Pros
| Cons
|
© 2014 ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Cosmetic Animal Testing |
|
© 2014 ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
http://animal-testing.procon.org/
0 Comments
"Many manufacturers of personal care and household items still test their products on animals, despite the growing number of alternative methods for evaluating product safety. The following list contains all such companies known and their associated brand names. This list originally was compiled from two primary references (cited at the bottom of this page). In addition, it is updated as new information is made available to us. We do our absolute best, but we cannot fully guarantee its accuracy, so please use the list accordingly--and do let us know if you can offer any further updates. You may wish to print out the list and take it along next time you go shopping! Please also note that all over-the-counter medicines and/or their ingredients are extensively tested on animals, as currently required by the FDA."
American Anti-Vivisection Society, Guide to Compassionate Shopping (8214.GCS) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 1999, Consumer Products Companies That Test on Animals Window displays just got a wake up call. Humane Society spokeswoman Wendy Higgins said it was ‘morally unthinkable’ that cosmetic companies should continue to profit from animal suffering, adding there could be ‘no justification for subjecting animals to pain for the sake of producing lipstick and eye shadow’.Dr Chris Flower, director general of the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumeries Association (CTPA), said: 'People may have been understandably shocked by the publicity stunt arranged by Lush in their Regent Street shop window recently. 'It may give the misleading impression that cosmetic products are tested on animals for sale in Europe whereas the testing of cosmetic products on animals was banned in Britain in 1998 and throughout Europe in September 2004. 'It has been established by the European Commission's scientific expert committee that the safety of a finished product can be determined by knowledge of its ingredients. Testing the product on animals is not necessary. 'The cosmetics industry has been at the forefront of the search for alternatives and has led to the development of many non-animal safety tests that are now routinely used for its ingredients. 'It is the cosmetics industry that is now promoting the use of these alternatives in countries that currently require animal testing. 'It is a pity that Lush chose to run this campaign in a country where the testing of cosmetic products on animals is banned and which has the strictest animal welfare provisions regarding the use of animals for scientific purposes anywhere in the EU. 'It is a pity the campaign is directed at an industry that has done more than any other to develop and promote the use of alternatives.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134555/Lush-animal-testing-protest-Woman-subjected-experiments-horrified-shoppers.html#ixzz32GAsgJ7d Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook After reading this article,
|