Animal Testing: Does it matter to you?

[SparklingFlame]

ITA. I started to say something like "God gave MAN dominion over all His creation" but I didn't want to insert religion in it, but since you did, what the hay! Having "dominion" IMO, means good stewardship where RESPECT is given to all God's creatures and there's no room in that for sadistic, cruel, and otherwise abusive behavior. Or hording and using more than your share. But is DOES mean permission to put those creations to our use, RESPONSIBLY.

However, since God gave man free will, we always gonna have us some fools who just don't get it . . .

EXACTLY! I like how you put that!

 

[winterinatl]

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests&AddInterest=1022


Here is a site.

Animals in Product Testing
Animal Tests

Annually, millions of animals have been exposed to tests on personal care, cosmetics and household products. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice have been forced to ingest harmful substances, or have caustic ingredients rubbed on their exposed skin or in their eyes. Then these animals are killed.

While fewer animals are used in the development of products than five years ago, there are two tests that continue to be utilized by companies that still test on animals. These outmoded tests have been used for decades, testing the same chemicals on the same types of animals year after year, despite the fact that the information resulting from these tests is not being used to protect human safety but only to determine levels of toxicity. Furthermore, there are more reliable and less expensive non-animal alternatives available. Following is a description of the two most common tests, the Draize and the LD-50.

The Draize Test

The Draize tests attempt to measure the harmfulness of chemicals to humans by observing the damage they cause to the eyes and skin of animals.

There are two kinds of Draize tests: the Draize eye irritancy test and the Draize skin irritancy test. Both cause extreme discomfort and pain to the animals involved. After the tests are completed, all of the animals are killed so that their internal organs can be examined.

In the Draize test for eye irritancy,solutions of products are applied directly into the animals’ eyes, which can cause intense burning, itching and pain. Clips are placed on the eyelids to hold them open during the test period, which can last several days, and to keep the animals from blinking away the solution. The animals are placed in restraining stocks that hold their heads in place, which prevents them from moving throughout the test period. In addition to causing terrible pain, the test compounds often leave the animals' eyes ulcerated and bleeding.

In the Draize test for skin irritancy, the test substances are applied to shaved and abraded skin, which is then covered with plastic sheeting. (Skin is abraded by firmly pressing adhesive tape onto the animal’s body and quickly stripping it off. The process is repeated until several layers of skin have been removed.) As in the Draize eye irritancy test, these test solutions may cause intense pain, burning and itching.


The LD-50 Test

The LD-50 test is used to measure the acute toxicity levels of certain ingredients on live animals.

LD-50 stands for Lethal Dose 50 Percent - the amount or concentration of a substance that will kill half of a test group of animals within a specified time period when that substance is forcibly ingested, inhaled or otherwise exposed to an animal.

During the test period, the animals typically suffer acute distress - pain, convulsions, discharge, diarrhea and bleeding from the eyes and mouth. At the end of the test period, those animals who have not already died are killed.

The classic LD-50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it no longer supports the use of this test.



Long known to be poor predictors of human health, the LD-50 and Draize tests have been shown to be less reliable and more expensive than existing non-animal alternatives. There are many variables among species of animals and even among individual animals.

The results of non-animal tests tend to be more consistent, and better predictors for human reactions. In addition, companies are spared the expense of breeding, caging, feeding and disposing of animals that are used in testing laboratories.

Companies are taking a closer look at animal tests and the results. Many major companies are discontinuing the use of these tests on products and ingredients that have already been tested or for which the information is otherwise available.

Databases of information on chemical interactions and toxicity levels also contribute greatly to a reduction in animal testing. With the continued development of alternatives, animal tests, like the slide rule, will someday be made obsolete by advancements in technology.

 

[Neroli]

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests&AddInterest=1022


Here is a site.

Animals in Product Testing
Animal Tests

Annually, millions of animals have been exposed to tests on personal care, cosmetics and household products. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice have been forced to ingest harmful substances, or have caustic ingredients rubbed on their exposed skin or in their eyes. Then these animals are killed.

While fewer animals are used in the development of products than five years ago, there are two tests that continue to be utilized by companies that still test on animals. These outmoded tests have been used for decades, testing the same chemicals on the same types of animals year after year, despite the fact that the information resulting from these tests is not being used to protect human safety but only to determine levels of toxicity. Furthermore, there are more reliable and less expensive non-animal alternatives available. Following is a description of the two most common tests, the Draize and the LD-50.

The Draize Test

The Draize tests attempt to measure the harmfulness of chemicals to humans by observing the damage they cause to the eyes and skin of animals.

