Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!Shasta!andy
From: andy@Shasta.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.consumers,net.veg,net.pets
Subject: Re: animal testing for cosmetic and household products
Message-ID: <995@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20-Nov-86 01:39:53 EST
Article-I.D.: Shasta.995
Posted: Thu Nov 20 01:39:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 02:20:43 EST
References: <2533@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: andy@Shasta.UUCP (Andy Freeman)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 32
Xref: watmath soc.women:1000 misc.consumers:262 net.veg:993 net.pets:2839

If you want to stop animal testing, then get the consumer
protection and liability laws changed.  Make the customer,
not the manufacturer, take the responsibilty for damages
caused by violating safety instructions.  (The other
alternative is to not buy new products; keep buying
what you used as a kid.  If you won't do either of
these things but still object to animal testing, you're
blaming the mirror for what it reflects.)

Animal testing is not cheap (even when it is bad science);
the cosmetic companies would rather spend that money on
advertising.  Give them the choice.  (Animal testing is
used to defend cosmetic companies in court.  A good
lawyer will clean up on a company that says "we tested
our shampoo on eggs".)

Product testing on human eyes from eye banks is dubious
at best.  Suitable organs are used for cornea transplants
and the like.  Testing with them instead of bunnies trades
bunny eyes for blind people.

-andy

ps - The results of animal testing are available to companies
that don't do it.  If you sue one of the "pure" companies,
they'll defend themselves using animal test results.

-- 
Andy Freeman
UUCP:  ...!decwrl!shasta!andy forwards to
ARPA:  andy@sushi.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle