When I first watched this video, I thought it was really eerie and dark. I don’t think it’s appropriate to the age group I want to reach out to.
When I first watched this video, I thought it was really eerie and dark. I don’t think it’s appropriate to the age group I want to reach out to.
Please see workbook 🙂
I created an online survey to help me find out if women know if they are using products, what products they are using, etc.
This survey helped me discover if women are aware of animal tested products and if they were using cruelty-free products. Majority of them are NOT aware that they have been using tested products because evidently they said yes to the last question when they stated the brands are animal tested in the previous questions.
This means by proposing my major project and educate them what animals go through will make them fully aware.
Q: What products are considered cosmetics?
A: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines cosmetics as “articles intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions.” Examples include skin cream, perfume, lipstick, nail polish, eye and facial makeup, shampoo, and hair color. Any ingredient used in a cosmetic also falls under this definition. Products normally labeled as cosmetics are classified as drugs when a medical claim is made. For example, toothpaste is sometimes classified as a cosmetic, but toothpaste that advertises cavity protection is a drug. The same is true for deodorants advertised as antiperspirants, shampoos that make anti-dandruff claims, and lotions that contain sunscreen. Oddly, simple soaps that make no claim other than cleansing are not considered cosmetics under the FDA definition.
Q: Is using animals to test cosmetics legally required in the United States?
A: No. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (regulated by the Food and Drug Administration) prohibits the sale of “adulterated” or unsafe cosmetics, but does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate that the cosmetics are safe.
Q: Are there countries that legally require cosmetics to be tested on animals?
A: China requires that all cosmetics be tested on animals. Therefore, cosmetics companies selling products in China are not cruelty-free. Brazil also requires that some, but not all, cosmetics be tested on animals.
Q: How can cosmetics companies ensure safety without using animal tests?
A: Companies can ensure the safety of their products by choosing to create them using the thousands of ingredients that have either already been tested or that have a long history of safe use. There are already many products on the market that are made using such ingredients. Companies also have the option of using existing non-animal tests or investing in and developing alternative non-animal tests for new ingredients. There are a growing number of non-animal tests that can be used to assess the short-term safety of previously untested ingredients (see “What are the alternatives to animal testing?”). Non-animal tests for longer term safety are under development.
Q: Why do some companies still test cosmetics on animals if it’s not required?
A: Some companies choose to develop and/or use new, untested ingredients in their cosmetic products and to conduct new animal tests to assess the safety of these new ingredients.
Q: What animal tests are carried out to test cosmetics?
A: Although they are not required by law, several tests are commonly performed by exposing mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs to cosmetics ingredients. This can include:
NZ existing article animal testing
Monday, 11 Mar 2013 | Press Release
New Zealand should celebrate the end of cosmetic animal testing in Europe by making the same promise in our own country, the Green Party said today.
Today the final phase of the European Union (EU) Cosmetics Directive comes into force, meaning that no new cosmetic products and ingredients on sale in the EU can be tested on animals anywhere in the world.
“Animal testing of cosmetics is both cruel and unnecessary, and is fast becoming extinct,” said Green Party animal welfare spokesperson Mojo Mathers.
“New Zealanders, like Europeans, want to see the end of animal testing for recreational and cosmetic products, that’s why the public were so alarmed with proposals to test party pills on dogs,” said Ms Mathers.
“There are modern, smart alternatives to using animal testing, and we need to embrace these.
“The rest of the world is looking to New Zealand to see how we regulate party pills; we need to show real leadership in making cruel and unnecessary animal testing a thing of the past.
“A country such as New Zealand that prides itself on taking care of our animals needs to seriously address animal testing and only use it when absolutely necessary, after all other options have been exhausted.
“By ruling out animal testing for cosmetics and recreational drugs we would show we really care about animal welfare,” said Ms Mathers.
There are modern, smart alternatives to using animal testing, and we need to embrace these.
Alternative testing methods have many advantages over traditional animal tests—including being more humane—but implementing an alternative from idea to acceptance can take years.
The word “alternative” is used to describe any change in an animal test that achieves one or more of the “three R’s”:
1. Replaces a procedure that uses animals with a procedure that doesn’t use animals
2. Reduces the number of animals used in a procedure
3. Refines a procedure to alleviate or minimize potential animal pain
Scientists at private companies, universities, and government agencies are developing new cell and tissue tests, computer models and other sophisticated methods to replace existing animal tests. These alternatives are not only humane; they also tend to be more cost-effective, rapid, and reliable than traditional animal tests.