There are two kinds of Draize tests: the Draize eye irritancy test and the Draize skin irritancy test. Both cause extreme discomfort and pain to the animals involved. After the tests are completed, all of the animals are killed so that their internal organs can be examined.

In the Draize test for eye irritancy,solutions of products are applied directly into the animals’ eyes, which can cause intense burning, itching and pain. Clips are placed on the eyelids to hold them open during the test period, which can last several days, and to keep the animals from blinking away the solution. The animals are placed in restraining stocks that hold their heads in place, which prevents them from moving throughout the test period. In addition to causing terrible pain, the test compounds often leave the animals' eyes ulcerated and bleeding.

In the Draize test for skin irritancy, the test substances are applied to shaved and abraded skin, which is then covered with plastic sheeting. (Skin is abraded by firmly pressing adhesive tape onto the animal’s body and quickly stripping it off. The process is repeated until several layers of skin have been removed.) As in the Draize eye irritancy test, these test solutions may cause intense pain, burning and itching.


The LD-50 Test

The LD-50 test is used to measure the acute toxicity levels of certain ingredients on live animals.

LD-50 stands for Lethal Dose 50 Percent - the amount or concentration of a substance that will kill half of a test group of animals within a specified time period when that substance is forcibly ingested, inhaled or otherwise exposed to an animal.

During the test period, the animals typically suffer acute distress - pain, convulsions, discharge, diarrhea and bleeding from the eyes and mouth. At the end of the test period, those animals who have not already died are killed.

The classic LD-50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it no longer supports the use of this test.



Long known to be poor predictors of human health, the LD-50 and Draize tests have been shown to be less reliable and more expensive than existing non-animal alternatives. There are many variables among species of animals and even among individual animals.

The results of non-animal tests tend to be more consistent, and better predictors for human reactions. In addition, companies are spared the expense of breeding, caging, feeding and disposing of animals that are used in testing laboratories.

Companies are taking a closer look at animal tests and the results. Many major companies are discontinuing the use of these tests on products and ingredients that have already been tested or for which the information is otherwise available.

Databases of information on chemical interactions and toxicity levels also contribute greatly to a reduction in animal testing. With the continued development of alternatives, animal tests, like the slide rule, will someday be made obsolete by advancements in technology.

I get that animals not treated fairly, I really do. I have a cat and dog as part of my family right now. And I mean part of the family! I have always had a pet (dog, cat, rabbit, turtle, etc.) from childhood. So the issue for me isn't so much loving animals as it is the reality and necessity that SOME kind of testings on animals are necessary for HUMAN advancement. What you describe above is the extreme where it is not necessary (it is always possible to present an extreme case to make a point, especially on controversial issues like this). I don't condone nor do I think it's right. But there are many many many other instances of testing where it IS necessary IMO.

As I said in a prior post, there are fools and very greedy people who just don't get it. . .and I can't and won't defend greed or fools. But I will defend RESPONSIBLE animal testing . . .

 

[Blu217]

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests&AddInterest=1022


Here is a site.

Animals in Product Testing
Animal Tests

Annually, millions of animals have been exposed to tests on personal care, cosmetics and household products. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice have been forced to ingest harmful substances, or have caustic ingredients rubbed on their exposed skin or in their eyes. Then these animals are killed.

While fewer animals are used in the development of products than five years ago, there are two tests that continue to be utilized by companies that still test on animals. These outmoded tests have been used for decades, testing the same chemicals on the same types of animals year after year, despite the fact that the information resulting from these tests is not being used to protect human safety but only to determine levels of toxicity. Furthermore, there are more reliable and less expensive non-animal alternatives available. Following is a description of the two most common tests, the Draize and the LD-50.

The Draize Test

The Draize tests attempt to measure the harmfulness of chemicals to humans by observing the damage they cause to the eyes and skin of animals.

There are two kinds of Draize tests: the Draize eye irritancy test and the Draize skin irritancy test. Both cause extreme discomfort and pain to the animals involved. After the tests are completed, all of the animals are killed so that their internal organs can be examined.

In the Draize test for eye irritancy,solutions of products are applied directly into the animals’ eyes, which can cause intense burning, itching and pain. Clips are placed on the eyelids to hold them open during the test period, which can last several days, and to keep the animals from blinking away the solution. The animals are placed in restraining stocks that hold their heads in place, which prevents them from moving throughout the test period. In addition to causing terrible pain, the test compounds often leave the animals' eyes ulcerated and bleeding.

