# Animal Testing



## LilyJo (Dec 16, 2016)

Dont want to get into a political argument about rights and wrongs as I know its a very emotive subject but I am curious. Dont want to push people into saying where they stand more interested in the overall public perception tbh.

The laws on animal testing in cosmetics are very different in the UK/EU to the states and I wondered how much of 'thing' it is in the USA?

Do customers/consumers/manufacturers care?  Is there a push or a voice to abandon testing or is it considered an acceptable necessity?

Is there a market for non-tested products or are they considered niche?

Like I said, more curious than anything!


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm not an American, but from what I have seen here about people not wanting to use palm because of perceived* issues, I would imagine that animal testing would be horrific for most makers if not the customers. A lot of people market products as cruelty free, so I think it is a consideration for many customers. 

* I say perceived as palm oil does not automatically equal dead apes. It can and often does, but it is not always the case


----------



## Susie (Dec 16, 2016)

There are more than a few animal rights groups in the US.  It is not a huge deal everywhere, but it is certainly heard of.  We have PETA and other groups that are advocating against animal testing and such.  There are also many of us who quietly avoid products that we perceive as bad without screaming it from the rooftops.


----------



## susiefreckleface (Dec 16, 2016)

Susie said:


> There are more than a few animal rights groups in the US.  It is not a huge deal everywhere, but it is certainly heard of.  We have PETA and other groups that are advocating against animal testing and such.  There are also many of us who quietly avoid products that we perceive as bad without screaming it from the rooftops.



Yep - everything Susie mentioned.  It is MORE pushed out here on the So Cal West coast due to Hollywood.  The entertainment industry is a very powerful pusher of their agendas.  California legislation gets pretty jacked up (cockhold) on some issues.


----------



## LilyJo (Dec 16, 2016)

Obviously we have PETA here but the stuff I see is always a bit dismissive of them - its curious how different as nations we are on some things I guess thats probably largely in part due to the huge size of America and the geographic spread of the people.

Its funny how the push to change this issue has spread across the EU and other countries but not to America and I have always wondered why.  So many US (and UK, lets be honest) businesses still sell in China with the restrictions there so I kind of wondered if it was a bit of a niche non-issue or if there is a wider pressure.

Interesting you say that TEG, we have always been palm free, cruelty free and only vegetable waxes but we have moved on our rigid standpoint as the year has gone on.  Cruelty free is a no brainer these days as you cant legally sell anything that has been tested anyway but I am more open to non-vegetable wax than I ever was.

Palm is one of those that I cant decide on, Yes it has ethical issues and they can be pro and con but to be honest the amount of palm that is used in almost every product we consume (its in so many proceassed foodstuffs) that I dont really know how much is used in cosmetics by comparison.  Its so hard to avoid it in food that I cant decide which way ethically I stand!


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Dec 16, 2016)

I think it is because PETA is often a PITA! Causes can often do themselves a mischief when they are......over enthusiastic, shall we say, which can be the detrimental to the cause. Not to say that it actually makes the issue less important, but can lessen the empathy of people who then associate the cause with the annoyance. 

It is good that for us it is enshrined- no animal testing. It even makes it strange to see it written on American websites as for us in Europe it is totally redundant to say it


----------



## LilyJo (Dec 16, 2016)

Yeah I know - I read somewhere that there is consideration being made to make it unlawful to say "cruelty free" because for it to be to be sold in the EU is is cruelty free anyway.  Bit like saying not tested on children!

And yes I agree completely, so much of PETAs obviously good work ends up being dismissed by their over enthusiasm.  Its a shame that so many peoples first view of animal cruelty comes through that rather than the more balanced views that are out there.

Find it interesting to view the way the two issues are dealt with in the EU and UK and also the way in which safety assessments are handled - as far as I can see there is so much more creative flexibility in America compared to the hoops one has to jump through with every new product here. Cosmetics and candles are so regulated for safety but the weird thing is when you get an assessment done the back up info always includes details of the original animal tests done 30+ years ago.