Once an alternative test has been developed by a scientist, it must be scientifically “validated,” or evaluated in multiple laboratories to see if its results reliably predict outcomes in people. Validation is sometimes a frustratingly slow process, and the United States has unfortunately proved to be far slower at validating alternatives than the European Union.
After an alternative has been scientifically validated, it is then up to government authorities to decide whether—and to what extent—they will accept the use of the alternative to replace, reduce or refine animal use. The opinions of government regulators strongly influence the extent to which private companies use available alternatives instead of traditional animal tests.
Nearly 50 different alternative methods and testing strategies have been developed, validated and/or accepted by international regulatory authorities. These are a few examples:
The Draize test for eye irritation, which was developed in the 1940s, uses rabbits to test whether chemicals, cosmetics, or pharmaceutical products irritate the eye. The substance is applied to the eye of the animal and irritation is measured. Today, substances are started out at being evaluated in non-animal in vitro methods. Severely irritant and corrosive substances are not further tested on the eyes of rabbits. Only chemicals that have revealed no effects in non-animal tests are applied, in strongly diluted form, to the eyes of animals. Nevertheless, this does not suffice. The search for a replacement test continues. In this context, a very promising approach being assessed is the artificial generation of the human cornea making use of the respective cell types. Such cultured cornea epithels are already available on the market. The reason the scientists are focusing on the cornea is that it is the fi rst layer to come into contact with chemicals when they enter the eye. Another method to replace such substance evaluations on the eyes of living
animals makes use of the eyes of dead cattle and chickens from the abattoir. It is also in this area that progress has been made in recent years. Thus, it is to be hoped that these tests will be able to fully replace the Draize test in Europe in the foreseeable future, thereby finally completing the step from “reduce” to “replace”.
Every animal has a story.
A chimpanzee named Kitty is left to suffer for decades in a New Mexico laboratory as a “breeder,” giving birth to as many as 14 baby chimpanzees for use in research.
Echo, a pet dog, is stolen from his backyard in Arkansas and sold by a Class B dealer to a research laboratory in Minnesota.
It’s hard to believe that their stories are true, and yet Kitty and Echo represent just two of the millions of animals who are harmed by experiments or suffer in laboratories around the world every year.
An illustration book on animal story could be a possible final project. Just keeping in mind that I might work on a storyline if I do go ahead with this idea.
You are a dog in a small cage with metal wires surrounding it. You are by other dogs who are barking loudly as a man in a white coat comes and takes you out. He walks out of the room and puts you in a tank filled with water. The tank is deep enough to where you cant touch, you start swimming for two hours. You sink to the bottom almost dead from exhaustion. They pull you out with a pole and put you on a table. They put stuff on you and start electrocuting you so you can revive,you do. You are then on a transportable life support. The man in the white coat takes you back in the room with the dogs barking. He puts you in the same cage you were in earlier and sets down the iv pole. You look to your left and you see one of the test dogs dead. The same white coat man comes in to feed you and the others. He notices the dead dog and goes to get his snow shovel. he picks up the dog and takes him somewhere where you don’t know. You shiver from the site thinking that could be you tomorrow. The white coat man comes back and puts your small food in your cage. You hear mumbling from the other white coats and you see the feeder leave, forgetting to shut the cage. You now decide if you’re going to be a white coat, if you’ll be a good dog and stay at the labs, or run free and escape. Your choice!
More images from testing labs:
Looking at some precedents appropriate for the project:
This image was part of a book published by the artist in 1959 with an attempt to return to empiricism with an essay by Thomas Huxley, and with the intention of a renaissance/revolution to have humanity accept the tragedy and beauty of our dependency on Nature. Perhaps we can all agree to accept Spinoza’s concept that there is only one substance, deus sive natura.
Note: Still exploring on precedents.
‘The Deepest Sense’ by Constance Classen
While there might be considerable divergence as to the rational capacities of animals, it was generally accepted that animals, as sentient beings, could suffer. Touch, the common medium of all the inhabitants of the Earth, was also the medium of pain. Conventional theology held that animal pain was not a subject for human concern. According to Augustine, ‘lack of a rational soul meant “something, of course, on which a human being places little value” (Augustine, 2005b:95  see also Clark, 1998).
On the political front, class conflicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led many to rethink the validity of social hierarchies including, in a few cases, the lordship of humans of animals. (One of the most radical thinkers in this regard was the revolutionary Leveller, Richard Overton.) The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that it was injust to grant a predatory species dominion over its prey and that granting humans dominion over animals amounted to the same thing as granting lions dominion over sheep. As for the argument that animals were created expressly for the use of man from the seventeenth century on an increasing conviction amongh scholars was that certain species of animals had lived and become extinct without ever having come in contact with humans. How could this be reconciled with the belief that the purpose of animals was to serve humans?
