They kick ass! :)

November 22, 2010

wiki: “The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is an international, underground leaderless resistance that engages in illegal direct action in pursuit of animal liberation. Activists see themselves as a modern-day Underground Railroad, removing animals from laboratories and farms, destroying facilities, arranging safe houses and veterinary care, and operating sanctuaries where the animals live out the rest of their lives.[2]”

site: Animal Liberation Front

Un pic  hardcore.. 🙂 gotta love them!

Advertisements

http://www.adoptiicaini.ro/10-cai-de-actiune-pentru-binele-animalelor/

:D

February 5, 2010

“Preambul:

  • Considerand ca Viata este unica, toate fiintele avand origine comuna, diferentiindu-se in decursul evolutiei speciilor,
  • Considerand ca orice fiinta vie are drepturi naturale, orice animal dotat cu sistem nervos are drepturile sale specifice,
  • Considerand ca dispreturirea sau simpla nerecunoastere a acestor drepturi naturale provoaca grave prejudicii Naturii si conduc omul la crime impotriva animalelor,
  • Considerand ca o coexistenta a speciilor in lume implica recunoasterea de catre specia umana a drepturilui la existenta a celorlalte specii,
  • Considerand ca respectul omului fata de animale este inseparabil de respectul reciproc al oamenilor,

Se proclama urmatoarele:

Articolul 1
Toate animalele au in mod egal dreptul la existenta in cadrul echilibrului ecologic. Aceasta egalitate nu exclude diversitatea speciilor si indivizilor.

Articolul 2
Orice forma de viata animala are dreptul la respect.

Articolul 3
1. Nici un animal nu trebuie supus unor tratamente brutale sau unor acte de cruzime.
2. Daca este necesara sacrificarea unui animal ea trebuie sa fie instantanee si nedureroasa.
3. Animalul mort trebuie tratat cu decenta.

Articolul 4
1. Animalul salbatic are dreptul de a trai si de a se reproduce liber in mediul sau natural.
2. Privarea prelungita de libertate, vanatoarea si pescuitul spotiv, precum si orice folosire a aminalului salbatic in alte scopuri dacat cele vitale sunt contrare acestui drept fundamental.

Articolul 5
1. Orice animal dependent de om are dreptul la ingrijire.
2. In nici un caz el nu trebuie abandonat sau sacrificat in mod nejustificat.
3. Toate formele de crestere si utilizare a animalului trebuie sa respectefiziologia si comportamentul proprii speciei respective.
4. Expozitiile, spectocolele, filmele care folosesc animale trebuie sa le respecte demnitatea si sa nu comporte violenta.

Articolul 6
1. Experimentele pe animale care implica suferinta fizica sau psihica violeaza drepturile animalelor.
2. Metodele alternative trebuie dezvoltate si implementate sistematic.

Articolul 7
Sacrificarea oricarui animal care nu este absolut necesara, precum si orice decizie care duce la un asemenea act constituie o CRIMA.

Articolul 8
1. Orice act care pune in pericol supravietuirea unei specii salbatice precum si orice decizie care duce la un asemena act constituie o crima impotriva speciei.
2. Masacrarea animalelor salbatice, poluarea si distrugerea biotopurilor sunt considerate crime.

Articolul 9
1. Statutul legal specific al animalelor precum si drepturile lor trebuie sa fie recunoscute prin lege.
2. Protectia si salvarea animalelor trebuie reprezentate la nivelul organizatiilor guvernamentale.

Articolul 10
Educatia si instruirea publica inca din copilarie trebuie sa conduca omul la observarea, intelegerea si respectarea animalelor.

Declaratia Universala a Drepturilor Animalelor a fost proclamata in mod solemn la Paris in 15 octombrie 1978 la sediul UNESCO.”

Link

Au trecut aproape 4 luni de cand m-am lasat de fumat, dar daca as fi stiut inainte ceea ce stiu acum, ar fi fost cu siguranta de ajuns sa ma las mai repede.

