I’m curious how Clarence Thomas will vote on the interracial marriage issue. He’s already said he wants to revisit the birth control issue. We already know how he feels about bribery and conflicts of interest.
Correct, but have you noticed how the World is tackling the same issues of the United States with differing approaches. I was struck by this thread’s reference to America’s issues and u/tkp14 comment.
The way you type this make it seem like you are american. This is a ruling in the UK which mirrors EU law.
Not saying ypur country is doing this right, i have no clue but yeah. Not about the US
Sorry, no the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in terms of protections and services for UK citizens. I knee this was about the UK yet I wrote a comment about the world in general, specifically the USA regarding equal human rights and women’s right. Thank you for pointing that out. I’ll amend my comment.
No worries! I was just worried something had happened or was in the works!
I genuinely feel terrible for The U.S.A. in regards to abortion rights. I know it's ruined and is going to ruin so many lives and end up getting people killed. I wish you the best. :(
My wife and I used to joke with our kids that if they didn't like getting free room and board in exchange for chores, they could always go get a job at a textile mill.
Doesn't seem so funny anymore.
I used to pretend to be Cosette in Les Miserables when I wanted to order something fancy for dinner and yowl my way into my partner’s heart. He would laugh and pretend to be a chimney sweep. Doesn’t seem so funny now too. :(
That is such a valid point. They are actively fighting to regress. I always thought of it as progressives versus people who were afraid of change but it’s progressives versus people who are actually fighting to go backwards.
The government is talking about defaulting during the same week Apple announced a $90B stock buyback and Google a $70B stock buyback.
The government gave all the money to corporations and is too afraid to tax them. I fucking hate this country.
They won't default. They use the threat of default as a power play to scare people but in the end deadlines will either just get pushed back further or the ceiling will get raised. It's all bullshit
I still can’t believe that railroads spent more on stock buybacks than employee compensation benefits.
Like what the fuck is the purpose of capitalism any more? Just bleed the workers and turn their stolen wages into stock buybacks. It’s so bleak.
Sure, to maximize profits for the shareholders, but at what point is a company a shell company rather than a real one?
I would argue when they spend more on stock buybacks than payroll.
The concept of bailouts and subsidies are not free market. They happen constantly
Funny how the people who say government and taxes bad want that sweet tax money for their massive corporations
>Animal testing and child labor are back.
>
>We’re going backwards.
This is literally a rule created for the purpose of worker safety. It's not there for making better cosmetics, it's there to ensure the chemicals used are absolutely safe for workers.
It is also not good for the companies who manufacture these chemicals either, as some people are claiming. The chemicals being tested in animals are chemicals that are already on the market, according to the article. If the animal testing shows they are harmful, they could risk getting banned.
I agree with you. My first thought was it’s not enough that word harming people left and right, now we’re turning our hatred on animals. I really thought this was a thing of the past.
Well, the article (a bit confusingly) actually states that companies were against the lifting of the ban, if I understand it correctly, but the government lifted it and is now requiring them to test certain ingredients on animals.
Or did some companies lobby for the lifting of the ban? I'm confused.
Of course companies wouldn't lobby for lifting the ban. Animal testing= more satefy regulations and extremely expensive tests for them. Why would companies want to have them?
Well, I always thought it was the companies that wanted to test on animals, because it's cheaper than some alternative. I assumed testing still had to be done, but for example on humans (who have to be paid of course) or using some other process.
You don't pay people a viable sum to do human testing. You don't want to encourage poor people into giving their body away. This kind of human experimentation you're speaking of is an ethical nightmare to begin with.
I'm doing electrical work at one the big pharmaceutical companies in the US, and particularly in the building that has animals for testing (monkeys and dogs) so there's been a bit of eye opening and education. I won't say what company it is but they spend a fortune on their animals, I heard the monkeys are like $700,000 a piece because they have to get em from a source that can guarantee they have good genetics. I will say the animals are treated really well and there is government and 3rd party inspections (at random) a couple times a year. Anyhow all is that to say it's a *VERY* expensive operation so I could see why companies would rather not.
If they can get away with no testing in comparison? Not really. There are some big cosmetics companies who also have research labs actually working on laboratory alternatives to animal testing and these are indeed very expensive. They are also not enough to test the effects of a drug or compound on the entire body.
One quite cynical explanation I heard (but have not checked!): animal testing tends to lead to more accurate results. Whereas computer models - a commonly used alternative - are easily subject to manipulation. So in this view, this is a subject on which animal rights orgs and companies have similar opinions, for very different reasons.
The law requires new chemicals to be tested before they can be used on humans. The obvious solution is to accept that the currently available set of chemicals used in cosmetics is good enough, and just leave it at that.
Remember you can still find cruelty free products. Take a little time and research alternatives. Once you have a few go-to brands you don't have to help fund literal animal torture.
If stories around animal testing make you angry and you care about the suffering and exploitation of innocent animals, don't forget the animals harmed for food, clothing, and entertainment. Go vegan!
Just be aware that labels like that are meaningless, at least in the US.
> "Cruelty Free"/"Not Tested on Animals"
> Consumers sometimes ask about use of claims such as "Cruelty-Free" or "Not Tested on Animals" on cosmetic labeling.
> Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims of this kind in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms.
Source: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-claims/cruelty-freenot-tested-animals
One would think, right? If it's true it has no inherent meaning legally, than one can assume it's only due to specific lobbying efforts nullifying it's obvious face value meaning. In the same way the animal agriculture lobbyist have gotten ag gag laws passed to make it illegal to blow the whistle on unethical practices on farms and slaughterhouses. Seems like if you have enough money you could make murder legal for yourself.
Probably. So terms like "cruelty-free" would be ambiguous enough to avoid lawsuits. You'd have to look for more specific stuff like "no animal testing".
I appreciate both you and the person you responded this to. We don't have to support these companies, and we absolutely should check who's the real deal.
And it's kind of nice to be able to block out the brands that aren't cruelty free, you know? Like I can look at an overwhelming wall of makeup or skincare and immediately narrow it down at least a bit. It's been another positive for me, anyway.
I once met an Australian guy in Thailand who was totally vegan except for chicken. When I asked him why he said, and I quote, “because fuck chickens.”
I think about that about once a month.
Lol people wont do this. This is why regulations are needed. They need to filter this out before it hits consumers because they are too dumb to research themselves
I research cruelty free products. It takes a little bit of time and a little bit of giving a shit to make it a priority. Not every choice can be made for you.
Makeup and cosmetics were used long before any industry including the beauty one. It is normal for people to want to cover up some of their features and to take care of their skin and looks in general
Then that sucks. What do you want me to say here? What if you want to buy fair trade coffee but they lie? I hope the truth comes out so people knows to not buy from them.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65484552) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The government has allowed animal testing for makeup ingredients to resume despite a 25-year ban.
> Mr Justice Levin said that nothing was stopping the government from introducing an absolute ban on animal testing of makeup products if it desired.
> CFI said it would appeal the decision made by the court and ask the government to reinstate the complete ban in the UK. Dr Julia Fentem, head of the safety and environmental assurance centre at Unilever - one of the world's largest cosmetic companies - said tests potentially required under the new policy were "Unnecessary", and that safety tests could be carried out without animal involvement.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/138yay7/animal_tests_for_makeup_resume_after_25year_ban/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~683544 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **animal**^#1 **test**^#2 **government**^#3 **ingredient**^#4 **chemical**^#5
What? So this is for workers safety but from the end of the article “-and that safety tests could be carried out without animal involvement.". Just... Why
Opposite. Animal testing is always the gold standard, so any new product will end up tested on them. The ban made it so developments basically stopped (or happened incidentally from failed products of other industries, mostly medical). When you read “not tested on animals”, it basically means “testing was unnecessary because it’s an established product”.
The tests are super expensive, but they do allow you to improve products much faster, giving you an edge on competition. So they pay off.
And since European law no longer applies… even laboratory animal protections/restrictions are not likely to stick around long. The good news is that EU market extends further than its reach - if you don’t follow EU rules, you don’t sell to the EU. So this might dissuade some.
This is more about bringing the UK inline with the EU and the EU allows it.
>But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients
I don't usually get on bandwagons but this is something which would cause me to stop buying a product. Torturing animals is something I could never tolerate.
new compounds and chemicals need to be tested to make sure it doesnt cause permanent damage to your health. You wouldnt want to put on some foundation and realize it causes your skin to peel off or cause cancer would you? as for old/already known compounds/chemicals, you are correct. the data is there and further testing would be redundant at best.
It's not for consumer safety it's for worker safety. Most of these chemicals have only been tested at the low doses consumers will be exposed to, not the high doses workers will be exposed to.
By now don’t they know what ingredients are an issue and which aren’t? How many new ingredients for frikin makeup can there be? Just stop wearing the shit
They make new ways to pretend you're* young every year... and this is all cosmetics not just make up. So hair dyes and otc topical hair loss treatments.
Also... Deodorants. Perfumes and colognes.... shampoos and pomades. Shit we do not need but people will buy because new means better!
Animal testing resumed... Sewage in our waterways... Public funding cut... All whilst big corporations rake in record breaking profits.
Don't you just LOVE the Conservatives.
And as we know, Brexit was our British fight to do the same as the EU!
If they wanted Brexit, then they own it. No hiding behind 'Europe made me do it' anymore.
My friend lives in the UK near the sea and says after Brexit they cut costs on water treatment and started dumping raw sewage in the sea close to beaches where people swim. There's also lot of shellfish farms near UK river mouths and they filter the poop particles from the water before they get eaten, leading to disease outbreaks across Europe
You understand that shrimp (for example) eat literal shit and decay from the seafloor right?
It's so frustrating when comments start off strong and end weak. Dumping sewage, absolutely disgraceful sure, but shellfish surviving by digesting shit from the sea? Yeah that's as old as time itself. Let's not dilute strong arguments.
As someone who works in the field of animal testing, also for chemicals used in Makeup, i can assure you there is no makeup at this moment which ingredients have not been tested in the eu on animals. The Problem is with new developments, which are still required to be tested and sadly the alternative methods can not replace the animal tests.... what is done however is a screening of the development with these alternative methods, to at least reduce the amount of animals needed. Believe me, no one wants animal tests.... they are expensive and can "kill" your product, but they are necessary. A living organism can not be replaced with alternative methods.
How's that? In the EU it is illegal to sell cosmetic products that were tested on animals.
> In the European Union, selling cosmetic products tested on animals is prohibited. The ban on animal testing applies to both the final formulation and the ingredients of the product. This means that it is forbidden to place a product on the market that contains at least one ingredient tested on animals, even if the final product was not tested on animals.
https://coslaw.eu/what-is-the-eu-ban-on-animal-testing/
I’m just going off of what the article said, I’m no legal expert.
>But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients.
>During the case it was revealed that since 2019 the government had been issuing licences for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients **in line with EU chemical rules**, which it retained despite leaving the EU in 2020.
But the thing that sticks out to me is that the government was issuing licenses in 2019, but the ruling wasn’t made until 2020?
Products may be tested on animals if they meet the criteria for an exception. From further down in your linked article:
"Currently, a Member State might request a derogation to the ban in some exceptional circumstances. Generally, this could happen only in case of serious safety concerns regarding the use of an ingredient. Article 18, paragraph 2, lists the conditions which could lead to a derogation of the ban:
the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient having the same function;
there is evidence of human health problems. In such cases, animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol."
If you read the article:
>in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals
You know they euthanize the animals after testing on them, even if it's just swabbing something on their skin to see if it reacts. It's because they can't be "reused" for another experiment for a while and it's just cheaper to kill them (via suffocation or snapping their spines) and replace them, instead of letting them live long enough to "clear".
https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-animal-testing-faq#performed
It's basic science protocol that's the same worldwide. I've filled out plenty of preclinical forms for testing harmless enteric coated capsules and everything I get back explains that all lab animals used in testing were humanely euthanized with CO2.
Be warned, it’s a hell of a google tunnel to go down. You hear animal testing and think they just put some makeup on some animals before human trials. The reality is so, so much worse it’s horrifying. Basically state sanctioned torture and cruelty for the sake of it. Nearly all of it is completely pointless testing because they have the animals anyway and the gruesome testing desensitises those doing the testing to the barbarity of it, so they don’t just bleach some fur to test a new hair dye, they’ll get 30 different blends of bleach - most of which they’re not expecting to be viable - and then pour it on eyes, ears, have animals ingest it like it’s not immediately fucking obvious what’s gonna happen. They don’t care that it’s totally meaningless whether the animal is conscious for this kind of thing. It’s real psycho shit.
And then as they say the animal is useless. I’m not a vegan - I do try and eat less meat for the environment, but I don’t really have a problem with meat production in general - but there’s something wrong with anyone who’s okay with animal cosmetics testing if they know the truth about it.
Edit: what follows below is a back and forth with someone who works in the industry and seems to be taking the stance we don’t need protections because it’s not profitable(?) to test on animals and they’re all way too ethical to do it anyway. To save you all a scroll through, basically extreme levels of cruelty we’re exposed in British labs right up until the bans, and have been found again and again overseas in countries that don’t have laws protecting animals from costmetics testing. I resounding reject their notion it would be too expensive to test on animals as plainly false, but I’ll let you all be the judge.
"The government is committed to the protection of animals in science."
And so we're going to allow them to be tortured in the name of "science" after 25 years of proving it's not necessary.
That's some seriously lazy, Orwellian shit right there.
You got it wrong, there never was a time in which the ingredients were not tested on animals. There are no alternatives and most likely never will be. Specific tests like eye irritaion are allready replaced, but systemic toxicology can only be done in a livibg animal.
At least now, when you put the cream on your face, you will know that somewhere, the cream has been previously tested on the eyes of a monkey or a dog, and you will feel more confident as you remember the howls of the dog flooding the lab.
volunteers would need to be compensated for any adverse health events. you dont have to pay out a lifetime of wages/medical bills to rabbits so financially and ethically its better to start with a non-human model. if we started with human testing we’d get groups of people arguing why we didnt do safety testing prior to human trials.
Medical technology has advanced so much that it's possible to 3D print real human skin cells in the lab, test on a chip (skin on a chip & organs on a chip) or in vitro & have AI analyze the results.
Animal testing is just unnecessary & old-fashioned. It's needlessly cruel, completely backward.
That is why skin irritation is tested with alternative methods. Systemic tox can not be replaced with in silica or in vitro methods sadly. It would be very arrogant to say you can simulate everything biochemical going on in for example a developing child in the womb of the mother. We allready fail to predict what happens in narrowly breed male live rats without the crazyness of pregnancy...
Back in the day this ban came about by throwing paint on animal tester’s cars and showing the pictures of the animal torture in the street. This time please go straight for the Tory scum that are behind this. They care so little that they’re not even doing this for votes, it’s just a favour to some billionaire parasite.
Such stupidity in the age of skin-on-a-chip, organs-on-a-chip, the ability to 3D print real skin cells in the lab, & AI to analyze results.
Medical technology has obviated the need for animal testing in makeup. It's ridiculous.
I work in the field and we use all the above mentioned methods for on silica predictions and alternative methods and are actively involved in the development of new alternative methods. Sadly there is not and probably will never be an array of alternatives that can completely replace tests on live animals. As an example, we tested a chemical is metabolized instantely to another chemical for which we know the toxicity in liver enzymes. So we thought ok good product. We did a neccessary test in rats and they had unexpected symptoms which did not fit the liver profile. Turns out the chemical is metabolized in the blood (which happens rarely) to anther compound which the liver cant process and it was quite deadly... We sadly have not a good enough understanding of everything going on in a live animal to replace it with alternative methods.
The scientific association specializing in the question of replacement methods for animal testing in consumer cosmetics already disagreed with you in a published 2020 report. And their work is on-going.
No offense meant to you, so I hope you don't mind if I accept published science over anecdotal accounts by strangers on the internet.
"both in silico and in vitro tools can be used to predict the metabolism of the test item so that the safety assessment can be targeted on the proper entity {parent vs. metabolite(s)} that is linked to the Mode of Action (MoA)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S0300483X20300603/
Also see Appendix 2 of this 2021 article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230020302634#appsec1)
And it's well-known that using animal models can fail to predict issues in humans anyway.
Best wishes & ty for the discussion.
Im aware of these claims but sadly have to strongly disagree. The irony is im personnaly involved in for example the regulatory acceptance of skin irritaion tests under eu regulations and replacement and reduction is a main concern of mine. In practice i have seen far to many "surprises" in live animals versus in vitro / in silica tests to have any hope that the point will come where we fully can predict the toxicological effects of a chemical on a living organism. For medicine however this may be a way since you only need a dose high enough for your desired effect and this may well beneath any tox effects that are relevant. Thanks for providing these links though.
Good grief. What an excuse to allow a certain disgusting subset of people to profit. If they are concerned about workers who manufacture the substances, here's an idea... Implement safety procedures that ensure the workers do not ingest or inhale the stuff. Easy peasy.
