From: mrp@world.std.com (Marjorie R Peskin)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Cruelty Free Products (Was Re: cradle cap)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:09:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BtB4G7.KsA
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <19433@drutx.ATT.COM> seb1@druhi.att.com writes:
>In article <JGJ.92Aug18130200@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com>, jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>|> > Products that aren't tested on animals are still tested.
>|> > Mostly on human volunteers.
>|> 
>|> That I find morally reprehensible.  To test things on humans before
>|> they've been tried on animals reeks of Nazi Germany.  You can bet I
>|> won't use any of these so-called cruelty-free products!
>|> 
>|> > Most companies making non-animal tested stuff use ingredients with a
>|> > long, safe history too.
>|> 
>|> This is starting to sound like Ludditism.  Must not try anything new
>|> now; it might make a rat die.
>
>Maybe some do, maybe some don't. What I have read is that animal testing
>has gotten very expensive and computer modeling of reactions has gotten
>much better (particuarly for things like cosmetics and body care products).
>So, companies are not testing their products on animals or on PEOPLE (I
>mean let's be real and think about the liability implications here!). They
>are testing them via computers.
>
>And, given the ingredient lists I've seen on some of the cruelty free
>products, they are definitely using more tried and true formulations
>which use natural herbal things and not stuff cooked up by a chemist.
>You may argue that some of these may be dangerous too, but many of them
>have a LONG history of use without any deleterious effects. And believe
>it or not, they work in plenty of cases. Just because it's a weed
>in your backyard, doesn't mean it's useless! Mother Nature is smarter
>than we give her credit for.
>

I know I started this thread, but if Sharon really believes that companies
are no longer testing cosmetics on animals, I have a bridge I would like to
sell her.  Perhaps checking into Loreal, Gillette, Procter and Gambel, 
etc. might shock some of you, but the DO test on animals, they DO force
rabbits, cats, dogs, and lab rats into the most gruesome tests imaginable,
and the absolutely DO kill at least 50% of the animals before they declare
a test completed.  

I recommend reading more about animal testing before you buy any cosmetic
products that are not declared cruelty free.  You can get a free list of
cruelty free products (and that include such commercial favorites as Clinique,
Clarian, etc) from PETA by calling 301 770-PETA or writing P.O. Box 42516,
Washington DC 20015.  There are lots of books out there that describe in
very gory and bloody detail the suffering of lab animals, and you all need
to make your own decisions about how much or how little you care about the
animals.  

And while I am on the subject, Fisher Price and General Motors also test on
animals.  GM is the only car company in the world that still does animal
testing.  Fisher Price is the only toy company that still does animal testing.
This says something TO ME about what I will and won't purchase.  As I said,
its a personal decision, but you have got to be prepared to explain animal
tests to your kids, who now learn about this in school, and its hard for
me personally to defend the killing of animals for no descernable reason.
And, there is absolutely NO proven reason to still test on animals with 
computer modeling.

So, enough with the flames.  Just educate yourselves and your kids to
respect and love animals, after all, you are just an animal yourself.  

Fur is DEAD.

Marjorie	mrp@world.std.com


>-- 
>Sharon Badian
>AT&T Bell Labs - Denver
>seb1@druhi.att.com