new thread
Hey everyone. I have been thinking lately about a serious and yet sensitive subject. I am currently using all natural products that do not test on animals, and they even say it right on the label. However, when i was thinking of changing over to another brand, i was then told about the subject of animal testing.
I do not know if that even goes on in the USA or Canada, but are most products perhaps made and tested in places that do allow it?
I do not know a lot about this topic, but i was hoping some of you would be able to enlighten me, or explain a little more about whether or not it does actually occur.
I would really like to switch brands (to a more common brand like Dove for example) as a change but at the same time I do not want to support such causes...what do you think i should do?
Thanks a lot in advance,
Miller.
The brands that claim no animal testing simply use chemicals/products that have been tested elsewhere for other consumer goods. So, while their products have not been animal tested, the components, of course, have been.
There is no white and black, just shades of grey.
That's quite true. I personally oppose animal testing on this basis, i.e. I think that all manufacturers of cosmetics and toiletries should do this. Unfortunately, I have not been very conscientious in following through.
However, the Body Shop used to follow such a policy, but I was told that when they wanted to enter the US market, they were forced to test all their final compositions on animals, and that the US actually requires such animal testing.
When I was a kid, we used to test Johnson's baby shampoo on our dog. The dog was not the worse for it, but the testing sure made a mess of the bathroom.
Bill
lol thank you Bill for making me smile. and yes im sure it made quite a mess lol
Two things i'd like to remark.
1) This concern appears very similar to what a vegetarian would fret about. If you're not a vegetarian, and you're going to eat meat, then you might aswell allow testing of animals. Surely death is worse than having some shampoo tested on you, and if you don't mind the former, well then it seems strange to mind the latter.
If you ARE a vegetarian, then I see your concern with animal rights in general. In which case, see number 2.
2) If products aren't tested on animals, then how exactly are they going to be tested? Surely you will agree that testing potentially dangerous products on humans is even worse than animals. And if you argue that humans would volunteer, please remember that we'd be talking about poor people in need of money and willing to be exploited for it. Personally I put humans above animals, and all other things being equal, I'd rather an animal suffer than a human suffer. Of course, some people might think the opposite, I really don't know.
I've never thought too much about this though, but when people advocate an end to animal testing, I fail to see a particularly good alternative. As trolleypup said, at least components will be tested, and if you were to imagine a product where neither itself nor the components were tested...well then it would be a very dangerous product indeed, with unknown consequences for your health. For example, you wouldn't want to use a shampoo that might cause hair loss, all because nobody tested it on animals. Maybe it's just me but I've always thought of these anti-animal testing campaigns as naive.
a big part of my problem with animal testing is that companies keep testing the same things over and over. gillette is a company that is quite proud of doing just that. if you tortured 2000 bunnies by pouring shaving gel in thier eyes and found out that it won't (in theory) hurt a person, isn't that enough? why keep retesting that same product if the formula hasn't changed?
and in reality, each new product that ends up on store shelves is only slightly different from the one sitting next to it. if it is already known that an incredibly close combo of components is safe, does it really need to be put through the gamut of animal testing again?
and for the record, i am far from naive.
Then you're not against animal testing per se. You're just against irrational and unnecessary animal testing, which is a completely different argument, and in which I agree with you. Be careful not to create a straw man out of me :P
The original poster seems to be against animal testing no matter what form it takes, though I'm mostly inferring this from their post.
Every body has a right to their own opinion on this. Mine is that if they are killing "bunnies" to find a cure for cancer or aids let them have at it!! but if they want to test so a person can look their best I think they should not. But I don't research who does what to bunnies so I wouldn't know who to boycott. Now for one of my favorite recipes.
* 2 or 3 Rabbits (cut up)
* 2 chopped Apples
* 2 T. Pickling Spice (wrapped in cloth)
* 3 C. Water
* 2 C. Vinegar
* 1 medium chopped Onion
* 1 T. Salt
* 1/3 C. Raisins
Directions
Combine all ingredients. Cook slowly until meat is tender. If desired, add 8 cut up prunes after meat is tender - if added sooner they will stick to pan. Brown 1-3/4 C. white flour in frying pan until cinnamon color. Add to stew. Will look lumpy but if you cover the lumps will steam out.
i never said i'm ok with animal testing. i'm quite against it. but i'm also not going around shooting people who work for those companies. i research the products i use and the food i eat. i'm well aware that i can do what i need to do for myself, but that i cannot force others to change. as long as people make informed opinions and make decisions for themselves i have no problem with them. it's when people do things because 'that's how they were raised' or because 'that's how they've always done it' that i get irritated.
