contemplation, in and of itself is never empty...
the problem is what happens after contemplation...
yes we must prioritize...
but our non-human friends, trump CLM's mascara...
cosmetics & animal testing
- Thread starter Very Veronica
- Start date
the problem is what happens after contemplation...
yes we must prioritize...
but our non-human friends, trump CLM's mascara...
I hope we can one day live in a world without animal testing. Unfortunately even though the law may have changed requiring animal testing, it is still the best method to prove a products safety.
It is ludicrous to think that these companies have any malicious and villainous intent regarding animal testing when it’s clearly not in their interest to continue using it. Why? Not because they are caring corporate citizens but because 1)Animal testing is VERY expensive 2) Animal Testing gives the company VERY POOR PR . The dollar is the bottom line here - as soon as a cheaper, more consumer opinion friendly and viable alternative appears, a corporation like Gillette would be crazy not to jump on board.
I think avoiding buying from companies that test on animals is great and that all consumers should put their dollar where their mouth is. Most people do blindly buy without thinking of the repercussions of what their money supports. Money talks to these CEO bastards more than a few protestors.
A few ways to be a conscious consumer (yes some of these have flaws in themselves):
1) Buying local - put $ back into your community, less pollution from transportation etc... and you know what those locally grown carrots I bought at the farmers market were a helluva lot fresher and tastier then the dried up, bland orange sticks I buy at Safeway!
2) Food: Buy Organic (local if possible), buy free-range eggs and meat
3) Avoid buying from companies that use sweatshop and child labour - the textile industry is esp. bad.
4) Support FAIR TRADE.
5) Don't buy from companies that blatantly pollute - the technology industry is esp. bad for this.
6) Animal Testing
7) Simply buy less. Volentary Simplicity. I was in a Walmart the other day and I was shocked to see how much absolute crap seemingly very poor people were buying.
I am sorry to say that most of my generation is completely oblivious to anything going on outside of their small, selfish world. I am constantly shocked and dismayed at how little my peers know of current affairs, history, politics or anything beyond 50 Cents current beef or Britney’s latest antics. In one of my classes, 5 out of 24 students admitted they had no idea what apartheid was!
I wonder how many simply did not want to admit it and what does that say when we can't learn from the past because we are unaware of it.err.... Sorry got a little carried away and off topic here.
My bad.Yeah, I'm a monster. I'm non-vegan, pro-choice and pro homosexual marriage.Very Veronica said:
Have you checked to see if the dyes used to colour the fabrics on the Agent Provocateur lingerie you love so much isn't tested on animals or if the run off harms them? I haven't seen many unbleached hemp nipple pasties.
Maybe we're all monsters
Doesn't matter, lots of us are interested in learning to live within the parameters allowed to sustain a healthy planet.Yeah, I'm a monster.
Same Shit Different Pile:
Oh yeah... Will someone please think of the bunnies?
SD
It's quite the change in your tune from a year ago:Yeah, I'm a monster. I'm non-vegan, pro-choice and pro homosexual marriage.
Have you checked to see if the dyes used to colour the fabrics on the Agent Provocateur lingerie you love so much isn't tested on animals or if the run off harms them? I haven't seen many unbleached hemp nipple pasties.
Counterproductive Post.
Oh yeah... Will someone please think of the bunnies?
SD
Hardly a counterproductive post
Animal testing for cosmetics or medicine is for safety, not recreation.
My tune hasn't changed at all. I still have an issue with animals for that kind of sport. Calf roping seems pointless to me. Actually, all rodeo events with animals being put in harms way for amusement/entertainment, is pointless. How much demand is there for glue or veal, anyways?
Animal testing for cosmetics or medicine is for safety, not recreation.
Astroglide has not responded but in my limited research on the cosmetics database, they don't animal test (despite not proudly displaying the cruelty free bunny) but except for their new safer ingredient product line, most of their products contain parabens. Boo. Always read ingredient list! Even Capers products are offenders.
This logo on a product means cruelty free:
Check this site to see how your products stack up: http://cosmeticdatabase.com/
Fortunately the lube market is filled with lots of tree hugger options (thanks horny vegans!) readily available at sex stores, capers & to a lesser extent, drug stores not to mention lots of options online. Read individual labels as not all products are created equal despite coming from the same company.
I'm now off to explore the toxic ingredients that the FDA has allowed in skin care products (parabens, phthalates, talc, mercury etc) which could very well be contributing to the huge unexplained rise in cancer rates & other 20th C medical diseases conditions. As Kermit would say, it's not easy bein green!
