Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets
Subject: Re: animal testing for cosmetic and household products
Message-ID: <2533@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19-Nov-86 15:04:26 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.2533
Posted: Wed Nov 19 15:04:26 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Nov-86 01:38:10 EST
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath soc.women:976 misc.consumers:246 net.veg:987 net.pets:2831


1. Do you honestly believe that a non-human animal will serve as a
warning that people might suffer allergic reactions to a particular
cosmetic? I don't think the medical community has absolute confidence
in such things with *human* testing as allergies can be rare.

You presume that these animal tests actually yield valid, useful
results that protect you. I think the point is that this is highly
questionable and that the companies are only doing these tests because
they are relatively cheap and, if necessary, sound good in court
later.

Remember, cosmetics manufacturers don't fabricate products out of new,
untried chemicals in general, that would put them into the realm of
drug testing and for obvious reasons they usually avoid that (cost,
acceptance.) I think what we are talking about here is the typical
case where they throw together some lanolin, perfume, food coloring
and aloe gel and dump it in some animal's eye just to have it on
record that they did (I wonder how much their insurance carriers are
behind this?) Bad science, a bunch of flunky bio majors just 9-5ing it
in the back room for their $28K+benefits.

2. Re: If the animals are not used for testing, they will not be
born...

Better to not have been born than born to be constrained in a cage
and have random chemicals dumped in your eyes. Would the same apply
to people? What if we convinced women who were about to abort to
have the child instead and donate it to a slave class?

Anyhow, I'm mixed. I've worked in labs where animals were used, by and
large it's pretty disgusting and the folks involved get very callous
(years of practice denying the obvious.) I don't think I would support
complete, unconditional bans, but I would definitely get behind
anything that looks into it and demands justification for use of live
animals and can police practices, I saw some pretty disgusting things
that none of you would likely tolerate (eg. a person going through dog
after dog just to show off some surgical technique to a lot of people
who couldn't all be there at the same time.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University