Animal Testing

Below (in two separate blog posts) I have listed companies that do and do not test on animals. These are PETA's complete lists of companies that are not required by law to test. These include companies that produce cosmetics, personal care products and domestic cleaning products.

Going over the ethics of whether testing is ethical or not for pharmaceutical and new treatment reasons is a tiresome task. This has value behind it and it is done with intention of helping others. In some light I can understand why they would test personal care and cosmetics on animals before putting it on the market (I will later elaborate). Make-up and soaps could cause people to break out, or give them hives. But household cleaning products?

Test Pinesol on floors? Test Lysol on counters? Test Febreze in the air? No, let's test them on animals. The defense may be that the fumes are at risk to poison you when you are cleaning, but why not use the knowledge of chemistry to our advantage? We know we do not need to put arson in our cleaning products -- a hopefully well established fact.

Arm and Hammer is listed on products that test on animals. Arm and Hammer is mainly known for baking powder/soda. Baking powder is quite a versatile substance. You can eat it, you can brush your teeth with it, you can clean with it, you can freshen your fridge with it, as well as other things I'm sure. It's versatility is due to it's low, basic pH. This is a scientific fact-- we know that it is safe to use. Yet, if we know it's safe why do we still test it on animals? Why fix something that obviously is not broken. You can do practically anything with baking powder, it does not need improvements. Testing it is a waste of time, energy, and animals.

New cosmetic products come out every once in a while. When they do, advertisements for new mascara's that make your eye lashes 'even longer' parade television commercials. Concealers and foundations that match to your exact skin tone take up several magazine pages. Shampoos that are created just for long hair, or short hair, or curly hair, or fizzy hair have just started coming out (in stores, not necessarily salons) over the past few years, making it seem like they all do not do the same thing -- clean your hair. Like it really makes a difference. All of this just for, what seems to me, some marketing ploy? I can understand companies testing on animals in the beginning, but once you have an effective product that makes you money why do you need to continue testing? Because other companies are doing it and if they do not keep up with them, then they won't make as much money.

As I mentioned before drug testing and new medical treatments are required by law and they have good intention behind their actions. Yet, cosmetics, personal-care products, and house-hold cleaning products do not need to be tested on animals. Newly created make-up and other personal care products are tested every day. Drugs are for our health, yet, cosmetics and some personal care products are for our appearance. Animal testing in these areas are driven by the consumer's need to be beautiful. Is this the price we must pay to be beautiful?


My question is: Why do you think that companies (that are not required by law to test) test their products on animals?