Prelude to Animal Testing

Last week, this blogger site was acting silly and would not allow me to make edits, leave comments or make new posts.  So i decided to make good use of my time by preparing for a post on the controversial topic of animal testing.

Being the non-opinionated blogger that I am, I of course  took into consideration both sides of the animal testing argument even if it meant that I have to "meet my mink and my fried chicken" and read volumes of boring scientific and regulation documents (gawd, the hazards of not having a life).

What info I lacked though, which I do not want to just assume is the general consensus of the public on this.  I would so appreciate it if you can please help me out and let me know your general stand on animal testing.

  • Are you for or against animal testing?   
  • Is your opinion only for cosmetic purposes or is it an absolute for all kinds of testing, ie, medical and cosmetic?   
  • Can you tell me your reasons and the facts to which you are basing this opinion?

No worries, I will not use your opinion to modify mine to something that will please or attack yours.   I just would like to confirm that my understanding of your opinion is correct.

If however, you wish to keep your anonymity, which I will understand, you can still express your opinion by voting on the poll which I have placed on the right side of this blog.

Thank you in advance!

In the meantime, allow me to share with you this gruesome atrocity on animal testing:
One animal rights group has secretly infiltrated and filmed a labz where a scientific ho was making a defenseless frog his biatch.
The ho cut off one of the frog's legs and told the frog "Jump".  The frog jumped and thus the  ho noted in his lab note thingy- "i conclude that if you cut off one of the frog's legs, the frog can still jump."
The ho did this with the second and third leg getting the same result.  Then he cut off the fourth leg, ho told the frog "Jump".  But the frog did not move anymore.  He repeated, even louder - "Jump".  Nothing.   
So he noted "I therefore conclude, that if you cut off all of the frog's legs, the frog becomes deaf."
The animal group released the scandalous video stating vehemently, we cannot allow this  atrocity to continue without anesthesia!
NB  Another question- would jokes like these undermine my authority as a role model of the children, our future?   Speak up now or else i will unleash so many "funny"animal jokes  up my sleeve - you will not hear the end of it!


  1. I want to buy from companies that are only cruelty free! But my willpower is very low. Sometimes i cave. its hard when a company IS cruelty free, but it's parent company is not. *cough cough* like L'Oreal and Coty

  2. I have no issue whatsoever with animal testing when it comes to medical issues. In fact, I'd say I'm pretty much for it if I had to come down on a side. My reasoning would be that I'm okay with having a bunch of rabbits/rats/monkeys/puppies sacrificed for potentially life-saving science and medicine. I absolutely do not lose any sleep over that.

    As for cosmetics, if I had to choose a side, I'd say I would prefer we didn't test on animals - I'm not sure it's really all that necessary these days, though I haven't looked into it so I could be wrong. Really though... I don't much care. It wouldn't affect my choice in what makeup or skincare brand to use or not use. My understanding (and again, I could be wrong - it's not a topic I've cared about enough to delve into) is that even the brands that proudly state they don't test on animals are generally making use of technology and research previously provided by companies that do test on animals, so to that effect, I actually find the "cruelty free" brands kind of smug and annoying.

  3. I'd prefer we not test cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients on animals because even though those things are fun, we don't REALLY need them. Let's just keep using the stuff we've already proven to be safe. Of course, this would mean nobody could make claims about this awesome new ingredient that would change your life...

    As for testing for medicinal purposes, I hold human suffering above animal suffering, and if testing medications on animals helps cure people, then that is a good thing. If we didn't test on animals, we wouldn't have cancer drugs, pacemakers, or know how to transplant organs. Researchers shouldn't be dicks about it, though, and should take all steps to mitigate the suffering they cause.

    Another thing that gets me? Companies claiming to be cruelty free while using animal ingredients. This is entirely selfish on my part, because I'm allergic to a common animal ingredient and would like to be able to look for cruelty free products knowing they'd be safe.

  4. I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, I feel terrible about hte way in which animal testing is done. It just doesn't seem right to dump mascara in little bunnies' eyes, and sew them shut for a week just to see if there's irritation.

