First, cite? where did you hear this, i want to know. Secondly, illegal testing on animals...it's a candy bar....i really want to know what they are doing to the animals? Feeding them chocolate bars? Choking them with wrappers?

Quote from Caliber

Agreed.
80¢ is a bit pricey for two peanut butter...
chocolate covered...
Melt in your mouth...

I need to run to the store real quick.

Mmm, darn it. Now I have a craving too. They the only 'candy bar' things I eat.

Otherwise, I don't like chocolate other than the freshly made, natural ingredients expensive kind. And even then, I don't eat chocolate or candy often: no good putting that sort of thing into my body.

I like Mars, Galaxy and Milky Way bars, I don't eat them very often though, in fact I don't eat much candy at all.

About the animal testing thing, I've heard stories like this about other companies, Coca-Cola, Nestle, etc. Although it wasn't about animal testing, I Boycotted them, but millions of people still bought from them and the companies are still doing it. There is such a high demand for these products, that even if they do something horrible like this they'll still be making a significant profit, meaning they probably won't stop.
Another problem is that if you boycott say Coca-cola, then you'll will probably be buying from Pepsi which will probably have similar problems.
I will try to boycott Mars, but I'm not sure it will make a difference.

I'm guessing the animal testing could be to do with pet foods which Mars makes. (E.g. Whiskas (cat food), Sheba (cat food), Royal Canin (Pet Food) and Pedigree)

Also there is a section on their wikipedia article about the animal testing issue [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars,_Incorporated#Criticism[/url]

[img]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/553/pokepsychosig2.png[/img]

I have never ate Mars' products and this won't change anything. Of course, I agree with W. S. Burroughs that the tops always depend on the bottoms but for that masses are needed(.
Btw, those MNC giants do a lot of "bad" stuff in those countries where it isn't illegal.

I hate Mars Yuck

[img]http://www.ponpokopon.net/Katsu1.jpg[/img]

I read the wiki link, and all i can say is lol. The allegations are made by PETA, and range from legal to absurd (fed ingrdients and then forced to swim through paint? this tests.....?). The citation (citation 20) isn't even a journal on Mar's research, it is a scientific journal on naturally derived flavanal epicatechin and its affects on the neural system in mice. the experiment where they puncture the mice with inaedequate anesthesia is not cited, nor is PETA's allegation (it could at least be cited to the PETA website) and lastly, there is a REASON why animals are used instead of humans. Animals have a much different body size and body weight, and because of that the affects of food consumption is multiplied many times. The lethal dosage is a lot lower, and the same amount of drug will have an amplified affect. Particularly in the testing of natural products such as plant derrived flavanol epicatechin, and testing the potential affects on the nervous system, if the natural product does prove to have some negative consequences, it will be seen in the animals long before it will be seen in humans.

I haven't had a mars in forever, i just don't eat much chocolate, ferrerro roche every now and then or lindor. Even as a kid, i preferred milk chocolate to the nutty, nouget, or caramel type chocolates, so i really have no reason to defend mars on this matter. What i do dislike though are wild unbacked claims (particularly on a popularly believed website that is intended to be academic such as Wikipedia) and obviously bias comments that have no thought of "the other side" of the argument. There are always two sides, and although you'll never know everything about both, it doesn't kill you to have a little skepticism, to try and understand it from their shoes.

i didnt even know there was a product called Mars until i saw it on /b/, didnt even know it was candy...

This site gives more detail.

[url]http://marscandykills.com/[/url]

[img]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/553/pokepsychosig2.png[/img]

Okay reese's isn't made by mars.
Cool.

But twix and starburst are...
Damn

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

I've never eaten a Mars Bar...... XD

I do eat skittles though. They're delicious. I also eat M and Ms, and stuff.

Welll, animal testing isn't all that good, but I'll never remember it when I go to eat the candy.....

Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?

I LOVE THEM actually im eating one right now
and i dont plan on stoping bcz of this

Quote from Vudoodude

First, cite? where did you hear this, i want to know. Secondly, illegal testing on animals...it's a candy bar....i really want to know what they are doing to the animals? Feeding them chocolate bars? Choking them with wrappers?

No. they use the hair, sweat, and urine as part of their ingredients

and another thing is that, sometimes they do feed the animals with it so see the reaction, some of them got fatter.

