Cosmetic animal testing in the UK
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-654...
Who asked for this?
ETA Removed the brexit dividend line after it was pointed out I misread the article.
Who asked for this?
ETA Removed the brexit dividend line after it was pointed out I misread the article.
Edited by ZedLeg on Saturday 6th May 11:25
And we call ourselves a nation of animal lovers! A total backwards step. We always use Aldi, Co-Op or Superdrug for toiletries, as they commit to only sell Cruelty Free. IIRC Sainsburys and Lidl are also taking steps to improve in this regard.
For anyone not familiar with it, just look for the Cruelty Free logo on toiletries, to ensure the product hasn't been tested on animals.
For anyone not familiar with it, just look for the Cruelty Free logo on toiletries, to ensure the product hasn't been tested on animals.
ZedLeg said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-654...
Who asked for this? Another wonderful Brexit dividend.
0/10 for reading the article.Who asked for this? Another wonderful Brexit dividend.
Should be fully banned. No need to harm animals for vanity.
A govt could do that in future. Bring it on SKS.
ZedLeg said:
Thank’s to the folk who pointed out I had been an idiot again. I’ve updated the op.
The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
Perhaps a decision based on principle? Though I'd say that it's the wrong principle. I also dont think it'll make much difference to anything.The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
ZedLeg said:
Thank’s to the folk who pointed out I had been an idiot again. I’ve updated the op.
The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
Perhaps ask you friends in the EU why they allow it first, and come back and let us know The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
Murph7355 said:
ZedLeg said:
Thank’s to the folk who pointed out I had been an idiot again. I’ve updated the op.
The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
Perhaps ask you friends in the EU why they allow it first, and come back and let us know The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
ZedLeg said:
I thought that the point is that we’re improving our society. Going along with a stupid EU rule that they don’t have to, no one agrees with and makes our society a little more cruel is entirely on brand for this government.
I think they also u-turned on an intention to ban the import of fur and foie gras.ZedLeg said:
Thank’s to the folk who pointed out I had been an idiot again. I’ve updated the op.
The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
The article I read said that it was Health and Safety of workers in cosmetics factories;The thing I don’t understand is that there is hardly any support for cosmetic animal testing. It’s a bizarre decision.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-654...
"But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients."
"Manufacturers can now apply for licenses to undertake animal testing before production begins, to ensure the safety of workers. But they still cannot undertake any animal testing to check the safety of the makeup for consumers. This should be done using other methods."
ZedLeg said:
I thought that the point is that we’re improving our society. Going along with a stupid EU rule that they don’t have to, no one agrees with and makes our society a little more cruel is entirely on brand for this government.
If you really want to signal your virtue then you could volunteer to take the animals' place in the testing regime. So much more effective than whining on social media.Let me know when you've undergone the first test & I will salute your incredible commitment to your ideals.
Biggy Stardust said:
ZedLeg said:
I thought that the point is that we’re improving our society. Going along with a stupid EU rule that they don’t have to, no one agrees with and makes our society a little more cruel is entirely on brand for this government.
If you really want to signal your virtue then you could volunteer to take the animals' place in the testing regime. So much more effective than whining on social media.Let me know when you've undergone the first test & I will salute your incredible commitment to your ideals.
Biggy Stardust said:
If you really want to signal your virtue then you could volunteer to take the animals' place in the testing regime. So much more effective than whining on social media.
There is no need to test on animals. It is that simple. In fact, even medical testing is not really of any value. That we allow such cruelty is a stain on our humanity.
otolith said:
The article I read said that it was Health and Safety of workers in cosmetics factories;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-654...
"But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients."
"Manufacturers can now apply for licenses to undertake animal testing before production begins, to ensure the safety of workers. But they still cannot undertake any animal testing to check the safety of the makeup for consumers. This should be done using other methods."
That seems slightly more reasonable in that it's for the safety of workers, but I assume it effectively amounts to the same thing - testing the ingredients for safety to humans, using animals.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-654...
"But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients."
"Manufacturers can now apply for licenses to undertake animal testing before production begins, to ensure the safety of workers. But they still cannot undertake any animal testing to check the safety of the makeup for consumers. This should be done using other methods."
Quite why we can't just restrict cosmetics to ingredients already known to be safe I don't understand.
lauda said:
What a strange post. Which bit of this policy do you think is a good idea exactly?
My point is that the comments are so Greta Thunberg in nature. It's so very easy to say that something is bad & someone somewhere must somehow do something. It's not constructive, it's not helpful, it's just whining.Wouldn't it be nice if everything was nice? But it isn't. In the real world things happen which we dislike. We can accept them or change them but I get sick & tired when people just sit on their rear ends & whinge.
I couldn't care if cosmetics were no longer produced- Max Factor et all have the women of the world brainwashed into thinking they're a necessity. Whilst this is the case they need to be tested for safety. If anyone thinks testing it on animals before people is not how it should be done then let them stand up & be counted by volunteering to be the test subject. Better that than hand-wringing about the injustice in the world.
(I'm not in favour of animal testing and nothing I've written suggests that, before the inevitable putting words in my mouth begins.)
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Saturday 6th May 16:14
Biggy Stardust said:
lauda said:
What a strange post. Which bit of this policy do you think is a good idea exactly?
My point is that the comments are so Greta Thunberg in nature. It's so very easy to say that something is bad & someone somewhere must somehow do something. It's not constructive, it's not helpful, it's just whining.Wouldn't it be nice if everything was nice? But it isn't. In the real world things happen which we dislike. We can accept them or change them but I get sick & tired when people just sit on their rear ends & whinge. Here endeth my complaint.
Biggy Stardust said:
My point is that the comments are so Greta Thunberg in nature. It's so very easy to say that something is bad & someone somewhere must somehow do something. It's not constructive, it's not helpful, it's just whining.
Wouldn't it be nice if everything was nice? But it isn't. In the real world things happen which we dislike. We can accept them or change them but I get sick & tired when people just sit on their rear ends & whinge. Here endeth my complaint.
Or, you could just do your bit, and buy Cruelty Free where possible. Wouldn't it be nice if everything was nice? But it isn't. In the real world things happen which we dislike. We can accept them or change them but I get sick & tired when people just sit on their rear ends & whinge. Here endeth my complaint.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff