| Archive for darklingshaven.myfreeforum.org Welcome to Draconis's personal forum. |
| Draconis |
Health News: Splenda goes to courtSPLENDA GOES TO COURTA federal court has rejected a request for summary judgment in a lawsuit launched by the Sugar Association against Splenda. The plaintiff alleges Splenda, a Johnson & Johnson company, is falsely advertising to consumers with its marketing slogan "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar". Splenda is the synthetic compound sucralose, discovered in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. The artificial sweetener is made by replacing hydroxyl groups in the sugar molecule with chlorine. There are no long-term studies of the side effects of Splenda in humans. The manufacturer' s own short-term studies showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands and enlarged livers and kidneys in rodents. But in this case, the FDA decided that because these studies weren't based on human test animals, they were not conclusive. As a result, Splenda is now one of the most ubiquitous ingredients in low calorie processed foods. Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_9306.cfm |
||||
| Pamelot |
Soooo, they test it on animals why? 
|
||||
| SATIRE-CHAN |
Because various animals have various organ systems that function similar enough to that of humans to give (mostly) accurate test results. Like rat neurons and human neurons are very similar. | ||||
| Pamelot |
Similar but not similar enough to prevent the results from being dismissed.
They should take human volunteers in place of using innocent animals in these studies. Even pay them for their time. If researchers want some real results, that would do it. WAY to often, results are dismissed or overlooked because of lack of human trials, after all of the needless animal suffering that happened in the name of testing. I doubt that there would be any shortage of eager human test subjects. 
|
||||
| SATIRE-CHAN |
So instead of needless animal suffering we'll just deal with needless human suffering. We use animals that are similar because they are close enough to humans to be accurate without needing to put humans in danger until a safer product is made. There is no shortage of rats, and while the condition of many test animals really sucks, it's alot better than using humans for those same tests (who will also probably be total idiots and do things that will make test results invalid, like eat foods they shouldn't). Pretty much: better them than you. |
||||
| Pamelot |
Sure, 'cause they'd be volunteers. At least they'd have the option, unlike the animals.
Yes, but I don't take their medicines and wouldn't volunteer to test their poisons. |
||||
| SATIRE-CHAN |
It'd still be illegal though, and there would be no end to the activists who felt that the humans shouldn't have the right to choose. | ||||
| Draconis |
In terms of testing how something would affect an organism, I thought that's why God invented cloning and petri dishes. *shrugs* | ||||
| SATIRE-CHAN |
That stuff is only just recent and the technique for cloning things is still not entirely perfected. Plus it's more accurate to test on an entire organism instead of just part of it, like a clump of cloned skin cells. | ||||
| Draconis |
Last session in psychology class, they were talking about animal testing and how it's akin to trying a new fuel in a lawnmower before trying it on an automobile. You're still dealing with an engine that you can proximate how it would affect a larger one.
The ethics of doing it of course is way out of my current spectrum of interest as i've got more immediate things to deal with right now. I am opposed to it in terms of cruel and unusual treatment of living organisms. |
||||
| SATIRE-CHAN |
I'm just saying that a lawnmower is alot easier to replace than a car, and they run pretty similar anyways. Better to go with smaller risks than big ones, and the suffering of a few animals often saves alot of humans. | ||||