Ash

[lindsey's boys]

I thought this was sort of sick:http://www.no-smoking.org/dec01/12-20-01-2.html

[Ly&Pigs]

Not sort of but very sick. Makes me ashamed of my home state!

[lindsey's boys]

I don't see why they used a guinea pig. What purpose did that serve?

[Poohbear]

I do not know but that is sick.

[Piglet]

Because guinea pigs are animals that get tested on.... It does make sense, although it is sick

[LiciaMommycott]

I think you have mis-read the ad. I don't think cigarettes were tested on guinea pigs and I don't think the pig in the ad is dead either. What they said is, "a leading tobacco company claims to have developed a new cigarette with less toxins, and is testing it on the people of greater Indianapolis."

i.e. the people of Indianapolis are guinea pigs for the tobacco company.
They are claiming that the new cigarettes will still kill people and are protesting the tobacco company that has chosen Indianapolis as its test market.

[CavyKind]

I personally think it's just in bad taste all together. They could have come up with something "hard hitting" which is the idea, without using that pic.

[CavySpirit]

I suspect the guinea pig is dead. If you look at the photo upside down, it's not a natural standing position on a flat surface.

I'm not sure how I feel about the ad. It doesn't portray or encourage any 'action' by anyone regarding 'doing' anything to a guinea pig. It's not a pure white lab-looking guinea pig, as you might expect. It's a cute guinea pig, inspiring "awww, that's so sad" to the viewer. It most definitely depicts the guinea pig as a fallen 'test subject.' I think it might actually do more to raise awareness of cute pets being used as lab animals than not. And it certainly is making the right statement about smoking.

So, the jury is out for me. I'd be interested in more viewpoints.

[sasha]

It probably is dead, which still might be ok, if it died of natural causes; it could just be drugged, but that would be bad because who knows how they did it, and unnecessary sedation can't be a good idea.

I think it does send the right message. I called proctor gamble once, and they said that they only test on smaller, less important, animals, like guinea pigs. They also said "its not like we're testing on dogs and cats or something" I have never seen someone back-peddle as fast as when I started talking about my pig, and asking if that was an official position, and could I quote her? Unfortunately, they make tons of household products. I tore around the house later that day, and had an overflowing trash can full of things I made my mother swear to never buy again (this was like 5-6 years ago at least, and they've only gotten bigger since)

Here they are, and this isn't even all of them, they advertise on the website "nearly 300 brands you know and trust":
tide, secret, charmin, gillette, always, alldays, old spice, cheer, thermacare, luvs, clairol, pantene, head and shoulders, vidal sassoon, herbal essences, pert plus, physique, infusium 23, zest, olay, ivory, noxema, safegaurd, camay, hugo boss, eukanuba, gain, bounty, cascade, dawn, salvo, ivory, swiffer, mr clean, downy, febreze, bounce, dreft, puffs, pampers, millstone, prilosec, vicks, metamucil, peptobismol, pur, crest, glide, scope, fixodent, gleem, asacol, actonel, dantrium IV, pringles, folgers, cover girl, era, iams, giorgio beverly hills, max factor, macrodantin, tampax, men's choice, SK-II, and ultresse, nice and easy

These days, they advertise how they are sharing their results with other companies to avoid duplicate testing, and have developed alternatives for some of the cruelest tests, like skin corrosion, and only do the ones required by law. They also have groups listed that are developing alternatives independently that you can donate to listed-Johns Hopkins center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Humane Society of the US. I guess its a step up, from who cares we just use guinea pigs. Still, it makes me wonder what I would do if I had to find alternatives to all of the products a company as big as this makes.

[Poohbear]

Yes I agree with Theresa, that is not a normal cavy pose. I hope that piggie died from old age not from drugs.

[Piglet]

Licia, I KNOW that the cigarettes were not tested by the pigs. I was trying to say (badly), the people of Indianapolis are being tested on, just like guinea pigs are tested on....

[LiciaMommycott]

Sorry Piglet, my reply came right after yours but I was really replying to some of the postings higher up.

I'm still hoping for the guinea pig to not be dead. The entertainment industry sure has some strict rules for how they treat animals on film so I would hope that the advertizing industry would have the same. The picture is too small to tell but it could even be a good quality drawing. If not, maybe drugged but even that seems a bit harmful. I sure hope they couldn't kill a pig just for an ad (surely not).

I think it's a good ad for anti-smoking but I hope no piggie was harmed in its making.

[Piglet]

Oh, its ok! Its an add that will definately stick in your mind, although I don't know if its for the right reasons.

[fawnmarie]

Oh - c'mon - everyone knows guinea pigs don't smoke!

(I've seen them test on chimps, though, who have the lips for it.)

Naw - really, I get it, they are testng it on "human" guinea pigs. I've always seen the white rat as the epitome of test animal, because they have some very similar biological processes that we do (unlike GP's).

I study medicine and I'm always so pleased to find new research studies and then I run into the line "The animals were sacrificed and examined..." It always makes me miserable and guilty for reading it.

Fawn
"I don't find dead things amusing" (Mary Berry, the Hotel New Hampshire).

[4Girls]

I am sure it isn't dead - it is probably computer enhanced. If they used a dead guinea pig in an ad like that they would have PETA all over them along with other animal agencies.

[smileyface cavy]

That is sick. Poor guinea pig!!