    On the other hand, testing on SOMEONE is necessary for the ingredients to be known as safe for human use. In a sense I almost wish people were solely used for testing bc at least they have free will and can make a decision. however, thats unethical.

    Overall, I guess, I'd prefer no animal testing for finished products of m/u, but rather it be tested on willing participants

    For medical purposes and in order to create human safe ingredients in m/u/skincare-- animal testing is necessary but should be done as a last resort and in as limited quantity as possible. I'd also throw in should be done "humanely" but it seems like way too much of a contradiction to say "animal testing" and "humane" in the same sentence. lol

    a little about me, I have a degree in bio ( focused on molecular) and i'm pursuing a masters then hopefully medical degree. I love animals and makeup/skincare, but have also worked in a bio lab, chopping off heads of live rats to get brain samples.

  5. Thank you for your well thought out comments jbrobeck, dee, emily, vonzi!
    For now,i just want to say that i have also just added in my post jan atrocious story on lab testing. I have this bad habit of editing my post within 24hours of posting and i am sorry about that
    I apologize if you had to comment without knowledge of this atrocity but i believe that this revelation does not affect at all the wisdom of your comments.
    I hope you keep em comments coming please.

  6. I disagree with Vonzi - it's not unethical to use humans for testing at all provided they consent to it! Animals can't give their consent.

    Also, I've never quite understood why they use animals for these things - surely the skin/eyes/etc of a rabbit wouldn't have the same reaction as the skin/eyes of a human? We are different species after all.

    I suppose the only saving grace with animal testing is that the animals used are often bred for the purpose and don't know any other way of life. It's sad but at least they're not grabbing pets from off the streets, you know?

    Overall, I'm against animal testing for cosmetic purposes (especially when you consider that most primary cosmetic ingredients have already been tested a million times - why can't companies just have a list of what's safe and what's not for crying out loud?) and I generally don't buy from companies that do.

    I'm not quite so against animal testing for medical purposes, but again like I said, surely animals would have different reactions to things than humans?! That's the thing that really gets me.

  7. LOL Rowena, '...the hazards of not having a life.' Methinks thou doth protest too much my friend. I don't see either of us looking for a job! lololol...

    Side effects caused by ingestion can be different Leanne, yes. Tylenol for instance is poisonous to dogs and cats, as are chocolate, garlic and onions. However when looking for potential skin reactions (since cosmetics are not ingested...well, except lip products) it does make more sense to test them on animals. But, but and again but, there is absolutely no point in continuing to test well known ingredients over and over again. If you want to know that yet another formulation of the same old Bullshit (lol) is going to irritate your eyes, then poke it in your own damn eye Mr/Ms formulator. Seriously, like Rowena said in her Hypoallergenic post, everything is a potential allergen to >somebody<, even when it's 99.99% fine for the rest of us. So repeated same old, same old tests are an unnecessary and expensive game played just for the sake of covering their asses.

    Medical testing is a whole 'nother category though. Medicines and treatments don't just benefit humans, some of them benefit animals as well. My elderly cat is living a much better life because of an anti-inflammatory that reduces the pain of her arthritic little back. I know that some animals died finding out that acetaminophen is toxic to dogs and cats and very probably while using the one she uses. I am human and selfish enough to be happy that my little old lady is living a better life thanks to the sacrifice of those animals. When we move on to the subject of human beings being saved by medicines tested on many loved ones do you have that are living longer, healthier, happier lives due to medicines that have been tested on animals (and that would be all of them)? I know several, one of them being me since I am diabetic. If I have to choose between a child or an animal, the child is going to win out every time. That's just the way it is. No human is going to volunteer for something like that unless they are a) suicidal, or b) caught between a rock and a hard place. Shall we be like China and offer condemned prisoners a commutation of their sentences if they volunteer? That is ethically revolting. Until they come up with a way to clone unthinking human flesh to test things on (Eeeuuww), there is no other way for medicine.

    OK Sandi, you have blabbered quite enough.

  8. i think that a lot of people have got animal testing wrong. It is not a load of animals wearing lipstick, eyeshadow, etc, but testing that the ingrediants are safe. It don't think that it is right but until we find a better way, it is just the way it is going to be.