Cant even say that Brexit will change it as it wont!


----------



## lenarenee (Dec 16, 2016)

LilyJo said:


> Obviously we have PETA here but the stuff I see is always a bit dismissive of them - its curious how different as nations we are on some things I guess thats probably largely in part due to the huge size of America and the geographic spread of the people.
> 
> Its funny how the push to change this issue has spread across the EU and other countries but not to America and I have always wondered why.  So many US (and UK, lets be honest) businesses still sell in China with the restrictions there so I kind of wondered if it was a bit of a niche non-issue or if there is a wider pressure.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how you concluded that it hasn't "spread" to America. It absolutely has. Many products proclaim that it was created without animal testing, labs all over the US have greatly reduced animal testing, or quit all together. I know this because my former employer works at NIH and used to approve the funding grants given to scientists for research.  He himself, a non animal lover, interrupted his vacation to go save 12 chimps from unapproved lab test

Btw, NIH is located on the East Coast, the opposite side of Hollywood. I've lived on both coasts and notice no difference in the veracity of anti animal testing sentiment.  Hollywood may have helped bring a lot of awareness, however I have no proof of that.
My personal thought is that over the last couple of decades as more people have started to feel that pets were family -  that made the general public more sympathetic to the plight of lab animals. As did the internet and YouTube.


----------



## penelopejane (Dec 16, 2016)

Cruelty free is definitely important to a growing number of people in Oz. 
I am allergic to palm oil (salicylates) so I know it's possible to eat palm oil free. I don't think sustainable palm oil solves the problem. I have a friend who is actively saving the orangutan habitat and fighting palm oil use so it may just be that I am more aware than others are here.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Dec 16, 2016)

Lenarenee, that was how I took Lilly's post - that in America there are places which say "we don't test on animals" because animal testing (for things outside of Pharma, I am not ashamed to support testing of new drugs on animals - if a cancer cure was delayed because they couldn't test on animals then that would be criminal in my eyes) is still a thing in America. 

For us over here, it's like a label saying "does not contain mercury" - well duh, of course it wouldn't. "Not tested on animals" on a face cream - well of course it isn't!


----------



## lenarenee (Dec 16, 2016)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Lenarenee, that was how I took Lilly's post - that in America there are places which say "we don't test on animals" because animal testing (for things outside of Pharma, I am not ashamed to support testing of new drugs on animals - if a cancer cure was delayed because they couldn't test on animals then that would be criminal in my eyes) is still a thing in America.
> 
> For us over here, it's like a label saying "does not contain mercury" - well duh, of course it wouldn't. "Not tested on animals" on a face cream - well of course it isn't!



How does the EU compare with the US, in your opinion? If a "cruelty free" label is redundant in the EU, that makes me think that there's virtually no testing for cosmetic products.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Dec 16, 2016)

On the contrary, every product has its recipe approved by an approved chemist. Every batch is noted and marked, so that any bad ingredients can be traced to each batch in which they were used. Every ingredient must be used in line with approved guidelines (so no cinnamon eo at 10% in a lotion, or lotions with no preservatives) - it doesn't matter if you are Unilever or aunt May, you want to sell a cosmetic (including soap) then you have to conform. 

That's why there is no need for each product to be tested on an animal.


----------



## lenarenee (Dec 16, 2016)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> On the contrary, every product has its recipe approved by an approved chemist. Every batch is noted and marked, so that any bad ingredients can be traced to each batch in which they were used. Every ingredient must be used in line with approved guidelines (so no cinnamon eo at 10% in a lotion, or lotions with no preservatives) - it doesn't matter if you are Unilever or aunt May, you want to sell a cosmetic (including soap) then you have to conform.
> 
> That's why there is no need for each product to be tested on an animal.



Of course - pardon my DUH moment!  I've heard you speak of that often but just didn't connect it with this.

