Animal Testing (Cosmetics) Watch

shinyhappy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 12 years ago
#61
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
if you did your research properly (takes minutes on the net) you would find out that your post is incorrect in many ways- i havnt the time or the energy to say exactly why right now but if i can be bothered tomorrow i might.
Perhaps you'd like to explain now, as I just searched on the net for that stuff.
And to be honest, that was a fairly bloody rude reply, considering I was trying to be helpful.
0
reply
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#62
Report 12 years ago
#62
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
they dont use "animal tissue" (well technically yes they do) but they use live animals . im sure a few minutes research would enlighten you on the subject.
"Animal tissue" as a generic for the range of levels, from cellular responses (samples from tissues) or segment responses (of a given tissue) or as a collective (of different tissue types) in an organ (functional collection of tissues) or whole system (collection of such organs) in a live/anaesthetised/decorticate animal.

Hopefully I achieved some degree of enlightenment on the subject after slightly more than a few minutes research - or our universities really are dumming down! :rofl:
0
reply
Sheen
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 12 years ago
#63
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
their makeup is goooooooorgeous
yeah its awesome.
carnaby street in london has a shop there and i spent ages in there looking and trying everything.
i got this really cool eyeshadow there.
i cant wait to start working for lush next week so i can use my staff discount there too
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#64
(Original post by shinyhappy)
Perhaps you'd like to explain now, as I just searched on the net for that stuff.
And to be honest, that was a fairly bloody rude reply, considering I was trying to be helpful.

im sorry for being rude, it just seems that everyone is against me on this

put it down to my tiredness cause its late, and fed up cause i keep having to repeat myself

basically- actual cosmetic testing is banned here, but they still sell all the makeup that is tested on animals here, and just cause its from a british company they can still test it on animals elsewhere

also, tesco have quietly dropped their anti-testing policy

also, its very easy for a company to say that they dont test on animals when they do, its all within this post... and its my own fault for spamming my own topic lol thus preventing people reading all of it
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#65
(Original post by Elles)
"Animal tissue" as a generic for the range of levels, from cellular responses (samples from tissues) or segment responses (of a given tissue) or as a collective (of different tissue types) in an organ (functional collection of tissues) or whole system (collection of such organs) in a live/anaesthetised/decorticate animal.

Hopefully I achieved some degree of enlightenment on the subject after slightly more than a few minutes research - or our universities really are dumming down! :rofl:

i assumed from your post that you assumed they were testing products on animals that werent feeling the pain... when they test it on conscious animals which are restrained to prevent them from trying to remove the thing hurting them
0
reply
shinyhappy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#66
Report 12 years ago
#66
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
im sorry for being rude, it just seems that everyone is against me on this

put it down to my tiredness cause its late, and fed up cause i keep having to repeat myself

basically- actual cosmetic testing is banned here, but they still sell all the makeup that is tested on animals here, and just cause its from a british company they can still test it on animals elsewhere

also, tesco have quietly dropped their anti-testing policy

also, its very easy for a company to say that they dont test on animals when they do, its all within this post... and its my own fault for spamming my own topic lol thus preventing people reading all of it

Well I'm not against you. I'm vegetarian and in general, use animal friendly products, (although I must admit to having become slightly apathetic as of late) in my defence, I've always signed all the petitions/ joined quite a few protest websites against KFC and proctor and gamble and the like.
And fair enough about Tesco, haven't been there in yonks, wasn't aware that they'd dropped that policy. I'm not sure what sainsburys animal testing policy is, but my lovely sainsburys ownbrand bottle of washing up liquid has that standard disclaimer on it, so I'm guessing that at least some of their products aren't biologically tested. Not knowing the finer points of the law surrounding their claims, I suppose I'm not really in a position to comment, but I do sometimes think there is a lot of hype from animal rights extremists, not always with sufficient proof. I find it hard to believe that they can get away with putting such a clear claim on their products, if it is a blatant lie. Surely they would be found out.
What are your views on medical testing on animals? (Just out of curiousity, I'm not intending to have a go at you.) Its been something thats been causing me a bit of a dilemma, not really liking the idea of it, but at the same time seeing its importance in the development of medicines saving human lives, so feeling that I should really support it. Particularly poignant now, as I walk past the Oxford animal lab construction site every day to go to lectures.
0
reply
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 12 years ago
#67
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
i assumed from your post that you assumed they were testing products on animals that werent feeling the pain... when they test it on conscious animals which are restrained to prevent them from trying to remove the thing hurting them
All testing of ingredients (not the end product in the UK - other people have dealt with this) that might be used in cosmetics is done "on conscious animals"? Methinks that's a misrepresentation... & "feeling the pain" = my science degree is cringing, probably best not to carry on this tangent. :p:


Moral argument against using anything ever tested on or derived from animals = fine, I respect that (though I've explained why for me it would obviously be hypocritical!) or thinking it's not justified for cosmetics also seems rational (but then i'd have safety queries still & am not convinced this can be suitably assured without tissue testing at some stage - although i'm open to "enlightenment" from you) but OK-ing a FCOD (it-was-done-a-long-time-ago-so-i-don't need-to-feel-so-guilty?) just seems a bit like a half-hearted cop out to me.

You asked for opinions.
0
reply
KDG
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#68
Report 12 years ago
#68
only humans can be moral or experience moral acts

animals arnt humans

therefore it cannot be morally right or wrong to test animals for any purpose


so i think it is harmless to test on animals and so agree with it where benefically necessary
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#69
(Original post by shinyhappy)
Well I'm not against you. I'm vegetarian and in general, use animal friendly products, (although I must admit to having become slightly apathetic as of late) in my defence, I've always signed all the petitions/ joined quite a few protest websites against KFC and proctor and gamble and the like.
And fair enough about Tesco, haven't been there in yonks, wasn't aware that they'd dropped that policy. I'm not sure what sainsburys animal testing policy is, but my lovely sainsburys ownbrand bottle of washing up liquid has that standard disclaimer on it, so I'm guessing that at least some of their products aren't biologically tested. Not knowing the finer points of the law surrounding their claims, I suppose I'm not really in a position to comment, but I do sometimes think there is a lot of hype from animal rights extremists, not always with sufficient proof. I find it hard to believe that they can get away with putting such a clear claim on their products, if it is a blatant lie. Surely they would be found out.
What are your views on medical testing on animals? (Just out of curiousity, I'm not intending to have a go at you.) Its been something thats been causing me a bit of a dilemma, not really liking the idea of it, but at the same time seeing its importance in the development of medicines saving human lives, so feeling that I should really support it. Particularly poignant now, as I walk past the Oxford animal lab construction site every day to go to lectures.

ahh im really sorry for offending you now! iv got to stop being so abrupt with people!!!

sainsburys is great, its my favourite supermarket

i havent settled on my views on medical testing on animals... cause i dont want people calling me a hypocrite lol when im trying my best (why is it that people have this "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to animal cruelty?!?!) but i use some medical products.

my view is - im against all unneccessary cruelty to animals.

and alot of medical testing on animals is unnecessary- im not saying all, but alot is. its been proven in many cases to actually hinder medical advancement as animals are just too different from us to get valid results from. I got an A in psychology at A level, we covered alot on animal testing in the 2nd year.

personally, i think more should be done to look into alternatives which do exist. and if they feel that they must use animals, i think it should be regulated alot better so that the animals feel as little pain as possible. Even if you dont care about the animals in pain, the pain and stress affects the outcomes of the experiments.

now, its time for me to shut up! lol
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#70
(Original post by KDG)
only humans can be moral or experience moral acts

animals arnt humans

therefore it cannot be morally right or wrong to test animals for any purpose


so i think it is harmless to test on animals and so agree with it where benefically necessary

only humans can be moral or experience moral acts?