    That scientist is obviously very sadistic! I don't believe that they would try out,say sulphuric acid on a bunny as eye drops- surely there is some reason and risk assessment done BEFORE the actual experiment. They are not likely to try something that they think is lethal on an animal.

    Just to confirm, I am NOT pro animal testing! xxx

  9. It is my understanding that ingredients all have to go through some sort of animal testing at some point in their cosmetic life. Like, say a company claims "no animal testing", the glycerin or SLS or whatever that is in the product has been tested on animals by someone even if the company's finished product is not.
    Because of this, I don't find I care much about animal testing. There's seemingly no way to avoid it. I find that the food I eat is often obtained in ways that cause much more harm to animals than anything my cosmetics' testing does... And that's not just because I eat meat - I find the working conditions at many produce farms to be just as disgusting to the quality of human lives as the living conditions are at meat farms.

    I look forward to your post on the subject. If I am misunderstood on how products have, historically, been deemed safe for use, I may find myself rethinking my position on the matter.

  10. I am pretty sure that anecdote is a bad attempt at a joke. ;-)

  11. Hi Sandi, Leanne, Phoebs, Glietzkrieg-
    Wow! Thank you for the comments and such great insights!
    I am very tempted to join in and discuss but will have to restrain till i put out the post.

    Heehee, Sandi- me not looking for job and with this blog- I am on the blacklist! Darn why is there not more Rowena's working in cosmetics.

    Hi Emily-
    Was it that bad? I ROLFed when i heard that joke. I should keep engineering humour to myself really.

  12. I don't really care either way. I kind of wish there was a poll selection for ambivalence.

  13. Hi jessica-
    Dowp! I knew i forgot something! Gawd old age is getting to me big time!
    If I may borrow a quote from azur waters- I am wonder woman. I wonder where my keys are, i wonder why i went to the kitchen, i wonder what i am wondering about. Gaaah!

  14. I know that most cosmetic ingredients have already been tested on animals at some point in the past. But as for new products or new ingredients, there's no excuse for subjecting animals to suffering for cosmetic product development. We can stop doing it, and I think most companies have. (Didn't the EU make some law about this?) Do I check cruelty-free lists before buying? No. But if I hear about some senseless cruelty being used to create a cosmetic product in this day and age, I'll make a note to avoid buying that product and try to find a substitute.

    Re: Medical. Again, there cannot be an absolute. Some medical testing is necessary, some is a total waste. I think that animal experimentation does bad things to the scientists who inflict the suffering, not to mention the suffering of the animals. The less we do, the better for all of us. So I am for scientists doing a better job of evaluating which experiments are truly necessary.

  15. okay, let me just say, google this issue and see what you come up with. medically, we've been animal testing for over 40 years and have not made any progress. cosmetically, animals suffer from aerosol corrosion, burns, and horrible indigestion issues. animal testing id not okay under ANY circumstances. humans actually are harmed from animal testing. we expose workers to animal viruses, we claim that since the medications are deemed safe for rats, rabbits, dogs and swine, that it must be okay for humans. when in reality humans may and do suffer from fatal if not serious reactions. so next time you are considering buying a product that endorses animal testing, think again...

  16. Hi Ms. M-
    Thank you for the insights!
    Yes, the EU has a ban on animal testing. Here is the link:

  17. Hi Mikka-
    Thank you for sharing this info. It is true that science, hard as it tries, will always have its limitations, some glitches, sometimes leading way to great discoveries and sometimes opening a pandora's box.
    In our belief of our capabilities as human beings, we think that we can always command nature to our liking.
    However, I am concerned about the "absolutes" of the facts that you have stated. And since these are quite strong, I would appreciate if you can share with the readers the links to studies that point out to this absolute conclusions. If you have trouble putting links to your post, email them to me and i will post them here for you.
    Also to give readers all the angles to this, I would also like to encourage the scientists to also share their studies to this matter. Just scientific papers please, no flimsy article on the net- as, quoting from ShitMyDad Says -"Internet don't count. Any asshole can throw shit up on there."
    Lastly, I wonder why after all the horrors of animal testing, your course of action is to "not buy products that endorse animal testing" when we do know that products are governed by regulations and endorse them or not, they will have to follow what regulations have to say.
    For purpose of transparency, may I know if there is any particular brand that you think is above all the rest? Are you affiliated in any way with them?

