Posts: 1,199
Threads: 69
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
42
02-24-2011, 10:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2011, 09:05 AM by Eve.)
For a forum which has an Animal section, I really think that we need to be a little more aware of how we may be supporting consumer products which are tested on animals.
More pictures: animal testing programs use dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, and primates.
Global corporations, which own many household brands, are particularly sneaky. Shampoo brands which pretend to be cruelty-free include Garnier, Revlon, The Body Shop (owned by L'Oreal) and Herbal Essences (owned by Procter and Gamble, has been tested on pregnant rats). Babycare products which are tested on animals include Johnson & Johnson and Nestlé.
Even luxury toiletries and cosmetics are tested on animals: Chanel, Christian Dior, Clinique, Estée Lauder, Helena Rubenstein, Givenchy, and Yves Saint Laurent.
Many affordable, cruelty-free soaps and shampoos are now available for guys. Below are other stockists:
Dr. Bronner is famous worldwide and the #1 selling plant-based formula in North America. It has 18 (yes, eighteen) different uses: shampoo, body wash, breath freshener, etc. Also try Burt's Bees, Paul Mitchell, White Rain, Kiss My Face and Jason.
Whole Foods
Trader Joe's
Walgreens
American and Australian brands, as well as supermarket-brand products, are available.
Aldi: own brand toiletries and household cleaning products
Marks & Spencer: own brand make-up/toiletries and household products
Next: own brand make-up/toiletries
Sainsbury’s: own brand toiletries only
Tesco: all own brands
Waitrose: own brand toiletries only
The Co-Operative: BUAV products
Some of the most respected and effective cruelty-free toiletries are created by Australian companies. My favourites are Aesop and Jurlique, which cater to women and men. Nature's Organics also produces a fantastic, affordable range.
Priceline
Amcal
Nature's Organics stockists
Posts: 154
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
3
I hate Animal testing. Scientists should fudge off if they're gonna do that to pets.
Posts: 102
Threads: 13
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
0
i think animal testing is wrong on cats and dogs other animals its bad but not as bad
Posts: 1,677
Threads: 58
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
30
I don't want to look at those pictures. I love animals but what can you do.
If there wasn't animal testing a lot of medicine's wouldn't exist.
Don't get me wrong I hate it but there is some good in it.
Posts: 1,736
Threads: 198
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
32
I didn't even realize this went on...that's sick.
Posts: 1,199
Threads: 69
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
42
02-26-2011, 12:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-26-2011, 12:40 PM by Eve.)
(02-25-2011, 02:31 PM)Untouch Wrote: If there wasn't animal testing a lot of medicine's wouldn't exist.
I agree, animal testing is reasonable for medicines which are intended for healing. It is not right when it is for consumer or cosmetic products. I will edit my post, since it specifically refers to toiletries like soap and shampoo.
(02-25-2011, 05:48 PM)Laugh Wrote: I didn't even realize this went on...that's sick.
I know.. I thought this doesn't happen anymore, but apparently companies sub-contract it to countries where animal testing or animal cruelty is not illegal.
Posts: 101
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
0
Are those rabbit heads? Like did they cut them off of rabbits?
And animal testing is wrong.
Posts: 49
Threads: 13
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
5
03-06-2011, 10:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 10:35 AM by Techie©.)
(03-02-2011, 03:12 PM)Melted oreo Wrote: Are those rabbit heads? Like did they cut them off of rabbits?
And animal testing is wrong. no thats a rabbit restraint if remember correctly.
they were probably putting chemicals in their eyes,poor things.
eve,add the co op supermarket to englands cruelty free products,used to buy BUAV approved stuff like shampoo from the co op;admittedly as it was own brand stuff,most of it wasnt that good but woud prefer to keep the amount of cruelty promoting stuff down as possible.
oh,and another one is to look for food with the blue and white sticker- RSPCA freedom food,as the RSPCA have checked them over,though that in itself is pretty hypocritical as the RSPCA euthanise healthy animals just because they are not babies,they dont go and check out injured/lost pets when they say they will,and had been asked to take in a group of dumped adult rats once by langworthys RSPCA hospital as they were going to be PTS,but had had no space in the ferret cage and dad didnt allow it anyway.
![[Image: kittcrew.jpg]](http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/453/kittcrew.jpg)
Posts: 615
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
22
There's another brand that doesn't test on animals, down under naturals it's called, not a big fan myself but my ex swore it was the best.
Posts: 1,199
Threads: 69
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
42
(03-06-2011, 10:33 AM)Techie© Wrote: no thats a rabbit restraint if remember correctly.
they were probably putting chemicals in their eyes,poor things.
eve,add the co op supermarket to englands cruelty free products,used to buy BUAV approved stuff like shampoo from the co op;admittedly as it was own brand stuff,most of it wasnt that good but woud prefer to keep the amount of cruelty promoting stuff down as possible.
Yes, restraints ease testing for chemical irritants.
I have added the Co-op link to the list, thank you!
(03-06-2011, 10:48 AM)Swat Runs Train Wrote: There's another brand that doesn't test on animals, down under naturals it's called, not a big fan myself but my ex swore it was the best.
I can't find much about its ingredients or stockists, and unfortunately their website isn't working.
|
![[Image: rabbit-cosmetic-test.jpg]](http://www.animalexperimentspictures.com/images/rabbits/rabbit-cosmetic-test.jpg)
![[Image: burninglove4.png]](http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5273/burninglove4.png)
![[Image: xzd39.png]](http://i.imgur.com/xzd39.png)
