Lovelyish

Sad. Thanks to PETA for exposing this. 

PETA has jump-started the effort for acceptance of non-animal tests by awarding a grant to the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, which is working with scientists and regulatory bodies to replace animal tests in China. Thanks to the work of these PETA-funded scientists, the Chinese government is now poised to accept its first-evernon-animal test for cosmetics ingredients.

Proud to be a member.

They as a company are not testing on animals – the products that will be manufactured without being tested on animals will be then tested on animals by China in order for the Chinese whoever to allow the products to be sold there. Most companies that sell to China get their products tested in China because it’s a requirement. There are probably a few ways to get around it but it would probably cost the company more money than they’d like or would just be too much of a hassle to try and get done. They may do it if people keep bitching about it, but it’s unlikely that this will actually affect their sales in any drastic way so they probably won’t. In fact, when this was discussed on Makeupalley a few weeks ago when the first statement came out,  most weren’t upset about the testing itself but that the company was trying to “play smart” or whatever and act like the consumers were stupid and didn’t understand or.. something. I honestly can’t say that I really care because this is not something that I feel strongly for or against, perhaps because I understand that in some cases animal testing is definitely preferable over human testing (e.g. medical research). You can flame me all you want over having an ambivalent and thus different opinion, it won’t much change my feelings towards a company whose products I already rarely use outside of their eyeshadow primer, nor will it really change my feelings about the whole debate in all honesty. Just here to share what I remember being discussed some weeks ago.

Get over yourself.  You benefit from animal testing whether you know it or not.  Better to test on animals first than humans.

lolz, the irony of PETA protesting any cruelty against animals

0% tested on non-human animals actually means 100% tested on human - 
during the riskiest R&D phase. if happens in china, some jailed
political activists maybe tested; if in the “civilized” world, you are
the test subject. this means when something goes wrong, the human is the
first to suffer… so either your conscience is low enough to allow
other people to suffer, or you are thoughtful enough to put yourself at
risk in front of everyone else. perhaps instead of having to choose who
to suffer, you can do away with all products that require R&D, i.e. essentially everything you use.

@ashleynicole - Sadly, they will probably test on HUMANS in third world countries…or prisoners right here in the US, who are desperate for commissary money. But I’m guessing that doesn’t bother too many people.

PETA is actually a pretty despicable organization.

@Saridactyl@xanga - How so?

@Kittyluve@xanga - Are you kidding me? That is just cruel. Its not like animals are using the products therefore they should have nothing to do with testing.

@agnophilo@xanga - They don’t really care about domestic animals because they’re too busy trying to get people to call fish “sea-kittens” so no one will want to eat them. They (needlessly) euthanize dogs and cats who are perfectly eligible to be adopted out to loving families.

They seem to care more about fish and rats than they do human beings as well, which to me is a bit off. PETA members are often being charged with animal cruelty and they harass people. (I’ve personally been harassed over using the restroom in a KFC while on the road in South Florida. They ambushed me and everyone else who walking in/out of the building. Like, physically shoved me a few times.)

If it’s a choice between human testing or animal testing, I say fuck the animals.

Who are you tying to protect the animals from exactly?? The humans. So why not start with “fixing” the human problem then maybe you wouldn’t have to be so focused on helping the animals who are being abused by the humans. >.< 

I don’t wear any makeup. why don’t they offer free makeup test products to loyal customers or makeup curious people free makeup testers, but the company is not liable whatsoever, so if you turn into a freak, it isnt their fault. if the product is good, then you get a coupon to buy items after the trial period ends. you get commission $ for referring more human lab rats

@JazForever@xanga - Okay, then grow your own food in your backyard..live in a cave..never seek medical attention.  Because animals have been sacrificed for those kinds of advances.  Shame on you!

@Kittyluve@xanga - Wow, Im just saying that its disgusting to test things on animals because they are innocent creatures who could be damaged due to our selfish needs. If humans need things to be tested they should test it on humans!

