going to make you or your pets sick.
    The thought of an animal being abused makes me sick. I am not blind to the effect my own consumerism has had on many animals lives. Instead of pointing fingers, we should try to be smarter about what we put into our bodies.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2007 12:07 AM GMT
    mnjock2003 wrote: "The thought of an animal being abused makes me sick. I am not blind to the effect of my own consumerism has had on many animals lives. Instead of pointing fingers, we should try to be smarter about what we put into our bodies."

    On that we can definately agree.

    R
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2007 4:34 PM GMT
    ITJOCK, the testing on animals MARS food does on animals IS directly linked to chocolate and not just their dog and cat food.
    I don't understand why people comment on this who really have no idea what or who or what they are defending.
    If you don't care, big deal. Hippie4lyfe is just trying to point certain things out to people who might care. There is no harm in that. Don't watch his videos if you don't want to see them. That video has nothing to do with MARS so I don't understand why he posted it.
    Not one of Mars' experiments on animals is required by law. Even so, Mars has paid experimenters to kill untold numbers of animals in tests:

    Mars is currently funding an experiment on rats at the University of California, San Francisco, to determine the effect of chocolate ingredients on the animals' blood vessels, even though the experimenter admits that studies have already been done using humans. 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 funded a deadly experiment on mice that was published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience in which mice were fed flavanols (phytochemicals that are found in chocolate) and forced to swim in a pool of water mixed with white paint to hide a submerged platform, which the mice had to find in order to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on.
    In one experiment supported by Mars and conducted by the current Mars, Inc., endowed chair in developmental nutrition at the University of California, Davis, rats were fed cocoa and anesthesized with carbon dioxide so that blood could be collected by a needle injected directly into the heart—a procedure criticized by U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Dr. William T. Golde, who notes: “This is not a simple method. … Missing the heart or passing the needle completely through the heart could lead to undetected internal bleeding or other complications.”
    Mars supported a cruel experiment to learn how a chocolate ingredient called PQQ affects metabolism by cramming baby mice into 200-milliliter Plexiglas metabolic chambers—around half the size of a 12-ounce soda can—and then submerging the chamber for nearly five hours in a chilled water bath, inducing labored breathing in the distressed mice. Experimenters then shoved tubes down the mice’s throats every day for 10 days to force-feed them the PQQ, after which they were killed and cut up for analysis.

    I wish I could ignore these posts, but the discourse is so skewed on both sides. Talk about cherry picking information.
    And just because most animals in labs are bred to be lab animals, doesn't mean they don't panic when left in a cage and experimented on the entirety of it's life. And in this case, it is all just for chocolate. Hershey's has ceased its animal testing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2007 11:02 PM GMT
    mnjock thank you for an intelligent post as part of the discourse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2007 5:30 AM GMT
    ;)