  18. Hi Rowena *hugs*
    when I came home and started looking through my emails, I suddenly and out of nowhere thought of you and your blog and I discovered that you are back :)) very nice :)

    So ... animal testing ... for cosmetics I'm saying "no", definitely, loudly and repeatedly. We already have millions and trillions of eyeshadows, mascaras, lipsticks, lipglosses, mineral foundations, eyeliners and wth more ... we definitely don't need any more animal testing for that.

    And I'm saying that looking guiltily at a huge stash of mineral eyeshadow and lipglosses and mineral foundation and khols and other colorful stuff ...

    As far as medicine goes, I'm kind of undecided. At first, I was going to say "no" as well, then I thought of all the people suffering from different kinds of cancer, of genetic diseases, of AIDS and viruses like Ebola etc ... but I also think Leanne does have a point when she says, whatever works on animals does not necessarily work on us.
    Or the other way round, chocolate is poisonous for dogs and cats, but not for humans.

    I could never harm an animal, no matter if rabbit or rat or doggie or cat or horse ...

    I'm disgusted when people cut snails in half with scissors when they are invading their salads in the backyard ... but I don't have a young child suffering from cancer and I don't grow veggies in my backyard, so I'm not really in the position to judge.

    But I'm also not a fan of PETA who collects money from everywhere, but doesn't rescue animals. They even burn labs down - better burned alive and dead than having to suffer the lab procedures ...
    Celebrities love to claim their connection to PETA - but wear real fur and eat meat and sausages ... after they made a generous donation, PETA doesn't care. All their money goes into more press campaigns. They kill the animals instead of finding new homes for them. For me, they are kinda like scientology ^^

    So .... a clear "no" to animal testing for cosmetics and a largely "no" for medical reasons from me.

    (on a sidenote - I saw a documentary a few weeks ago about sea-angling, when the fishermen wanted to catch some fish or the other or crabs or whatever - and they used nets falling down to the grounds and caught literally everything bigger than a dime out of the water ... then they sorted through all the catch and threw back the fish, squids, crabs etc that they didn't want ... half of them were dead by then ... and then people wonder why they don't find enough fish in the ocean anymore .... it's such a meaningless waste. It makes me sad.)

    Oh - and if I weren't able to buy my meat loaf and chicken in the supermarket, I would have to become a vegetarian. I couldn't kill my own lunch ^^ well, maybe fish. They don't make sounds ... but still ... umm. No.

    Well. I could kill wasps for sure (though I try to catch spiders with a glass and cardboard and throw them out instead of killing them), they are evil and mean little critters, but you can't eat them ^^ but even then I don't torture them, I don't pull out their wings or something.

    For the purpose of transparency of a "good" particular brand, I don't know any ... maybe smaller companies using traditional and long time ago tested ingredients are "safer" than those big ones, always throwing new limited editions and new this and new that on the market ... the animal testings, as gruesome as they are, were made in the past, so people can use the results and the ingredients ... and if something has proven "good" for the last few years, you might be relatively save using it the next few years also *shrugs a bit helplessly*

  19. Hi Caitlyn!
    And that is why I miss you on the blog!
    Your indecision resonates amongst everyone (me included) and you have summarized it quite well.
    What I do admire is when you and others just choose to be open minded if they do not know enough about the subject- it takes more confidence methinks.
    Though I myself have my own opinion in some subjects and couldn't care less with other topics- i try to just present the BS in all sides and leave it to the individual to make up her own mind. (Well, I try, i really do:-)

  20. I just found your blog and I've got to say(as many before me have done) I love that you are sharing your "insider info". It is nice to have access to the truth behind marketing bs and the like.
    I don't agree animal testing for human anything is right. They do not have a choice. We do. There are laws against human testing, but if someone decides that is what they want to do how is it unethical? Ideally I would purchase/use/consume only legitimately cruelty free, but the costs are prohibitive :/
    I look forward to more posts :)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.