I won't buy any of their products. SHAME on you Mars.

I wrote a letter to Mars company, and no more candy from this company. I feel it's time now to stop the abuse in any form to animals. We all need to stand together, vote, sign petitions, educate yourself. What ever it takes to motivate yourself, please do it now for the animals. Tomorrow may be too late....

Not going to name any specific companies mentioned here. I understand that animal treatment is important. I hope that you will take into consideration the treatment of cocoa/sugar farmers (potentially child laborers) when promoting...

how do you consider unnecessary? this petition is too vague. You really need to be specific before you start a petition. Are they testing the likeability for anials, this probably be unharmful other than making obese animals. be specific,

signed, animal lover with a brain

I should start by outlining my views on animal testing, so that you know where I'm coming from, even if you disagree with me.
1) I won't use cosmetics which I know have been tested on animals.
2) I am in full support of animal testing for medical purposes, because I am quite prepared to be experimented on myself if it means that someone else can have a better quality of life. I will admit that I wouldn't like to be killed in the name of experimentation, but that's because I'm worried about the effect it would have on the people I left behind. As far as mice are concerned, as far as I am aware no study has shown them to have the same social structure as we do or the same grief, as this would probably be a bad thing in an animal with so many natural preditors.

As far as I can tell, these experiments carried out by Mars are actually medical in nature, examining the effects of a chemical found in chocolate on bodily functions. For two main reasons I support these experiments:
1) Any step forwards we can take in curing alzeimers is a good thing, especially if it's as easy as a chemical found in chocolate.
2) I would like to know that eating chocolate isn't going to make me ill, unless I eat too much of it. If I found out that eating chocolate could make me ill in later life, I'd probably think twice about it. This may not be the case for all, judging by the number of people who smoke, take drugs and drink to excess.

Also, any excuse to eat more chocolate is a good excuse if it turned out to be beneficial.

I did not realize that a candy company even needed to experiment on Animals. I do understand that since you can not legally experiment on humans that they must use animals, but what kinds of experiments are really being done here?

Feeding dogs and cats and monkeys experimental candy?

Excuse me, but where is the spot to vote for Ron Paul? He is th e man who should be in charge. Why does everyone ignore the only candidate who wants to follow the Constitution? If Dr. PAul were president, America would be America again...by the people, of the people, for the people!! Ron Paul Hope for America!!

Yup! No more Mars candy until they stop needlessly harming animals.

Thank you J.S. for your response and being civil when trying to discuss a topic is, I believe, the only way to proceed. I think people can definitely learn something from both sides of the story.

However J.S. I know that if I had had the misfortune of being born a mouse I wouldn't like to be placed in a vat of cold water and paint and left to swim around madly even for 1 minute let alone two. I know for sure that I would definitely be pissed off in a big way if someone kept picking me up by the tail only to dump me back in the mixture and then back in my lab cage all cold and wet. I didn't notice the mouse being dried off after the experiment was concluded. That would really ruin my day.

Yes, I agree that the video on PETA's website doesn't specifically say it came from Mars. I had already noticed that, but where does it come from? There are some pretty horrific scenes in it so someone's got some serious explaining to do. I will have to ask PETA how they managed to get it into their hot little hands.

I agree that PETA has gone a bit over the top but at least they have made me aware that Mars do in fact conduct experiments on animals, whereas in the past I was completely in the dark about it.

I bring to your attention J.S. your statement:- "Finally, it doesn’t make sense to boycott a company that uses its profits in an attempt to improve human health and welfare". My response to that is - what at the expense of animal health and welfare? It is clear to me that you obviously think that humans are somehow more important than animals so we can do to them whatever we please. I wonder if you would agree with your statement if you were an animal condemned to living out your possibly quite short life in a lab.

