maggiekb — 2014-05-28T11:51:50-04:00 — #1
brian_carnell — 2014-05-28T12:28:27-04:00 — #2
That was a singularly uninformative advocacy piece.
Moran's law would ban all cosmetics testing on animals in the United States one year after its date of passage.
That doesn't make sense unless there are already approved non-animal tests to replace all of the animal tests, and it doesn't appear that is the case in the United States.
When the European Union enacted a similar ban, it created several milestones over a decade, and created an agency to ensure there were viable alternatives approved before animal testing was halted. (Nice, thorough, explanation of how they went about that here: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing/index_en.htm)
Many of the alternatives to animal testing used in the EU don't appear close to approval for use in the United States for some reason. For example, the US still apparently hasn't approved any in vitro skin irritation tests yet, and part of the reason is concern that they're not as effective as animal models (see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rabbit-rest-can-lab-grown-human-skin-replace-animals/)
ianloic — 2014-05-28T13:29:40-04:00 — #3
Back to human trials in the developing world, I guess.
israel_b — 2014-05-28T13:34:30-04:00 — #4
As was explained to me there is no need to do trials in the developing world as children in the developed world are perfectly happy to put anything in their mouths, on their faces or up their noses, etc.
jimp — 2014-05-28T14:17:29-04:00 — #5
We still have things like "Snooki" we can test cosmetics on.
Cosmetics are so peripheral to life that I don't much care if there's no good substitute for using live animals to test things on. Plenty of people will volunteer I suspect for a free supply of whatever **** is currently smeared on the faces of people whose only claim to fame is being famous.
daneyul — 2014-05-29T04:33:51-04:00 — #6
I guess I have to defer to your pragmatic assessment, but as far as I'm concerned, if no alternative to animal testing exists for a freaking cosmetic, then the cosmetic should be removed from public use until one is devised (with the manufacturer kicking in at least a goodly portion of the development of such a test.)
gilbertwham — 2014-05-29T08:21:41-04:00 — #7
Have we not developed enough of the damn things already by now anywway?
samthepea — 2014-05-29T08:39:09-04:00 — #8
Testing on animals is just wrong wrongy wrong. Just offer cash rewards to humans, there's always a roob.
brian_carnell — 2014-05-29T11:41:19-04:00 — #9
as far as I'm concerned, if no alternative to animal testing exists for a freaking cosmetic, then the cosmetic should be removed from public use until one is devised
Ah...not agreeing or disagreeing, but I suspect most people aren't aware of just how many products are classified as "cosmetics" in the US and EU.
The term "cosmetics" brings to mind makeup, but it includes everything from soap to toothpaste to suntan lotion to perfumes and makeup.
Good overview at the page below of what various international and national agencies classify as cosmetics vs. drugs (and some products are both):
chgoliz — 2014-05-29T12:16:52-04:00 — #10
I haven't read your link yet, but I remember a simple example that made it clear to me: deodorant merely sits on your skin masking odor whereas antiperspirant actually makes chemical changes, so the former is a "cosmetic" and the latter is a "drug".
brian_carnell — 2014-05-29T18:18:59-04:00 — #11
Yes, antiperspirants are classified as an OTC drug, while deodorants are considered cosmetics in the United States.
billstewart — 2014-05-30T04:45:05-04:00 — #12
There's a brand of soda called Brain Wash that has lots of caffeine, herbs, bright colored dye, and skulls or whatever on the bottle. At least one version of their labels had the slogan "All animal testing was consensual."
maggiekb — 2014-06-02T11:51:51-04:00 — #13
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.