Torture in tea?

[Michael Vincenzo]

Before taking your next sip of tea, check the label on the tea box or bottle because you might discover that you are drinking a cupful of cruelty to animals. The company behind Lipton teas has been testing (and paying others to test) tea—a beverage that has been consumed for thousands of years—on animals. The tea giant has caused animals to suffer and die simply to make health claims about its tea products and ingredients. Not one of the experiments that the company conducted was legally required for beverage makers, and regulators have stated that animal tests are not sufficient to prove a health claim about a product.

 

In these cruel and painful tests, rabbits, mice, rats, and piglets were tortured and then killed by decapitation and suffocation, among other methods. Following are more of the horrific details about what happened to the animals who were used in the company's experiments:

• Rabbits were fed a high-fat, cholesterol-laden diet, leading to extreme hardening of the arteries. They were then fed tea to see if it could reduce the lesions that formed on the animals' arteries. After the experiment, the rabbits' heads were cut off.
  
• Mice bred to suffer from a painful bowel inflammation were fed tea ingredients in order to see if the tea had any effect on their condition. After the test, experimenters killed the mice by suffocating them or breaking their necks.
  
• Rats were forced to eat a high-sugar diet, and then tea was given to the animals to see if it could protect against sugar-induced brain damage. Other rats had their abdominal wall punctured and were fed radioactively labeled tea ingredients through a tube in their stomachs in order to examine the absorption of tea in the body. Then they were killed, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and crushed.
  
• Piglets were exposed to E. coli toxin and then fed tea in order to see if the tea could prevent fluid loss and diarrhea. As part of the tests, experimenters cut the pigs' intestines apart while the animals were still alive. The piglets were then killed.
  

Modern, cruelty-free research methods are available and in use by other leading beverage companies around the world. We need YOU to join us in telling the makers of Lipton to ditch its crueltea to animals and use non-animal methods instead.

 

 

 

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3487

[Guest greatness]

Your love for animals is admirable. Thank you for doing this. Kisses and hugs~~~

[bcohen7719]

Bravo!

 

Something below, for everyone.

 

- Bill

______________________________________________

The one absolutely unselfish friend that

a man can have in this selfish world,

the one that never deserts him,

the one that never proves ungrateful

or treacherous, is his dog.

 

A man's dog stands by him in prosperity

and in poverty,

in health and in sickness.

He will sleep on the cold ground where

the wintery winds blow,

and the snow drives fiercely,

if only he may be near his master's

side. He will kiss the hand that has no

food to offer, he will lick the sores

and wounds that come in encounter with

the roughness of the world. He guards

the sleep of his Pauper master as if he

were a prince.

 

When all other friends desert,

he remains.

When riches take wings and reputation

falls to pieces, he is as constant in

his love as the sun in it's journey

through the heavens.

If misfortune drives the master forth

an outcast in the world, friendless

and homeless, the faithful dog asks

no higher privilege than that of

accompanying him to guard against

danger, to fight against his enemies.

 

And when the last scene of all comes,

and death takes the master in it's

embrace, and his body is laid away in

the cold ground, no matter if all other

friends pursue their way, there by the

graveside will the noble dog be found,

his head between his paws, his eyes sad,

but open in alert watchfulness,

faithful and true, even in death.

 

 

-From a speech given by

Former Senator George Graham Vest

of Missouri. Delivered in 1870 when he

was acting as a lawyer in a suit against

a man who had killed the dog of his

client. -- He won the case.

[rvwnsd]

Lipton is owned by Unilever, which also owns PG Tips, Brooke Bond, and Lyons tea plus a host of other consumer product brands. Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry on the company, which includes a list of their other brands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands#Heartbrand

[Guest Merlin]

Why should we believe PETA?

[Michael Vincenzo]

Why should we believe PETA?

 

The company who is funding these experiments has refused to comment on PETA's findings. That says quite a bit right there.

 

PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world and they would never publish any information that would cause them to be sued. PETA buys shares in large companies so that they can have a larger voice in animal related matters, they do ground breaking undercover investigations by planting people in labs and other facilities that use animals, they demand documentation that is legally public, and they never falter from their mission statement.

 

I am very curious as to why you would question PETA. I question everything, but through the years I have found PETA to be a reliable source of information. They would not provide the details, in specificity as they did in this particular alert, without knowing for sure. I applaud you for for questioning this information (true sign of an intellectual, in my opinion), but I would bet my life on this information being accurate.

 

Ingrid Newkirk, the founder and CEO of PETA, is the woman that I most admire. Her organization has done more for animals than any other organization in the world and she never, ever, falters from PETA's mission statement:

 

Animals are not ours to eat.

 

Animals are not ours to wear.

 

Animals are not ours to experiment on.

 

Animals are not ours to use for entertainment.

 

Animals are not ours to abuse in any way.

[MsGuy]

Animals are not ours to eat.

 

Animals are not ours to wear.

 

Animals are not ours to experiment on.

 

Animals are not ours to use for entertainment.

 

Animals are not ours to abuse in any way.

 

Just don't overlook that prople are critters too.

[+ Gar1eth]

PETA can justly be proud of what it has done to publicize animal cruelty. However they are a radical group and frequently go too far. There is some data that can only be obtained probably by the sacrifice of other animals. I hope it occurs at a bare minimum and as humanely as possible. But if it comes to a choice between some life saving surgical procedure/medical experiment-- even for training purposes, then my choice has to come down for human beings.

 

Gman

[Damascene]

If the products are not tested are on animals, they are being tested on us. Which is better?

[Diverdan]

I don't think the Forum or this site is the place for expousing these kinds of "political views". That being said, If our ancestors had not eaten meat, had not used animal skins for warmth, if we didn't use leather for shoes today... and the list goes on and on. PETA is a radical organization that has lost its way in its zeal to advocate for more humane treatment of animals.

[Michael Vincenzo]

PETA can justly be proud of what it has done to publicize animal cruelty. However they are a radical group and frequently go too far. There is some data that can only be obtained probably by the sacrifice of other animals. I hope it occurs at a bare minimum and as humanely as possible. But if it comes to a choice between some life saving surgical procedure/medical experiment-- even for training purposes, then my choice has to come down for human beings.

 

Gman

 

PETA is radical. It was also a radical idea to save a Jew from wrath of the Nazis, allow women the right to vote, give African Americans their freedom from slavery, and allow gays to adopt children. PETA is radical because their ideas are a change from accepted or traditional practices; practices that somewhere went askew, in my opinion.

 

Watch this video: http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/animal-experimentation/86975260001.aspx

 

How does this one video make you (not directed toward you solely, Gman) feel? Even if this horrific cruelty were to find a cure for every major disease on this earth, I would still be against it!

 

Now, aside from my emotional and spiritually based beliefs, the scientific evidence against animal experimentation is overwhelming. Here are a few facts (to name a few):

 

 

• 95% of all pharmaceuticals that pass animal trials, fail in human trials
  
• Penicillin was delayed by 20 years because it killed lab animals (how many humans died?)
  
• The National Institutes of Health have reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing have failed in human clinical trials
  
• Animal Experimentation continues because it is beneficial to the huge Medical, Technology, Research, Drug Company alliance that is increasingly intervening in our lives and our health.
  
• For decades it was denied that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn't in lab animals.
  
• Asprin, Digitalis (heart drug), insulin, and penicillin would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.
  
• If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.
  
• Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.
  
• At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.
  

 

I am not a scientist, but I do know that there are alternatives to many of the studies/tests done on animals without wasting time and money. I recently asked one of my clients, who worked in animal research before moving on to human research, if medical students are encouraged to find different ways to do research. The answer was that they are taught what the current model is: animal testing.

 

Here is my theory:

 

We confine and kill animals to eat them, we get diseases from animals, we experiment on animals to find cures for these diseases.

