I'm n
ot going to over-sentimentalize this.
There will be no photos of emaciated kittens or doe-eyed puppies staring out
from behind grimy metal bars. I'm also not going to go into medical testing on animals and debate whether animals lives have an equal value to our own, (i.e. is testing on
monkeys justified when it brings a speedy and effective treatment for crippling and fatal human diseases?) These are big questions and they deserve to be considered.
However, the cruelties I'm speaking of are being performed for a much baser
purpose.
I'm talking tests on paint, toothpaste, food, clothing, deodorant, cleansers, and more. The tests blind, maim, and inflict painful and fatal diseases on the animals. In some cases the animals are forced to ingest large amounts of food and other substances, in others the animals are starved. Needless to say, little attention is given to anesthetics or the animal's comfort, let alone the
preservation of the animal's life or any thought to the animal's emotional and
psychological suffering.
Sometimes the tests determine a product's safety or efficacy. Many times tests are simply used to obtain more information about the product in an effort to find new ways to market it.
For example, juice companies have
been found cutting open dogs to damage arteries, and then forcing the animals to
ingest massive quantities of juice in an effort to quickly discover if the juice can be marketed as beneficial for people with heart disease. Or not. There may be no basis for hypothesis.
Let's say Mr. Suit in an office somewhere gets an idea, calls a testing company and asks, "Can you find out if product X is safer than product Y?" They say, "Sure," and go about inflicting massive doses of both products on two groups of animals until they show signs of injury, which are documented, and more doses are administered for more injuries, which are documented, until finally a dose is administered that causes death, which is documented. If product X did this to a slower or smaller degree than product Y, the X company may be able to use that to their advantage in their latest marketing campaign. Mr. Suit doesn't think about how his results are gathered. He's doing his job. His job is marketing. He's a single cog in a mighty wheel where none of the cogs need look too closely at this one ugly aspect of things. After all, doesn't everyone do it?
This is particularly difficult to
accept when you realize that they could acquire the sames types of information without ever using animals at all. PETA has a wealth of information on the many alternatives to animal testing on their site called Caring Consumer, including this
Fact Sheet: Alternatives:
Testing Without Torture. And plenty of companies use these alternative methods without a crippling effect on their productivity or profit margin. In fact, PETA and the US Humane Society both assert that many of these alternatives are actually less expensive than animal testing. There must be a host of reasons why companies continue these cruel and outdated testing methods, but not the least of which must involve a reluctance to organize and pay for the initial change, and human resistance to change in the first place. If it ain't broke...
The idea that animal testing is "standard" practice only solidifies this complacency. Until public reaction to animal testing directly compromises a company's sales, little change can be expected. One way to do this is to raise this issue to national awareness to the point where a company's very brand identity, and reputation is marred. This is tougher than it sounds. The web helps, but national TV and radio ads would really do the trick - and besides corporations and politicians, who can afford them? A grassroots attack has the greatest hope of making a dent in these cruelties. Make small changes in your buying habits and favor companies that don't test on animals. It's nearly impossible to do this with 100% accuracy, and for right now that doesn't matter. Just take the information you have, and act on it whenever you can.
It's easy enough to tell the good guys from the bad. Several organizations,
including PETA, have openly asked companies about their practices in regard to
animal testing and keep a scrupulously updated list of companies that reject
animal testing. Online lists can be found here. Other organizations keep lists, but most defer to the PETA list as the most comprehensive and up-to-date.
It's not hard to buy accordingly. These are just a few of the companies that are totally free of animal testing.
For example, my absolutely favorite skin care company
(thankfully!) has rejected animal testing since 1987. This hasn't effected the
quality of their products and, believe me, it hasn't dented their profit.