In the Draize test for skin irritancy, the test substances are applied to shaved and abraded skin, which is then covered with plastic sheeting. (Skin is abraded by firmly pressing adhesive tape onto the animal’s body and quickly stripping it off. The process is repeated until several layers of skin have been removed.) As in the Draize eye irritancy test, these test solutions may cause intense pain, burning and itching.


The LD-50 Test

The LD-50 test is used to measure the acute toxicity levels of certain ingredients on live animals.

LD-50 stands for Lethal Dose 50 Percent - the amount or concentration of a substance that will kill half of a test group of animals within a specified time period when that substance is forcibly ingested, inhaled or otherwise exposed to an animal.

During the test period, the animals typically suffer acute distress - pain, convulsions, discharge, diarrhea and bleeding from the eyes and mouth. At the end of the test period, those animals who have not already died are killed.

The classic LD-50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it no longer supports the use of this test.



Long known to be poor predictors of human health, the LD-50 and Draize tests have been shown to be less reliable and more expensive than existing non-animal alternatives. There are many variables among species of animals and even among individual animals.

The results of non-animal tests tend to be more consistent, and better predictors for human reactions. In addition, companies are spared the expense of breeding, caging, feeding and disposing of animals that are used in testing laboratories.

Companies are taking a closer look at animal tests and the results. Many major companies are discontinuing the use of these tests on products and ingredients that have already been tested or for which the information is otherwise available.

Databases of information on chemical interactions and toxicity levels also contribute greatly to a reduction in animal testing. With the continued development of alternatives, animal tests, like the slide rule, will someday be made obsolete by advancements in technology.

Thanks for posting this; anyone can find these details if they're willing to look--no lab employment needed.

I have a rule I live by: If I am going to eat meat, and I do--tho it's not my favorite thing--I show my respect to what I'm consuming by being educated about how it got to my plate. I know all about the inhumane practices in the industry. I don't like ANY of it. But I am well educated on how it goes down, as I think we all should be. Understanding the complete process about how your food is raised, slaughtered/harvested and the process by which it arrives at your table does change the way you feel about the foods you consume.

When God said we're stewards of his animals, I think the Native Americans and some poor early American settlers understood that perfectly: They killed and ate only what they needed and used every part of the animal. They lived in harmony with nature and respected it.

They didn't torture helpless animals for nonessential purposes and then try to justify their suffering.

 

[winterinatl]

Thanks for posting this; anyone can find these details if they're willing to look--no lab employment needed.

I have a rule I live by: If I am going to eat meat, and I do--tho it's not my favorite thing--I show my respect to what I'm consuming by being educated about how it got to my plate. I know all about the inhumane practices in the industry. I don't like ANY of it. But I am well educated on how it goes down, as I think we all should be. Understanding the complete process about how your food is raised, slaughtered/harvested and the process by which it arrives at your table does change the way you feel about the foods you consume.

When God said we're stewards of his animals, I think the Native Americans and some poor early American settlers understood that perfectly: They killed and ate only what they needed and used every part of the animal. They lived in harmony with nature and respected it.

They didn't torture helpless animals for nonessential purposes and then try to justify their suffering.

You and I have exactly the same understanding. I especially agree with the highlighted part

 

[SparklingFlame]

Thanks for posting this; anyone can find these details if they're willing to look--no lab employment needed.

I have a rule I live by: If I am going to eat meat, and I do--tho it's not my favorite thing--I show my respect to what I'm consuming by being educated about how it got to my plate. I know all about the inhumane practices in the industry. I don't like ANY of it. But I am well educated on how it goes down, as I think we all should be. Understanding the complete process about how your food is raised, slaughtered/harvested and the process by which it arrives at your table does change the way you feel about the foods you consume.

When God said we're stewards of his animals, I think the Native Americans and some poor early American settlers understood that perfectly: They killed and ate only what they needed and used every part of the animal. They lived in harmony with nature and respected it.

They didn't torture helpless animals for nonessential purposes and then try to justify their suffering.

That is the gospel truth! (the bolded part) Since I do know how it got to the plate I wilsh I could raise my own food. Ya'll should check out the What the food companies dont want you to know" thread in the off topic forum.

 

[senimoni]

I don't know, to me its easy to draw a line and say I do A, but OMG you think its ok to do A+B. My opinion, is that unless you don't eat meat or consume anything that comes from an animal being harmed however nicely they kill it.....well....until then, don't judge others or their feelings or lack thereof.