Oh good then. The only people I dis-respect with regards to the whole animal rights campaign are those that want to ascert their ideas through laws and government intervention, at which point it becomes less a campaign for animal rights and for a campaign against human rights.
Personally I don't research all the products I use (in terms of cosmetics shampoo is all I use), but if there's a scandal of some sort in the news about a company involving unnecessary cruelty to animals, I won't be buying their products anymore. So I'm sort of in the middle on this, adopting a more passive approach. I'm happy in the knowledge that animal testing is expensive, and that already acts as a natural disincentive to firms if they want to lower costs.
One of the main reasons behind animal testing of products is that it is mandated by governments, not the companies, although some of them seem to be too keen to carry it out.
What they don't seem to take into account is that humans aren't the same as animals and react differently to different products. In some cases, yes, you can learn something other than, "Yes, that hurts a bunny's eyes when you squirt it in them," and a lot of the information gathered doesn't transfer across to humans, and, in some cases, is totally useless.
My degree is in microbiology and we had to study animal testing as part of the course, although we didn't actually do any ourselves. A large proportion of the scientific community acknowledges that some animal testing is necessary and beneficial, but that a lot of the tests, as nic said, are repeats of previous experiments where no new information or benefits are being generated, so why repeat that. The reason this is done is because governments insist on new tests for every single new formulation of a product or range of products, so if you change the scent or flavour of a product, it has to go through the whole range of tests again because you've added or changed one component in the mix. If it's not done in one country, it's done in another, often one with less stringent regulations on animal testing and animal welfare. A lot of companies will licence out their product testing so they can legitimately say, "We didn't test this product on animals," which, tecnically is true. They just got someone else to do it but the product will still have been tested.
That's interesting Viking, I didn't know that animal testing was mandated by governments. Well then, just another thorn I can add to my long list of what governments shouldn't do. Isn't it fun to be libertarian? :P
Yes, i do agree with the fact that if u didn't test on animals then the product would be considered dangerous...however i very strongly disagree with the thing you said about animals should be tested rather than humans....that is not right because animals do not have a choice and are NOT paid to become part of this. If some humans want to be part of this atleast they would have a choice AND would be paid for the testing.
Extending that logic then, any way in which humans do something animals may disagree with, is wrong, since the animals did not consent. But what animal would willingly consent to being killed for food or anything else? Certainly with the views you advocate you are then a vegetarian, because if not then I must call you a hypocrite.
Do we outlaw the cat that plays with a mouse before killing it because the mouse disagrees? Do we say "Down with the food chain" because those lower down clearly disagree with those further up?
We talk of animal rights but this concept is foreign to the animals we seek to protect and foreign to nature itself. It is an idea thought up by humans, and one animals couldn't even comprehend. Why? Not because they are less intelligent, but because the very concept is absent from nature. Look around you, you don't see the lion respecting the rights of a deer. They do not engage in a polemic discussing the legitimacy of killing for food or any other purpose and it's violation of some abstract rights. So be wary of labelling an activity as "wrong" when similar ones are present throughout all of nature. While we don't see animals testing products on each other, we certainly see a lot of other cruelty within nature, and unlike many would think, not all of it is for food.
I know I'm probably being harsh here, and I love many animals, but I just think the idea of "animal rights" to be somewhat on shaky intellectual ground.
and yet humans have more of a capacity for compassion. should we not use that? or do you think just because a lion's instinct is to kill a deer that somehow it is ok for a human to beat his dog? that is poor logic.
No, my logic was that animals did not merely go by instincts derived from a necessity to survive. That's why I gave the example of the cat, needlessly torturing the mouse before killing it. Yet seldom do we see critisicm of cats. I can find other examples if you like. In fact, I think I read an article recently about a species of fish raping the females of another species so that they could not reproduce.
Besides, if we're going to talk about logic, most of the arguments I've seen for animal rights use appeal to emotion anyway, which is a logical fallacy.
how is it a fallacy to use emotion? what is the point of being human if that part of our nature is ignored? a purely logical world would be an awful place to live.
There's nothing wrong with emotion in itself, but the point is that these arguments replace reason with emotion, and that in itself is a logical fallacy. Such as when emotion is used to justify an opinion as valid. I'm not making this up, this is a very common logical fallacy. Also, it is interesting that your previous post defends using emotion, by invoking an appeal to emotion (awful place to live).
See the article in my link as it gives a good explanation.
Appeal to emotion
Point taken, we do need to have a balance between emotion and balance (which I do) so i am not posting mainly upon emotion, but mainly lack of knowledge. Honestly not until a couple days ago did I even know that this sort of thing happened.
because war is logical it should happen? i prefer using emotion and preventing unneccesary death. i believe people's emotions are valid.
'read about what you believe in, but don't believe everything you read.'
I never said war was logical, so I don't see where you got that from. In fact, there are plenty of good logical arguments against war, and I do not see why emotion needs to be invoked, though I can see why it would help in such an argument. Nonetheless, I prefer to avoid appeals to emotion, as ultimately they have been used for evil far more than for good. In fact, appeals to emotion have been used to start very many wars. Mind you, in some cases war can be justified, for example in self-defense when invaded by another country, but there is little to no justification for most of the wars since WWII.
As to believing people's emotions are valid.... well that is contradictory and might even cause you cognitive dissonance. After all, in a religious war for example, both sides fervently believe that they are right (based on emotion), and yet they cannot be both right, and are possibly both wrong. But in that case, at least somebody's, if not everybody's emotions are not valid.
Also, about the quote, I agree about not believing everything you read in, that is certainly good advice. But reading what you believe? I'd rather read a whole range of opinions, because it might just be that the opinions I currently hold are wrong. This has happened to me countless times before, and I'm sure most people will testify that opinions differ over one's lifetime. So to advocate reading only what you believe (if that's what you meant in the quote) seems a bit....one-sided perhaps is the word i'm looking for.
Correctly so or not, emotion certainly enters into the equation. Why are most people comfortable with squishing a cockroach but not a puppy?
I would suggest that it is because people can identify with the puppy's FACE. They get emotions from the little guy's face and they can empathize via that channel. They can imagine what it would be like to be in his place. Cockroaches, on the other hand, do not reveal any facial emotions that people can read, because their faces are too far removed from what human faces look like. This prevents people from feeling at that deep down subconscious "gut reaction" level that cockroaches are even hurt when squished.
It may be as well a sense that the victim is not an individual. Empathy relies on a connection between two individuals felt by the empathizer to both be individually recognizable. Species who cannot recognize themselves in a mirror tend to not show empathy towards others, researchers have found. One end of the communications channel is broken.
For the several of us on MLHH who are face blind, growing long hair can be more than a fashion statement. We cannot fully relate emotionally to others, and that includes empathy, if we cannot recognize ourselves. Long hair is much more variant in appearance than is a face, and by growing long hair, we can thereby recognize ourselves and thus greatly reduce or eliminate that problem.
"Not having empathy" can, of course, be an asset to some species, particularly those which kill others for food. This may well, to some extent, extend even to the human race, where men traditionally were the hunters and women the gatherers. Few doubt that women are more emotionally connected to others while men are more physically connected. Give girls dolls, and they will imagine emotional relationships between them. Give boys dolls (they will call them army men) and they will have them killing each other without ever imagining that that might hurt.
Bill
This is true, we empathize with other people and animals because we put ourselves in their situation. This can be a disadvantage to some, but we sometimes have to be tough and only show empathy in necessary situations.
Very good point, i actually agree with many things that you are saying. I very well agree that we in fact need food to live etc. However, i do not think that many products (because many are almost the exact same ) should be tested on animals countless time with harsh results.
The real reason my attention was brought to this was because my parents told me that if i were to look up animal testing i would be sickened by the results.
I am not saying this is true as I am not very educated on the matter, but if it is true than i for one do not think it is worth it to put them through that just to have better quality hair.
I do again agree with your explanation of how we need to eat and we need animals to survive etc. and that is a necessity. I believe that we are supposed to hunt for food to survive (if we were to live naturally) but animal testing is not worth it if really harsh results are the outcome.
Another thing to consider is the fact that we have come a long way and we know now what does cause harsh conditions and bad results when testing products, so i dont think there is much to worry about now a days (but then again i could be wrong)
Anyway, sorry for the really long post i just wanted to get my facts straight and wanted to become more educated on the matter, and thank you derf26 for making some very good points. Also I hope that no one is offended from this post, since as I said before this can be quite a sensitive topic, I only wanted to become more educated on the matter.
Miller.
Funny thing, I was far more worried about people being offended at MY post lol.
Either way, yes as I have already agreed with nic about this, I also disagree with excessive use of animal testing, but like with anything that falls under the law of diminishing returns, unnecessary testing is a cost that firms pursuing profit would rather abandon to decrease costs. My main qualm with the animal rights movement is the same one I have with the environmentalists, who would use big government as a tool to legislate and impose their opinions on the rest of the world, and while their intentions may be good, we enter a slippering slope of government growth and contraction of freedom.
Freedom of information and getting to know more about the products you consume is a perfectly reasonable way to put pressure on those companies that do an excess and unnecessary amount of animal testing without infringing on anyone's liberty.
As to whether products still need to be tested, I think scientists have made many errors concerning medicines that have had terrible side-effects. I have unfortunately forgotten, but a particular type of (until recently) popular anti-AIDS medicine was incredibly destructive, and more people died more quickly as a result of that medicine than if they had not taken it at all. I unfortunately have no idea to what extent this applies to cosmetics though.
see: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html Food and Drug Administration for information relative to animal testing in the United States, US government policy and more. Your topic is serious and you make a choice any time that you purchase cosmetics, food, otc medication or anything. Want more to think about (and just how are we to get around this one?)google: sodium lauryl sulfate, read on and see what you think! Ah, this is my first post and I hope I have kept it all between the shoulders. . . hair is at 15.75 months from .75 inches at the start, now mostly shoulder length (had the split ends trimmed Friday.) Sure will be happy when it all stays back in a pony tail (sans cosmetics) when I'm trying to work! Best to all you other long haired people. I'll maybe send you a head shot some day.
Well on behalf of the MLHH i welcome you....and good luck with the growing.
Thank you very much for the information, it has made me think about the subject more in depth.
- - oh, it certainly goes on in the u.s. there is a facililty a mere six miles from my residence.
- - what is your purpose in switching brands? is the one you're currently using not working well or hard to find?
I am disappointed to hear that it actually goes on in the U.S. It is unnecessary.
The reason i wanted to switch is because i wanted to purchase the Dove line of products (I have tried them with excellent results). When i heard of this whole thing i could not just brush it off and stop thinking about it, so i wanted to find out more about this before i ever again purchased common brand hair care products.
This sounds very extreme and yes i can admit it is, but i simply think too much about this kind of thing, and i do not want to feel like i am supporting anything i do not stand for.
then i hope you do not buy many meat products. quite a few of the companies are notorious for abusing the animals. after all, they're 'just meat.'
Yeah, unfortunately a lot of animals are used for a lot of purposes...the key is to realize which purposes are worth it...damaging animals to test cosmetics and conditioners and shampoos is probably not good...but scientific and medical testing I believe is a good use...
A few rats dying to prevent cancer? good
A few rats dying to make people pretty? not as good
What about a few rats to feed Absalom's pet snake?
Bill
A few rats dying to keep my snakes fed is very good. They really don't eat all that much, maybe an average of one per week.
Scott
That's awesome lol.
Which type of snake is it? And do you keep them at home or in some special cage?
is at least 9 feet long, and is kept in a large wooden box.
The box is kept at 80 to 90 degrees F. I use a hand wound
auto transformer that I custom made to control the heat. It
has voltage settings of 36,48,60,72,84, and 96 volts. This is
connected to 5 15 watt incandescent lights. In addition, there
is a heat pad underneath with a piece of aluminum sheet on top
of it to evenly spread the heat.
Allowing this beast to freely roam my house would invite disaster. Boa Constrictors like to climb on things, and at 45 pounds in weight, would trash my place in no time.
Scott
So I wonder which is longer, Absalom's snake or his hair? :-)
Al
Well, I know his hair has colored rings around it, so it must be poisonous!
Bill
Thats called nature...well sort of...the snake would normally eat that prey and when kept as a pet, the snake needs to be fed. Of course, the rats are also kept as pets and not in the wild so the pet owner simply is facilitating the normal events of nature.
I know I am coming in a bit late on the discussion here, but a distinction needs to be made between animals tested for things like nerve gas and pain tolerance, and those tested to see if glycerin in higher concentrations will make their hair shine more.
The majority of animals tested for cosmetic purposes are well taken care of, suffer no pain, and are monitored constantly for any signs of rash, irritation, etc. There is no suffering involved. Many of these animals taken car of better than those seen in neighborhoods.
Medical and military testing is a bit different, as the physical effects are part of the testing.
Not buying a hair product because of animal testing is missing the mark, as these are not the animals of concern.
Miller,
here is a pretty good discussion by some pretty picky people (I'm a member there, I think. I don't post much)
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=412188
Unilever does use testing by ingredient, so the PRODUCT is not tested on animals. Bath & Body works does a sneaky like this: "finished product not tested on animals."
While I might volunteer to be a test subject for Ben & Jerry's (owned by unilever) I don't think I personally could be happy with the company's choices.
Thus, I buy from companies that will not test.