@JazForever@xanga - Well that kind of doesn’t make sense.  Practically everything we use has been tested on animals.  You can only avoid it if you make your own clothing, food, and shelter.  Haven’t you ever needed medicine?  How do you think we evaluated the safety of that advil or antibiotic?  On animals of course.  In my opinion, humans are worth more than animals.  Maybe that’s because I’m a human, but so be it, it’s not my fault I’m human.  If you could only chose to save a human baby or a puppy which would you choose?  Probably the human baby.  For that reason, I am not against testing on animals first.  I believe that’s how it should be.  But of course, I love and treat animals with respect in general.  I would never want my own pets to be tested on, but I can deal with the thought of other random ownerless animals being tested on.  I think animals are great, but I am not against the use of animals for our advancement.

@Kittyluve@xanga - ok I’ll agree to disagree because what you are saying is a bit distusting to me. Im done with this conversation, Bubye now.

I can’t come up with a solution in the whole WORLD to get everyone satisfied. 

Either we will have angry customers complaining about weird rashes, or we’ll have puppy activists fighting for their right to run and hide behind trashcans. Or we’ll have humans who are protesting for the equality of all people, stating that it’s not right that some humans are being tested. Worst case scenario, we won’t be satisfied with the narrow product assortment.

@Kittyluve@xanga - Sometimes.  There are similarities between other animals and humans (because we all know humans are mammals after all) but what separates a pig from a human is that a pig isn’t a human.  The same goes with rats (who are omnivores with a similar but not equal digestive tract.)  We know enough about the human system to not test 99% of stuff on animals.  Our bodies will not give the same reaction from aspirin that a dog’s system will (a dog’s system reacts much faster to it actually.)  Generally the last stage of a product’s testing is on whatever animal it is made for so stuff is tested on humans anyway.  I’m not saying I haven’t used stuff tested on animals (we all know if it comes from your doctor it has been tested on a rat) but really it isn’t all that necessary.  

And no I don’t support PETA or anything but am in vet school.  Hell how chemicals react with different animals is like…Vet Med 101.

@eertrj@xanga - They do have human guinea pigs ya know.  My husband’s grandma was involved in two different studies, one involved sticking a needle into her eye multiple times a month for a year.  The results were iffy in the lab for that specific one but the results for people were fantastic.  In fact, this has prevented her from going blind.  

And depending on why they’re in jail, I don’t see a problem.  Charles Manson would have been a great subject imo.

Some of the chemicals in Urban Decay’s makeup are hazardous to humans anyways. They just aren’t regulated by the FDA. That’s the real argument we should be having. Check out their page on the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database to see what I’m referring to: http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/search.php?hq=urban+decay&search_group=everything&&showmore=everything&atatime=100

i’m pretty sure they should test on the disgusting child molesters and murderers that are sitting in prison using up our tax money. it’d be much better to test on them than on innocent animals.

people that support animal testing either haven’t researched enough into it, or simply don’t have a heart. some of the things that goes on is just down right wrong. and most of the time, things react differently in a human’s body than in an animal’s.

Every person commenting on this post saying things along the lines of “it’s better for these products to be tested on animals than on humans” is a complete moron. Sure, you can use that argument for things necessary to better human health, such as medicine (even though I still disagree), but if you think that makeup is important enough that anyone (human or animal) should suffer so that these products can continue to expand and improve, then you’re an asshole.

@Kittyluve@xanga - The fact that products that we use today have been tested on animals in the past is irrelevant. We have better technology, and more alternative methods now than we did during those times. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators and computational models are more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane than animal experiments. I’m not an expert on the subject (and I’m sure no one else here is, either), but these methods seem like great alternatives to animal testing. 

Did you know that the FDA has noted that 92%  of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous?  And of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabeled because of side effects that weren’t identified in animal tests. I’m not sure what the statistics are for non-medical research, but this does give us a good idea of how pointless animal testing really is.

I’m pretty sure that none of this will change your mind at all because you seem like a really closed minded person, I just have one question for you. How can you justify animals going through immense pain for a product such as mascara (for which there are already plenty of options)?

@MommaFish89@xanga - This line of thinking really makes no sense. If we apply that same way of thinking to other social issues in the past, we can see how much it would hinder social progress. For example, if we apply it to something like slavery, that would mean fixing problems within the white race before doing anything to help AfricanAmericans. We’re never going to be able to fix every problem within our species, just as we would never be able to fix all of the problems within one race. Just because there are multiple injustices going on at the same time, doesn’t mean that we should choose to completely ignore any of them. 

