I think this is absolutely fascinating — the European group that is doing research on how to test whether or not products cause allergic skin reactions without harming animals — Sens-it-iv — is doing some AMAZING stuff trying to find a way to test for allergic reactions to chemicals without using animals. I just got their newsletter, and in it they describe how they’ve been working on two (incredible) strategies to develop a cell-culture based test to identify skin-sensitizing chemicals.
It’s interesting to me that when reading this, I find all the information really gladdening, but I’m really horrified by the descriptions of what they’re trying to replace. They’re looking for a way to replace the “Local Lymph Node Assay,” which kills some animals — one supposes they inject chemicals into animals lymph nodes and sees if they create antibodies? (Guinea pigs, apparently.) The “Local Lymph Node Assay” apparently is itself already an approved “alternative” — which must mean it replaced some other REALLY horrific hypoallergenicity test that tortured/killed even MORE animals, I suppose. It just shows you how awful animal testing can be and why it needs to be eradicated, and how even more awful animal testing once was — every day more and more tests are being invented that will hurt fewer and fewer animals. And Sens-it-iv is definitely at the forefront of this movement. Yay!
Categories : cruelty free
RSS feed for comments on this post
Wendy Koenigsmann
November 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
This is going to sound terrible, and I often say things that tend to offend people, but it has to be said:
We human beings, at least in the Western world, tend to be so wrapped up in ourselves. I am not criticizing anybody here, nor would I ever criticize an animal lover, as animal lovers are some of the best and nicest people I’ve ever met. I mean, as a whole, human beings want to have their cake and eat it too, especially when it comes to health issues.
If people just took care of their health more, maybe so many medical experiments wouldn’t be necessary. As for allergies, perhaps if we weren’t so obsessed with cosmetics, image, etc., perhaps we wouldn’t need to test animals, but that’s a different story altogether as we live in a society where image IS important, I won’t lie about that.
Don’t mean to condemn anyone, I am obsessed with lip gloss for example, but I think our society needs to slow down sometimes. When I walk into the drugstore, I’m thankful there are so many choices regarding cosmetics, but at other times, even a beauty junkie like myself thinks, “what the hell?” when I see just how much space is devoted to cosmetics.
My comment is getting off tangent, but basically, what I’d like to say it that it seems things get better all the time, but then something else comes along to complicate matters — still, I have hope that one day animals will not be used for one single experiment at all; however, seeing as to how most people still refuse to take care of their health, they will probably be abused in health experiments until people decide to stop abusing themselves with fast food lifestyles and so forth.
Great post! It made me think! I love all of your posts here.
Natasha
November 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
That is so true. What a world.
Raffaella
November 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hi Emily, forgive my intrusion!
Dear Wendy, you cannot offend people like me but there is a question I would like to ask you: are we rabbits, mice, cats, etc.? If we want something good/safe/useful for human beings, we should test stuff only on people!
As a matter of fact, after torturing animals, medicines (for example) must been tested on humans…
This should made “you” think…maybe reading about the vivisection failures could make your mind more clear!
You are completly right saying that many people don’t take care of their health, at least not enough, but that has nothing to do with vivisection!
Regards
P.S. I’m not english mother tongue, sorry for any wrong spelling!
Emily
November 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Hi Wendy!
Wow — that’s quite a speech! I feel you on the so much space in stores being devoted to cosmetics. It’s just frightening sometimes. Especially when you figure if people stopped eating so much fast food their skin would probably glow a little more and they’d need fewer cosmetic products. So glad you enjoyed the post!
Hi Rafaella!
Oh, I think you have misunderstood Wendy — I don’t think she’s actually that in favor of medical vivisection — she has a great blog devoted to cruelty-free cosmetics:
http://wkoenigsmann.blogspot.com/
(Wendy — that is your blog, right? Or is that a different Wendy Koenigsmann?)
But really good points against vivisection
Regards,
christine
November 26th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I think it makes huge sense to spend your dollars in those subdivisions of huge conglomerates that agree with your moral values. They’ll rise above those that don’t. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to hope that a company the size of L’Oreal is going to wipe out animal testing across the board in one step.
Consumers aren’t aware of every company that L’Oreal owns, so if you boycott “L’Oreal”, it leaves all the others open to whatever interpretation they like. If you specify, it gives consumers information so they can follow your lead and know why they’re choosing this one and not that one.
Something that has always confused me, and you’ve probably explained in an earlier post, is why the list of companies at Leaping Bunny is so different from the PETA lists (Caring Consumer) of Companies That Don’t Test and Companies That Do Test. I’ve always assumed the distinction is whether testing occurs on raw materials vs. finished products.The other thing is whether the company has jumped through all the hoops to satisfy the more precise requirements of Leaping Bunny.
So, what I really want to know, after that ramble, is how you feel about the Caring Consumer lists. As you say, L’Oreal is listed there as a cruel company, but some of its subsidiaries are not.
Emily
November 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hi Christine!
I’m glad to hear you agree with me about spending money in subdivisions that align with your moral values
You’re spot on in your theory of why the PETA list is different from the Leaping Bunny list — the PETA list only specifies that the final products must be animal testing free, while the Leaping Bunny specifies that the raw materials as well as the finished products must be animal testing free. (That’s why I describe PETA companies as being 50%-cruelty-free, and Leaping Bunny companies as being 100%-cruelty-free.) Also that the company has jumped through the Leaping Bunny hoops — though those are very small hoops, to my mind — they have to sign a form saying they never test on animals, and their suppliers have to sign a form saying they won’t sell any products to that company that have been tested on animals. (From what I’ve heard, it’s difficult for small companies to get their suppliers to sign the form sometimes — the suppliers just can’t be bothered. But there’s no reason for a large company to have that problem.) (I have a few companies I am really looking forward to adding to my list of cruelty-free companies — they’re just waiting for their suppliers to stop holding them up, apparently.)
Though that’s separate, for me, from the subsidiary question — L’Oreal does test its finished products on animals, so neither the Leaping Bunny nor PETA will list it. However, it has one subsidiary that doesn’t test its raw materials or finished products on animals (The Body Shop), and I fully support buying products from there, because I feel it is sending L’Oreal a message that it can make money from selling 100%-cruelty-free products. And I want to encourage L’Oreal to feel that way!
So — basically, to answer your question, I feel that the PETA Caring Consumer lists aren’t good enough for me — that they really only list 50%-cruelty-free companies, and I prefer the Leaping Bunny list, because it lists 100%-cruelty-free companies. I feel bad saying that — PETA does many fantastic things and 50%-cruelty-free is a LOT better than 0%-cruelty-free, so the Caring Consumer list is useful for products that don’t come in 100%-cruelty-free form.
Anyway — I hope that cleared up your questions, and please remember these are just my thoughts — I don’t think everyone should agree with me all the time
Regards,
Raffaella
November 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Hi Emily,
thank you for your mail, I feel much better!:)
In the missing comment there were many links so maybe that was the trouble…
Hi Wendy,
if you will ever read my comment n.3…I think I didn’t explain myself very well, so If I offended you in some way please forgive me, I really didn’t mean to and I also understood you are not in favor of animal testing!
In my opinion, there is not a connection between animal testing and human health, I mean not a real/useful one! That was the point!
There are so many doctors, researchers and medical students against vivisection that I really find hard to believe that this method is still in use…legally!
Anyway this website could be a good start fo everyone interested in vivisection failures:
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/menun.html
Regards!
Emily
December 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Hi Rafaella!
I’m glad your comment came through — sorry about it being eaten by the spam folder! I thought you probably weren’t feeling too negative towards Wendy — you and she have a lot in common
Regards,
8 Responses