Smoking doesn’t just kill people.


Hundreds of thousands of animals are still used in cruel tests conducted by cigarette companies.

Even though U.S. federal law does not require that tobacco products be tested on animals and even though smoking experiments on animals have been illegal in Britain since 1997, thousands of animals are still kept in restraints like smoke masks and body holders and subjected to horrific experiments every year.

At this very moment, pregnant monkeys at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC) are being kept in small, barren metal cages, their fetuses exposed to nicotine. Funded by the U.S. government, ORPRC experimenter Eliot Spindel acknowledges that “the deleterious effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well established.” Yet his five year study, during which he will kill the baby monkeys and dissect their lungs, is funded (with tax money) through 2004.

This is one of countless examples of cruel and completely unnecessary experiments. Experimenters have taken large grants from cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris; from government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health; and even from the March of Dimes, to inject animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke and addict them to tobacco–a substance that they would never normally encounter or imbibe if left in peace.

Other examples of smoking experiments on animals include :

* Cutting holes in beagles’ throats through which the dogs are forced to breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for a year.

* Inserting electrodes into dogs’ penises to measure the effect of cigarette smoke on sexual performance.

* Strapping masks to the faces of rats and monkeys and permanently restraining them to force them to breathe cigarette smoke constantly.

* Forcing dogs to be on mechanical ventilators and chronically exposed to cigarette smoke.”

WWW.SMOKINGANIMALS.COM

“Testat dermatologic”

January 19, 2010

Faptul ca un produs cosmetic este testat dermatologic te asigura de faptul ca aceste produse nu au fost testate pe animale?

Nu, decat daca este insotit de un text sau o imagine care adauga: “not tested on animals”, sau “against animal testing”, “animal friendly” sau orice asemanator.

Pentru firmele de care nu sunteti siguri, un simplu google de genul: “Is x tested on animals?” clarifica de obicei dilema :).

Ce inseamna atunci “Testat dermatologic” ?

Inseamanca ca produsul x a fost testat de catre un dermatolog.

Toate insemnarile de genul “Testat dermatologic”, “Testat clinic”, “Hypoalgenic” sunt mici trick-uri pentru ca produsul sa para mai sigur. Numai un consumator informat stie sa interpreteze aceste trickuri de marketing.

“Health Which? surveyed over 1,000 people about label claims on cosmetics and toiletries. Asked what they thought the term ‘dermatologically tested’ means, over a quarter said they believe the product had been tested on human skin. While this is correct in a very literal sense, the term doesn’t tell you what the tests were designed to show, or whether the product passed the tests.” link

Pentru ca nu exista o definitie exacta, companiile care testeaza pe animale prefera sa lase situatia ambigua, stiind ca majoritatea consumatorilor se vor uita la cum miroase produsul si nu la ingrediente sau termeni 🙂

Pe site-ul NatraCare se explica termenul foarte clar:

“Claims such as ‘dermatologically tested’ or ‘dermatologist approved’ – found on many cosmetics, toiletries and some washing products – are confusing and potentially misleading. [1]

Such claims imply that a product has reached a certain level of safety or effectiveness, but there are no standard industry-wide definitions to determine how a product must be tested or the results it needs to achieve, before a company can make such a claim. This means that tests designed by companies to substantiate dermatological claims may not necessarily replicate how a product is actually used.

In most cases, the term ‘dermatologically tested’ does not tell you what the tests were designed to show, or whether the product passed these tests. Of the ten leading cosmetics companies, asked to supply evidence to support their claims, only eight replied despite repeated requests. Of the information supplied, this was considered by two independent experts to be only general information about the tests carried out. Without specific details on the methods used, or the results achieved, the experts were unable to assess fully whether the products lived up to their claims.

This lack of standard definitions is confusing, totally misleading and allows malicious companies to take advantage of consumer trust and confusion. Indeed, with companies refusing to supply details of their tests and results, these claims are meaningless, and consumers are left guessing about the benefits implied by such claims.”