Guest guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Hi, I've been in lengthy correspondence with PETA and Loreal and now feel like I'm getting a total run around, kinda from both sides. After many e-mails with Loreal, I'm learning that all companies have to test new ingredients on animals to meet federal regulations. PETA's stance is that they choose to test on animals, or is it that they choose to develop new ingredients? Again run around..... Does anyone have any other information? I feel like I'm in the middle of legalize land, and just want to do the right thing by both organizations. Thanks, Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 No U.S. law requires any company to test its cosmetics and household products on animals. There are two federal regulatory bodies that oversee product safety. Cosmetics are under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which administers the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Household products are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). A summary of the CPSC's animal testing policy is printed in the Federal Register (Vol. 49, No. 105) and states, " t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product. " Visit http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/regsumfhsa.pdf for more information. The FDA likewise does not require animal tests for cosmetics (no regulations exist in the FDCA). Visit http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html for more information. It is the opinion of some government officials that animal testing is " necessary " and " unavoidable. " But these opinions are not binding, nor are they shared by many leading toxicologists and product manufacturers. Thankfully there's never any need to consider buying from a company that has not eliminated all animal tests when over 550 companies found on CaringConsumer.com do not test on animals. If the company is unclear on their animal testing policies, it's easy to give your money to someone else! Alex On Behalf Of grnflea Friday, June 02, 2006 3:14 PM A total runaround..... Hi, I've been in lengthy correspondence with PETA and Loreal and now feel like I'm getting a total run around, kinda from both sides. After many e-mails with Loreal, I'm learning that all companies have to test new ingredients on animals to meet federal regulations. PETA's stance is that they choose to test on animals, or is it that they choose to develop new ingredients? Again run around..... Does anyone have any other information? I feel like I'm in the middle of legalize land, and just want to do the right thing by both organizations. Thanks, Kim ____ BAY AREA VEGETARIANS (BAV) is a non-profit 501 ©(3) community organization for veggies to network, find support and promote veg*nism. Events Calendar - http://bayareaveg.org/events Newsletter - http://bayareaveg.org/news Veg Mentor Program - http://bayareaveg.org/mentor Ultimate Guide - http://bayareaveg.org/ug Veg Food Finder - http://bayareaveg.org/finder Charter & Post Guidelines - http://bayareaveg.org/charter Compassionate Living Program - http://bayareaveg.org/cl Map It Veg - http://www.frappr.com/baveg ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 They don't have to test on animals. If that were true, how is it that there are hundreds of companies whose labels claim "not tested on animals"? Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 What I'm getting told and what needs to be watched out for, is that final products are not tested on animals, apparently, however, new ingredients are being tested, but now I'm learning that there are ways to test without using animals (Thanks Alex). Also, apparent is that PETA takes companies at their word as well. So I'm assuming that not all companies are verified. It all gets a little confusing for a novice. Kim wgjii Grnflea; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 23:13:25 EDT Re: A total runaround..... They don't have to test on animals. If that were true, how is it that there are hundreds of companies whose labels claim " not tested on animals " ? Warren ____ BAY AREA VEGETARIANS (BAV) is a non-profit 501 ©(3) community organization for veggies to network, find support and promote veg*nism. Events Calendar - http://bayareaveg.org/events Newsletter - http://bayareaveg.org/news Veg Mentor Program - http://bayareaveg.org/mentor Ultimate Guide - http://bayareaveg.org/ug Veg Food Finder - http://bayareaveg.org/finder Charter & Post Guidelines - http://bayareaveg.org/charter Compassionate Living Program - http://bayareaveg.org/cl Map It Veg - http://www.frappr.com/baveg ____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 I think the answer to this question is simple. Many companies have realized that there is a growing awareness among consumers about the horrors of animal testing. So those companies that choose NOT to support such tests want compassionate consumers to know that -- and choose their product. What’s important, as Alex pointed out, is that companies are not required to test on animals . . . but some still choose to do so. On Behalf Of wgjii Friday, June 02, 2006 8:13 PM Grnflea; Re: A total runaround..... They don't have to test on animals. If that were true, how is it that there are hundreds of companies whose labels claim " not tested on animals " ? Warren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 This is a little off topic but does it cost more money for them to not use animals? When I wrote a letter to Save they told me they only test NEW products on animals. I wrote them back saying that wasn't good enough for me. N-J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 I get the feeling that many companies are more afraid of product liability suits than PETA's opinion of them, so they test anyway. Which means this is a good opportunity for some smart legislation. If, somehow, a law could be passed that would regulate product safety and eliminate animal testing at the same time, companies could be protected from lawsuits, consumers could get safe products, and lab animals could be left alone or not bred in the first place.On Jun 2, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Stephen Wells wrote:What’s important, as Alex pointed out, is that companies are not required to test on animals . . . but some still choose to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.