An email from herbal essences

[RandomWiktor]

Unfortunately, the government currently is very much in favor of testing pharmecueticals on animals despite very strong evidence suggesting the inaccuracy of this method due to the fact that it is a very entrenched, traditional business with a LOT of money to be made in it. Sadly, this is hindering newer, more accurate, more humane methods from becoming established. If you ever want to read a good book on the subject, there's a book called "The Human Cost of Animal Experimentation." Its not some crap made up and exaggerated by animal rights groups; its written citing the actual experiments and records themselves. Everyone should read it.

I also believe that as the law in the US currently stands, it is basically a requirement for companies to test all medicines on animals because all products must be tested, and since we basically only fund animal tests, that leaves companies with few other outlets. So, it'd be relatively impossible for someone to truly boycott animal tested products.

However, I find it discouraging that people say "well if you can't boycott them ALL why do ANYTHING?" That's a pretty bleak, negative, and thick-headed mentality if you ask me. Because clearly, if consumers start favoring products not tested on animals, more companies will follow suit, and perhaps even our pharmecuetical industry. This would benefit everyone. So please, don't be discouraged by people who act like you're being silly because you can boycott everything; you can't change the world, but you can make a dent

Also, P&G has a LONG history of animal testing, and is notorious for being particularly inhumane. They have a poor track record of animal welfare violations. So, to answer you, yes, they do test on animals, and the only reason they said they said the bit about it being "absolutely necesarry" is because they want to make you think your skin is going to fall off if they don't make 30 rats eat a few gallons of the stuff. So, seek out other products and keep up the good work.

 

[jimw13uk]

As a life long member of the BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection ) I dont agree with any animal testing.
I started with the BUAV after finding out about Beagles being forced to smoke cigs when i was at school (about 8 i think i was). I spent weeks collecting over ten thousand signatures on a petition to send to the government.
Its wrong that animals are put through pain and suffering to enable us to wash our hair , put lipstick on (not me personally) , wash our clothes etc..
Why does this need to be done - simple answer IT DOESNT.

So good for you to take such a responsible attitude and to question a companies animal testing stance. After doing the same thing many times the letter/email you recieved back can be shortened into "Yes we do do animal testing but dont want to say yes as it may look bad" - thats what you can normally take from these long winded non-comittal responses.

Medical testing is a much harder one to answer as no one wants people to die from the nasty diseases that we seem to be susceptible to - cancer , Parkinsons , MND , Hodgkins etc.. I used to say NO we shouldnt test on animals for medical research but my father-in-law became ill with MND 6 years ago and died from it last June and as a Committee member of the MND Association I still cant put my hand on heart and say that if by testing on an animal we could come up with a cure for it then it'd be worth the death of an animal. But if an animal had to die so my father-in-law could have lived then its different.
Tough debate with lots of sides and views - but the testing for vanity must always be a NO - loud and clear

 

[plecoperson]

i suppose i have no alternative but to agree with animal testing where it is strictly necessary and NO other alternatives are available.

But cosmetics are a BIG no no. in fact anything that isnt medical.

I hope nobody here feeds their animals on Iams or Eukanuba because they test on animals too...and I dont mean putting bowls of dog chow on the floor to see if they like it.

 

[mm_simb]

I hope nobody here feeds their animals on Iams or Eukanuba because they test on animals too...and I dont mean putting bowls of dog chow on the floor to see if they like it.

Yea, I found that out when I first got an animal. So no Iams or Eukanuba for my animals.

 

[MegTheFish]

I hope nobody here feeds their animals on Iams or Eukanuba because they test on animals too...and I dont mean putting bowls of dog chow on the floor to see if they like it.

This is a good site:
http/www.iamscruelty.com/

Thank you guys so much for all the support and the information
Oh yah, forgot to mention that everybody has to do a speech in my class, and I'm doing it on Animal Rights.

 

[mm_simb]

I was looking at the list of companies that make dog and cat food and I don't recognize any of them. Does the company that produce Meow-Mix test on animals?

 

[MegTheFish]

I was looking at the list of companies that make dog and cat food and I don't recognize any of them. Does the company that produce Meow-Mix test on animals?