In my opinion, if we work our way up from the bottom, and abolish speciesism, that would do wonders for humankind. Just think, if we would able to be compassionate towards those who humans typically see as being the least important in the world, how much compassion we would have for each other.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” — Gandhi

@optimaloctopus@xanga - That’s a great quote.

@optimaloctopus@xanga - Because each company that produces and markets mascara is legally bound to prove that their mascara is safe for public use. That’s why even though there are a multitude of mascara products out on the market (all, which probably tested on animals at one point or another), when a company wants to release a new line of mascara, it needs to be tested.

“Human clinical and epidemiological studies,
human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated
high-fidelity human patient simulators and computational models are more
reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane than animal
experiments. I’m not an expert on the subject (and I’m
sure no one else here is, either), but these methods seem like great
alternatives to animal testing.”

Lol, I find it amusing that the first part of that quote is just copy and paste from PETA’s website. I also find it amusing that you admit you’re not an expert on those types of research methods, and it appears you’ve done no additional research on the matter and you just casually claim that they are great alternatives.

It’s true that those methods are indeed good alternatives to animal testing at times, but they are not feasible in every situation. Human clinical and epidemiological studies are great to test for things like drugs, but when you enter into, say, toxicological studies, there is a huge, huge ethical and moral issue with testing on humans. If you want to test whether or not a chemical is carcinogenic or not, there is no way that anyone would approve of dosing a group of humans with the chemical, having an undosed control group and then waiting a couple days/weeks/months/years (depending on whether the test is acute/subchronic/chronic) to see whether the experimental group developed cancer.

Human tissue and cell based research — they are definitely a good alternative to animal research, and I feel like this route has a lot of potential, but there are also some issues surrounding it. Here is a good article that discusses the concerns on human tissues (also serves somewhat as a glimpse into controversy with cadavers): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1860367/

Cell-based research, I am assuming that you mean stem-cell research (which, for the record, I believe has immense potential as well, and I hope that we make more advances on this line of research). I think the controversy there is obvious.

Sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators and other computational models. I admittedly am not familiar with the patient simulators, but after reading a couple of papers, they are apparently extremely expensive.

I think what bugs me about this whole issue of whether animal testing should be done or not is that people make out researchers and scientists to be these diabolical, evil people who are out to murder animals. So many people are ignorant on what happens in laboratories and what it takes to test products on animals. All laboratories that test on animals are subject to extremely stringent rules regarding the animals (there will always be a few bad apples that will not abide by these rules, but most do). Researchers will make every effort to take care of the animals as best they can; they have veterinarians available to care for the animals in case of sickness or injury, they feed them, they make sure their living conditions are good, etc. Contrary to what people may believe, the animals aren’t shoved in a tiny cage and left unfed wallowing in their own feces.

Also contrary to what people may believe, RESEARCHERS ARE AWARE OF THE ETHICAL CONCERNS WITH ANIMAL TESTING. Many researchers are investigating all the aforementioned methods of research and trying to refine those techniques in order to avoid animal testing. But as elaborated above, it is difficult to do that with so many human ethical concerns and limitations. Not all researchers view animal testing as the end-all-be-all and not all researchers derive pleasure from using animals. However, most researchers will recognize that animal testing is one of the most effective methods to test whether or not certain chemicals/products are safe for humans.

@optimaloctopus@xanga - Animal testing isn’t meant to catch all reactions obviously.  There still needs to be human testing after the animal testing.  I don’t understand how an animal would go through immense pain because of putting mascara on them.  And no, I don’t think an animal’s life is more important than a person’s.  This is why I approve of animal testing if a company chooses to test their products this way.  Before you think I’m evil ask yourself, would you save a human baby or a puppy if you had to choose? 

They are!?!??!?!  Oh no!!!!

I don’t think people have problems with using human testing, because humans can speak and tell you if they want to be tested on or not. 

@Lynn Males@facebook - Well it’s a good thing you don’t run the world or else we would be heading to extinction.   But I do agree, pets>people.  I’m talking about ownerless animals.  I’d understand why you would be against it though.

@Kittyluve@xanga - Lol they’re not applying mascara on the animals eyelashes.  The finished product and/or ingredients are put in their eyes, noses, and mouths and other places to see if they are allergic.  http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html

if the scientists were just playing makeup with animals this would not be an issue lol.