No matter how hard I try, I can't bring myself to write about the animal cruelty in the beauty product industry I find it too upsetting in this day and age that humans are still so barbaric.
And today we don't even need to be using (torturing) animals in this way. Because experiments on animals are cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans, the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health. These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modelling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time and money to complete. Even more incomprehensible is the continued demand by some U.S. environmental organisations for more animal tests for cosmetics products, even though the rest of the world is moving away from these archaic methods and toward modern, more effective non-animal methods. For example, a scientist from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) acknowledged that there “are non-animal tests that are really valuable, informative, cheaper, and quicker” than animal tests yet publicly disagreed with the EU ban on testing cosmetics on animals, claiming that “we need to test these products on live things” instead of using the widely accepted non-animal alternatives that have been shown to be predictive of human health effects. It would appear that the scientists at the NRDC have never bothered to read the National Academy of Sciences report “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy” and are ignoring the sea change that has occurred in the last quarter-century regarding our understanding of biological processes. These advances in our understanding have led to the development of test methods that can look directly at cellular mechanisms rather than at the crude and uninformative results that come from using animals.
Bare Naked Soap uses oils and butters for soap that hasn't been tested on animals.
There is one 'exception'.... I made Dog Soap, and researched it thoroughly before 'testing' it on my housemate's dog. It was ideal that she'd rolled in something unmentionable when my soap was good to go. She went into the shower stinking, it was putrid. And emerged with a slightly nutty scent from the Neem Oil in the soap. It kind of smells like peanut butter. Neem oil has natural anti-fungal, antibacterial, antiviral, antioxidant, antiseptic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Not only does it repel insects, but it kills them, and it does so with no known side effects to dogs. So it's 100% safe to use on dogs, and this was the deciding factor in building a recipe for my dog soap. I use it sometimes myself and like the nutty earthy scent to it.
Kommentare