Comments on: First Cosmetic Animal Testing Alternatives Approved

By: JHM

JHM — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:35:01 +0000

This is a complex issue. Humans and animals do not have the same physiology. Much better to test on humans. There is a severe overpopulation problem. I worked with many, male and female, that just adorn themselves with the stuff. Often scented products that I’ve suffered from. Let these people do the tests.

A recent study in scented products has shown a direct link to cancer…..Oh there’s a surprise. Just leave animals alone.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:12:08 +0000

I’ve read a few of your posts, and they are amusing, to say the least. Apparently, hundreds of other websites, subjectively or objectively written, are all wrong except this one. It sounds like justifying propaganda to me and I have noticed that near all the comments are mostly in unison supporting whatever you spout.

By: Left Brain

Left Brain — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:46:16 +0000

For me, I find companies that use arbitrary cut-offs to be hypocrites and parasites. They let other people do their dirty work and then claim some sort of moral high ground. It’s so troubling.

I’m with you though Juliet, the issue is too complex for a black and white answer.

By: Juliet

Juliet — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:09:45 +0000

In response to Janis – there are plenty of companies who don’t test their cosmetic products on animals. These vary between companies who never have (ex. Beauty Without Cruelty) and companies who have recently changed their policies – in part due to consumer pressure (ex. Maybelline).

You might be surprised how many readily-available, mainstream companies don’t test: such as the whole Estee Lauder group, Chanel, Bourjois, Revlon, and Almay.

Companies in the more health-food end of the market (inc. those dubiously calling themselves “natural” and decrying “non-natural” and “un-natural” products, boo hiss…) have been making better and better products more recently; their make-up used, it must be said, to be somewhere between not good and worse than nothing. Though now demanding department-store price (ex. Dr Hauschka) for products that aren’t department store quality and performance… and have not undergone the same kind of safety testing (animal or otherwise).

Three side issues. Aside from the necessity of cosmetics; and whether or not to draw a line between necessary (medical) and unnecessary (cosmetic) products and their testing; and whether it is acceptable to draw this line (I’m a drawer of lines, I admit):

(1) A company may never have tested its products, or ingredients therein, on animals; all very laudable, but what about ingredients whose safety has been tested on animals earlier, by other companies? Many companies try to fix cut-off dates, and some highlight their long history of never having tested (ex. Lavera and Beauty Without Cruelty). How grey an area is created by this somewhat arbitrary cut-off date?

(2) Companies jumping on the “green” and “ethical” bandwagons, with what look like valid claims until you read the small print. Ex. product not tested on animals but individual ingredients are. Or not tested by that company – but testing farmed out to another company.

(3) There has been testing – even many decades ago – of even the most basic and non-frilly ingredients: such as glycerin, water, and various oils (inc. mineral and coconut, and coconut derivatives, inc. in turn most of the commonest cleansing agents).

So: conflict between being an ethical consumer and being a rational and scientific one? (My personal solution is to go for grey areas and admit that this is too complex an issue for unsophisticated, black-and-white rules.)

By: Janis

Janis — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:01:58 +0000

The only alternative is honestly just not to use cosmetics if you dislike animal testing. That’s it. Use as little personal care product as possible.