I only buy products from companies that don’t test on animals.
SOME USEFUL LINKS
http://www.oecd.org
OECD accomplishments to date include the following:
• Influencing the international acceptance of three new, non-animal OECD test guidelines as replacements for animal tests for skin corrosion, phototoxicity, and skin absorption
• Securing a more prominent role of non-animal methods for the testing of chemicals for "endocrine disrupting" effects, including the formation of a special OECD focus group dedicated to this purpose
• Convincing world governments that animal tests must be held to the same scientific standard as non-animal methods
• Securing the deletion of the test guideline for a notoriously cruel animal test
http://www.animalalliance.ca/about/index.html
ANIMAL ALLIANCE OF CANADA
protection of all animals and the promotion of a harmonious relationship among people, animals and the environment.
View a complete list of companies that are a part of the Leaping Bunny Program.
http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping.php
SOME USEFUL LINKS
http://www.oecd.org
OECD accomplishments to date include the following:
• Influencing the international acceptance of three new, non-animal OECD test guidelines as replacements for animal tests for skin corrosion, phototoxicity, and skin absorption
• Securing a more prominent role of non-animal methods for the testing of chemicals for "endocrine disrupting" effects, including the formation of a special OECD focus group dedicated to this purpose
• Convincing world governments that animal tests must be held to the same scientific standard as non-animal methods
• Securing the deletion of the test guideline for a notoriously cruel animal test
http://www.animalalliance.ca/about/index.html
ANIMAL ALLIANCE OF CANADA
protection of all animals and the promotion of a harmonious relationship among people, animals and the environment.
View a complete list of companies that are a part of the Leaping Bunny Program.
http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping.php
Speaking of fairness to animals...
Jenna Jameson did a PETA ad. It's posted at http://www.globeandmail.com.
Direct link here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20080312.wvpeta0312
Jenna Jameson did a PETA ad. It's posted at http://www.globeandmail.com.
Direct link here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/video/vs?id=RTGAM.20080312.wvpeta0312
Fwiw
This is an interesting thread, and I agree with the over-riding concern.
In the late 90's, I had a reason to cease my regular life and become immersed in the skin-care industry. While I had a specific goal in mind, I had to cover a lot of territory, consequently I joined the CTFA (now Personal Care Products Council) so I could access their huge database and subscribed to various industry publications like "Cosmetics & Toiletries". I spent about 10-12 hours a day, everday researching and experimenting. I was in close contact with ingredient suppliers around the world and read a tremendous amount of literature that ingredients companies produce in researching, developing their products. I also consumed much of the popular literature at the time including Paula Begoun's 'Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me'.
A quick summary of what I learned:
Paula Begoun was a poor researcher who misrepresented and misunderstood many things.
As was pointed out earlier, it is in the best interests of the consumer product companies to sell animal friendly products, but the testing issues actually resides with the ingredient manufacturers (those who produce surfactants, emulsifiers, etc.), not the consumer corporations. I found one company in France that made 100% vegetable sourced incipients (emulsifiers, thickeners, surfactants, "cosmeceutical ingredients"...) that was actively working on viable alternatives to animal testing; none in North America. Compared to their competitors, their ingredients are costly.
There have been many generations of preservatives since the invention of the parabens. By their very nature, preservatives are high on the list of irritating substances. The newer compounds are less irritating, but parabens are dirt cheap compared to anything else.
The industry believes in the dictum that people with sensitive skin also have dry skin, and that people with oily skin do not have sensitive skin.
Products labelled as No Oil, can feel just as "oily" because they contain silicone which is technically not an oil.
Oil (and oily substances like the many variations of silicone fluids) are not moisturizers. Water is the only moisturizer. Everything else that claims to be is not. The non-water "moisturizers" only serve to reduce the rate of evaporation by providing a barrier or as a humectant (moisture attractor). There is one outstanding ingredient (a form of lactic acid) that reallyl holds moisture in the skin. However it has to be used in a w/w volume of 12% at a specific pH. This makes for a costly and "space" consuming ingredient.
Vitamin C does promote healthy collagen, but the form of vitamin C used in 99% does not work, because ordinary vitamin C deteriorates very rapidly when it is wet, consequently it's effectiveness begins decreasing as soon as the product is made and continues to decrease rapidly.
