Animal Testing shave products

[Stauff]

FTR, Taylor of Old Bond Street doesn't test on animals. So they shouldn't IMO.

 

[Prospero]

Are you SURE that the Gillette BLADES are animal tested? Gillette makes many products.

As stated earlier, you ask a very good question as the www tends to follow information that is published widely but does not have to be true. So I tried to find a few sources that are the most reliable you can get. And again, you can never be 100% sure the given information is correct, either way.

The sources I've found are:
Caring Consumer offers two pdf files with companies that either do or don't test on animals. source: http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp

Veg Family, the magazine for vegan family living runs a page on their site listing cruelty free companies. source: http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/cruelty-free-companies.htm

The National Anti-Vivisection Society offers a search engine to check if a company conducts animal testing for the development of their products. source: http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_whois

Gillette animal testing ?
I get in debates every once in awhile over whether or not Gillette conducts animal testing. To the best of my recollection, they issued a moratorium in '97 or so, but reserved the right to resume testing if they ever started developing products that required animal-based testing by law (they don't have any of those in their portfolio.) Now, I could be wrong, but as Dave Noisy notes, it's all rapidly becoming moot, as Gillette is about to be bought out by Procter & Gamble, a company that is most definitely in favour of animal testing. It'll be interesting to see how this affects their pledge. Er, make that their promise. Pledge is made by SC Johnson, who also tests on animals. source: http://tastebetter.com/stories/1052273946

And a Dutch article in which the author questions if Gillette (or better Procter & Gamble) will keep the promise to stop testing as Gillette promises to stop on a regular basis, but never stops:
ZEIST - De cosmetica-, pennen- en andere wegwerpartikelenfabrikant Gillette heeft aangekondigd te gaan stoppen met het uitvoeren van dierproeven om hun producten te testen. De afgelopen jaren was het bedrijf doelwit van een consumentenboycot georganiseerd door dierenbeschermers. In hoeverre Gillette zich aan haar eigen belofte gaat houden is nog maar de vraag; soortgelijke toezeggingen door het bedrijf werden eerder niet nagekomen. Op de vraag of de ban op dierproeven is ingegeven door de acties van dierenbeschermers wenst Gillette niet in te gaan. bron: http://www.ravagedigitaal.org/1997/228/Nieuws228.htm

 

[Finnigan]

'Well there are some very powerful humans that don't think the rest of the humans have common sense enough to know how to use soap.'

Sadly, to some extent I think this is becoming true. I think common sense is on its way to extinction. It is rapidly and systematically being destroyed by greed.

Why have sense enough to not put a hot cup of coffee in your lap when clearly you can earn millions by burning yourself with it. If this kind of legal protection from a lack of common sense continues, I think we can tell our grandchildren thay can expect to be issued a rubber room and a bubble suit. (maybe a bit extreme, but I seriously wonder if it is unrealistic.)

Anyway, I'm on the fence about harvesting animal products (meat, fur, etc). I don't think it should be done to to the point of extinction (oil from whales, ivory from elephants). Also, if we do harvest an animal, it is best to make the best use of as much as we can of the animal.

As far as animal testing, I think I could get behind changing to testing on willing human participants, and/or prisoners who shouldn't (in my opinion) have human rights extended to them (mass murderers, multiple rapists, pedophiles). To make clear my position on that issue, in my opinion if a person wantonly and willfuly infringes upon another person's human rights, his/her own should be considered forefit.

Ultimately though, I currently have more important things in my life at the moment to worry about than wether or not a rabbit suffered to test my shaving cream or aftershave. However, if an easily navigable list of products which, or whose components are not tested on animals were made available, I would consider changing to a more "animal friendly" brand.

One more thing I would like to mention is in regards to synthetic brushes and the like. I wonder, is it better to use an animal product that may or may not harm an animal in production, or a synthetic product that may or may not harm the environment that both the animal and I live in? I don't have an answer. I just wonder if "synthetic" necessarily means "better."

If I could live life in tune with nature like a "primative," I think I would. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a realistic option.

 

[ScottS]

As far as animal testing, I think I could get behind changing to testing on willing human participants, and/or prisoners who shouldn't (in my opinion) have human rights extended to them (mass murderers, multiple rapists, pedophiles). To make clear my position on that issue, in my opinion if a person wantonly and willfuly infringes upon another person's human rights, his/her own should be considered forefit.

Without first testing on animals, I doubt whether cosmetics testing on humans reaches the level of Benificence (that's a risk/benefits ratio sort of thing) dictated by the regulations concerning human subjects use. Prisoners are considered a "vulnerable population" because they're easily coerced, and are afforded extra scrutiny in research.

 

[Finnigan]

I agree. That's why I'd like to see it only done on prisoners who, in my opinion, have prooved themselves less than human and who, I feel, should be stripped of their human rights.

 

[Bruce]

Considering the inevitability and horrors of global warming which we hear about daily from newly laureled leaders and others, perhaps we do the animals a favor by showing them the benefits of shaving. When the weather is 136 in the shade, a fur coat is not something one would want to have to wear.

 

[shadow]

Unfortunately for them, the animals don't get a say in this. I'm sure that very few of them would be in favor.

Cheers

Jeremy

I will personally go to law school JUST so that I can PERSONALLY represent any animal that wants me to represent them.

All they have to do is say the word.

 

[Prospero]

As the Netherlands have a different political structure we now know a political party that works for the rights of animals and man. Interesting to see how they can influence the mindset of the ruling parties.

 

[ScottS]

I will personally go to law school JUST so that I can PERSONALLY represent any animal that wants me to represent them.

All they have to do is say the word.

So help me, a friend of mine ended up in a situation where he was defending a dog against a condo association. His strategy was to keep things going until the dog died of old age.

 

[Finnigan]

Prospero, without actually knowing the political system of the netherlands in detail, what you say is actually pretty wonderful. In America we do have more than two parties, but the situation has been made so that any party other than Republican or Democrat is RARELY heard about in any media other than PBS (which are really not that popular.)

I would LOVE to see the US break the "two party system." I actually find myself leaning towards a third party here in the US.

 

[falkon]

I'm just gonna go out there and throw my vote in support of animal testing. As long as it is done in an ethical manner (albeit this is another debate in itself...), I see only good coming from animal testing. Also, for the record, there is a difference between my hair falling off and a rabbit's hair falling off. While I'd like to see niether, I'd rather it be a rabbit than a human.

 

[Prospero]

I'm just gonna go out there and throw my vote in support of animal testing. As long as it is done in an ethical manner (albeit this is another debate in itself...), I see only good coming from animal testing. Also, for the record, there is a difference between my hair falling off and a rabbit's hair falling off. While I'd like to see niether, I'd rather it be a rabbit than a human.

For me, it's not as much about no animal testing at all but about the prevention of unnecessary testing by companies that merely test for personal profit in stead of the profit for mankind. The problem therefore is not as much the testing on animals itself, as it is that a lot of companies perform the same tests. In case of health issues the bottomline will always be that we choose for our own survival above that of an animal. Today I believe that most of these tests are done in the most ethical way as possible. In case of commercial product testing, I feel there is a lot to be gained.

During the past decades, a lot of information has been gathererd by means of testing. If companies and labs share this information thousends of animals don't have to be exposed to tests. Another way of testing can be realised by using computer calculations and interpretations of products based on the earlier gathered information. Those systems have to be developed and that means you have to invest.

This is just as much an issue of ethics as it is of money and respect for life in general. The board of directors of Wilkinson or Gillette or others earn more than enough money. For a little bit less, thousends of animals have a nicer life. Therefore I choose to boycot companies that test shaving products or methods for commercial gain as much as I can while I support those companies who make an effort to produce their products in an society and environment friendly way.

 

[d_random]

So....can anyone suggest a good synthetic bristle shaving brush?

 

[bjrn]

The big synthetic brush round-up.

 

[d_random]

Thanks bjrn's!

The big synthetic brush round-up.

 

[Julius Caesar]

I think animal testing is wrong and unnecessary...just my 2 cents

 

[heirkb]

Well, instead of using animals, they could always do the testing on hippies and liberals and other seagull-scrubbers. They're sensitive folks.

(j/k)

-- John Gehman

Ok. This is an old thread, but I just do not think that this type of stuff should be ok on our forum. People seem to think that it's ok to insult one side, while it's not to insult the other. I'd just like to ask people to refrain from this, because, to put it politely, I find it stupid, unhelpful, unnecessary, impolite, aggravating, and somewhat infuriating (because it seems to happen over and over again).
Next time someone wants to say this type of stuff, think of everyone else trying to be sensible and considerate to others and our forum and please try your best to shut it. Even if it's a joke, I don't understand why jokes like this always slide while others do not...
Thank you to all who listened

 

[OldSaw]

Ok. This is an old thread, but I just do not think that this type of stuff should be ok on our forum. People seem to think that it's ok to insult one side, while it's not to insult the other. I'd just like to ask people to refrain from this, because, to put it politely, I find it stupid, unhelpful, unnecessary, impolite, aggravating, and somewhat infuriating (because it seems to happen over and over again).
Next time someone wants to say this type of stuff, think of everyone else trying to be sensible and considerate to others and our forum and please try your best to shut it. Even if it's a joke, I don't understand why jokes like this always slide while others do not...
Thank you to all who listened

Cool it Francis. It's just a joke, get a sense of humor and everything will be alright.

 

[Spade]

I think that testing on animals is disgusting.The biggest group of the humans thinks that is okay if they torture animals to make the human life better for themself.Actually the human beings are the only one on the earth who destroy it with fume,waste,poison,atomic bomb,etc...so I don't think that they have more claim than the animals to live happy in peace. I hate the hunters as well. Not a brave thing to kill an animal from a mile. If they have to kill a lion with knife for example I think they wouldn't find it a great fun. They don't kill an animal cause they hungry they kill for fun and this is DISGUSTING !!! I'm not vegeterian and I love to eat meat but its different then the testing.Those animal won't be if you not eating them.
I think there's enough murders, pedos, and bad guys on the earth to test these stuff and medicines on them. I hate everybody who torture an animal and if I see that guy gonna be in a big trouble cause I kick out the s...t of him !!!

 

[Ignatius]

Slightly off topic; did anyone in the UK see the BBC documentary on the decline and near extinction of Orangutans in Borneo the other day?

The main contributor was the intensive farming of PALM OIL. It's causing ecological and environmental catastrophe all over south east asia.