This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to AnimalTesting, in collaboration with a number of government agencies, has established AltWeb, the Alternatives to AnimalTesting Web site.
As Regan expressed so simply and straightforwardly, what animal rights advocates want is for "people to stop doing terrible things to animals." Each of us can help bring an end to these terrible things by not eating animals, not wearing animals, not purchasing products tested on animals, and not consuming animal products.
The general premises about natural reactions do not yield ethical conclusions. It should be noted that people might have strong negative gut reactions to large-scale food preparation having nothing to do with meat or animal products. But the argument so construed is weak. Furthermore, the argument cuts too deep.
To the Editor: Re “ Animal, Vegetable, Miserable ,” by Gary Steiner (Op-Ed, Nov. 22): Mr. Steiner might feel less lonely as an ethical vegan—he says he has just five vegan friends—if he recognized that he has allies in mere vegetarians (like me), ethical omnivores and even carnivores. Alexander Mauskop New York, Nov.
(e) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that were tested on animals when equally effective cruelty-free products are available. (f) f) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that contain animal ingredients. (g) h) Don’t attend circuses that contain nonhuman animal acts. (i)
(e) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that were tested on animals when equally effective cruelty-free products are available. (f) f) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that contain animal ingredients. (g) h) Don’t attend circuses that contain nonhuman animal acts. (i)
The test of logic no less than the test of feeling is deliberately challenged by us; for it is only by those who can think as well as feel, and feel as well as think, that the diet-question, or indeed any great social question, can ever be brought to its solution. Henry S.
Hare has impressed upon me, simply this: philosophy is concerned with testing arguments for soundness, and the occupation of the philosopher is to carry out this testing. Note 2 from KBJ: Frey says that "philosophy is concerned with testing arguments for soundness." It is, as R. That may not seem like a lot, but it is.
4, 2009 To the Editor: I have been a strict vegetarian most of my life, and, as such, I have never lacked reasons—ethical, economic and health-related—to continue this lifestyle. He stated that the department could demand mandatory testing, but that it had to consider what effect that would have on companies as well as consumers.
coli O157:H7 in ground beef samples tested by the Agriculture Department has declined by 80 percent to a fraction of a percent, a level once thought impossible. Today’s meat plants operate in carefully controlled, high-tech environments that approach operating-room levels of sanitation. Since 1999, the incidence of E.
Philosophers have shown that the standard reasons offered to exclude animals from the moral circle, and to justify not assessing our treatment of them by the same moral categories and machinery we use for assessing the treatment of humans, do not meet the test of moral relevance.
Orlando; Dallas; and Phoenix have tested positive for an array of pharmaceuticals — analgesics, antibiotics, antidepressants, antihistamines, anti-hypertension drugs and anti-seizure medications. According to the column, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have turned up in surface water around the world.
I suspect that the moral judgments most of us make about animals do pass these phenomenological tests, so that most of us do believe that animals have rights, but are reluctant to say so because of the conceptual confusions about the notion of a right that I have attempted to dispel above.
To the Editor: Your editorial states: “The government seems to think it is enough that the harm caused by the animal-cruelty depictions outweighs their social value, but the First Amendment does not say that Congress can restrict speech if it fails a balancing test.” Lawrence A. Mandelker New York, Oct.
According to the AP story, nine of ten jackets tested by HSUS were found to have trim made of dog fur, but were mislabeled in violation of federal law. Though these jackets originally arrived with the label "raccoon fur" on them, they were falsely marketed to consumers as "faux fur."
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content