Statistics are shown for this demographic
Province/Territory
Electoral District (2011)
Response rates from 962 Fiscal Conservatism voters.
64% Yes |
36% No |
48% Yes |
36% No |
16% Yes, but not for cosmetics |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 962 Fiscal Conservatism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 962 Fiscal Conservatism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Fiscal Conservatism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9FL248Z1yr1Y
Use animals that will cause less public opinion to conduct experiments, and prohibit the use of endangered animals and nationally protected animals.
@9RCRJ4F4mos4MO
Definitely not for cosmetics, and not for situations where the substance places humans at little risk. All other options should be considered before animal testing, it should be an essential need for examining the action of the product or process.
@9KMLH9M9mos9MO
Yes, but only for things that are necessary to our lives, like vaccines, but not anything connected to cosmetics.
@9KDYD2W9mos9MO
Use proven criminals, convicted of violent crimes, who are in prison for 10+ years (or a life sentence)
@9JZP7TY9mos9MO
testing on animals should be avoided and only to be done in very restricted circumstances such as in medical safety only and restricted to only certain animals like mice and rats.
@9JXG53C9mos9MO
it depends on if the drug makes the animal unsafe for human consumption, if it does then no, if it doesn't then its fine because the animal wasn't used just for testing
@9JWQKH89mos9MO
I agree there should be a boundary here of some sort cause of the organs. yet again the animal cruelty so depends I guess
@9JSPMXF10mos10MO
Yes, but not for cosmetics and only if it's a necessity to ensure the medical safety of those whom may be affected by the product.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