im sorry but they have done many studys which show animals to show guilt for bad things that they have done etc

and the animals can feel the pain, fear and stress being inflicted on them very very well. so they might not debate over the morals of it all, but they feel the pain very very much. and they are alot smarter than you think.

i think your point is rather silly tbh
0
reply
KDG
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#71
Report 12 years ago
#71
yea i agree that with you that they feel pain etc, however i dont think that means they shouldnt be tested on. i box and feel pain but that doesnt mean i should stop boxing. greater good etc...

the moral ground is the only arguable basis imo, from which if you accept my two initial assumptions(you dont have to ) then youre enevitably led to the conclusion that animal testing isnt morally wrong or right

thanks
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#72
(Original post by KDG)
yea i agree that with you that they feel pain etc, however i dont think that means they shouldnt be tested on. i box and feel pain but that doesnt mean i should stop boxing. greater good etc...

the moral ground is the only arguable basis imo, from which if you accept my two initial assumptions(you dont have to ) then youre enevitably led to the conclusion that animal testing isnt morally wrong or right

thanks
but just because you feel pain and get a buzz from it, that doesnt mean the animals do. plus its your choice to box. lots of people choose not to

and this might sound odd, but fear is actually worse to animals than pain.

so putting them in this highly fearful and painful situation produces results which are often not scientifically valid anyway, so thats looking at it from a point of view completely ignoring morals.

edit: you say a moral ground is the only ground. what about a scientific ground? surely seeing as that is the whole purpose of the experiment, it would help if it was on sound scientific grounds?
0
reply
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 12 years ago
#73
Yay for that A in A2 Psychology - have you finished a Neuro or MedSci degree yet? Might broaden your perspective even more...
0
reply
~*Sarah R*~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#74
(Original post by Elles)
Yay for that A in A2 Psychology - have you finished a Neuro or MedSci degree yet? Might broaden your perspective even more...
i wasnt trying to be a smart-arse, i was just pointing it out.

no i havent got a degree in science, but ive spent the last 10 years researching animal cruelty from both sides of the argument so i feel i do have a bit of knowledge behind me.

and there are plenty of people who do have degrees in Neuro and MedSci who oppose animal testing...
0
reply
KDG
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#75
Report 12 years ago
#75
the choice issue is a moral one, and i am assuming animals arnt capable of being moral, and therefore not choosing either way,

my boxing example was given to illustrate that pain of a creature either morally aware or not, is irrelevant

your fear idea seems similar to the pain one, and i agree they do fear things.

When you say that the tests carried out are unproductive because results are invalid, you may have a point as the limited number of resources(the animals) means that all testing should be carried out to achieve the most knowledge possible

im not sure that this is the route you were planning on taking though
0
reply
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#76
Report 12 years ago
#76
(Original post by ~*Sarah R*~)
no i havent got a degree in science, but ive spent the last 10 years researching animal cruelty from both sides of the argument so i feel i do have a bit of knowledge behind me.
I'm sure you have & you obviously feel very strongly etc.
But can you see a major difference between "researching animal cruelty" (from a rights or welfarist perspective?) & taking a scientific - excluding moral judgement - approach towards evaluating the use & procedures of animal models & their alternatives? The latter might broaden your perspective more, but may take more than a few minutes!

I suppose I dislike the way the two frequently seem to get mushed together - i do think there's a moral position (which I appreciate, if individuals are consistent! Even though my meat eating tendencies reduce its relevance to me...) but the "scientific" arguments against generally tend to sound limited, vague & naive - I have much more time for these people who are actually doing something proactive towards progress.
0
reply
guitargirl03
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#77
Report 12 years ago
#77
(Original post by Sheen)
this is Lush's sister company that make make up and its all vegan and stuff.

http://www.bnevertoobusytobebeautiful.com/
Can I just say that not everything on that website is vegan. The lip gloss contains beeswax and vegans don't wear or use beeswax or honey... Just thought I better point that out, lol.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (61)
20%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (120)
39.34%
Nope, not that interesting (124)
40.66%

Watched Threads

View All