If anybody could find a list that be great, I need to know if Whiskas test on animals, too.

Here are some more links:
http/www.animalconcerns.org/topics.html?...topictype=topic

& the list on Peta that shows companies that do/don't test on animals:
http/www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDoDont.doc

 

[mm_simb]

Well I e-mailed Whiskas and called Meow-Mix so in case we cant find a list then hopefully they get back to me.

 

[MegTheFish]

Well I e-mailed Whiskas and called Meow-Mix so in case we cant find a list then hopefully they get back to me.

Thanks


For all those people out there that wear/buy fur-

 

[pnyklr3]

Do you wear cows?

I have lovely leather shoes, belts, and jackets. Why must you try to guilt people who chose to wear a certain type of clothing (that is not illegal)?

I'm not saying that what you are doing isn't noble (as some people on this thread have taken it to be). I only mean to point out that animals die for many reasons that benefit us to some extent or another. I think that it would be very difficult to not only stop using products tested on animals, but to boycott the companies (and I assume sister companies) that do. My sister tried it once, and it limited everything....including her peanut butter. I also think it would be hard for you, because you do not purchase everything for yourself (clothes, food, and other stuff).

Good Luck.

 

[RandomWiktor]

pnyklr3, your cow picture just made a point that I always like to bring up to people like my sister who won't wear fur and will yet at people over it, but have no problem with leather. Whereas PETA's "would you wear your cat" business bugs me a little. I always get irritated when people act likes its ok to wear animals like cattle and goats who aren't "cute and fuzzy" by most people's standards, yet they'll tackle every broad who struts down the street in fox. Why the double standard, dangit? It seems like if you're going to be for or against frivolously wearing animals, it should be for all animals, not just the little cute ones. Not that I'm attacking you over the leather, because you're at least consistant in your beliefs.
[/rant]

Heh. Sorry.

 

[pnyklr3]

I agree, Random. I think PETA's ad is a bit off because I have never seen a "cat coat." THere are also countries where animals are eaten that aren't eaten here, or may be considered pets. Or we eat cows and other cultures are aghast.

 

[RandomWiktor]

Well, technically there was an incident with Burlington Coat Factory several years ago where it turned out some of the coats were mislabeled dog and cat fur.
But that's besides the point. What happened in that instance was a bunch of repulsed, angry customers returned furs that may have been labeled something like "Asian Wild Cat" or "Jackal" but were actually domestic cats and dogs. It strikes me as horribly hypocritical that just having it be a wild animal makes it suddenly OK to kill.
Same goes for people who have no problem chowing down on an intelligent creature like a pig or a sensitive social animal like a cow, but flip out when they hear about dog and cat eating in other countries. I tend to be of the opinion that it isn't any more right or wrong to eat one species or another. Apparently not a view shared by the general public or some members of the AR community.
Although, I suppose from the animal rights perspective, they assume that it would be very hard to convince people in this country not to eat species we've traditionally consumed for years, but due to our sway in the foriegn market, we might be able to stop other peoples from eating certain animals that we favor in our society. Thus, they would be halting the eating of one species, and that would be better than none. ::shrugs:: Who knows. I'm vegan myself but my interest in converting others has been waning. Probably a good thing.

 

[mm_simb]

I love animals and would never hurt any or knowingly purchase something that was tested on an animal or comes from an animal. I wouldn't protest everything for there are just some things that cant be substituted for others but I'm sure something helps instead of being a fluent meat eater with fur and leather coats who buys cosmetic products from some company that's tested it on animals. I think the reason that so many people are against those who eat cats and dogs is because the majority of the population here owns cats and dogs. Not all of us own cattle but I'm sure most people that do own cattle as pets don't eat that kind of meat.

Btw, no word from either company yet. I will try again tomorrow and the next until I get an answer. I really want to know if I'm feeding my pets something that's been tested on their own kind.

 

[Mr Miagi]

Me neither, when i do buy something, i makwe sure the containers recyclable, friendly for the environ, and not tested on animals.

But Random brings an excellent point, which i have always used to. Why scream and rant when someone wheres a cat when your sitting their with a belt on and black leather shoes.