Animal Testing shave products

Another thing that sometimes falls under my Czar of the Universe scenario, is animal testing. I get annoyed by products that brag about not being tested on animals.

I don't know about you but I would like some kind of testing to be done before I use it. At least try it on prisoners. Who knows what kind of self esteem improvements it could cause in the process.

I know there is a lot of R&D at the big name companies and the smaller ones can sort of ride on their coat tails, but what is so bad about testing soap, shampoo, shave and skin care products on animals? We certainly don't seem to be too concerned about the badger and the boar. I wonder if brushes are tested on animals?

So if I was Czar of the Universe, animal testing would be mandatory for all new shave products.

You do realise that there is a difference between no animal testing, and no testing at all, right? The Body Shop, who at least in the past took pride in no animal testing of any products must have had thourough testing of all their products in lab environments, but on willing humans instead.

I think that those who do oppose to animal testing might do it because of two reasons. The first, more extreme, would be that we shouldn't harm animals in any shape or form. The second and probably more common one is that animal testing is often a torture-like happening, with things dropped into eyes of animals, animals held in extremely small cages and so on.

I'm no vegitarian, I'm happy that certain medicines are tested on animals, and I think some members of PETA and some British animal rights groups have gone off the deep end. But causing unnecessary suffering in animals clearly is immoral. Why should any company kill and torture animals to test substances that have already been tested?

How utterly selfish. That an innocent animal should have to suffer (yes, they can and do suffer) so you can enjoy an irritation-free experience with a cosmetic product is the epitome of human arrogance.

It's one thing if the testing is done for a medicine that can potentially save millions of lives, and there is no other available means of testing; but it's something entirely different for elective use of cosmetic and other products. Particularly in the 21st century, when technological advances have, without a doubt, eliminated any sort of justification for animal testing that may possibly have existed a century ago.

If you truly think animal testing is harmless and/or worth the price, I invite you to take a look at pictures of exactly what is involved in vivisection. I would post a link to them here, but I'm not sure whether that's kosher under the site's rules.

mr_economy said:

How utterly selfish. That an innocent animal should have to suffer (yes, they can and do suffer) so you can enjoy an irritation-free experience with a cosmetic product is the epitome of human arrogance.

It's one thing if the testing is done for a medicine that can potentially save millions of lives, and there is no other available means of testing; but it's something entirely different for elective use of cosmetic and other products. Particularly in the 21st century, when technological advances have, without a doubt, eliminated any sort of justification for animal testing that may possibly have existed a century ago.

If you truly think animal testing is harmless and/or worth the price, I invite you to take a look at pictures of exactly what is involved in vivisection. I would post a link to them here, but I'm not sure whether that's kosher under the site's rules.

Click to expand...

+1

I dont want to stir the pot, or ruffle any feathers, so I'll suffice to say I disagree with testing products on animals. I dont go out of my way to use all natural or non-animal tested products. I do find cosmetic testing on animals is pretty useless though. Dont listen to me though...I'm just a crazy hippie!

Hmm...i like this thread. I am all about animal testing. This goes for all things from medicine to cosmetic products. The funniest part of this whole conversation is that the "save the whales" crowd doesnt understand that while the "product" may say it hasn't been tested on animals, most of the ingredients have. Its a neat little way of bending words and getting around laws. Also, if its approved by the FDA, it was tested on some animal. Better them than having my face fall off.

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

mr_economy said:

How utterly selfish. That an innocent animal should have to suffer (yes, they can and do suffer) so you can enjoy an irritation-free experience with a cosmetic product is the epitome of human arrogance.

It's one thing if the testing is done for a medicine that can potentially save millions of lives, and there is no other available means of testing; but it's something entirely different for elective use of cosmetic and other products. Particularly in the 21st century, when technological advances have, without a doubt, eliminated any sort of justification for animal testing that may possibly have existed a century ago.

If you truly think animal testing is harmless and/or worth the price, I invite you to take a look at pictures of exactly what is involved in vivisection. I would post a link to them here, but I'm not sure whether that's kosher under the site's rules.

Click to expand...

xmemnochx said:

+1

Click to expand...

+2 well put. I would rather see poor Aunt Myrtyl with a big red sore on her face than see a rabbit tied down, eyes splayed open, shivering in pain.

Or your aunt dying over the course of a week from an unforseen and unknown allergic reaction?

In the US, these animals are not tied down. They are bred for this purpose and they are tested in a humane manner. If they exhibit signs of distress, they are euthanized and a necropsy is performed as there is no need to further the study, that product will not pass and they will receive specifics of what happened so that they can correct it and retest.

They don't tie them down and see how bad it gets, if it exhibits a reaction of that caliber, its euthanized. Countries outside of the US may be different.

How does all this animal testing mis-information get out?

jed1154 said:

Or your aunt dying over the course of a week from an unforseen and unknown allergic reaction?

In the US, these animals are not tied down. They are bred for this purpose and they are tested in a humane manner. If they exhibit signs of distress, they are euthanized and a necropsy is performed as there is no need to further the study, that product will not pass and they will receive specifics of what happened so that they can correct it and retest.

They don't tie them down and see how bad it gets, if it exhibits a reaction of that caliber, its euthanized. Countries outside of the US may be different.

How does all this animal testing mis-information get out?

Click to expand...

Well, I've never been a fan of Aunt Myrtyl, so I'm not too upset by it.

But seriously, I will admit things (probably) aren't as bad as the PETA folks make it out to be...and I am working in a field of science that owes everything to early basic research with pidgeons and rats (I can understand the use here). I also eat meat, etc. My problem is when I hear the (admittedly, possibly exaggerated) descriptions of the testing sites (for products that have already been thoroughly tested) and the way animals are treated (bred for that purpose or not) I get upset. Especially when cosmetics companies lie anyway about "non-commutogenic" claims...

I know. Its easy to get caught up in it.

PETA is like any other extremist group, they are basically terrorists for the uninformed. The whole organization is a sham, even though the basic idea behind it is a good one. Where they went wrong, im not sure.

The cosmetic companies that state 'not animal tested' are stating a lie of omission. If they state FDA compliance, then the stuff IN it was tested and cleared while the PRODUCT as a whole was not technically tested on animals.

jed1154 said:

I know. Its easy to get caught up in it.

PETA is like any other extremist group, they are basically terrorists for the uninformed. The whole organization is a sham, even though the basic idea behind it is a good one. Where they went wrong, im not sure.

The cosmetic companies that state 'not animal tested' are stating a lie of omission. If they state FDA compliance, then the stuff IN it was tested and cleared while the PRODUCT as a whole was not technically tested on animals.

Click to expand...

PETA does suck quite a lot, I am no activist or animal rights freak, however I do have friends that work at research institutions and I myself work in higher education, I have seen first had what happens to the animals, they are not enjoying a stay at Club Med.

It isn’t what PETA makes it out to be, but on the other hand it’s still very disturbing. But when has mankind ever really cared about the treatment of other humans and or animals for that matter, all part of the greater good right?

jed1154 said:

Or your aunt dying over the course of a week from an unforseen and unknown allergic reaction?

Click to expand...

Since when does animal testing guarantee against someone having an unforseen / unknown allergic reaction to something?

Because thats the whole point of testing on animals. It gets past the development stage where all the theory says its ok. Quite often, the animals exhibit various side effects of whatever they are testing which would have previously gone unnoticed. They often test on animals such as rabbits, rats, mice, etc because they have similar reactions as humans. Once this phase passes, they will test on a small group of people if they wish.

Jedi,

As someone who has spent a lot of time doing environmental ethics and empirical research on the treatment of animals in labs and in agriculture, you are way off about your empirical claims. Treatment of animals in the standard lab is terrible (rabbits with eyes splayed open and having chemical dumped in is not an exaggeration). If I had time, I would go on about the very good reasons why such treatment is inappropriate (you could check out some of Peter Singer's very influential work).

You dont have to. Im not wanting to get into an argument about this. Ill not go any further other than to say im WELL aware of how this testing is performed, and my claims are not off. I cannot speak for labs globally or ALL of the labs in the US. After doing a quick search on Peter Singer, i can say that i will NOT be reading any apparantly highly biased so called 'works'.

I support animal testing as i have outlined, but thats just my OPINION, nothing more, it was formed on some research and firsthand AND secondhand knowledge. I didnt just wake up and make the decision. Im not saying anyone else has to adopt it....im just offering my opinion on the matter in this post. If you don't believe it or accept it, thats OK, thats the whole greatness of an open message forum. I appreciate your input and while i most certainly will not stomach Peter Singer's work, i will remain open and take a look anyway.

jbasl said:

Jedi,
(rabbits with eyes splayed open and having chemical dumped in is not an exaggeration).

Click to expand...

I thought that was the Druze test, by definition. Some find it necessary. While some new products, or many new products in fact, no longer use this, rest assured that just about every ingredient in cosmetics has been tested like this at some point in time.

It is interesting that you would call Singer biased after an internet search. Usually bias carries with it a negative connotation as if he were unjustified in holding the views that he does. If by biased you do not intend a negative connotation (e.g., he holds one view over another), then yes he is biased. However, if you intend the negative connotation, I don't understand how you could tell that without reading his arguments and evaluating them. Most everyone who has never read Singer thinks his views are stupid and then go on to exaggerate them. However, after having taught his work numerous times and actually making students evaluate it based on its merits, they rarely end up thinking he holds his positions unjustly (even though many still disagree). Nobody, me included, likes hearing that the products and practices we use and engage in everyday are inappropriate or unjustified. However, the responsible response seems to me to take the time to really evaluate such practices rather than to just make accusations. I don't intend to attack you but only point out that your position might require further evaluation especially since an important premise in your argument is that animals have very little to no moral standing compared with humans and it isn't at all obvious that that claim is true.

Animal Testing... I can confrim that my Boxer loves C&E Nomad.... she jumped on the counter and was licking the brush and proceeded to get cream all over her face and muzzle.