 

The answer is to remove animals from the equation.

 

I have so much to say on this subject. I promise you that once the radical theory that "animals are not ours to experiment on" becomes common knowledge, that humans and animals will be better for it.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: http://www.cccmontcalm.org/id3.html

[Michael Vincenzo]

I don't think the Forum or this site is the place for expousing these kinds of "political views". That being said, If our ancestors had not eaten meat, had not used animal skins for warmth, if we didn't use leather for shoes today... and the list goes on and on. PETA is a radical organization that has lost its way in its zeal to advocate for more humane treatment of animals.

 

This is not political. It is a discussion about ethical issues which is allowed in this forum.

 

If our ancestors had not eaten meat then maybe heart disease wouldn't be the leading cause of death in humans.

 

PETA does more for animals than any other animal rights organization in the world! You obviously have a disdain for PETA's tactics, but in the fucked up society we are in today it is the only way that people pay attention. Here is a quote from Ingrid Newkirk, CEO of PETA:

“So forgive us please for all the embarrassing stunts, the crazy antics and the stupid tricks, What we realize is that the press (God bless them) are like your cat. Speak seriously to them, they will pay you absolutely no mind . . . but if you wiggle your finger under the door, they know it is your finger but they have to come over and have a look. (audience laughs). So we know our work is a very serious issue-please don’t ever think that we don’t. But by using humor and by being provocative, we get thousands of people who would otherwise not give two hoots to come give a look . . .and for people who won’t look at the gore, cannot help but look at the gorgeous.”

[Michael Vincenzo]

If the products are not tested are on animals, they are being tested on us. Which is better?

 

If it is ever determined that there is a life form out there that is more intelligent than us and they decided that, because we were less intelligent, it was o.k. to experiment on us, would you feel the same?

 

Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.

[Michael Vincenzo]

Just don't overlook that prople are critters too.

 

I love that you posted that! I find that statement to be a great sign that evolution is still in progress!

[josephga]

PETA can justly be proud of what it has done to publicize animal cruelty. However they are a radical group and frequently go too far. There is some data that can only be obtained probably by the sacrifice of other animals. I hope it occurs at a bare minimum and as humanely as possible. But if it comes to a choice between some life saving surgical procedure/medical experiment-- even for training purposes, then my choice has to come down for human beings.

 

Gman

 

 

I agree they go to far. I love animals in some cases more than i do most people. But i think they go to far at times. like in this comic they pass out to scare children.

 

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb280/manssagebyjoe/petacomics.jpg

[Lookin]

If the products are not tested are on animals, they are being tested on us. Which is better?

Hmm . . Bunny or Bernie . . that's a tough one. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/ermm.png http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.png

http://cute-n-tiny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bunny11.jpg http://business-ethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/BernardMadoff.jpg

[seeker630]

Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.

You're over-stating the current status of acceptable alternatives to animal research. I work for a pharmaceutical company (tho not in research). I know that we have serious efforts underway to find alternatives to animal research, and the numbers of animals used is declining. I also know that profit is a strong driver. When there is a cheaper, faster method that's reliable and acceptable to regulatory authorities, that method is used. If things were as advanced as you imply, animal research would be harmful to the company's profit margins. Do you think that would continue?

[JoeyBryant]

I agree they go to far. I love animals in some cases more than i do most people. But i think they go to far at times. like in this comic they pass out to scare children.

 

LOL, now thats just too funny. They are showing bugs bunny being stabbed to death...According to the article:

 

The leaflet's message to children? "Imagine that a man dangles a piece of candy in front of you. As you grab the candy, a huge metal hook stabs through your hand and you're ripped off the ground. You fight to get away, but it doesn't do any good. That would be an awful trick to play on someone, wouldn't it?"

 

They are putting far too much personification to the fish than necessary. That's just some straight up candy-man shit right there.

 

And the mommy wearing the rabbit fur? Its faux...give her a break.