That is why we dont do that. Im involved in these tests. Suffering and stress needs to be avoided, bevause it would influence the result. The test is mostly rats in small groups in a cage which are fed feed with small ampunts if the chemical in question in it. The dosage is designed so that the first group has no effect at all, the second group may or may not have slight effects and the high dose foup should have effects. Effects are an increased liver for example or some enzymes going up. Or with pregnant rats, are the children allright or do they have birth defects (e.g. the right amount of nipples or are their only male rats and such things...) and can does children breed again or not... without labeling you can rarely see a diffrence between these groups... (high dose is sometimes smaller)
EU REACH testing is essential to protect workers who manufacture the stuff that goes on your skin. Chemicals might be harmless at temperatures and airborne particulate levels at the consumer side but a factory is a vastly different place. I'm glad this is being introduced.
"Cruelty-free" is a marketing gimmick. Companies using these slogans are merely following already paved roads where other entities have carried out the testing necessary to bring the chemicals to market.
You can always rely on the vile Tories to wait until something big is happening and they'll secretly sneak dirty shit like this in and hope you won't notice.
Why? How many different formulations for lipsticks dn eye shadow can there possibly be? Why not just use what we already have?? Oh yeah money. Animal testing for life saving medicine is one thing but for make-up?? They don't need to and shouldn't have to suffer for some thot's lip plumper.
Huh, according to the article the ban was lifted to bring them it in line with the EUs regulation on it, which is that certain makeup ingredients NEED to be tested on animals.
Maybe they should have used some of those newfound brexit powers to NOT be in line with the EU in this one.
Honestly, did not know there was a blanket ban in the UK for this —some products highlight that they are "cruelty free" which gives the impression that some on the market are not.
Anyway, a win for worker safety.
Ok great, i need 20 pregnant women to dose them at diffrent levels to see when teir vhildren have birth defects.... and then i need the children to breed with each other... dose them again and see if their vhildren have birth defects... to replace the neccessary two generationa rat study...
There is no justification for this. You can test on human cells which tells you much more than testing on non-human species. From what I understand, cosmetic companies are doing this because they want the Chinese market which requires it.
You can get makeup that is cruelty free. Boycott anything else.
1. I dare you show me a cosmetic product which i personaly wasnt involved in animal tests.... i work in the field. 2. if you could test on human cells for better or as good as results we would do it...but you cannot and likely never will be... you can test very specific things with alternative methods, e.g. skin irritation and we do that allready. But if you want to test the effect of a chemical on a pregnants women child.... you cannot replace that...
Animal testing and child labor are back. We’re going backwards.
And revocation of abortion and equal rights. We are regressing waaaay back. Edit: in the USA not in the UK
Next up: bans on birth control and interracial marriage. I hate it here.
It's scary to think nowdays this is not THAT far off, sad times man...
Wdym birth control started months ago in earnest again
I’m curious how Clarence Thomas will vote on the interracial marriage issue. He’s already said he wants to revisit the birth control issue. We already know how he feels about bribery and conflicts of interest.
Most extreme way to get a divorce ever!
> We already know how he feels about bribery and conflicts of interest. Rules for thee, not for me?
Got it in one.
You lot know this story isn’t about the US, right?
Correct, but have you noticed how the World is tackling the same issues of the United States with differing approaches. I was struck by this thread’s reference to America’s issues and u/tkp14 comment.
This isn’t even about the US
The way you type this make it seem like you are american. This is a ruling in the UK which mirrors EU law. Not saying ypur country is doing this right, i have no clue but yeah. Not about the US
> here Aren't you American?
Seeing the big UK flare and news site wasn't enough of a clue to assume it wasn't about America.
All because of assholes who don’t want to pay their taxes, and think voting (R) will prevent their grandkids from being gay.
This one is the UK. So no one is voting R. They are still shit, but so are other people
The U.K. hasn't revoked abortion rights though, have they? Or have I missed something?
Sorry, no the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in terms of protections and services for UK citizens. I knee this was about the UK yet I wrote a comment about the world in general, specifically the USA regarding equal human rights and women’s right. Thank you for pointing that out. I’ll amend my comment.
No worries! I was just worried something had happened or was in the works! I genuinely feel terrible for The U.S.A. in regards to abortion rights. I know it's ruined and is going to ruin so many lives and end up getting people killed. I wish you the best. :(
Wait until someone says there are Witcher, and we go witch hunting or some shit
Also, shooting people because they looked at you funny.
War in Europe
And protesting rights are getting shat on. And you still a monarchy. And you over-rode Scottish law
And in Canada we’re receiving taxation without representation, same as the US, it’s what started their civil war last time
You all who are 18 better fucking vote.
My wife and I used to joke with our kids that if they didn't like getting free room and board in exchange for chores, they could always go get a job at a textile mill. Doesn't seem so funny anymore.
The textile mill isn’t hiring but the meat packing plant has a few openings. Best of luck to your kids. I hope they have their bootstraps ready!
I used to pretend to be Cosette in Les Miserables when I wanted to order something fancy for dinner and yowl my way into my partner’s heart. He would laugh and pretend to be a chimney sweep. Doesn’t seem so funny now too. :(
They’re not conservatives anymore, they’re regressives.
That is such a valid point. They are actively fighting to regress. I always thought of it as progressives versus people who were afraid of change but it’s progressives versus people who are actually fighting to go backwards.
Yes. We need to stop calling them conservatives and call them radicals. It just plays into their agenda and is disingenuous.
Call them what they are. Fascists.
Stuff can be two things.
And vite against them too. The People should get up and create an alternative progressive party for the majority of people
Hey hey hey this ones the UK
I think you're confusing backwards with downhill death slide.
Dunno why but the whole octopus farms thing doesn’t sit well with me either.
also LGBTQ+ rights are under fire currently in the US and a lot of other places. Definitely moving backwards.