 

[MeccaMedinah]

I look for "no animal testing" on the label, but I don't always put it back if it doesn't say. I think of testing as torture. If you're going to kill me anyway, don't torture me first.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Blu217]

I don't know, to me its easy to draw a line and say I do A, but OMG you think its ok to do A+B. My opinion, is that unless you don't eat meat or consume anything that comes from an animal being harmed however nicely they kill it.....well....until then, don't judge others or their feelings or lack thereof.

I think we tolerate the killing of animals for meat because since the beginning of time that what we did to get what we NEEDED--food, clothing, etc. Animals kill other animals for meat. Meat has a place in a balanced and healthy diet and most folks can accept that.

The line of distinction, I think, is drawn between what's necessary and what's not. It's a line that lies between those of us who don't care if animals bleed from their eyes for frickin' SHAMPOO, and those who do. One needn't be fanatical about researching everything she buys, but if learning this goes on doesn't at least move her, I believe it says a lot about a person.

 

[senimoni]

Right, but if the concern is so great, then why not be a vegetarian and research animal by products in all aspects of life?

 

[Blu217]

Right, but if the concern is so great, then why not be a vegetarian and research animal by products in all aspects of life?

Well, even tho I don't like how it's done and would imagine any moderately compassionate person would feel similarly, as a member of the food chain I find that meat has nutrients like protein and iron I need as part of my diet.

Convulsing dogs, however, offer nothing I need as part of my beauty regimine.

 

[kally]

I do not like to hear about the pain animals suffer in these situations, but what can we do to ensure our safety as humans from these harmful chemicals?

Animal testing is never going to stop. Groups have tried in the past and it still goes on.

When I buy a product the thought does not cross my mind either.

It seems that no matter what you buy there is going to be at least one harmful chemical in it that you heard about that causes cancer or what have you.

Are there any studies out there that actual show some one died or got a skin condition due to using products that have the chemicals in that we always hear are suppose to have caused these conditions. I for one can not afford to pay 10.00 for a small bottle of natural lotion or other beauty products that have no chemicals.

 

[senimoni]

Well, even tho I don't like how it's done and would imagine any moderately compassionate person would feel similarly, as a member of the food chain I find that meat has nutrients like protein and iron I need as part of my diet.

Convulsing dogs, however, offer nothing I need as part of my beauty regimine.[/QUOTE

I see what you are saying, I just think my point is being missed. You have accepted it as a necessary evil to eat meat, some (not me) find it unacceptable to eat meat or use anything with a animal by products, everyone has their own line of what is or isn't acceptable for whatever reason....so I don't feel one can sit in the middle, but then point to the left and say, well, its ok b/c I need it for X, and you don't, so you are wrong. I mean you can...but.....well I'm just repeating myself...so I'll stop.

 

[Neroli]

I think we tolerate the killing of animals for meat because since the beginning of time that what we did to get what we NEEDED--food, clothing, etc. Animals kill other animals for meat. Meat has a place in a balanced and healthy diet and most folks can accept that.

The line of distinction, I think, is drawn between what's necessary and what's not. It's a line that lies between those of us who don't care if animals bleed from their eyes for frickin' SHAMPOO, and those who do. One needn't be fanatical about researching everything she buys, but if learning this goes on doesn't at least move her, I believe it says a lot about a person.

Okay, but just because one person draws a line at a different point than another does NOT mean one is more "moral" and is in some kinda superior position to judge others who draw the line some place else.

It kinda like abortion/birth control; IMO, some folks take it so far that even birth control pills are a no-no in their world, which is totally cool, but doesn't mean everyone will agree to their standards. I for one, THANK GOD in heaven for birth control pills, as a married woman with one grown child, I REALLY have an appreciation for birth control pills AND my awesome hubby!

My point is that it is totally cool to draw a line for YOURSELF (I do), but don't judge others who draw it at a different place than you do . . .

 

[Kalani]

Blu and winterinatl, I agree with you guys 100%. If there are cosmetic companies that do not test on animals and can still put out a safe product, than it stands to reason that the testing is not necessary anymore.

I try to avoid products tested on animals.

 

[mkstar826]

I have a rule I live by: If I am going to eat meat, and I do--tho it's not my favorite thing--I show my respect to what I'm consuming by being educated about how it got to my plate. I know all about the inhumane practices in the industry. I don't like ANY of it. But I am well educated on how it goes down, as I think we all should be. Understanding the complete process about how your food is raised, slaughtered/harvested and the process by which it arrives at your table does change the way you feel about the foods you consume.