The video above shows what an animal testing lab look like.
In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one’s own abilities or attractiveness to others (Stephen LaMarche). Prior to the 14th century it did not have such narcissistic undertones, and merely meant futility. The related term vainglory is now often seen as an archaic synonym for vanity, but originally meant boasting in vain, i.e. unjustified boasting; although glory is now seen as having an exclusively positive meaning, the Latin term gloria (from which it derives) roughly means boasting, and was often used as a negative criticism.
In many religions vanity, in its modern sense, is considered a form of self-idolatry, in which one rejects God for the sake of one’s ownimage, and thereby becomes divorced from the graces of God. The stories of Lucifer, Narcissus (who gave us the term narcissism) and others attend to a pernicious aspect of vanity. Philosophically speaking, vanity may refer to a broader sense of egoism and pride.Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that “vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality.” One of Mason Cooley’s aphorisms is “Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful.”
In Christian teachings vanity is considered an example of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. This list evolved from an earlier list of eight sins, which included vainglory as a sin independent of pride.
In Orthodox church, vanity is one of eight sinful and diabolical passions, the fight against which is a major task of every Orthodox Christian.
In Western art, vanity was often symbolized by a peacock, and in Biblical terms, by the Whore of Babylon. In secular allegory, vanity was considered one of the minor vices. During the Renaissance, vanity was invariably represented as a naked woman, sometimes seated or reclining on a couch. She attends to her hair with comb and mirror. The mirror is sometimes held by a demon or a putto. Symbols of vanity include jewels, gold coins, a purse, and often by the figure of death himself.
Often we find an inscription on a scroll that reads Omnia Vanitas (“All is Vanity”), a quotation from the Latin translation of the Book ofEcclesiastes. Although that phrase, itself depicted in a type of still life, vanitas, originally referred not to obsession with one’s appearance, but to the ultimate fruitlessness of humankind’s efforts in this world, the phrase summarizes the complete preoccupation of the subject of the picture.
“The artist invites us to pay lip-service to condemning her,” writes Edwin Mullins, “while offering us full permission to drool over her. She admires herself in the glass, while we treat the picture that purports to incriminate her as another kind of glass—a window—through which we peer and secretly desire her.” The theme of the recumbent woman often merged artistically with the non-allegorical one of a reclining Venus.
In his table of the Seven Deadly Sins, Hieronymus Bosch depicts a bourgeois woman admiring herself in a mirror held up by a devil. Behind her is an open jewelry box. A painting attributed to Nicolas Tournier, which hangs in the Ashmolean Museum, is An Allegory of Justice and Vanity. A young woman holds a balance, symbolizing justice; she does not look at the mirror or the skull on the table before her. Vermeer’s famous painting Girl with a Pearl Earring is sometimes believed to depict the sin of vanity, as the young girl has adorned herself before a glass without further positive allegorical attributes.
All is Vanity, by Charles Allan Gilbert (1873–1929), carries on this theme. An optical illusion, the painting depicts what appears to be a large grinning skull. Upon closer examination, it reveals itself to be a young woman gazing at her reflection in the mirror. In the film The Devil’s Advocate, Satan (Al Pacino) claims that “vanity is his favourite sin”.
Such artistic works served to warn viewers of the ephemeral nature of youthful beauty, as well as the brevity of human life and the inevitability of death.
A specific false pleasure often denounced in Western thought is the pleasure of vanity – Voltaire for example pilloring the character “corrupted by vanity…He breathed in nothing but false glory and false pleasures”.
by PERRY ROMANOWSKI
I saw this article in the Guardian about the delay the EU faces in their ban ofanimal testing of cosmetic products.
For someone new in the cosmetic industry, the role of animal testing may be confusing. There are many brands out there that claim to be ‘cruelty free’ and that ‘don’t test on animals.’ It might make an aspiring cosmetic chemist wonder, why do some companies continue to test on animals? What kind of animal testing is done? If one company could stop testing on animals, why don’t they all?
Good questions. But before we answer, let’s go over what animal testing has been used in the cosmetic industry.
There are a number of animal tests that can be done on cosmetic formulas and ingredients. The primary tests include the following.
1. Draize test – This is a procedure used to determine dermal irritation. Animals used are albino rabbits who have much more sensitive skin than humans. Semiocclusive patches of the test material are placed on skin and readings are taken at 24 and 72 hours. The skin is then graded for erythema and edema. In the United States, this test is required by law for cosmetics and skin care products under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
2. Eye irritancy test – Tests what happens if the cosmetic gets into the eye. It involves albino rabbits again and compounds are put into the eyes. Evaluations take place at 24, 48, 72 hrs and up to 7 days.