[Michael Vincenzo]

You're over-stating the current status of acceptable alternatives to animal research. I work for a pharmaceutical company (tho not in research). I know that we have serious efforts underway to find alternatives to animal research, and the numbers of animals used is declining. I also know that profit is a strong driver. When there is a cheaper, faster method that's reliable and acceptable to regulatory authorities, that method is used. If things were as advanced as you imply, animal research would be harmful to the company's profit margins. Do you think that would continue?

 

The major reason new drugs are still tested on animals is to protect companies in court when people are injured or killed by adverse drug reactions. It's liability protection.

 

Another thought would be that if they found another way, then the companies that supply animals would be out of business. I'm sure those companies are somehow in bed with pharmaceutical companies, but I can only speculate.

 

It's not required by law to test cosmetics and household products, yet companies still do it. Why? For the same reason. They show the animal research and then they have a case that protects their assets.

 

I believe that pharmaceutical companies push drugs through by lying about their research. How many drugs have been recalled because they were killing people? Because pharmaceutical companies already made billions off the drugs, they don't mind paying off a few class action lawsuits.

 

I could give reason after reason, but the bottom line is that I know it is wrong. I feel it is wrong. I consider it a huge disservice to our intelligence to look at not just the ethical and inhumane aspects, but the failing grade of animal testing and continue to do it. I know that we are better than this.

 

My concern is when people can accept torturing animals so that they can continue to make unhealthy lifestyle choices that require pharmaceuticals. Isn't it bad enough that we destroy the environment, their environment, with such careless regard?

 

If everyone had to see what goes on in research laboratories that use animals, I am certain that people would not tolerate it! Because it is hidden, and people think that research is only done on animals that they consider disgusting (rats & mice), people sleep soundly at night.

 

What if it were happening to your dog? Watch this!

 

http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/animal-experimentation/111181923001.aspx

[Michael Vincenzo]

If anyone can watch all of these videos, and still accept animal testing as something for the greater good, then I am speechless:

 

http://www.peta.org/tv/videos/animal-experimentation/default.aspx

[bcohen7719]

re: pharmaceutical testing on animals

 

Not that long ago a large group of accredited, nationally famous medical scientists did vast testing of drugs and experimental surgical procedures on hundreds of thousands of animals. They reported superb

results and remarkable progress, with many papers accepted in top-tier

peer-review scientific journals. All was considered necessary for the greater good of society, medicine and the welfare of their majority.

 

The animals were homo sapiens, the time was the 1930's/40's, and the country was Germany.

 

Bill

[+ bigjoey]

Easy solutition: if a "major reason" for animal medical experiments is for liability protection, just do the experiments on lawyers.

[Michael Vincenzo]

Please take a stand for animals who are still suffering in laboratories by writing to the president of Unilever Americas (Lipton's parent tea company), Dave Lewis, at dave.lewis@unilever.com from your own e-mail account instead of using PETA's form. Also, please consider calling Dave Lewis at 201-567-8000 and urging him to stop testing tea and tea ingredients on animals.

 

Unilever has blocked all email from PETA's contact form.

[instudiocity]

Not that long ago a large group of accredited, nationally famous medical scientists did vast testing of drugs and experimental surgical procedures on hundreds of thousands of animals. They reported superb

results and remarkable progress, with many papers accepted in top-tier

peer-review scientific journals. All was considered necessary for the greater good of society, medicine and the welfare of their majority.

 

The animals were homo sapiens, the time was the 1930's/40's, and the country was Germany.

 

Bill

 

Don't forget the syphillis tests on the Scottsboro Boys. Not just Nazi Germany but the US, too.

[Guest GQ Pro]

Thanks for the info on Lipton Tea. I won't be buying their tea anymore. It's amazing that some companies continue to test their products on animals and continued to get away with it

GQ Pro

Secret Escapades of a Gay Gigolo

http://gqpro.tumblr.com/