Most "herbal" products aren't. If a herb has any skin care qualities, it is due to a specific compound within that herb. I got samples from well over 100 companies that make herbal additives for skin care products. None of them have any idea as to how much potency their extracts may have. Further, the amount of the extract, typically in a liquid, that a manufacturer adds is quite insignificant. If you are looking for something with an herbal compound because you know it is good for your skin, try to find products that use a "phyto" compound (the pure beneficial component extracted from an herb). At least it will have something in it that is measurable. However phyto compounds are very expensive (ranging to $2,000/kg).
The best beneficial oil for skin care is flaxseed oil. It is rarely used because it oxidizes quickly and has a strong odor. Second best is borage oil. They both contain high amounts of an essential fatty acid that is proven to be beneficial as a topical ingredient. Borage oil is much more expensive that the "natural" oils used in most skin care products.
When I was in my peak period of research, the industry rule of thumb was that the cost to manufacture a product was ~ 20% of its retail price. The container for a product cost about the same as the contents. Given the "advances" in packaging (measured pump dispensers with pressurized bladders inside of the bottle, etc) packaging probably costs more than the product.
The best place to compare product ingredients is the US. The US gov't requires ingredients to be listed in descending order by %. Canada does not.
This is an interesting thread, and I agree with the over-riding concern.
In the late 90's, I had a reason to cease my regular life and become immersed in the skin-care industry. While I had a specific goal in mind, I had to cover a lot of territory, consequently I joined the CTFA (now Personal Care Products Council) so I could access their huge database and subscribed to various industry publications like "Cosmetics & Toiletries". I spent about 10-12 hours a day, everday researching and experimenting. I was in close contact with ingredient suppliers around the world and read a tremendous amount of literature that ingredients companies produce in researching, developing their products. I also consumed much of the popular literature at the time including Paula Begoun's 'Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me'.
A quick summary of what I learned:
Paula Begoun was a poor researcher who misrepresented and misunderstood many things.
As was pointed out earlier, it is in the best interests of the consumer product companies to sell animal friendly products, but the testing issues actually resides with the ingredient manufacturers (those who produce surfactants, emulsifiers, etc.), not the consumer corporations. I found one company in France that made 100% vegetable sourced incipients (emulsifiers, thickeners, surfactants, "cosmeceutical ingredients"...) that was actively working on viable alternatives to animal testing; none in North America. Compared to their competitors, their ingredients are costly.
There have been many generations of preservatives since the invention of the parabens. By their very nature, preservatives are high on the list of irritating substances. The newer compounds are less irritating, but parabens are dirt cheap compared to anything else.
The industry believes in the dictum that people with sensitive skin also have dry skin, and that people with oily skin do not have sensitive skin.
Products labelled as No Oil, can feel just as "oily" because they contain silicone which is technically not an oil.
Oil (and oily substances like the many variations of silicone fluids) are not moisturizers. Water is the only moisturizer. Everything else that claims to be is not. The non-water "moisturizers" only serve to reduce the rate of evaporation by providing a barrier or as a humectant (moisture attractor). There is one outstanding ingredient (a form of lactic acid) that reallyl holds moisture in the skin. However it has to be used in a w/w volume of 12% at a specific pH. This makes for a costly and "space" consuming ingredient.
Vitamin C does promote healthy collagen, but the form of vitamin C used in 99% does not work, because ordinary vitamin C deteriorates very rapidly when it is wet, consequently it's effectiveness begins decreasing as soon as the product is made and continues to decrease rapidly.
Most "herbal" products aren't. If a herb has any skin care qualities, it is due to a specific compound within that herb. I got samples from well over 100 companies that make herbal additives for skin care products. None of them have any idea as to how much potency their extracts may have. Further, the amount of the extract, typically in a liquid, that a manufacturer adds is quite insignificant. If you are looking for something with an herbal compound because you know it is good for your skin, try to find products that use a "phyto" compound (the pure beneficial component extracted from an herb). At least it will have something in it that is measurable. However phyto compounds are very expensive (ranging to $2,000/kg).
The best beneficial oil for skin care is flaxseed oil. It is rarely used because it oxidizes quickly and has a strong odor. Second best is borage oil. They both contain high amounts of an essential fatty acid that is proven to be beneficial as a topical ingredient. Borage oil is much more expensive that the "natural" oils used in most skin care products.
When I was in my peak period of research, the industry rule of thumb was that the cost to manufacture a product was ~ 20% of its retail price. The container for a product cost about the same as the contents. Given the "advances" in packaging (measured pump dispensers with pressurized bladders inside of the bottle, etc) packaging probably costs more than the product.
The best place to compare product ingredients is the US. The US gov't requires ingredients to be listed in descending order by %. Canada does not.
