Why isn’t it required by law to state whether companies test on animals?
愛 asked:
I’m just pondering why? Doesn’t the consumer have the right to know?
Also, I’m sure the companies and franchises will not collapse, because if they are worried about that then they would use alternative methods of testing. Animal testing is completely unnecessary and inaccurate.
Thanks! :]
Related posts:
- In the state of Tx what rights does the consumer have with a mechanics lien on a vehicle ? kelly b asked: My daughters car was taken to a...
- george bush to sign bill to stop law suits against companies right or wrong? steve b asked: this bill will stop law suits against...
- one State and one Commonwealth law that aims to protect consumer rights? Bekiiee =] asked: i need one state and one commonwealth...
- Is a phone company required by law to give a cut-off notice before disconnecting service? Sandy Sandals asked: Is there a website where I can...
- Hudz (St Georges Centre, Preston) breaking the UK Consumer Law? Al-Andalus JCαt ⓛⓞ♡ⓔ❀ asked: We bought two pairs of Jeans...
Filed Under Law & Ethics |
Tagged With Alternative Methods, Animal Testing, State Test
Comments
4 Responses to “Why isn’t it required by law to state whether companies test on animals?”
It is not against the law to test on animals, so the government could never make them do that.
And they WOULD lose money.
There are many organizations that keep track anyway, the public can find out easily if they want to.
The federal Food & Drug Adminstration (FDA) oversees this. Since for eight years we have had an admininistration that cares about nothing other than self-enrichment, it is no wonder that important ethical concerns get short shrift.
If you want such a law, you need Congress to pass one, and then override the inevitable Bush veto. Or wait until we have a more ethical person in office.
oiudehoiureoiu
its not governments job to do everything
Think LIMITED GOVeRNMENT
the less the better