Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

saimiri

cruelty-free acne products

17 posts in this topic

To anybody out there wondering if there are actually good, effective acne products (or at least products that don't make acne worse) that are not tested on animals, I have found that the following the work really well. Either I have used them and liked them a lot, or I have heard excellent things about them from friends.

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 Paula’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

Paula’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:

Paula’s choice 2% beta hydroxy cream or solution

Paula’s choice 8% glycolic acid solution

Paula’s choice remarkable skin lightening lotion (this helps fade red marks)

BP:

Paula’s choice blemish fighting solutionâ€â€has 2.5% BP. I’ve been using this instead of the Neutrogena on-the-spot and it hasn’t dried me out. And it seems to be working even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell can acne medicine be tested on animals.....do they even get acne? animal testing is done with biological similarities between us and other mamals. and buy the way...what are your shoes made of??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how the hell indeed but they do.

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.


Cleanser: Pears Soap

Treatment: PanOxyl 10

Moisturiser: Eucerin Hydroprotect SPF15

Started Regimen: 28 July 03

Current Status: A few large spots

Notes: Have since lapsed a bit from my original regime, including trying some alternatives to Pears Soap (which I really like and has given me no trouble, but I think may be tested on animals), and different moisturisers. Currently looking for a sun cream (would prefer gel) that is SPF 30, doesn't block my pores, doesn't feel at all greasy, and doesn't make my eyes stream - is that too much to ask?!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please.....Have you ever seen an animal with acne????? i havn't ...and buy the way those rabbits don't give a shit about you either....If you are gunna get all preachy about it than buy some canvas shoes..and become a vegan for chist's sake...even Jesus killed sheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I don't see why you find this so hard to believe. Consider: You're a chemist, and you've come up with a solution that you think might hurt acne. But you're not sure if it's safe. So, what do you do? The cheapest thing is to find an animal and try it out.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TotalTrevor, You hit the nail on the head! All I was saying, though, is that many companies coninue testing the same product over and over AFTER they have conclusive results. Some of my students have done research papers on animal testing, and I think the realities of it would make some of the most ardent supporters of animal testing blanch. As I said, i am not against animal testing...Just against testing a product some several thousand times after conclusive results have been reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, most animal experimentation is difficult or impossible to extrapolate to humans. This arises from the fact that human physiology differs greatly with animal physiology.

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.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my conspiracy theory is that scientists were developing a biological WMD - testing HIV in monkeys, and someone got contaminated with monkey blood and from there the infection spread. I really don't believe that nature is so cruel as to develop a virus as destructive as HIV by itself.


Cleanser: Pears Soap

Treatment: PanOxyl 10

Moisturiser: Eucerin Hydroprotect SPF15

Started Regimen: 28 July 03

Current Status: A few large spots

Notes: Have since lapsed a bit from my original regime, including trying some alternatives to Pears Soap (which I really like and has given me no trouble, but I think may be tested on animals), and different moisturisers. Currently looking for a sun cream (would prefer gel) that is SPF 30, doesn't block my pores, doesn't feel at all greasy, and doesn't make my eyes stream - is that too much to ask?!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory best supported by the evidence is that HIV mutated from a form of SIV which chimpanzees and other primates get. And they're pretty sure now that this crossed the species barrier into humans due to people hunting and eating these animals.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I've heard that too. Which is another reason I work so hard to discourage people from hunting and having wild animals as pets. I work with monkeys in the Amazon and everyone wants to have one as a pet. Dangerous for us and the monkeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, considering they share, what, 99% of their DNA with humans, it makes diseases that much easier to cross the species barrier I would imagine.

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.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't seem to think the writer was refering to acne-prone animals. As you all should realize, obviously animals don't have acne. These products are tested on them anyways. They are given the bacteria that causes acne, and then in turn, given the antidote.

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.

](*,)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood the writer's point from the very beginning. They test products on animals who have similar skin to ours to see if the products cause irritation, etc. It has nothing to do with whether the meds clear acne...it is whether they are safe for human use. That is why they test on animals first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, which is why I posted observing that even in humans, there's such a huge variation in the amount of topical medication that can be tolerated from person to person. BP immediately causes redness for me. In others, they don't ever get that redness. Some people have allergies also, some do not. How do we extrapolate results on animals to humans? Is it possible? Not really, at least not scientifically. It's pretty much a sham.

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.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites