[Ellie May]

Animal testing isn't always the cheapest route either. We can do nutrient analysis on food for way less money and it's a bit less effective. That's fine if I want my dog to be the first to try a food (esp. from a company with zero medical professionals that I'd trust with my dogs on staff), but I'm not one that agrees. It's not fine to me. And if my pups get sick from it - guess who gets the vet bills.. Maybe if Nutro would continuously be tested in a lab setting they would realize there are issues with it so the general population of dogs would stop getting hurt by the food. I just don't think they are doing that.

It's cheaper to take care of rats than dogs in an experient, but the animal chosen is the one that is needed at the time.

I don't think anybody here agrees with cruel treatment of animals (although sometimes it's unavoidable). Some companies even employ compassion animal workers to ensure their well being (SD being one such company).

There is just such a huge difference between no animal testing and trying to eliminate it when we don't absolutely need it. Even the use of cadavers from animals that shouldn't have died.. I have to learn from cadavers at times and in vet school that will be absolutely necessary. However, right now I don't think it's relevant to bother with (and I would skip it if I could). That is sometimes I think we could eliminate - needless dissections when you'll just have to do it all over in grad school anyway. Or one of my favs - bio satisfying a science requirement for a business major and now they have to dissect a fetal pig --- for what I do not know. I'm sure a picture would go more than far enough. That is the type of thing I can see being avoided. Testing drugs, foods, and procedures - in most cases there aren't going to be more effective ways anytime soon and probably never.