Comments on: Animal Testing http://headcoffin.com/phoneblog/animal-testing/ For those times you don't go Zombie Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:23:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Zible http://headcoffin.com/phoneblog/animal-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-739 Zible Tue, 05 May 2009 20:13:29 +0000 http://headcoffin.com/phoneblog/animal-testing/#comment-739 So what does it mean when the reply is longer then the actual post? Does that mean the blogger is an Epic win, or an Epic Fail... I can't tell. Anyways it's good to know that most of the stuff made out there was tested at some point on an animal so I don't have to spend 50 dollars on ripoff dog shampoo thats the same stuff as the 2.50 Suave discount dollar store brand. (I love my dog but he doesn't get the good stuff) As for testing on humans... ohh thats a whole other post... I should put those up on how I feel about that and other highly controversial topics, which aren't controversial at all, just nobody has the balls to take a stand and stick with it. So what does it mean when the reply is longer then the actual post? Does that mean the blogger is an Epic win, or an Epic Fail… I can’t tell.

Anyways it’s good to know that most of the stuff made out there was tested at some point on an animal so I don’t have to spend 50 dollars on ripoff dog shampoo thats the same stuff as the 2.50 Suave discount dollar store brand. (I love my dog but he doesn’t get the good stuff)

As for testing on humans… ohh thats a whole other post… I should put those up on how I feel about that and other highly controversial topics, which aren’t controversial at all, just nobody has the balls to take a stand and stick with it.

]]> By: Rac http://headcoffin.com/phoneblog/animal-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-701 Rac Fri, 01 May 2009 03:10:46 +0000 http://headcoffin.com/phoneblog/animal-testing/#comment-701 Animal testing is a subject that puts many people in a tizzy. Who can blame people for feeling bad for the poor animals that have irritating, and potentially harmful, things stuffed in their eyes and loaded on their skin just so wrinkly ladies can have a night cream that will slightly decrease the bags under their eyes. Are we so arrogant to assume that our vanity is worth the suffering of another creature? Yet, the other side of the argument is not without sanity. How can we put things on our skin without knowing the toxicity, or the hypoallergenicity? Or if it will make our eyes burn? How can we use a product without knowing if it is safe? There are those that would suggest that testing on humans is much more humane than testing on animals. At least humans that participate in testing give their consent and are compensated for their participation. Currently some tests for cosmetics are performed on humans, the Repeat Insult Patch Test for example. In this test the repeat contact sensitization of a finished product is evaluated on human volunteers. So who knows, maybe someday we will be shoving things in humans’ eyes instead of little bunnies’ to test for eye irritation. Whether you jump on the anti-animal testing band wagon or not, the fact is that things are heading that direction. The EU has already banned animal testing on all cosmetics. While this ban does not really take effect for another decade, to give time for suitable replacement tests to be developed, it represents a major shift in regulations. Incidentally, most replacements for animal testing currently being evaluated involve in-vitro (test tube) methods using skin cells. BTW, you don’t need to worry too much about your dog’s shampoo burning his eyes. Most companies that claim they do no animal testing rely on cosmetic ingredients that have been used in the industry for years and years and were once tested on animals. While these companies are not doing any new animal testing, they are using tested ingredients. Animal testing is a subject that puts many people in a tizzy. Who can blame people for feeling bad for the poor animals that have irritating, and potentially harmful, things stuffed in their eyes and loaded on their skin just so wrinkly ladies can have a night cream that will slightly decrease the bags under their eyes. Are we so arrogant to assume that our vanity is worth the suffering of another creature?

Yet, the other side of the argument is not without sanity. How can we put things on our skin without knowing the toxicity, or the hypoallergenicity? Or if it will make our eyes burn? How can we use a product without knowing if it is safe?

There are those that would suggest that testing on humans is much more humane than testing on animals. At least humans that participate in testing give their consent and are compensated for their participation. Currently some tests for cosmetics are performed on humans, the Repeat Insult Patch Test for example. In this test the repeat contact sensitization of a finished product is evaluated on human volunteers. So who knows, maybe someday we will be shoving things in humans’ eyes instead of little bunnies’ to test for eye irritation.

Whether you jump on the anti-animal testing band wagon or not, the fact is that things are heading that direction. The EU has already banned animal testing on all cosmetics. While this ban does not really take effect for another decade, to give time for suitable replacement tests to be developed, it represents a major shift in regulations.
Incidentally, most replacements for animal testing currently being evaluated involve in-vitro (test tube) methods using skin cells.

BTW, you don’t need to worry too much about your dog’s shampoo burning his eyes. Most companies that claim they do no animal testing rely on cosmetic ingredients that have been used in the industry for years and years and were once tested on animals. While these companies are not doing any new animal testing, they are using tested ingredients.

]]>