|
Post by iNsAnE.cAnAdIaN on Mar 28, 2002 14:48:05 GMT -5
I will understand if you move this thread-I am not exactly sure where it should go. But anyway..... I am trying to start buying only products which are not tested on animals, so I thought with the help of others we could start forming a list of "animal friendly" products, I ll start:
*Body Shop *Maybeline *New York Cosmetics
|
|
|
Post by dream10 on Mar 28, 2002 15:18:02 GMT -5
That's a good idea iNsAnE.cAnAdIaN! I can't add anything to your list but I will check back.
|
|
|
Post by LittleGreenDream on Apr 11, 2002 21:19:51 GMT -5
I don't really have anything to add to your list, but I'm gonna look into that. I was watching this thingie on TV (I don't remember what it was) but it was showing all this stuff they tested on animals. It was so sad! They were testing mascara on rabbits, and they cut a tiny slit in its eye, then put the mascara all over it. It was so sad, because the rabbits eye started swelling up, and all this stuff started oozing out (it was pretty disgusting too) and it died. They had this other thing, I don't even know what they were testing, I think it was supposed to be a fire proof suit or something. But they took a dog, and gave it sleeping pills or whatever, to make him fall asleep, then they wrapped him in the fabric or whatever it was, and set him on fire! I didn't see what happened to it, cause I was disgusted with what I saw and turned the channel. I don't think that Bath & Body Works is animal friendly, because it says: The finished product was not tested on animals. But I could be wrong, maybe just the wording was messed up.
|
|
|
Post by excessive_energy2 on Apr 12, 2002 9:38:34 GMT -5
Thats so sad and digusting I'll ad some when I find some!HEEHEE
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Apr 12, 2002 13:01:12 GMT -5
Maybeline is actually one of the few cosmetic companies that still DOES test its products on animals.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 12, 2002 18:47:52 GMT -5
See, while I disagree with animal testing (if there was any other way, I would be all for it), I still also feel that things such as medication and other products should be tested on them. Seriously, would you want to take something that hasn't been tested on anyone/anything? If you guys want to be guinea pigs (pardon the pun), by all means volunteer yourselves to be experimented on (you know, sign a contract or something saying you understand what could go wrong and that you won't be able to sue 'em), but until people agree to that, then we are going to have to do some animal testing. It's like dissecting on a computer program (which I don't agree with either). You need to cut something physically, not virtually, before you are allowed to cut into a person or animal.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 13, 2002 1:24:13 GMT -5
^^ But spastic, would you really be willing to try out, say, a medication that hasn't been tested before? There is no other way of knowing of side effects other than testing. Now what common sense were you talking about? The one where you actually know what you are putting in/on your body and it's effectiveness/safety, or the sommon sense where you will just ingest anything because someone told you to?
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Apr 13, 2002 11:40:28 GMT -5
^^^ A lot of times, animal testing is just impractical. An animal may react completely differently than a human would to a medication. I actually researched this subject once, and I found a study where a chemical was injected into both rats and mice. The rats developed cancer, and the mice did not. Now, if two animals who have very similar DNA reacted differently to that chemical, then humans would probably have a much different reaction. I'm just saying that animal testing isn't as effective as some people make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 13, 2002 20:30:43 GMT -5
I'm just against animal testing all together It's mean, harmful, unsafe, and not always correct.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Apr 13, 2002 21:34:25 GMT -5
I'm for it with medication, especially possible cures for AIDS and cancer and such, but I think it's pointless for cosmetics.
Cassiopeia, I was surprised at what you said. I think the best solution to that would be to test that on a variety of animals. If they all had the same result, then you could probably conclude the same would happen to human beings. If the results were varied, then that would be an appropriate case to find a willing person to test it on.
I honestly don't see the whole cosmetics thing. I think THAT is where people should be studied. An eyeshadow won't possibly save someone's life in the future, so I don't see the point.
<<It's mean, harmful, unsafe, and not always correct.>>
If millions of lives could be saved, it's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Apr 14, 2002 1:20:40 GMT -5
Well said, Lisa. Regarding cosmetics, I don't see the point either. In the beginning, when make up was "new", I can understand it. But now? But with medication, it is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Ich Liebe Rammstein on Apr 15, 2002 17:42:07 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Hey great Idea. But I dont have anything to add (right) now,but Ill try to check back later.[/shadow] [glow=red,2,300]Slurbi :: WOW,thats sad,I never really thought animal testing was bad (since I never knew how they actually did it)But after reading that,I'm juz,against it... [/glow]
~~~~~~Heather,(Edward Furlong,Mike Shinoda,Chester Bennington,KidRock & Joe C. LOVER!!!!!! Linkin Park RULES!!!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 16, 2002 17:08:47 GMT -5
Well, with medications of course. But I meant more along the lines of cosmetics and things such as that. I mean what would be the point? Cosmetics could easily be tested on humans and wouldn't be as harmful, whereas medications would be.
|
|
|
Post by KattyKatie on Apr 16, 2002 17:26:56 GMT -5
Maybeline is actually one of the few cosmetic companies that still DOES test its products on animals. Wrongo! you'd be surprised! Cover Girl, Neutrogena, Clairol, Calvin Klein Cosmetics, Oil of Olay and many others still test on animals! As for companies that don't, the only one I can think of at the moment is Bonne Bell. I'm seriously against animal testing for cosmetics. The animals won't be wearing those cosmetics so why should they go through those experiments for them?
|
|
|
Post by x n0ise on Apr 16, 2002 17:31:20 GMT -5
Cover Girl and Nuetrogena? I don't think so. You've got to bee kidding me. I don't think they test on animals anymore...I really don't. I hope not. That's what kind of make up I wear!
|
|