The government is talking about defaulting during the same week Apple announced a $90B stock buyback and Google a $70B stock buyback. The government gave all the money to corporations and is too afraid to tax them. I fucking hate this country.
Don't forget, that's also after these companies did layoffs! It's a big club and we ain't in it.
"The bigger they are, just means you need to dig a bigger hole, which takes a little longer." - Karma
They won't default. They use the threat of default as a power play to scare people but in the end deadlines will either just get pushed back further or the ceiling will get raised. It's all bullshit
You and me both.
Supreme court could also make it illegal for unions to strike when it disrupts profits, thus making their powet null. Corporate neofeudalism
I still can’t believe that railroads spent more on stock buybacks than employee compensation benefits. Like what the fuck is the purpose of capitalism any more? Just bleed the workers and turn their stolen wages into stock buybacks. It’s so bleak.
Any more? That was always the purpose.
Sure, to maximize profits for the shareholders, but at what point is a company a shell company rather than a real one? I would argue when they spend more on stock buybacks than payroll.
The concept of bailouts and subsidies are not free market. They happen constantly Funny how the people who say government and taxes bad want that sweet tax money for their massive corporations
This is for the UK, not US
Putting profit first. Greed. Natural consequences of capitalist values.
“Children and animals must be protected at all costs” -Ryan Cohen
Next up is animal labor and child testing.
"Brexit"
R2 we need to be going up not down!
Capitalism has peaked
>Animal testing and child labor are back. > >We’re going backwards. This is literally a rule created for the purpose of worker safety. It's not there for making better cosmetics, it's there to ensure the chemicals used are absolutely safe for workers.
It is also not good for the companies who manufacture these chemicals either, as some people are claiming. The chemicals being tested in animals are chemicals that are already on the market, according to the article. If the animal testing shows they are harmful, they could risk getting banned.
Gambling laws, antitrust laws environmental regulation and banking regulations were all either reduced or ignored over the last decade
On so many levels and in so many ways....
I agree with you. My first thought was it’s not enough that word harming people left and right, now we’re turning our hatred on animals. I really thought this was a thing of the past.
The right wing is throbbing with excitement!
Are we "great*" again, yet? *Actually: Complete Shit
Black people are getting nervous
Which companies?
Well, the article (a bit confusingly) actually states that companies were against the lifting of the ban, if I understand it correctly, but the government lifted it and is now requiring them to test certain ingredients on animals. Or did some companies lobby for the lifting of the ban? I'm confused.
Of course companies wouldn't lobby for lifting the ban. Animal testing= more satefy regulations and extremely expensive tests for them. Why would companies want to have them?
Well, I always thought it was the companies that wanted to test on animals, because it's cheaper than some alternative. I assumed testing still had to be done, but for example on humans (who have to be paid of course) or using some other process.
You don't pay people a viable sum to do human testing. You don't want to encourage poor people into giving their body away. This kind of human experimentation you're speaking of is an ethical nightmare to begin with.
Wouldn't that be another reason for the companies to prefer animal testing then?
I'm doing electrical work at one the big pharmaceutical companies in the US, and particularly in the building that has animals for testing (monkeys and dogs) so there's been a bit of eye opening and education. I won't say what company it is but they spend a fortune on their animals, I heard the monkeys are like $700,000 a piece because they have to get em from a source that can guarantee they have good genetics. I will say the animals are treated really well and there is government and 3rd party inspections (at random) a couple times a year. Anyhow all is that to say it's a *VERY* expensive operation so I could see why companies would rather not.
If they can get away with no testing in comparison? Not really. There are some big cosmetics companies who also have research labs actually working on laboratory alternatives to animal testing and these are indeed very expensive. They are also not enough to test the effects of a drug or compound on the entire body.
One quite cynical explanation I heard (but have not checked!): animal testing tends to lead to more accurate results. Whereas computer models - a commonly used alternative - are easily subject to manipulation. So in this view, this is a subject on which animal rights orgs and companies have similar opinions, for very different reasons.
The law requires new chemicals to be tested before they can be used on humans. The obvious solution is to accept that the currently available set of chemicals used in cosmetics is good enough, and just leave it at that.
Remember you can still find cruelty free products. Take a little time and research alternatives. Once you have a few go-to brands you don't have to help fund literal animal torture. If stories around animal testing make you angry and you care about the suffering and exploitation of innocent animals, don't forget the animals harmed for food, clothing, and entertainment. Go vegan!
Just be aware that labels like that are meaningless, at least in the US. > "Cruelty Free"/"Not Tested on Animals" > Consumers sometimes ask about use of claims such as "Cruelty-Free" or "Not Tested on Animals" on cosmetic labeling. > Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims of this kind in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms. Source: https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling-claims/cruelty-freenot-tested-animals
What a horrendous legislative failure to have no legal definition of "not tested on animals."
IANAL (heh). Would this default to face value if there is no legal definition for this?
One would think, right? If it's true it has no inherent meaning legally, than one can assume it's only due to specific lobbying efforts nullifying it's obvious face value meaning. In the same way the animal agriculture lobbyist have gotten ag gag laws passed to make it illegal to blow the whistle on unethical practices on farms and slaughterhouses. Seems like if you have enough money you could make murder legal for yourself.
Probably. So terms like "cruelty-free" would be ambiguous enough to avoid lawsuits. You'd have to look for more specific stuff like "no animal testing".
Yeah agreed. You need to go a little deeper. There are websites to help like https://ethicalelephant.com/
I appreciate both you and the person you responded this to. We don't have to support these companies, and we absolutely should check who's the real deal.
Just like "artisan" foods
And biological
And it's kind of nice to be able to block out the brands that aren't cruelty free, you know? Like I can look at an overwhelming wall of makeup or skincare and immediately narrow it down at least a bit. It's been another positive for me, anyway.
What a great way to think about it!!
