Posted 08 August 2003 - 02:12 PM
Note: I am NOT trying to convert anyone to cruelty-free products or give anyone a guilt trip about using animal-tested products. I just happen to be against such cosmetics myself and wanted to provide a few options for others who feel the same way
Most of these you can find at drugstore.com or any local health type store. The Paulaâ€™s choice products you have to order directly from the web site but they arrive fast.
To wash your face:
Beauty without cruelty 3% Alpha Hydroxy Facial Cleanser
Burt's Bees Garden Tomato Complexion Soap for Oily skin
Kiss My Face Organics Jump Start, Exfoliating Face Wash
Body Shop tea tree oil soap
To moisturize your face:
Beauty without cruelty 8% alpha hydroxy complex moisture renewal cream
Paulaâ€™s choice skin balancing moisture gel
Kiss My Face oil-free aloe 5% alpha hydroxy moisturizer ($9 for a HUGE container)
St. Ives oil free moisturizer
Hydroxy acid products to exfoliate:
Paulaâ€™s choice 2% beta hydroxy cream or solution
Paulaâ€™s choice 8% glycolic acid solution
Paulaâ€™s choice remarkable skin lightening lotion (this helps fade red marks)
Paulaâ€™s choice blemish fighting solutionâ€”has 2.5% BP. Iâ€™ve been using this instead of the Neutrogena on-the-spot and it hasnâ€™t dried me out. And it seems to be working even better.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 03:41 PM
Posted 08 August 2003 - 04:14 PM
Thanks saimiri - always nice to know there are cruelty-free alternatives.
Oh and my shoes are made from dead cows, but that doesn't mean I am comfortable using products made from ingredients that have been dripped in live rabbits eyes or on their ears.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 05:40 PM
Posted 08 August 2003 - 05:51 PM
even Jesus killed sheep
LMAO!!!! Seriously, though, they do test proucts on animals see if skin irritation occurs. For instance, they drop white out into rabbits' eyes to see if they go blind. Does anyone you know put white out in their eyes? I doubt it, but the testing still occurs. I'm sure the same goes for BP and all the other stuff we are using to clear our acne. I don't mind initial testing, but I do mind repeated testing of the same ingredient over and over again. I.E., If it made the rabbit go blind once, chances are it will make the rabit go blind two or three hundred times.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 07:06 PM
*cuts of chicken's head, drinks its blood and applies 10% BP on chickens head to reduce bumps and acne*
Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:13 AM
Safety testing is very important. Trace amounts of anything you put on your face will get in your eyes, no matter how careful you are. Some substances might build up over time, causing your vision to get worse. In order to be better safe than sorry, companies will test these products out on animal eyes in larger quantities than a human would realistically be exposed to, thus providing some margin for error.
Companies that don't test on animals do two things: They look extensively at past data (for example, the safety tests done on similar solutions that have previously been developed), and they use chemical calculations to predict how harmful their product might be. So, if you feel strongly opposed to companies going and finding out how much benzoyl peroxide it takes to blind a rat, you can express your opposition by supporting these humane alternatives.
Posted 09 August 2003 - 07:24 AM
Posted 09 August 2003 - 02:42 PM
Consider, for example, infecting monkeys with HIV. If we could just infect them with HIV, then maybe would could start developing drugs and seeing how they react in those monkeys. But it's not that simple. First, they don't get HIV, or if they do, it doesn't seem to affect them (ie, they're just carriers). Second, developing a pill to treat HIV in monkeys would likely be a waste of time since their physiology is so different from that of a human's. It's why anti-cancer drugs which work really well on mice don't work on humans at all, for example.
As for the cosmetic industry, the key is finding animals with similar pH factors in their eyes and skin compared with humans and testing on them. But even then, it's pretty difficult saying conclusively that if it's okay on animals it will be okay on humans. Consider that even with humans, there's a HUGE variation in the way people respond to anti-acne treatments. For example, Benzoyl Peroxide will cause my face to turn bright red after just 3 days. Whereas for others, they can tolerate it well. Same with a host of other anti-acne medications. So you're telling me that somehow testing it on animals is going to offer some sense of safety? I think that's just not correct scientific thinking. How do you extrapolate animal results to human results?
I think animal experimentation is mostly a sham. If you want to know how something will work on humans, you need to test it on humans. Or you need to work out computer models based on actual human physiology. Any results you derive from animal experimentation will not be scientifically valid for humans. It may give people nice, warm fuzzy feelings, but it doesn't change this fact.
Posted 11 August 2003 - 03:58 PM
Posted 11 August 2003 - 07:34 PM
Posted 11 August 2003 - 07:43 PM
Posted 11 August 2003 - 07:52 PM
Lots to say on that topic, but this isn't the place for that conversation.
It sounds like you have a very interesting life there. Definitely not ordinary, at least for this suburban Texan.
Posted 11 August 2003 - 08:38 PM
I don't seem to think the writer was insinuating that animals get acne. Their point was that they prefer medicine thats not tested on any animals.
Most of you are missing the point here.
Posted 11 August 2003 - 10:40 PM
Posted 12 August 2003 - 08:23 PM
Of course irritation isn't the only thing animal experimentation seeks to discover. They also want to know if the product causes cancer in the long term. But again, animal phsiology is so different that any results you get from those animals will not be scientifically valid for humans.
I'd like to pin down the animal research industry on this. We need for them to prove that their research is valid. It's not just the animals at stake. If we're basing decisions about safety on false logic, then it puts people at risk.