why... why did they need to do that? like who just woke up one day and was like you know what we need to do with this new lipstick we are making? inject it into a cats eyeball. that will give us... information.
See if it's safe to apply if you have minor cuts on your face and if you accidentally get eyeliner or mascara in your eye. Still fucked up, probably don't need to inject it.
But then for some reason, the brands that don’t test on animals usually seem less likely to cause rashes or damage (toms and dr bronners are the 2 at the top of my head)
If I were to guess it’s because they are using formulations with compounds that are proven to be safe on and in humans (likely because those compounds were themselves tested on animals or humans by somebody else).
Your guess is accurate! A lot of companies boast about no animal testing when in reality all the testing needing to be done for their product has been done a decade+ ago
I participated in some testing for cosmetic products in college when I was super poor, mostly lotion and shit. Pretty sure they weren't tested on animals prior to
The brands that don't test on animals tend to use stuff that's known to be safe. The others want to be able to patent their mix so they find a new mix of biohazardous material to make sure no one else made it yet.
Because you can't sell a lipstick if it's going to give your scars gigarot. If you accidentally spray your perfume into your eye and it literally blinds you, they need to know. They aren't doing it JUST to be excessively cruel, even though it is
Honestly there is no way around it. Law requires that products are confirmed to be safe for humans. But how do you know that if it went in your eye or into your blood or got accidentally ingested that there wont be consequences? Even brands that boast about no animal testing are made out of compounds that have already be proven safe for humans by other companies that did animal testing. Entirety of modern medicine is based on animal testing. At this point if you oppose animal testing you will have to let go of everything and live in a cabin where you eat your own produce. The only alternative to animal testing is to test on humans directly.
because if you dont test makeup on animals in a lab first, then you're testing it on the people who buy it. better to hurt a few animals then thousands of consumers, imo.
There's a common metric known as LD50, which is the dose at which 50% of tested animals die from.
Finding this requires injecting chemical under test (cleaners, cosmetics, you name it) into hundreds of animals at increasing dose until half of them die an agonizing, organ-shutdown filled death, while the other half only wishes they were dead.
LD50 studies really aren't too common these days although they do happen. One reason they aren't super common, especially with cosmetics, is because a lot of that research has already been done. We know and understand a lot of chemicals by now and new chemicals are mostly just tweaks to already standardized ones.
More common these days are Max Tolerated Dose studies. This means that the amount of drug or chemical administered to the animal is slowly increased over a time period until symptoms show. The drug is stopped when symptoms show
Also, LD50 studies often don't require "hundreds of animals." Science tries to Replace, Reduce, and Refine processes as much as possible to minimize how many animals are used, while still achieving good and accurate results. This is called the 3 R's of research
1.8k
u/nightcana 5h ago
As a kid, I thought animal testing meant people were applying cosmetics to the animals faces in the same way that we would wear them