Cruelty-free

[Ruth]

This petition is to help animals being abused by industries for cosmetics:

https://be-cruelty-free.com/sharethis

[Catherine]

That is a good campaign. I signed it. It is time we stopped all animal testing. Some companies can go with out animal testing so what is wrong with the rest of them.

[LPC]

Just signed. A petition well worthy of support.

[Catherine]

We already know they have testing alternatives so it is just a lack of will to change. They have always used animals in this way so they think they always will. We need petitions like this to put pressure on companies and countries so they feel the need to change.

It also matters that those who care about animals make decisions about what they buy. We do have the power to force change.

[Ruth]

Thanks for signing. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives to testing on animals.

[Tobi]

I signed. This is SO not necessary! We already know what ingredients are optimum for inclusion in cosmetics, and in what percentage. We already know what ingredients are likely to produce skin reactions, and which ones are benign, generally (except for unique allergic reactions which cannot be the fault of any manufacturer, but the risks of which need to be clearly labelled). And if chemists can't work out how much of what to put into a mixture then they need to go and get a new job....digging holes in the road or stacking shelves.
Once decided which safe ingredients need to be included in a .....lipstick....face cream....hair conditioner....whatever, then what about humans ....for instance the company 'fat cats' and CEOs trying it out before it goes on sale -not rabbits??

[Ruth]

LOL. Yes, the CEOs should test the cosmetics! Let their eyes fall out instead of the poor rabbits!

[Catherine]

I am okay with using CEOs to test products on. That sounds more reasonable that killing and torturing many helpless animals. 

Tobi you are so right, we do know what things are safe to use. Products that have dangerous chemicals should not be used anyhow. Cleaning products are the worst. They are mostly too dangerous for home use. Killing all those rabbits is for nothing. People do not follow instructions  so products need to be so safe that it doesn't matter how you use stuff. No, you shouldn't drink products, but you also shouldn't be able to get burns if you get it on your skin. Killing more animals will not make these products suitable for home use.  

Killing animals for cosmetics is just obscene. No one needs a product like that.

There are some things that test out as safe with animal testing that are not safe for humans.   There are a number of drugs that have caused problems that were tested on lab animals.

We need to start living in the present where there are better safer methods that don't involve animals.

[Tobi]

(This is meant to sound cynical)....but my bet is there are already better safer methods which don't involve animals, but they are more expensive.

[Catherine]

Quote:(This is meant to sound cynical)....but my bet is there are already better safer methods which don't involve animals, but they are more expensive.

It is always cheaper to maintain the status quo.  The animal testing facilities are already built. Even if the new cruelty free methods cost the same or less, they would have to spend money to set up the new methods. It is cheaper to stay the same.

Unless of course the public rejects your products and then it is suddenly cheaper to change than lose business.