Cruelty free cosmetics and animal testing - your views

[Thomas Micklewright]

Bonjour All,

There is a talk on cruelty free cosmetics and animal testing on Thursday 22nd September, 7.30pm at the Blue Brick cafe, 14 fellbrigg road.

I was just wondering what the people of Dulwich feel about testing on animals for cosmetics/household product purposes and whether anyone choose not to buy cosmetics because they contain or are tested on animals.

Your views?

Tom

ps. I will start us off, I only buy products with the leaping bunny logo : http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/consumer/faqs

[david_carnell]

[PeckhamRose]

Being a typical hypocrite I buy meat and wear leather.

But I am a member of the British Union of Anti Vivisectionists.

(Some of the photos in the BUAV website are horrific, so be warned)

I am considering letting my membership of AsthmaUK lapse because they admit they use animals.

Sadly I do not think I can make the meeting, but will attend if I can. Thanks for alerting us to it!

[Loz]

Animal testing on cosmetics is, I believe, banned in the EU.

Is it that big a problem? What percentage of cosmetics for sale in the UK are made outside the EU?

[ianr]

Your views?

[ianr]

> Your views?

Your views?

[Marmora Man]

I have no views on the original question - I don't use cosmetics. I am not, like the OP, an evangelical vegan and I consider there are many, many, more important things to worry about.

I do however support the testing of medicines and medical procedures on animals - believing, very sincerely, that this is for the greater good.

[womanofdulwich]

i thought that was what the body shop was about,and used to buy everything there- but since they sold out to loreal I admit to being a little confused/lazy.

[Loz]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do however support the testing of medicines and medical procedures on animals - believing, very

> sincerely, that this is for the greater good.

+1

[PeckhamRose]

I know not where it comes from, but a small part of me feels that if we treated animals with more respect we would treat one another with more respect. This includes state/scientific research using animals.

For what it is worth I recently emailed Asthma UK about it.

Asthma UK replied (and this is part of their reply to me which I have not edited, just not included the beginning and end which was more personally related to me and the work I do):

"Regarding your question on animal research, Asthma UK does respect that people have varied opinions on the use of animals in research.

Asthma UK is a member of the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) and we adhere to their guidelines on medical research involving animals.

For some aspects of medical research there are no suitable alternatives to using animals. The heart, lungs, blood vessels, nervous system and other part of the body are all interconnected. Scientists cannot yet recreate that artificially and so animals are used to help understand how the ?whole body? reacts.

One example is genetic research. People share at least 90% of their genes with every other mammal, and we have the same vital organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and brain. Research on animals helps scientists understand what these genes do, where they go wrong and develop new treatments that target them.

Further information on why animals are used in research can be found on the following website: www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk

It is important to note that:

? Animals are only used in research in the UK where it is absolutely necessary and no suitable alternative methods are available.

? As part of the process of developing a new medicine, it is a requirement by law that tests using animals are conducted before patients can test the drug.

Asthma UK understands and appreciates that people do have concerns about charities providing funding support for medical research involving animals, and shares people's concerns about the well-being of animals in medical research. We have worked with the NC3Rs (The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research) making a collaborative call on asthma. More details can be found on the following link http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/page.asp?id=1340

Any research project that Asthma UK funds must meet strict criteria, including how it will help us to learn more about asthma. It must also adhere to the Home Office's guidelines for the welfare of the animals. Asthma UK supports the Home Office's commitment to the ?3Rs?, which serves to refine experimental techniques and procedures, reduce the number of animals involved in research and replace animals in research wherever possible. Asthma UK would only consider funding research involving animals if all other possibilities (such as computer modelling, human studies and in vitro work) have been carefully and fully considered, the research is not an unnecessary duplication of previous work and it is likely to lead to essential information that could otherwise not be achieved by alternative methods. All Asthma UK supported researchers whose research projects involve the use of animals require licenses from the Home Office for both themselves and the project itself.

There is currently no cure for asthma and around 1,200 people in the UK die every year from asthma. There are around half a million people whose asthma is still difficult to control even with current therapies. Many people would die and others would lead a more debilitating, restricted life if some of the major advances in medical understanding and asthma treatments had not been made through past research, some of which has involved the use of animals.

Apologies for the lengthy email but the questions you raise are important to address. I would recommend having a look at the Understanding Animal Research website, not to change your opinion on the use of animals, but because it answers quite a lot of questions on why animal research is undertaken."

End.

[RosieH]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I do however support the testing of medicines

> and medical procedures on animals - believing,

> very

> > sincerely, that this is for the greater good.

>

> +1

+2

PR, I'm not sure what your point is. I would have thought that that's a pretty good justification, yet you're considering letting your membership lapse because / in spite of it..?

[Loz]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am considering letting my membership of AsthmaUK lapse because they admit they use animals.