** "It's so warm that, Before the snow has a chance to stick, He melts it for me." **

I checked out the site, and all i can say is a lot of what they are doing makes sense. First off, what is required "by law" is often far from enough. You can consider an FDA approval as a minimum requirement. If everyone stopped work at the minimum, we'd still be in caves. Innovation, improvement and new discovery comes from going further than the legally recommended, and if i'm going to ingest something, i would feel a lot safer eating the "extensively tested through animal cruelty" over the "well, it meets minimum requirements". Many companies will invest and fund research projects such as this because they want to know something. They want to know if their product can kill, but also what benefits it brings. There is also a reason why scientists agree to doing this as well, because first off it is deemed ethical by the scientific community, secondly their research may uncover new discovery on the influences of certain products, and third, their research may open new paths later on.

If you've read the experiments, you can see that the scientists are concentrating on two specific areas of the body, the nervous system and the arterial system, two of the major problems in society today. Many chronic illnesses today are related to the nervous system or the blood system in some way, from cardiac problems to degredation of neurons, and because of that, this research is anything but excessive.

Lastly, touching upon the animal cruelty portion, starting with the killing of the test subjects, it is extremely rare that test subjects are kept alive, extremely rare. It is a financial strain to support for something tha thas no use anymore. They cannot use the animal in further experiments because of possibly conflicts between experiments (remember these animals are born and raised for the experiment. They are kept at a standard so that data can be compared and validated). Simply by the fact that the research was published in a journal, it means that the researchers needed to go through the proper animal preparation procedures, which includes a spinal surgery. The surgery makes it so that the animals cannot feel any pain (for many reasons from ethical reasons to interactions between body changes produced by pain versus body changes produced by the test substance). Any research that does not follow the animal treatment outlined by the academic society will not be considered as academic research, and will not be considered factual.

So despite the cruelty that PETA screams, whines, and cries about, there are actually quite a few guidelines on the treatment and preparation of animals for experimental research. The research they do may not be "necessary" but they are beneficial. Animals used in animal experiments are born and raised for the sake of benefiting society, similar to how cows are born and raised to feed society, which is still by far a lot better than the millions of cats, dogs, and other animals that are born and raised for entertainment and are later abandoned.

As for those who still don't get the difference between what needs to be done in terms of research and what should be done, consider this. There was a drug released for cows that increased the amount of milk produced. This product was FDA approved and allowed to be used on cattle. What they failed to mention is that the drug may increase milk production, but it also causes swelling and inflammation of the utters, causing puss and bacteria to form that sometimes gets discharged into the milk while milking. Luckily milk is commonly pasteurized, or people would be thinking twice before sucking on utter discharge.

Another good example, influence of growth hormones in meats, and pregnancy pills. Two different purposes that work in a similar fashion, influence through hormones. Growth hormones for cattle is allowed (and commonly practiced) and pregnancy pills are used by the masses (not even for contraceptive purposes. Some people use them for the various side effects but that's a subject on its own). Despite being FDA approved and mass sold, it is only recently that society has begun to see the influences of hormone manipulation. I could go on forever about this, but in short the growth hormones and pregnancy pills have an excessive amount of hormone for the body, they flood it, and any excess hormone is excreted in urine. Modern water filtration systems may filter bacteria and debris, but they do not eliminate hormones, and because of that we see today the influences of hormones in our water and foods. Children reaching puberty 2-4 years sooner (depending on gender), excessive weight gain, and faster development at a younger age.

For those who don't get the connection between this and the topic, what i'm saying is the "required" or "necessary" work is the government's way of saying, minimum. What companies should (huge emphasis on should) do is fund extra research to find out all they can about their products, because what is happening now (after such a sudden advancement in all fields from technology to medicine) is that we're suffering the consequences of corporations that released products in the past without the proper research, corporations that simply did the minimum.

Rather hypocritical of them considering mars manufacture leading pet foods in the UK like Whiskers, Ceasar, Sheba, Pedigree and Royal Canin. I prefer Divine and Green and Blacks though, ethical and gorgeous!

The pen is mightier than the sword...and considerably easier to write with.

Quote from Vudoodude

Long winded statement

Who actually read all that?
😕

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

Quote from Caliber

Quote from Vudoodude

Long winded statement

Who actually read all that?
😕

Guilty. XD
I don't believe in tldr.

Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?