I don't see the FDA taking that on any time soon - not to that degree anyway.


----------



## LilyJo (Dec 16, 2016)

Trouble is although there is no animal testing in the EU there are still areas of the world (inc China) who insist on animal testing from companies who sell from a physical location.

So, the end result is that you have companies who are are cruelty free in the EU but submit their products for animal testing in China.  Same goes for businesses who sell in the EU but are based in parts of the states that still have testing, they might claim to be cruelty free in the EU but cannot make it a company claim.

Its an interesting point about the FDA though Lenarenee because the principle behind CLP labeling for candles and fragranced products is based, as far as I understand, on a Globally Harmonised System (GHS) which sees business in the States subject to the same rules for candles etc as those in the EU. I wonder given the globalisation of product and exports/imports that that this will impact on cosmetic rules in the States at some point?

I can see both sides of the argument - it seems that under the current FDA rules you have far greater flexibility for creating new products and much more ability to play with recipes etc.  But under the EU rules, recipes are locked down and checked by cosmetic chemists which should provide a high level of protection for the consumer.

Its great knowing your formulation is all correct and safe and has followed any preservative tests etc but there are really days when I would love the ability to create something ans see how it flies before I spend hundreds on safety assessments!


----------



## susiefreckleface (Dec 18, 2016)

LilyJo said:


> Its an interesting point about the FDA though Lenarenee because the principle behind CLP labeling for candles and fragrances products is based, as far as I understand, on a Globally Harmonized System (GHS) which sees business in the States subject to the same rules for candles etc as those in the EU. I wonder given the globalization of product and exports/imports that that this will impact on cosmetic rules in the States at some point?
> 
> I can see both sides of the argument - it seems that under the current FDA rules you have far greater flexibility for creating new products and much more ability to play with recipes etc.  But under the EU rules, recipes are locked down and checked by cosmetic chemists which should provide a high level of protection for the consumer.



I've become a tad-bit cynical when it comes to FDA. We do have flexibility right now. However, it seems like the FDA over-steps and under-steps with the constant being linked to lobbyists and huge corporations that provide comforts for our elected officials. I think in truth... we only see the tip of the iceberg. 

No, I don't like animal testing, but as EFFG noted - life saving cancer cure..hmm.  I also don't like finding out that good organizations do the opposite of what they promote. Good in theory - bad in practice.


----------



## TeresaT (Dec 18, 2016)

I don't put much stock in animal testing as a precursor to how a chemical will effect humans because they use excessive amounts on animals to force a reaction.  If you look at the toxicity data for saccharine, you'd hav to eat something like 5 times your body weight daily over the course of 10 years to get the exposure that the lab rats did who developed cancer from it.  Lab rats and mice are specially bred to be susceptible to diseases like cancer and anaphylaxis specifically so the products could be calculated at a rate to likely cause those reactions.  Although, on the plus side of that, those animals are being bred to ensure there are diseased subjects to test cures on, as well.  But, just because a drug cures genetically altered rats of diabetes doesn't mean it will do anything to a human with diabetes.    I guess it's a starting point, though.


----------



## lenarenee (Dec 18, 2016)

TeresaT said:


> I don't put much stock in animal testing as a precursor to how a chemical will effect humans because they use excessive amounts on animals to force a reaction.  If you look at the toxicity data for saccharine, you'd hav to eat something like 5 times your body weight daily over the course of 10 years to get the exposure that the lab rats did who developed cancer from it.  Lab rats and mice are specially bred to be susceptible to diseases like cancer and anaphylaxis specifically so the products could be calculated at a rate to likely cause those reactions.  Although, on the plus side of that, those animals are being bred to ensure there are diseased subjects to test cures on, as well.  But, just because a drug cures genetically altered rats of diabetes doesn't mean it will do anything to a human with diabetes.    I guess it's a starting point, though.



