Preservatives, are there any that aren't animal tested?

[carebear]

It's the word "proving that you need to focus on in that quote. I think the author meant that the in vitro testing is not always as accurate as the in vivo testing. You can reach a higher level of certainty by testing with critters than you can in a test tube. And frankly, not every type of ingredient or body part can be emulated in vitro with equal accuracy. So you have to strike a balance in your decision.

It'd be great to have high certainty and no animal involvement, but those two things don't typically go hand-in-hand.

The discussion is interesting, but I haven't changed my stance that it's a matter of balance. And that animals don't always win. People first.

This said, I don't think mascara was mentioned in the US Bill of Rights, and don't wear it myself - so when it comes to cosmetics I say "just dump 'em all" - but I'm pretty sure a lot of CONSUMERS would disagree.

 

[alwayssomething]

It's the word "proving that you need to focus on in that quote. I think the author meant that the in vitro testing is not always as accurate as the in vivo testing. You can reach a higher level of certainty by testing with critters than you can in a test tube. And frankly, not every type of ingredient or body part can be emulated in vitro with equal accuracy. So you have to strike a balance in your decision.

It'd be great to have high certainty and no animal involvement, but those two things don't typically go hand-in-hand.

The discussion is interesting, but I haven't changed my stance that it's a matter of balance. And that animals don't always win. People first.

This said, I don't think mascara was mentioned in the US Bill of Rights, and don't wear it myself - so when it comes to cosmetics I say "just dump 'em all" - but I'm pretty sure a lot of CONSUMERS would disagree.

But animals' bodies do not respond the way people's bodies do. Their systems are built to tolerate different sorts of things than ours are, which is why animal testing is often inaccurate. In medicine, for example, there have been plenty of AIDS vaccines created that cured animals, but are totally useless on people, because our bodies behave so differently. (That is not to say they should stop testing medicine on animals, it is just to demonstrate how completely different our systems are.) And the alternatives today are not just "test tubes", there are many options for different kinds of products, including scale models. There is no law that anyone needs to test cosmetics on animals. The only reason it's done is because it is cheaper. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary. So as a consumer, I won't support people who test on animals. I even order my tampons from the UK because there is only one ethical brand I can find, so I'll use it. Many leading companies like St. Ives and Mary Kay don't test their products on animals, and they're getting along just fine. If animal testing was just smearing some lipstick on a healthy rodent, I really wouldn't make such a fuss about it. It is literally torture, and it is totally unnecessary. People come first, but I don't really think that companies who test on animals are putting people first at all. They still sell dangerous products -- they just have a lot of dead animals in their files to prove that their products are dangerous.

I know what you mean by "just drop 'em all". As a consumer, if I can't find something I consider ethical, I won't use it, even if it's something I liked using. Lots of consumers feel this way. This is the whole reason I started making my own stuff. I'm just trying to do it in the most responsible way possible. That's why I said, right off the bat, if there are no cruelty-free preservatives, then I won't make products that need them. That is fine with me.