However, the bottom line J.S. is that I have never and will never advocate research on animals whether it is claimed to be humane or not. The Morris water maze test has still not convinced me that they are justified to use animals for research. As you say about the war in Iraq, unless we are actually there then we don't know what is going on, although I would bet my next pay cheque that there is indeed some sort of conflict going on over there, but that's another story for another forum discussion. Why don't Mars video tape ALL their experiments and display them on their website for all to see? Do they allow members of the public to actually witness these tests being performed? I would certainly like to visit their labs and witness first hand how their animals are housed and fed and I would also be up for witnessing any experiments they were conducting. However, that wouldn't be possible because Mars Australia have stated that, "Our Australian business units have no direct involvement with, or knowledge of, the subject you have enquired about". Of course I am very pleased to hear that but that doesn't let Mars off the hook.

J.S. you also mention that Canada are strict about animal welfare re their experiments. (I wish they were as strict about not slaughtering thousands of seals for profit and because overfishing is to blame for the lack of cod in the area, not the seals, but once again that is another story. Don't get me started on that topic for God's sake!) If that is true for Canada then what about the rest of the world? I would be very interested in discovering where other countries, including my own, stand on this issue. I will have to look into that more closley.

Anyway, I wasn't a big consumer of Mars products anyway. I think the Cadbury Whip leaves a Mars bar for dead, but I did think their M & M's were quite yummy, but I can no longer justify my having a bit of a pigout on M & M's knowing they conduct any sort of experiments on animals. That would no doubt leave a nasty taste in my mouth.

How's this J.S., my ridiculously long response to your "ridiculously long essay"! I guess that you and I will just have to be content with agreeing to disagree. As I have previously stated it is up to the individual to be presented with the facts and then make up their own minds as to what they wish to do about it.

Cheers

I can't believe that candie people do that when candy is interpeted as something happy and cheerful. Not something that kills animals. I will no longer buy or eat any mars produced candy. Go Hersheys

Deborah,
 
I am quite impressed with your timely and civil reply... that's entirely too rare in these discussions. Thank-you kindly.
 
Though I am amazed with the extent to which the general population is unaware of PETA's misdeeds, my intention was rather to point out that while Mars may fund animal research, any animals that die in the pursuit of that research do so for a purpose. In contrast, when PETA kills animals, they do so merely because it is inconvenient to keep them alive.
 
The obvious question is, “what purpose do these experiments serve?” Well, I’ve managed to find two of the articles that PETA refers to; let’s go through them together.
 
Experiment One
PETA’s words:
“Mars funded a deadly experiment on mice that was published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience in which mice were fed flavanols (phytochemicals that are found in chocolate) and forced to swim in a pool of water mixed with white paint to hide a submerged platform, which the mice had to find in order to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on”
 
The article being referred to: van Praag et al., 2007, J Neurosci, 27(22), 5869-78
This experiment demonstrated the benefits of a flavanol on spatial memory, which is currently a major issue, especially as the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (which involves massive cognitive deficits, and extensive degeneration of brain areas used for spatial memory) increases. Will this compound eventually prove useful for treating Alzheimer’s? Who knows? But this experiment at least opens up the possibility.
The “forced swimming” task that PETA refers to is a common procedure used to measure spatial memory, called the Morris water maze. The point of the task is for the animal to use spatial cues (e.g., a picture on the wall) to orient itself in order to find a hidden platform, submerged just beneath the surface of the water. The paint is necessary to make the water opaque (and thus, to prevent the mouse from seeing the platform), and is non-toxic (powdered milk is also commonly used). Both mice and rats are actually fantastic swimmers, and they are capable of swimming for quite a long time before they need to rest (the experiment is ended before that point is reached). Thus, there is no risk of the animal drowning (that would completely defeat the purpose of the experiment). There is a video of researchers using the Morris water maze on Youtube here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrCzSIbvS...). Note that the experimenter picks up the mouse and places it on the hidden platform within two minutes when it is incapable of finding it.
 