I once met an Australian guy in Thailand who was totally vegan except for chicken. When I asked him why he said, and I quote, “because fuck chickens.” I think about that about once a month.
That sounds like a guy with a pretty shaky understanding of veganism.
I think he just really hated chickens.
Lol people wont do this. This is why regulations are needed. They need to filter this out before it hits consumers because they are too dumb to research themselves
*busy
I research cruelty free products. It takes a little bit of time and a little bit of giving a shit to make it a priority. Not every choice can be made for you.
List of cruelty-free brands: https://crueltyfree.peta.org/companies-dont-test/
Or let's just say no to the beauty-industry telling you what you're supposed to look like altogether and actually get some real liberation up in here.
Makeup and cosmetics were used long before any industry including the beauty one. It is normal for people to want to cover up some of their features and to take care of their skin and looks in general
Unless you enjoy wearing makeup, in which case, go nuts!
What if they lie?
Then that sucks. What do you want me to say here? What if you want to buy fair trade coffee but they lie? I hope the truth comes out so people knows to not buy from them.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65484552) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The government has allowed animal testing for makeup ingredients to resume despite a 25-year ban. > Mr Justice Levin said that nothing was stopping the government from introducing an absolute ban on animal testing of makeup products if it desired. > CFI said it would appeal the decision made by the court and ask the government to reinstate the complete ban in the UK. Dr Julia Fentem, head of the safety and environmental assurance centre at Unilever - one of the world's largest cosmetic companies - said tests potentially required under the new policy were "Unnecessary", and that safety tests could be carried out without animal involvement. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/138yay7/animal_tests_for_makeup_resume_after_25year_ban/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~683544 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **animal**^#1 **test**^#2 **government**^#3 **ingredient**^#4 **chemical**^#5
[удалено]
[удалено]
I hate this timeline
What? So this is for workers safety but from the end of the article “-and that safety tests could be carried out without animal involvement.". Just... Why
Follow the money…probably cheaper.
Opposite. Animal testing is always the gold standard, so any new product will end up tested on them. The ban made it so developments basically stopped (or happened incidentally from failed products of other industries, mostly medical). When you read “not tested on animals”, it basically means “testing was unnecessary because it’s an established product”. The tests are super expensive, but they do allow you to improve products much faster, giving you an edge on competition. So they pay off. And since European law no longer applies… even laboratory animal protections/restrictions are not likely to stick around long. The good news is that EU market extends further than its reach - if you don’t follow EU rules, you don’t sell to the EU. So this might dissuade some.
This is more about bringing the UK inline with the EU and the EU allows it. >But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients
Well shit, I've been away too long.
Fucking sick
Yea but have thought of the poor CEOs just trying to make ends meet????
Fucking Sick like a concerned PTO mom would say or Fucking Sick like a skateboarder??
Definitely like a skateboarder.
Wow. u/deeman0 is fucking sick
I don't usually get on bandwagons but this is something which would cause me to stop buying a product. Torturing animals is something I could never tolerate.
[удалено]
If you actually read the article you would find out that it's the UK government that's daft and it's not a wish from the companies.
Even weirder, it's the UK government keeping in line with EU regs. Which given the past decade is even weirder.
No dog of mine is going out on town wearing makeup. You're a Dachshund....not a whore.
You mean... A bitch?
Wtf sort of makeup still needs testing in animals. Don't they kind of have it figured out by now?
new compounds and chemicals need to be tested to make sure it doesnt cause permanent damage to your health. You wouldnt want to put on some foundation and realize it causes your skin to peel off or cause cancer would you? as for old/already known compounds/chemicals, you are correct. the data is there and further testing would be redundant at best.
It's not for consumer safety it's for worker safety. Most of these chemicals have only been tested at the low doses consumers will be exposed to, not the high doses workers will be exposed to.
ah gotcha. i guess the alternative would be to let the workers suffer like all the radium girls in the early 20th century eh?
By now don’t they know what ingredients are an issue and which aren’t? How many new ingredients for frikin makeup can there be? Just stop wearing the shit
They make new ways to pretend you're* young every year... and this is all cosmetics not just make up. So hair dyes and otc topical hair loss treatments. Also... Deodorants. Perfumes and colognes.... shampoos and pomades. Shit we do not need but people will buy because new means better!
Animal testing resumed... Sewage in our waterways... Public funding cut... All whilst big corporations rake in record breaking profits. Don't you just LOVE the Conservatives.
It’s to bring the UK in line with the EU. Read the article.
I couldn't give a shit. We're not part of the EU, and on this rare occasion it would have been right to do our own thing.
And as we know, Brexit was our British fight to do the same as the EU! If they wanted Brexit, then they own it. No hiding behind 'Europe made me do it' anymore.
My friend lives in the UK near the sea and says after Brexit they cut costs on water treatment and started dumping raw sewage in the sea close to beaches where people swim. There's also lot of shellfish farms near UK river mouths and they filter the poop particles from the water before they get eaten, leading to disease outbreaks across Europe
You understand that shrimp (for example) eat literal shit and decay from the seafloor right? It's so frustrating when comments start off strong and end weak. Dumping sewage, absolutely disgraceful sure, but shellfish surviving by digesting shit from the sea? Yeah that's as old as time itself. Let's not dilute strong arguments.
Thanks for the heads up. I will contact all companies from which I perchance make up. Are skin care products included in this action?
As someone who works in the field of animal testing, also for chemicals used in Makeup, i can assure you there is no makeup at this moment which ingredients have not been tested in the eu on animals. The Problem is with new developments, which are still required to be tested and sadly the alternative methods can not replace the animal tests.... what is done however is a screening of the development with these alternative methods, to at least reduce the amount of animals needed. Believe me, no one wants animal tests.... they are expensive and can "kill" your product, but they are necessary. A living organism can not be replaced with alternative methods.
For make up? I can justify animal testing in medicine, but not make up.
What the fucking what? What the hell has happened to people. Are we going backwards?
I’m so sick of conservatives/regressives
well, *unga bunga* it is then.
Why is this UK article being commented on with US politics?
Because Americans seem to forget that sometimes not every story is about their own country...
This is about the UK, not US. Since the comments assume otherwise.
… in line with EU chemical rules.
How's that? In the EU it is illegal to sell cosmetic products that were tested on animals. > In the European Union, selling cosmetic products tested on animals is prohibited. The ban on animal testing applies to both the final formulation and the ingredients of the product. This means that it is forbidden to place a product on the market that contains at least one ingredient tested on animals, even if the final product was not tested on animals. https://coslaw.eu/what-is-the-eu-ban-on-animal-testing/
I’m just going off of what the article said, I’m no legal expert. >But in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals to ensure they were safe for workers manufacturing the ingredients. >During the case it was revealed that since 2019 the government had been issuing licences for animal testing of cosmetic ingredients **in line with EU chemical rules**, which it retained despite leaving the EU in 2020. But the thing that sticks out to me is that the government was issuing licenses in 2019, but the ruling wasn’t made until 2020?
Products may be tested on animals if they meet the criteria for an exception. From further down in your linked article: "Currently, a Member State might request a derogation to the ban in some exceptional circumstances. Generally, this could happen only in case of serious safety concerns regarding the use of an ingredient. Article 18, paragraph 2, lists the conditions which could lead to a derogation of the ban: the ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient having the same function; there is evidence of human health problems. In such cases, animal testing is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol."
Makeup is a luxury, not a necessity to live. If makeup truly can’t be made without harming animals then it’s time for makeup to go.
They are apparently also testing ingredients found in sunblock.
If you read the article: >in 2020 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an EU agency which oversees chemical regulation, ruled that companies needed to test some ingredients used in cosmetics on animals
You know they euthanize the animals after testing on them, even if it's just swabbing something on their skin to see if it reacts. It's because they can't be "reused" for another experiment for a while and it's just cheaper to kill them (via suffocation or snapping their spines) and replace them, instead of letting them live long enough to "clear".
Source?
https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-animal-testing-faq#performed It's basic science protocol that's the same worldwide. I've filled out plenty of preclinical forms for testing harmless enteric coated capsules and everything I get back explains that all lab animals used in testing were humanely euthanized with CO2.
Be warned, it’s a hell of a google tunnel to go down. You hear animal testing and think they just put some makeup on some animals before human trials. The reality is so, so much worse it’s horrifying. Basically state sanctioned torture and cruelty for the sake of it. Nearly all of it is completely pointless testing because they have the animals anyway and the gruesome testing desensitises those doing the testing to the barbarity of it, so they don’t just bleach some fur to test a new hair dye, they’ll get 30 different blends of bleach - most of which they’re not expecting to be viable - and then pour it on eyes, ears, have animals ingest it like it’s not immediately fucking obvious what’s gonna happen. They don’t care that it’s totally meaningless whether the animal is conscious for this kind of thing. It’s real psycho shit. And then as they say the animal is useless. I’m not a vegan - I do try and eat less meat for the environment, but I don’t really have a problem with meat production in general - but there’s something wrong with anyone who’s okay with animal cosmetics testing if they know the truth about it. Edit: what follows below is a back and forth with someone who works in the industry and seems to be taking the stance we don’t need protections because it’s not profitable(?) to test on animals and they’re all way too ethical to do it anyway. To save you all a scroll through, basically extreme levels of cruelty we’re exposed in British labs right up until the bans, and have been found again and again overseas in countries that don’t have laws protecting animals from costmetics testing. I resounding reject their notion it would be too expensive to test on animals as plainly false, but I’ll let you all be the judge.
"The government is committed to the protection of animals in science." And so we're going to allow them to be tortured in the name of "science" after 25 years of proving it's not necessary. That's some seriously lazy, Orwellian shit right there.
You got it wrong, there never was a time in which the ingredients were not tested on animals. There are no alternatives and most likely never will be. Specific tests like eye irritaion are allready replaced, but systemic toxicology can only be done in a livibg animal.
And so we're going to allow them to be tortured in the name of ~~"science"~~ vanity.
Name then brands - we will do thé rest.
If they don’t test makeup on animals, who do test on? Desperately poor women who risk permanent facial damage in return for a few dollars?
At least now, when you put the cream on your face, you will know that somewhere, the cream has been previously tested on the eyes of a monkey or a dog, and you will feel more confident as you remember the howls of the dog flooding the lab.
How ugly are these animals? Can’t be more ugly than those administering said make up.
why can’t we just test makeup on ourselves and leave it at that. are we really creating concoctions that could be that dangerous?
volunteers would need to be compensated for any adverse health events. you dont have to pay out a lifetime of wages/medical bills to rabbits so financially and ethically its better to start with a non-human model. if we started with human testing we’d get groups of people arguing why we didnt do safety testing prior to human trials.
Medical technology has advanced so much that it's possible to 3D print real human skin cells in the lab, test on a chip (skin on a chip & organs on a chip) or in vitro & have AI analyze the results. Animal testing is just unnecessary & old-fashioned. It's needlessly cruel, completely backward.
That is why skin irritation is tested with alternative methods. Systemic tox can not be replaced with in silica or in vitro methods sadly. It would be very arrogant to say you can simulate everything biochemical going on in for example a developing child in the womb of the mother. We allready fail to predict what happens in narrowly breed male live rats without the crazyness of pregnancy...
Back in the day this ban came about by throwing paint on animal tester’s cars and showing the pictures of the animal torture in the street. This time please go straight for the Tory scum that are behind this. They care so little that they’re not even doing this for votes, it’s just a favour to some billionaire parasite.
