Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!sun!lyang
From: lyang@sun.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.pets,net.veg,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Testing of cosmetics and household goods
Message-ID: <9140@sun.uucp>
Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 20:11:29 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.9140
Posted: Mon Nov 10 20:11:29 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 06:47:23 EST
References: <3408@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 59
Xref: decwrl net.pets:2906 net.veg:981 misc.consumers:199

> 
> I have recently become aware, and therefore horrified, at the animal cruelty
> used by many cosmetic and chemical companies.  As a result I contacted an 
> organization called PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 
> Tests on animals for cosmetic and household product use include the Draize
> eye test where rabbits are put in stocks so they can't claw at their eyes 
> and chemicals are introduced to the eye.  This is done with everything 
> from shampoos and make-up to bleaches and insecticides.  Animals are also
> injected with these substances, forced to ingest them, and partially skinned
> for toxicity tests.  

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!

I remember when I was taking a course on Bioethics I did a short paper
on this topic.  My basic thesis was that animal rights activists were
barking up the wrong tree!!  Although there are abuses in the medical 
field in animal treatment, and the work of the animal rights groups are
improving the situation, the abuse in these areas is NOTHING compared to
the abuse done by the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries!  I was
lacking in statistics at the time, but one statistic I had was that in 
England, about 1 million new toiletries enter the market each year, each
one of which must have underwent some form of animal testing.  Can you 
imagine what that statistic must be in the US?

> No animal tests are required by law or regulation

Are you sure about this?  I was under the impression that every thing that
goes in your mouth or on your skin had to be approved (probably by the FDA). 
Tha means that every new lipstick, aspirin, skin cream, band-aid , etc must 
undergo testing.  If it is true, then that throws a major snag in my 
arguments.

> are one alternative as well as computers, cell culture (in vitro) systems
> and organ-culture systems (eyes from eye-banks etc).  

I don't know about these, especially computers.  Would you take an aspirin
that was verified to be safe by a computer?  (If you don't take aspirin, then 
good for you!  Seriously, more people should try to avoid aspirin.)  I
think the problem goes beyond finding alternatives for proving safety.  I think
that we need to develop a new frame of mind towards cosmetics and drugs,
where we are willing to take just one brand of aspirin, and use just one
type of eye-shadow. The focus of animal rights shouldn't be medical centers,
where their work is trying to save lives, but Maybelline and Bayer and
Johnson and Johnson, who's business is to satisfy human's vanity.

I am resubscribing to net.pets, so this discussion should probably be continued
there.  (Unless I am a total idiot, in which cas there will be no followup)

-- 
==============================================================================
                                         /-\   /\    |
-- Larry Yang                          __|_/    |    |
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.                |      |    | /--\ /\/-\/--\
   Mountain View, CA  94043            /-|\     \    / |  | ||  ||  |
   lyang@sun.COM                       \_/ \     \__/| /--/\/|  \/--| /
   {ihnp4|hplabs|seismo}!sun!lyang                 __|/           __|/
                                                  /  /           /  /
                            (a REAL signature)    \_/            \_/
==============================================================================