The "Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act" will hurt businesses and animals

The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act is a bill that has good intentions such as minimizing animal testing, establishing a safety standard and setting label requirements for ingredients, however there is a major flaw in its design- if passed, a company must be forced to comply with animal testing requirements for at least one year or not be allowed to sell their products. 

This bill states that yes, a business is allowed to use alternative methods of testing their ingredients and products, approved by the Secretary, that do not require animals but there aren't any actual alternative tests listed as of yet. This means that a business must either comply to the laws that require them to use ingredients tested on animals or not be allowed to legally sell their products. These ingredients that would be retested will include already FDA proven safe ones. Not to forget to mention, the awaiting alternative methods do not necessarily mean that animals will not be used at all. It could possibly mean that perhaps more animal testing methods could be made, however just with less than 350 animals per test. Either way, an animal had to suffer because painkillers are not used in these tests as they could disrupt the study. A study that does not accurately depict an animal's anatomy to one of a human. Therefore a business has two choices, change from cruelty free to animal tested or pull out of the market. If a business chooses to stay in the market, that business would be forced to pay fees to have their finished products be tested by a 3rd party. Not only that,  the cost of already FDA proven safe ingredients would become higher from Fair Trade farmers just trying to get by. To add salt to the wound, fair trade farmers would not be allowed to export their ingredients outside of the USA to countries that have already banned animal testing due to alternative methods that include computer models and synthetic cells in long term studies. Fair trade farmers from outside of the US will not be allowed to import to the USA unless they pay the fees for 3rd party testing, however then they will not be allowed to sell to countries that do not allow testing on animals. In conclusion, we as a country can not afford to widen the poor vs rich gap if it means giving up our independent morals or carry a heavy unnecessary distasteful burden

This dog was not given any pain killers as his eye was being cut out. 

Here is what you can do:

In order to prevent this bill from passing, please write to your political representative stating that you OPPOSE this bill.

 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr1385-113/show

my hamsters

Big or small, love and be loved. 

 

Animals Have Emotions

Animals are capable of friendship, happiness and love.

from www.cuteoverload.com :)

Happy Saturday!

Here are some cute animal pics from cuteoverload.com to start off the day with a smile

curious kitty 

Mufasa and Simba

Sloths love cuddles!

doggy beds

sleepy piggy

hunny bunnies

Animal testing for cosmetics is sadistic

To knowingly use a cosmetic that has been tested on an animal is sadistic. Animals such as cats, dogs, bunnies and mice are forced to endure painful burn tests on their eyes and skin as well as a lethal dosage test to determine how much of the product is needed to kill that animal. (Types of Animal Testing) It is not the same as eating an animal because the animal being tested is still alive while the animal being consumed is dead, thus not feeling the ongoing destruction of its flesh. However, tests like the lethal dosage test is not only inaccurate in comparison to humans but more importantly unnecessary in the modern world due to FDA regulation of ingredients as well as alternative tests. 

Testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary and not required by law in the United States and Europe. One argument I've heard repeatedly is that it is no different than eating an animal such as a cow and that animal testing is needed to determine if harmful ingredients such as lead is in those products. Well, I don't know about you but I have never known anyone who has eaten an animal while it is still alive. Animal testing such as putting makeup remover into an animal's eye to test irritation doesn't occur while the animal is dead. According to the Anti-Animal Vivisection Society, the animal is alive for up to two weeks of testing from being tested on from once an hour to every 24 hours. Have you ever gotten soap in your eye while showering? It doesn't feel good, now imagine this pain for two week straights. This is obviously not the same as eating something already dead, because the dead don't feel pain. Secondly, animal testing is no longer needed to determine if harmful chemicals are even in cosmetics, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has a big no no list of chemicals that are toxic. Lead is no longer used in lipsticks just how it is no longer used in house paint. Formulations of cosmetics as well as ingredients are put under review by the FDA. Many countries such as China do not have regulation of these toxic chemicals, hence they do animal testing. If China did ban harsh chemicals such as lead and bleach and regulated ingredients such as the FDA then they wouldn't need to require by law animal testing. Thirdly, dogs and cats are different in size and digestion than humans. These tests to determine how much the animal shits until it dies is inaccurate because of the different genetics. For example, dogs can not eat chocolate because they can not process some of the same enzymes as humans, but humans can eat chocolate just fine. Also, animals are much smaller than humans so how much shampoo can a bunny be forced to drink before it dies of diarrhea. 

Companies that state they would not and do not test on animals unless required by law is hypocritical bullshit. At least two very well known companies have switched their moral standards from being cruelty-free to selling in countries that require animal testing under the guise of "education." 

Nice try, but you are still making profit. 

Take this email conversation for example I had with an Estee Lauder global representative. It states how the Estee Lauder companies are working on developing and educating to have animal testing eradicated but then it also states that they sell to those places. To increase their "investments" in order to afford educating other countries, they must sell to them first to make that money. I don't see how that really makes any sense, because it's like selling crack to crackheads to pay for their rehabilitation. I asked Estee Lauder to send me their quarterly statement profits since changing their animal testing stance to where required by law. I am still waiting for their reply which I will of course share once I receive it. Also in here, they clearly state what other methods are used instead of animal testing before they went CRUEL proving they are quite aware of other methods that aren't cruel. 

Now upon being educated that animal testing is torture and unnecessary, do you still think it is okay for another living creature to suffer for your vanity? Do you think your pet dog should die because you want pretty eyelashes? Why is your dog more important than the ones being tested on? Do you really think that looking pretty is worth it at the cost of someone else's beauty?

 There are still companies out there that do not test their products on animals and yet are non-toxic. These companies do not need to make billions off another creature's suffering for their products to be really good and effective. Take Boscia skincare for example, they do not test on animals nor use animal products and yet still get five star reviews and wins awards for being very effective. 

Overall, I hope my insight has helped you opened your eyes to what goes on out there in the cosmetic industry. For more information on what products are cruelty-free please visit My Beauty Bunny for a list of cruelty free products.

Thank you!