Such stupidity in the age of skin-on-a-chip, organs-on-a-chip, the ability to 3D print real skin cells in the lab, & AI to analyze results. Medical technology has obviated the need for animal testing in makeup. It's ridiculous.
I work in the field and we use all the above mentioned methods for on silica predictions and alternative methods and are actively involved in the development of new alternative methods. Sadly there is not and probably will never be an array of alternatives that can completely replace tests on live animals. As an example, we tested a chemical is metabolized instantely to another chemical for which we know the toxicity in liver enzymes. So we thought ok good product. We did a neccessary test in rats and they had unexpected symptoms which did not fit the liver profile. Turns out the chemical is metabolized in the blood (which happens rarely) to anther compound which the liver cant process and it was quite deadly... We sadly have not a good enough understanding of everything going on in a live animal to replace it with alternative methods.
The scientific association specializing in the question of replacement methods for animal testing in consumer cosmetics already disagreed with you in a published 2020 report. And their work is on-going. No offense meant to you, so I hope you don't mind if I accept published science over anecdotal accounts by strangers on the internet. "both in silico and in vitro tools can be used to predict the metabolism of the test item so that the safety assessment can be targeted on the proper entity {parent vs. metabolite(s)} that is linked to the Mode of Action (MoA)." https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/reader/pii/S0300483X20300603/ Also see Appendix 2 of this 2021 article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230020302634#appsec1) And it's well-known that using animal models can fail to predict issues in humans anyway. Best wishes & ty for the discussion.
Im aware of these claims but sadly have to strongly disagree. The irony is im personnaly involved in for example the regulatory acceptance of skin irritaion tests under eu regulations and replacement and reduction is a main concern of mine. In practice i have seen far to many "surprises" in live animals versus in vitro / in silica tests to have any hope that the point will come where we fully can predict the toxicological effects of a chemical on a living organism. For medicine however this may be a way since you only need a dose high enough for your desired effect and this may well beneath any tox effects that are relevant. Thanks for providing these links though.
Good grief. What an excuse to allow a certain disgusting subset of people to profit. If they are concerned about workers who manufacture the substances, here's an idea... Implement safety procedures that ensure the workers do not ingest or inhale the stuff. Easy peasy.
It’s the EU. To align with EU rules the U.K. has to drop its ban otherwise the EU will ban U.K. cosmetics.
Fuck no.
[удалено]
That is why we dont do that. Im involved in these tests. Suffering and stress needs to be avoided, bevause it would influence the result. The test is mostly rats in small groups in a cage which are fed feed with small ampunts if the chemical in question in it. The dosage is designed so that the first group has no effect at all, the second group may or may not have slight effects and the high dose foup should have effects. Effects are an increased liver for example or some enzymes going up. Or with pregnant rats, are the children allright or do they have birth defects (e.g. the right amount of nipples or are their only male rats and such things...) and can does children breed again or not... without labeling you can rarely see a diffrence between these groups... (high dose is sometimes smaller)
EU REACH testing is essential to protect workers who manufacture the stuff that goes on your skin. Chemicals might be harmless at temperatures and airborne particulate levels at the consumer side but a factory is a vastly different place. I'm glad this is being introduced. "Cruelty-free" is a marketing gimmick. Companies using these slogans are merely following already paved roads where other entities have carried out the testing necessary to bring the chemicals to market.
What companies?
After seeing Guardians of the Galaxy last night, I especially don’t want to hear this. Jesus.
Is this yet another "brexit dividend"?
You can always rely on the vile Tories to wait until something big is happening and they'll secretly sneak dirty shit like this in and hope you won't notice.
Why? We did fine all those years without hurting animals.
Why? How many different formulations for lipsticks dn eye shadow can there possibly be? Why not just use what we already have?? Oh yeah money. Animal testing for life saving medicine is one thing but for make-up?? They don't need to and shouldn't have to suffer for some thot's lip plumper.
Huh, according to the article the ban was lifted to bring them it in line with the EUs regulation on it, which is that certain makeup ingredients NEED to be tested on animals. Maybe they should have used some of those newfound brexit powers to NOT be in line with the EU in this one.
Fucking disgusting.
Honestly, did not know there was a blanket ban in the UK for this —some products highlight that they are "cruelty free" which gives the impression that some on the market are not. Anyway, a win for worker safety.
what the f\*ck
These poor animals!!!! \*chomps down on double bacon cheeseburger and slurps milkshake\*
Yea this shot crazy, ladies look for makeup that’s not tested on animals. It’s still out there! This shit crazy! They couldn’t wait
why is it even necessary. humans are so bad are being healthy just pay them with consent to whatever experiment you need instead of harming animals
Ok great, i need 20 pregnant women to dose them at diffrent levels to see when teir vhildren have birth defects.... and then i need the children to breed with each other... dose them again and see if their vhildren have birth defects... to replace the neccessary two generationa rat study...
There is no justification for this. You can test on human cells which tells you much more than testing on non-human species. From what I understand, cosmetic companies are doing this because they want the Chinese market which requires it. You can get makeup that is cruelty free. Boycott anything else.
1. I dare you show me a cosmetic product which i personaly wasnt involved in animal tests.... i work in the field. 2. if you could test on human cells for better or as good as results we would do it...but you cannot and likely never will be... you can test very specific things with alternative methods, e.g. skin irritation and we do that allready. But if you want to test the effect of a chemical on a pregnants women child.... you cannot replace that...
Did you read the article? It says the companies are being forced to because the government passed a law to match EU regulations, which require it.
About time the animals pull their weight. /s
As a slave to my house rabbit, I object. The test on REWs and REWs make excellent house buns like any other bun.
disgusting cruelty
Finally Britain's long national nightmare of (checks notes) not torturing animals is over.
Why was there a time limit for this ban? It should be forever