Skittles Supports Unnecessary Animal Testing - Comments

NOOOOOOO!That's terrible:(
I guess I'll cut down on my Skittles consumption from now on...

I never knew that the Mars company supported animal testing. I'm not one for chocolate and I like Skittles, but I'm not obsessed over them. This article is very well written, and I find it just horrible that people do that. =`(

*says as she is actually eating a packet of Skittles*
Fine, all you animal freaks can go volunteer for testing
Remember what happened to those humans who volunteered for a scientific experiment?
Nearly all of them died
So by all means, go for it =]
At least then we won't have to worry about lots of mice or rats, instead we'll get good results from one body!

That is so mean...I'm freaking out about skittles now...

I agree it's nasty, horrible, etc. but think about it, would you prefure mice and rats to get it tested on or chimps, cats & dogs? and I agree with the people who say about how the animals get breeded to be tested on, it's not like they're your pets or anything. And I luv Mice and Rats, me and my family havee had them as pets.

OH MY GOD! and my friends eats them! i hate to see animals being treated badly. from now on no more skittles or mars candy! mars compamy are evil!!!!!!!!!! and they need to be shut down!!!!!!!!!

That is just wrong! Thank God I have never liked Skittles anyway! Seriously, those poor animals had no chance to defend themselves or anything.. The idea of those animals being treated so cruelly really does make me cry.. Thus confirms my idea of humans being monsters.

Well, this is cruel, wrong and terrible now I have to find a new favorite candy

terrible to treat any kind of animal bad from insects to lions to whales. terrible.

It makes me sad to see how people argue over this in comments.
It was a good article, well written
I never knew that Mars company supported animal testing
Thank you for the information :]
I think its wrong to test animals in such cruel ways

Everyone is very desensitized to the thought of animals being tortured. I think eventually scientists, like these, will take it in steps to desensitize the public to make way for the extreme tests. Testing on humans to try to find life saving cures? Would you be for that eventually? It's saving lives, isn't it?

You said "according to" which means you got this off a website that is clearly against animal testing and said candy company. Therefore they would stretch the truth to make it seem worse than it is. The name "marscandykills" is a giveaway that the site is probably against animal testing and the candy company so they probably stretched the truth.

And honestly, I'm not going to stop eating some of my favorite candy because it was tested on "poor, little animals".

That's horrible!!!

We have the technology and experience now to not have to test on animals. Plus, why the h*ll are they testing cocoa on animals? They aren't eating it and humans have been eating it for centuries!

In this article, you have clearly taken something you read online-on a site that has no scientists nor any concrete proof-and turned it into irrefutable proof.

Furthermore, you clearly state, 'according to marscandykills.com.' The very name of the site should tip you off-the webmasters clearly have a view to support and they twist facts as needed.

Think about this: If they weren't using nonsentient beings for their research-that is, animals incapable of thought-they would be using humans. Would you rather vivisections be performed on your friends and family? Would you volunteer to be an experiment? Rats and mice have such small brains they barely feel pain.

How do we know chocolate is bad for dogs? Animal testing. How do we know drugs could be harmful to humans? Animal testing. Unless you rather release harmful drugs into the mainstream with no proper testing? Without animal testing, we wouldn't know that arsenic could kill-it used to be a popular cosmetic.

Next time you write an article, do some actual research. And when you do, make sure they're nonbiased sources-marscandyklills.com obviously wants to spread nasty rumors with no real roof.

I wasn't going to comment on this because I figured that everyone would be disgusted by the article and say how sick it was.

However, I read the comments and thought this whole 'the ends justify the means' sort of attitude was terrible. One commenter said how they thought it was horrible, but they'd still essentially support it anyway, others said 'oh well, it doesn't effect me, why should I care?', but 'the ends justify the means' is the most twisted, sadistic theory I've ever come by and I was disappointed to see that viewpoint expressed here. This is the exact mindset in the world that is all too common and dehumanizing our entire society.

If we don't care that fluffy little rabbits are being essentially tortured, it's hard to think what anyone would care about a human who they didn't know being killed. I'm tired of the apathetic feeling that the entire world seems to have. It disgusts me to see the lack of morals that people have. I can't tell you how many people have told me, "I'd be vegetarian too if I had to raise my own animals to kill. I wouldn't be able to eat something that I knew." when I tell them that I think of eating a pig or a cow as the paralell of eating one of my cats or my horse.

I will never understand people's cold veiwpoints toward the horrible treatment that our population puts animals through, and I only wish there were a way to change it. I'm glad you wrote this article, I just wish that it were given a more intelligent responce commentwise.

And just out of interest - if you guys care so much about these animals being tested on, would YOU rather have the tests done on you to benefit every other human in the country?

Everybody seems to be looking at everything in black and white here..
Yes, tests are done on animals but those people are not sadists. They would not do those tests if they were unnecessary - trust me, these scientists? They're SMART people.

Chocolate is very harmful towards dogs, but a lot of owners just feed their dogs anything, don't they? And how would we know that that chocolate is harmful were it not for animal testing?

It's really easy to think, "Oh, the poor, cute little animals - they're getting hurt!" Yes, they sometimes do get hurt, but that's for the safety of the millions of other animals in the world that are just like them.

Sorry, but some people need to grow up - animal testing IS a necessity, otherwise it simply wouldn't be done.

but Skittles haven't got chocolate in them, so technically Skittles aren't being tested on Animals, chocolate is, which gives the title of the articles a sense of mis-leadingness...

You do realize that these animals wouldn't even come to live if it weren't for this sole purpose, testing? And, also, that if these tests wouldn't be run on them, they would have to be done on people? it's not even that unnecessary, they're probably trying to see what combination is less harmful for people.

Yes, it's killing. but so is eating any kind of meat. we're humans, and this is what it's like. I don't support killing of animals for vanity, like for clothes'n'stuff, and I'm not very sure that these tests couldn't have been avoided, but we can't rule out animal testing completely. Take it. Deal with it.
Besides, why don't we put more focus on helping [b]people[/b] who suffer from all the different shapes of abuse, and worry more about the animals later? If we're all so damn worried about a lab rat that wouldn't have lived at all if it weren't for tests, who is left to wonder about little children being sexually abused, for one painful example?

Mars are bastards.