Will you be sending your animal-tested inhalers and other medication back as well?

[PeckhamRose]

It's a nightmare, isn't it.

All the drugs I have had for my two life threatening diseases have been tested on animals and they saved my life.

I do know that there is a lot of research going on towards a future where testing on animals will be an unnecessary part of research, and that I have put myself forwards for testing drugs on a few occasions, and that when I die my body is to be used for medical research. At least I think about these things. And of course I probably will not let my Asthma UK membership lapse. They do a great deal of good not just involved in unbelievably cruel tests on animals, but education and support for all asthma sufferers and their parents / family / school, etc.

[Ridgley]

If for medical research in finding cures yes I am in favor of animal testing, not for cosmetics when you watch some of the animal rights activist and how they conduct themselves I am just wondering if they were struck down by a serous illness would they take the drug to save there lives and that drug was tested on animals?

Just a thought.

[katie1997]

Agree with ridgley. Huge difference between using animals for medical research and for cosmetics. The Medical Rersearch Council has a lot of info about ethics and breeding primates for research, use of rodents and fish etc.

On cruelty-free cosmetics, there used to be a company called Beauty without cruelty that made lovely skincare products. Can't speak for the cosmetics though. Trouble is they kept on changing the product and it ended up so different from the original it wasn't as good. Hardly any stockists either.

I used to love the Body Shop's shampoos. But went in there recently and came out with nothing. It has changed beyond recognition. The packaging used to be simple and lovely. Now its all fussy and products unrecognisable.

Edited to add: I have been thinking about natural and home-made skincare recently. Started reading all these 'recipes' online and scaring myself about all the chemicals (parabens) in skincare. So I sat watching Dr Who on Saturday eve with a home made concoction of mashed avocado and honey slathered all over my face. Not sure what was scarier, me or the monsters. Anyway, happy to say it made my skin feel lovely and soft but the bathroom sink took some cleaning afterwards :)

[Captain Scarlet]

Bah....My Beagle puppy loves forty cigarettes a day and free perfume and hair shampoo..

[PeckhamRose]

I would just like to make it very clear (she said, sounding like a politician), that the British Union of Anti Vivisectionists is not, absolutely not involved with nor does it condone illegal activities or agressive / violent actions. I would not be a member if it were.

[Huguenot]

The thread title is just another cynical attempt to leverage an obviously distasteful practice (cosmetics testing) that most people despise and barely exists, to achieve another end - a ban on all animal testing.

The vegan extremists want to use lipstick in bunny rabbits eyes to ban the creation of medical products that save the lives of our nearest and dearest.

It's cyncial, it's underhand, it's manipulative - it's, oh yes - the Blue Brick bunch again.

[mockney piers]

somehow I don't see this one reaching 25 pages.

Had it been "M&S Simply Food on LL, cruelty free cosmetics and animal testing" it might have had a better hook.

[Thomas Micklewright]

Im not sure why you are always so angry Huguenot, this is an internet forum for discussion, let it be.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest testing on animals is not the best practice for finding soltions to human diseases.

Smoking for instance - linking lung cancer to cigerrettes was delayed by many years because we looked to prove it in dogs and other animals instead of humans.

Agreed testing on animlas has had its suceeses (just the same as eating meat has had its successes of developing the human) but I think we should moved beyond this victorian method of science.

More to come soon...

ps. I would like to clearly state The Dulwich Vegan and Vegetarian Society acts independently from the blue brick cafe, (we simply use their premises, as we did with the EDT to meet and eat) and would hate to see that private business get dragged into this discussion, which often turns into a character assasination when discussion dries up.

[Thomas Micklewright]

Id love to meet you Hu, you should come to the meeting to discuss?

Im sure you'd soon see the DVVS isnt trying to be underhand or manipulative.

[Loz]

Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a great deal of evidence to suggest testing on animals is not the best practice for

> finding soltions to human diseases.

Now there is a statement that has to be challenged.

Drug effects involve complex interactions with living organisms and these need to be tested. There is *no* true alternative currently to testing on animals. Yes, they are trying to reduce the amount of testing and introduce simulations and other methods where they can, but there is a very good reason that law says that every drug sold in the UK must be fully animal tested.

Animal testing is expensive. If drug companies could do the necessary testing in a cheaper non-animal way, they would. But they can't.

[DaveR]

"Agreed testing on animlas has had its suceeses (just the same as eating meat has had its successes of developing the human) but I think we should moved beyond this victorian method of science"

Are you qualified to make this judgment, TM? Are you confusing morality with efficacy?

[Thomas Micklewright]

Hey guys

The meeting starts at 7.30pm at blue brick cafe hope to see you there

Tom

Ps. Sorry for not answering questions atm will do tomorrow when I get time to make a full.response

Thanks

[Thomas Micklewright]

Did I mention there will be free cosmetic samples good both men and women!