Really, you're justifying their suffering as well w/ the bolded parts :/ Being educated on it doesn't change the fact that a lot of animals suffer needlessly before they are slaughtered. If you participate in that by buying meat, you can't even begin to judge someone who uses products tested on animals.

 

[Kalani]

Hey ladies

I was just wondering if anyone considers animal testing when choosing products. You can check out this website for more info on animal testing.

http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp

http://www.peta.org/living/

And also:

http://www.caringconsumer.com/

Check it out and post your thoughts.

Chayil

Thanks for posting this link. I was surprised by some of the companies that still test on animals. I'll have to remove a few products off of my usual shopping list.

 

[senimoni]

Neroli.....thats what I'm trying to say....I think you summed it up much better.

 

[SUPER SWEET]

I will throw this out there.....erplexed Anyone can answer
For those who don't approve of animal testing, would you approve of DEATH ROW inmates for product testing?

 

[Denim And Leather]

I have no problem using products that have been tested on animals, not at all.

 

[MizaniMami]

Really, you're justifying their suffering as well w/ the bolded parts :/ Being educated on it doesn't change the fact that a lot of animals suffer needlessly before they are slaughtered. If you participate in that by buying meat, you can't even begin to judge someone who uses products tested on animals.

D-to the -ITTO!

I was going to retaliate to the "this argument doesn't many any sense" post but you summed it up beautifully.

 

[winterinatl]

D-to the -ITTO!

I was going to retaliate to the "this argument doesn't many any sense" post but you summed it up beautifully.

Well, like someone already mentioned, I think FOOD is much more important than cosmetics...if an animal has to suffer, at least it was to nurish my body, not just my hair.

I myself got the impression from some of the other posts that not only did people buy products that test on animals, but they didn't care whether or not any animals had been hurt in the process. Then there is the "well if you eat meat you are a hypocrite" attitude. Please.

You will not be able to keep suffering from the world, nor from animals. But some of it is a bit extra. What my point is is this: why not help a few animals out by not supporting cruel practices? Yes you will still eat meat. Cows will die in a bad way, no matter how well designed the process is. But does that mean you have to also torture other animals to look cute? The all or nothing argument here is what is killing me...

BTW, no judgement. It is what it is. If you don't care about how animals feel, it just won't matter to you one way or another. I said that before, and I did not say it in sarcasm.

 

[mkstar826]

But you don't NEED to eat animals to "nourish" your body so how does that make one better than the other? I think that's the point being made. A lot of people think eating meat is "extra" but it's a choice we as individuals choose to make or not make. No matter what, animals are going to suffer for human advancement and for one who doesn't agree with products being tested on animals to judge someone who doesn't care about it is hypocritical because we ALL benefit from the suffering of animals in some way or another. So logically it does make one a hypocrite IF they chose to judge someone else for their choices when we're all "guilty". If you're not judging then I don't think you were being referred to...

and with that i'll bow out b/c i know threads like these only go downhill & I really haven't decided my opinion on animal testing yet so i shouldnt be up in here anyway lol

Well, like someone already mentioned, I think FOOD is much more important than cosmetics...if an animal has to suffer, at least it was to nurish my body, not just my hair.

I myself got the impression from some of the other posts that not only did people buy products that test on animals, but they didn't care whether or not any animals had been hurt in the process. Then there is the "well if you eat meat you are a hypocrite" attitude. Please.

You will not be able to keep suffering from the world, nor from animals. But some of it is a bit extra. What my point is is this: why not help a few animals out by not supporting cruel practices? Yes you will still eat meat. Cows will die in a bad way, no matter how well designed the process is. But does that mean you have to also torture other animals to look cute? The all or nothing argument here is what is killing me...

BTW, no judgement. It is what it is. If you don't care about how animals feel, it just won't matter to you one way or another. I said that before, and I did not say it in sarcasm.

 

[Blu217]

These things are purely opinions and debate; we're all entitled.

If someone doesn't care what animals feel so long as it makes their life more comfortable, I say own it and don't feel defensive if it's repeated back to them. When I wrote that not caring says something about a person, I never qualified the statement and the inferrances began. What I didn't clarify is that it says to me that person is not wholly compassionate to all living things. If it sounds unpleasant, well it's simply what has been posted in the thread many times: don't care, doesn't bother me one bit, I prefer animals to be tested... I view that only as fact--this stuff about passing morality judgments is incorrect. And to me, suggesting that animal lovers have to be vegan to be legit is quite a stretch.