On the topic of videos, I would also like to point out that there are NO videos of animal research conducted by Mars. This is not to say that Mars has not funded animal research (clearly, they do), but rather that the videos circulating on the internet that have been associated with the animal research funded by Mars are fabrications or misleading. Note that on PETA's website regarding this issue (http://www.marscandykills.com/), PETA never explicitly says that the video is in any way associated with animal research funded by Mars (that would open them up to a libel suit), but it is clearly implied.
 
Experiment Two
PETA’s words:
“In one experiment supported by Mars and conducted by the current Mars, Inc., endowed chair in developmental nutrition at the University of California, Davis, rats were fed cocoa and anesthesized with carbon dioxide so that blood could be collected by a needle injected directly into the heart—a procedure criticized by U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Dr. William T. Golde, who notes: ‘This is not a simple method. … Missing the heart or passing the needle completely through the heart could lead to undetected internal bleeding or other complications.’”
 
The experiment being referred to: Orozco et al., 2003, J Nutri Biochem, 14(2), 104-110.
This experiment demonstrated that flavanols present in cocoa have antioxidative properties, but that the extent of oxidative protection varies between tissues (e.g., between the heart and other organs). Antioxidants, as you probably know from the media, are huge research topics right now, because oxidative damage has been associated with a variety of diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, and general aging.
The cardiac puncture (collection of blood through a needle inserted into the heart) certainly is a difficult procedure, but the part about “internal bleeding and other complications” is taken entirely out of context. Cardiac puncture is a terminal procedure; the animal dies during the procedure, either due to the extraction of blood itself, or the anaesthetic used. Clearly then, “internal bleeding and other complications” are non-issues.
A key point here is that the animal is completely anaesthetized. Anaesthesia is ensured by testing the animal’s reflexes (if no reflexes are present, the transmission of nervous impulses along the spinal cord is halted, and so the animal cannot feel pain); this is the same principle of anaesthesia that is used for human surgery. So though it certainly sounds gruesome to somebody without any knowledge of biology, it is a completely painless (arguably, humane) procedure.
 
Below, you ask the valid question, "How can we believe [that animals used in research funded by Mars are treated humanely]?" This is a good question, but I think that you are insufficiently educated on this topic (please correct me if I am wrong). In Canada (http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Main.htm), and the US (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/lab...), there are strict regulations in place to ensure that animal research is conducted in a humane manner. Agencies not affiliated with the research institutions conduct regular inspections of animal facilities, and ensure that procedures are humane. If researchers are found to be acting inhumanely, funding can be completely withdrawn (which would put the researchers out of work... likely, permanently, as almost happened to Edward Taub).
 
So in answer to your question, you cannot be 100% certain that animals are treated humanely. Nor can you be 100% certain that there actually is a war going on in Iraq (unless you go there), or that the people that you recognize as your parents truly are your biological parents (unless you’ve had DNA tests). It is entirely possible that the media have conspired to manufacture a fake war, or that your parents are lying to you. But there is no reason to believe that this is the case. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that animals used by researchers working for Mars Inc. are being treated inhumanely.
 
Two last points. There is a common misconception that researchers have the ability to do whatever experiments spark their interests, regardless of utility or ethics. In fact, all animal researchers at academic institutions are required to go through an extensive review process BEFORE beginning an experiment to ensure (a) that experiments have scientific merit (this weeds out unnecessary experiments), (b) that procedures are humane, and (c), that the three R’s (described by Ms. Kennedy) have been observed. Experiments that do not meet these criteria are not allowed to begin. An identical process is conducted on ongoing experiments, to ensure continuous adherence to the principles of animal welfare.
 
Finally, it doesn’t make sense to boycott a company that uses its profits in an attempt to improve human health and welfare, while simultaneously endorsing companies that indirectly benefit from the research funded by their competitors. Say Mars demonstrates that some compound in chocolate is extremely beneficial to human health; do you think Mars Inc.’s competitors would ignore this new revelation? Clearly, they would pounce on the marketing opportunity, despite the fact that the research was funded by Mars (and other companies / agencies, probably).
 