On the other hand, I recently
discovered the Philosophy product line. My mother had ordered the whole caboodle
from TV - shampoos, conditioner, moisturizer, body scrub, facial mask, bubble
bath, and more... I LOVE the conditioner. Running, sweating, and swimming
all summer did a real number on my hair. While I was mildly pleased that my hair had returned to its childish straw-colored hue, I wasn't so thrilled that it took on the feel and texture of straw as well. My hair stylist repeatedly attempts to
bully me into a $50 moisturizing treatment that, she says while wistfully
fingering the frayed ends, my hair
desperately "needs!" I still wouldn't pay. Then I discovered
Philosophy's Grace conditioner and started leaving it in overnight. Voila! My hair and I were happy, and we smelled great too. When I finished the bottle I wanted to
verify their stance on animal testing before buying from them. Surely these were one of the good guys. They give a percentage of the sales from featured products to charities, they promote healthy living and a generous spirit. "Believe in Miracles" is their tagline!
An internet forum told me that
their site stated that it didn't test its finished products on animals, but
admitted that product ingredients had been animal tested.
When I visited the philosophy.com they had
changed their tune a bit. The FAQ "does philosophy test on animals?"
is answered summarily " philosophy does not test our products on
anything other than a human being."
Hm.
Okay, sounds good. I emailed Philosophy, asking why they didn’t label their
products “cruelty free” and what about what they said in that forum? They
responded with this:
thank you for
your recent inquiry regarding animal testing. please be assured we do not test
philosophy products on anything other than human beings; however, some
ingredients that are universal in the cosmetics industry have been tested on
animals at some point. due to this, no cosmetics company can state that its
ingredients have never been animal tested. philosophy inc. is committed to
using alternatives to animal testing to insure the safety of our products.
please know i have forwarded your suggestion to state the products are
cruelty-free to our research and product development team for further consideration!
have a great day!
kind regards,
kate g.
No
cosmetics company can state that its ingredients have never been animal tested?
I’m going to miss that damn conditioner.
PETA publishes a cruelty-free pocket guide that you can order to keep with you 
while you shop. (although it's unclear why this banner has Pam Anderson sensually touching her lips...)
It’s
really not difficult. I no longer buy Glad trash bags. The generic products in
all Pathmark grocery stores are cruelty free, and I replace many purchases with those. And even with Philosophy – there
are tons of good conditioners out there. I won’t miss it that much. That’s the thing, none of these companies produce
anything singular or irreplaceable. Toilet cleaner is toiler cleaner, eyeliner
is eyeliner. You may have a preference, but you have a wealth of comparable
products to choose from!
Sometimes I know I don’t want to buy from a certain
company – say Lysol, but I’m
unclear whether any of the other companies are
also testing on animals. I just buy from a small company, or a generic product.
I figure if I’m at least taking sales from the large company, which may in time
be swayed to change its practices, this large company will set a precedent that
others can follow. Especially when animal lovers switch back to the Lysol.
This does work. Combined with activist organizations that confront corporations directly and raise awareness on a much higher level, changes get made and fewer animals suffer as a result.
Recently, PETA prompted beverage companies to drop animal testing completely. Among the converts: Welch’s, Ocean Spray, POM Wonderful, and PepsiCo. Most recently, Coca-Cola fell in line.
PART TWO to come. Pet Food Companies that test on animals!
Resources:
www.stopanimaltesting.org
www.caringconsumer.com/index.asp
US Humane Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
DoSomething.org - Animal Welfare
www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm
Johns Hopkins Articles on Alternative to Animal Testing
A Few Sad Pictures... (you can easily google for thousands more)
http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC063127/
are lots of informative articles and links. It seems L-Oreal is going cruelty-free now, too. -- Although they own lots of other companies, including Maybelline, which I had been purchasing because it was designated cruelty-free. Parent companies make this whole thing very confusing. This post lists companies owned by L'Oreal, all of which will apparently be eliminating animal testing on their products. It will take 5-6 years before 100% of their products will be cruelty-free, but at least it sets a benchmark in the industry. 
Recent Comments