I believe you DO have to have at least a little meat in your diet--the only reason I eat any at all. A vegetarian diet is hard to get right, and many vegetarians are malnourished. And many eventually return to meat for health reasons.

Attempting to draw a parallel between meat for nourishment and cosmetics for prettification remains, TO ME, convoluted... but interesting. Ever seen a lion tear into a gazelle in the wild? That's nature, our food chain at work, and the gazelle suffers, often it's eaten alive. It's ugly but it's how God set things up--hence my limited tolerance for eating meat--I don't eat much of it. Ever see a lion tie up a gazelle and smear chemicals in its eyes to test for toxicity? Nope. Yeah, it's all suffering, sure. But I find that there is a PROFOUND difference between the natures of and reasons for each.

 

[MizaniMami]

Well, like someone already mentioned, I think FOOD is much more important than cosmetics...if an animal has to suffer, at least it was to nurish my body, not just my hair.

I myself got the impression from some of the other posts that not only did people buy products that test on animals, but they didn't care whether or not any animals had been hurt in the process. Then there is the "well if you eat meat you are a hypocrite" attitude. Please.

You will not be able to keep suffering from the world, nor from animals. But some of it is a bit extra. What my point is is this: why not help a few animals out by not supporting cruel practices? Yes you will still eat meat. Cows will die in a bad way, no matter how well designed the process is. But does that mean you have to also torture other animals to look cute? The all or nothing argument here is what is killing me...

BTW, no judgement. It is what it is. If you don't care about how animals feel, it just won't matter to you one way or another. I said that before, and I did not say it in sarcasm.

But, have you know animal testing is not only for "cosmetic" reasons. Or for me to look "cute." It is for safety also, which is my opnion far outweighs "cuteness." Which I think is a very valid argument. So many people get sucked into the hype but those non animal testing lovers neglect to tell you that.

Please don't get me on the "nourishing" thing because animals meats doesn't really contain that much "nourishment" that we couldn't get from any other non-animal food sources.

 

[LovelyZ]

Not as much as it probably should. I don't mind animals being used for testing but I don't like when the testing causes pain or the conditions of the lab are not within federal standards.

 

[winterinatl]

But, have you know animal testing is not only for "cosmetic" reasons. Or for me to look "cute." It is for safety also, which is my opnion far outweighs "cuteness." Which I think is a very valid argument. So many people get sucked into the hype but those non animal testing lovers neglect to tell you that.

Please don't get me on the "nourishing" thing because animals meats doesn't really contain that much "nourishment" that we couldn't get from any other non-animal food sources.

Mizani the debate of this thread was for cosmetic animal testing (as I understood it), hence the article I posted earlier...now animal testing at large, that's a whole 'nother argument! G'mornin' everybody!

 

[MizaniMami]

Mizani the debate of this thread was for cosmetic animal testing (as I understood it), hence the article I posted earlier...now animal testing at large, that's a whole 'nother argument! G'mornin' everybody!

My point was cosmetic testing is not only for "cute." It also tests the safety and allergic potentials of a cosmetic product.

 

[Blu217]

I think what's being said is that all the testing for what's in a cosmetic is still essentially about making a beauty product to make someone look better. But it's not necessary to put animals through painful tests to ensure the safety of what goes into a cosmetic product. And we have many non-animal-tested, quality, brand-name cosmetic choices.

 

[Neroli]

I think what's being said is that all the testing for what's in a cosmetic is still essentially about making a beauty product to make someone look better. But it's not necessary to put animals through painful tests to ensure the safety of what goes into a cosmetic product. And we have many non-animal-tested, quality, brand-name cosmetic choices.

Uuum, so what if it's to make someone beautiful? I mean, geez, I NEED to use soap, shampoo, deoderants, sunscreen, toothpaste, etc. --these are not products I use "just to make me beautiful" but are part of my daily cleaniness and hygene. I sure want those items test for safety and alergies, etc. before they go on the market.

Also, when my baby was born, I sure wanted all the stuff I used on him to have been propertly tested as well and I guess things like baby lotion, baby wipes, diaper rash creams, baby 'poo, etc. etc. might be classified as cosmetics but are NOT used "just to make someone beautiful" -- its cleaniness and hygene.

IMO, the line between as basic body soap and some super deluxe "bath gel" isn't so great . . .

I get that you really really care about this and that's cool and totally your perogative and you should indeed avoid product based on whether animal tested or not.

But, a lot of folks, myself included, just don't feel as you -- doesn't make me a lesser human being or less caring or less moral or whatever -- I just have a different point of view on this one. I respect yours. Respect mine.