Granted, Mars is my favourite chocolate bar. But I have written this ridiculously long essay only partly in the hope that you will rethink your position; I am far more concerned with the misinformation that PETA has used to pawn you into creating this petition, and the unfortunate ease with which others will believe it.

I boycott all companies that experiment on animals. Including Proctor and Gamble products, products from Phizer Pharmiceuticals, Loreal and Revlon. I will now add Mars to that list. I hope this cruelty will stop.

P.S. If the claims are true what the CCF are saying about PETA, then PETA deserve a ginormous kick up the arse and I will volunteer to do it. Also if true then real animal lovers will hopefully choose to boycott them because of their hypocrisy. They don't deserve any public support if they are hypocrites.

J.S. this is not a forum discussion on PETA, it's regarding a boycott of Mars products by people who wish to do so. If an individual doesn't want to then that's their right also.

I saw the Mars article on the PETA website and decided to find out for myself if it were true or not. My investigations have proved that it is. I don't have 'blind faith' in anyone, whether it be PETA, Greenpeace or any other animal rights or environmental group or a politician for that matter. The same goes for the group your link leads to. All these groups have their own agendas and they probably are conning the public to a certain extent. Unfortunately that seems to happen when a group gets too powerful and too rich. They tend to forget what their original visions and priorities were when they founded the group. I think they become blinded by power and greed. I don't give donations to any of these groups. All I was doing was taking a topic of interest to me, finding out if it were true or false and putting it before the public to make up their own mind. I detest people who bully other people into doing or believing in something simply because they do. We are very lucky to have the freedom of choice so we should exercise that if we so wish. People can choose to read or not read something on a group's website. They can also choose whether they want to do something about it or not.

Here's another fun link for you:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Thank you also Mary Beth for your pledge.

Thank you Wesley for your support and including those links, which is a great help.

Hello All

I have contacted Mars and the following is the reply I received:-

Hi Deborah

Thanks for your email.

Thank you for your recent enquiry.

Our Australian business units have no direct involvement with, or knowledge of, the subject you have enquired about. Please visit our global mars.com website to read the relevant Mars Incorporated policy.

Kind Regards
Megan
Mars Snackfood Customer Care

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEGAN KENNEDY
CUSTOMER CARE
R&D - BALLARAT
T: 03 53377800 F: 03 53377096
E: MEGAN.KENNEDY@AP.EFFEM.COM

So I did just that and found this info. on the mars.com website:-

We only conduct such animal research when non-animal alternatives are not feasible. The Symbioscience research involves rats and mice and the work at Mars Fishcare involves small fish and aquatic species. We ensure these animals do not suffer and apply the highest ethical standards for research involving animals, which must comply with local, state and national legal and regulatory requirements regarding the humane treatment of animals. Mars also actively applies the widely accepted “3R” principles of replacement, reduction and refinement to the design of animal research studies: as a result, we replace animal studies with non-animal alternatives wherever possible, reduce the numbers of animals involved, and refine animal care to provide enhanced welfare.

So, it is indeed true that Mars do in fact conduct experiments on animals. They claim the animals don't suffer but how can we believe that? We have no way of knowing they don't. Not that I ate many of their products anyway, I did consume a few now and then, but not anymore, until they end their animal research.

Just a reminder, boycott Mars and all their candy bars. If you want to contact Mars, here's how.

http://www.mars.com/global/home.htm

Yes it's true. I always double check PETA. They are sometimes their own worst enemy and secondly some sickos start fake campaigns using the PETA name. But the Mars experimentation on mice and rats are real. Thank goodness for Hersey bars. Hopefully Mars will make the right decision and stop these experiments. Here is the link: http://www.marscandykills.com/experiment...

I'm shocked, for what possible reason could animal experiments be even useful to a company like Mars. I'll be sure to look it up and write the company to protest. Thanks for letting us know about this.