I am by no means educated in this issue,  but from many dinner parties with scientists (most from NIH) discussing such things - the consensus was overall animal testing was very outdated - almost to the point of being done out of habit rather than necessity, and with most findings from those tests being stamped with a "needs further study". 

The other side of the coin, is consumer reaction when a medication causes a problem - be it mild or severe - and run to a lawyer to file a lawsuit.  Makes me wonder if much testing hangs on to help cover the researcher's rears because they know that will happen. They can claim in court to have done all possible preventative measures to predict the safety of said drug, when in truth there is always going to be a risk - tested or not.



LilyJo said:


> Trouble is although there is no animal testing in the EU there are still areas of the world (inc China) who insist on animal testing from companies who sell from a physical location.
> 
> So, the end result is that you have companies who are are cruelty free in the EU but submit their products for animal testing in China.  Same goes for businesses who sell in the EU but are based in parts of the states that still have testing, they might claim to be cruelty free in the EU but cannot make it a company claim.
> 
> ...



Yours is a very interesting post!  Any idea how many EU companies submit product for testing in China? And are they EU testing labs in China, or Chinese labs run by Chinese? (a very scary thought consider their practice of crush caging bears for years to extract their bile)

LilyJo, does this mean that the EU has more of a façade of being cruelty free and the majority of EU companies submit their products for outside testing?  If so, I wonder why they do. Its a lot of added time and expense, so they must have a reason??


----------



## earlene (Dec 18, 2016)

LilyJo said:


> Dont want to get into a political argument about rights and wrongs as I know its a very emotive subject but I am curious. Dont want to push people into saying where they stand more interested in the overall public perception tbh.
> 
> The laws on animal testing in cosmetics are very different in the UK/EU to the states and I wondered how much of 'thing' it is in the USA?
> 
> ...



I'm an old woman and have seen animal rights activists in the US for several decades.  It is important here in the USA.  Is it important to everybody?  No, but I doubt it's important to everybody in any country.  It's all about who has the most clout in government to get laws passed and maintain enforcement of said laws.  I believe that is the real difference.


----------



## LilyJo (Dec 19, 2016)

lenarenee said:


> Yours is a very interesting post!  Any idea how many EU companies submit product for testing in China? And are they EU testing labs in China, or Chinese labs run by Chinese? (a very scary thought consider their practice of crush caging bears for years to extract their bile)
> 
> LilyJo, does this mean that the EU has more of a façade of being cruelty free and the majority of EU companies submit their products for outside testing?  If so, I wonder why they do. Its a lot of added time and expense, so they must have a reason??




I am by no means an expert but I think it tends to only be larger global business the likes of L'Oreal/Estee Lauder etc etc who have a physical presence in China and have to abide by Chinese laws on testing - which I understand is done by third party companies in China. Its the reason why so many cruelty free/vegan bloggers get so annoyed when their favourite cruelty free brand is snapped up by one of the major players!

I think most small and medium businesses DONT go down this route and for lots of larger local EU brands it just wouldnt be viable or cost effective. Its the Unilever/Nestle/P&G ones that still do.

Its an odd one and I think there is so much bad press over animal welfare in China that in time, I can see the practice changing but the old guard is well established and wants to preserve its views.  I think it will only truly change when the younger people who are more Westernised are in a position to make the changes to testing, dog meat etc etc.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Dec 19, 2016)

I imagine that a number of companies have different operating entities in various countries so that x in Europe and America can safely and legally say that they don't test on animals, but the "same" company in china doesn't say it


----------



## LilyJo (Dec 19, 2016)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> I imagine that a number of companies have different operating entities in various countries so that x in Europe and America can safely and legally say that they don't test on animals, but the "same" company in china doesn't say it



Yes thats correct - its how say, The Body Shop or Bare Minerals works.  They dont test on animals and its a key part of their business advertising.  But as part of larger companies, they are part of a business that DOES test.


----------