3. Guinea Pig Maximization test – This test measures for the sensitizing potential of an ingredient and involves injecting the compound under the skin followed by topical application.
I’ve never been too comfortable doing animal tests and as a cosmetic formulator, I never had to. Fortunately, it is unlikely that you will ever have to do any animal testing yourself. It is typically done by an outside testing laboratory. But governments still require cosmetic companies to demonstrate their products are safe and while they don’t usually require animal testing, for some products, it is the only proof they accept.
I was once asked a series of questions about animal testing. Here is my perspective.
1. Do you think that animal testing for cosmetics should be banned?
While I don’t like animal testing, as the original story shows there are currently no suitable alternatives for some types of tests. I don’t think animal testing should be banned until there are alternative tests that help prove products are safe.
2. Should animal testing be banned for cosmetics, but still be allowed for medicine?
Animal testing is not something that anyone wants to do. Scientists feel the same affection for animals as everyone else. But until alternative tests are better developed, banning animal testing for either cosmetics or medicine seems unethical. Aren’t human lives more important than animals?
3. Do you agree with the EU ban on animal testing? What will the effects be?
I don’t agree or disagree with the decision made by the EU. The truth is cosmetics are not vital for living a healthy life. The result of banning animal testing will be that no new cosmetic products will be made. All you will get in the future are color & bottle changes using the same products you have today. Cosmetic innovation will stop. Solutions to acne, dandruff, dry skin, frizzy hair, etc. will not be developed. Fortunately, the products available now are often good enough. If these problems were never solved and there were never a new cosmetic made, the world would be just fine.
However, it seems strange people get upset about animal testing, but still eat meat, kill mice & rats, and wear leather products.
Pros of a ban: fewer animals will be killed
Cons of a ban: Cosmetic problems will not be solved, no new ingredients will be used, innovation stops
4. Do you use cosmetics products that have been tested on animals?
Yes I do. So do you. Everyone uses products that have ingredients that were tested on animals. It is misleading when companies say they don’t test on animals. ALL cosmetics have been tested directly or indirectly on animals.
The truth is, very few cosmetic companies directly test their products on animals. Animal testing is expensive and terrible for public relations. Companies who say they don’t test on animals either use ingredients that were already tested on animals or have their raw material suppliers do the animal testing. They can argue that they never tested their formula on animals (which they technically don’t) because they know they are using only raw materials that have already been tested on animals (by someone else).
Since all ingredients have been tested on animals, there does not seem to me to be any moral high ground to avoiding companies based on whether they claim to test on animals or not.
5. With all the efforts to stopping animal testing for cosmetics, do you think that it’s possible to one day completely get rid of animal testing for cosmetics?
Yes, I believe one day animal testing of cosmetics will be a thing of the past. Everyone wants to get rid of this type of testing. No one wants to hurt animals. Scientists are working hard to create testing alternatives that work. We are just now seeing some tests that are receiving approval from governmental agencies. I believe withing 10 – 20 years animal testing of cosmetics will be practically non-existent. But until there are reliable testing alternatives (there aren’t yet) animal testing will still be necessary.
The final phase of European law designed to eradicate testing on animals of chemicals used in the cosmetics industry is set to be delayed for as long as four years because it is thought that alternative ways of testing the safety of ingredients’ will not be ready in time.
Cosmetics and testing experts predict the European commission will announce shortly that it is unable to introduce the third phase of the European cosmetics directive, as planned in 2013. This directive would have banned the sale in Europe of any cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world.
Neil Parish MP, chair of the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare, said “sufficient” replacement safety tests would not be available until 2017.
However, Parish accuses the cosmetics industry of deliberately delaying the development of alternative methods. “For too long the cosmetics industry has dragged its feet when it comes to developing alternatives to animal testing, and here they are again trying to stall legislation to improve the welfare of animals.”
Parish is demanding an end to “needless animal testing purely for the commercial gain of industry”.
Michael Balls, a professor and former head of the commission’s European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, also criticises the handling of the issue. “The whole thing is a way of looking for reasons for a delay. The EC is trying to make a delay look like a scientific issue.”
Sabine Lecrenier, head of the cosmetics and medical devices unit of the commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers, has already informed members of the European parliament’s environment committee that it is “unlikely enough scientific progress” will have been made on alternatives by 2013. A commission assessment of alternative methods is due to report in early 2011, and a final decision will follow soon afterwards. A clause letting the commission delay the ban will then be invoked.
Europe’s two biggest cosmetics bodies – the European Cosmetics Association (Colipa), and the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients – say the full ban will probably be delayed because, according to Colipa, “top scientists confirm that although phenomenal progress has been made, a full set of alternative tests to cover all areas of consumer safety will almost certainly not be available by 2013”.
There are 10,000 cosmetic ingredients on the commission’s permitted list, but new ingredients are still being tested on animals outside Europe and then used within the EU. It is also thought that some new ingredients are still being tested on animals in Europe for use in household products or food and then subsequently used in cosmetic products.
The delay to the European cosmetics directive comes just as another complex set of EU legislation, which mandates the re-testing of tens of thousands of chemicals, begins to be enforced.
The EU regulation Reach (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) was the commission’s response to safety questions raised over many chemicals used regularly in household and industry products. The commission estimates that a minimum of 8m extra animals will be used in these tests, although some observers put that figure as high as 54m.
Experts now question how Reach can possibly be compatible with a Europe-wide ban on animal testing of cosmetic products and ingredients. Balls said: “I think the general public has the impression that the cosmetics directive banned the testing of all ingredients [the first phase came in 2004]. So most people believe that when you buy a cosmetic it won’t have any chemicals in it that have been tested on animals. But I just don’t think that’s true, and I think it is incredibly misleading.”
The professor said he hoped for a “chorus of objections” if chemicals tested under Reach were then used in cosmetics labelled, “This product does not contain chemicals which have been tested on animals”.
Cosmetic industry representatives say Reach will not affect the bans already in place on ingredient and product testing.
However, the US mining company Rio Tinto confirmed to the Guardian that sodium borate, an ingredient used in products made by Boots, Avon and some cruelty-free firms including Burt’s Bees, and Lush, had recently been subjected to animal tests in compliance with Reach.
Rio Tinto said: “We avoid animal testing whenever possible. But when we’re required by regulation to do animal testing, we do it to ensure human and environmental safety.”
Mark Constantine, managing director of Lush, said: “The confirmation that … sodium borate has been tested on animals by the borate SIEF [the Substance Information Exchange Forum, which collates data for registration of chemicals from European suppliers] confirms our worst fears about Reach. We’re investigating the situation, and have removed it from one product and are working on the others.”
Lush says it does not buy products from suppliers who carry out animal testing on their own products. Burt’s Bees adheres to the “Leaping Bunny” accreditation scheme of the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics.
Christopher Flowers, director-general of the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumery Association, argues, like other cosmetics bodies, that ingredients tested on animals under Reach will be eligible for use in cosmetics because Reach and the cosmetics directive are separate pieces of legislation.
But the courts could take a different view. In 2005, in a case brought against the cosmetics directive, the French attorney general ruled: “It seems clear that the ban on animal tests applies equally to tests performed for … complying with other legislation, in so far as substances that have been the subject of such tests may not be used as, or in, cosmetic products.”
Flowers said: “When people expect, or try, to bridge the two [pieces of legislation] to produce a consistent course of action, the lack of joined-up thinking out there in the wide world starts to show up.”
• This article was amended on 1 January 2011. One of the bullet points in the standfirst of the website version of the article referred to the pharmaceutical industry. This article is specifically about the cosmetics industry. This has been corrected.
A complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing has taken effect in the EU.
The ban applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of where in the world testing on animals was carried out.
The 27 EU countries have had a ban on such tests in place since 2009. But the EU Commission is now asking the EU’s trading partners to do the same.
Animal rights lobbyists said EU officials had “listened to the people”.
The anti-vivisection group BUAV and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) said they had spent more than 20 years campaigning on the issue and had enlisted celebrities including Sir Paul McCartney, Morrissey and Sienna Miller to their cause. They congratulated the EU Commission for putting the ban into effect.
But BUAV says many countries in the world still test on animals for cosmetics and the group is now pressing for a global ban.
Mice and rats are used for more than half of all lab animal tests carried out in the EU.
Despite the EU’s 2009 ban, cosmetics firms were allowed to continue testing on animals for the most complex human health effects, such as toxicity which might lead to cancer. However, those tests now come under the ban too.
The EU Commission says it is working with industry to develop more alternatives to animal testing, and that it allocated 238m euros (£208m; $310m) in 2007-2011 for such research.
Cosmetics firms are concerned that the ban could put Europe at a competitive disadvantage in a global market.
Cosmetics Europe chief Bertil Heerink, quoted by the Associated Press news agency, said that “by implementing the ban at this time, the European Union is jeopardising the industry’s ability to innovate”.