Is L'Oreal Worth It?

Great Debates
#1

Celebrities say they use L’Oréal because their “worth it”.

But I bet the bunny rabbits at L’Oreal’s laboratories don’t agree.

Animal research at L’Oreal often includes bunnies with deformed eyes from shampoo & eyeliner testing, Bunnies are forced into vice-like mesh cages so sadistic scientists can squirt acidic shampoo into their unblinking eyes. Do they think Jennifer is
worth it?

How do we decide what is vital testing and what is not? How do we decide whether or not we can justify using animals for research?

I read that there are sophisticated non-animal research methods available , such as in-vitro tests, computer software, databases of tests already done and even human “clinical trial” tests,
tissue cultures and computer models are more accurate than traditional animal-based research methods.

Then why aren’t more companies using these testing methods? Why are we still in the dark ages of torturing animals?

(QUOTE) Products are tested on bunnies by injecting them, putting the chemicals into their eyes, making them eat it, making them breathe it, and making them live in it. An LD50 (lethal dose) limit is determined, that is the amount of product the animal can eat/drink before 50% of them die.

Rabbits are used for eye experiments because they have no tear ducts, therefore the product that is being dropped into their eyes cannot be washed away by tears (known as the draize Test. These tests are performed on household items such as bleach, soaps, deodorants, cleaning supplies, perfumes, makeup, lotions, toothpaste, etc. (UNQUOTE)

Don’t we all know that eating bleach would not be a good idea without sacrificing the well being of thousands of animals to prove it?

How would you like to be a bunny where every day you are forced to drink a known amount of ammonia until 50 people in your group die. Blood tests are given frequently, and possibly other uncomfortable tests. Perhaps a catheter
is inserted to collect and monitor the ammonia levels in your urine. This is only the ingestion part of the research. Other groups are inhaling the fumes or being injected. There isn’t money for pain killers, and that might change
the results of the tests, so it is not used. If you put yourself there, it’s not such a good idea at all.

Is this humane? Are celebrities “worth it?”

Jesus loves you but I’m his favorite!

#2

How would you rather determine the lethal dose of chemicals?

#3

I’m not normally a cite screamer, but do you have cites for any of the claims in the OP as they relate to Loreal?

#4

What if bunnies weren’t cute? What if we tested cosmetics on fish?

#5

A fish with makeup on? Now you’re just being ridiculous.

#6

True, we should kill two birds with one stone and use comatose/brain-dead patients for such testing.

(The above reference to killing animals was brought to you by CD and a suitcase of misanthropic antelope.)

#7

Edit: I just realized that antelope wouldn’t fit in a suitcase. On second thought, it was probably just filled with salamanders, or maybe stacked kittens.)

#8

This is a parody thread, right? Bunnies? Please tell us you’re not serious.

#9

All levity and loose brackets aside, I think it’s not hard to understand that animal tests are more reliable than computer models or lookups on past research (which may have been faulty, or just not apply to the new formula). I’m not sure you’re going to convince us that these methods are worth their extra cost and/or legislative hassles based on the value of fluffy bunnies alone. Life is not somehow special within the range of complex, dynamic phenomena, and humans certainly aren’t special among the animals. We’re all a little different from each other, of course, but the value assigned to that difference ultimately depends on the person judging. Consequently, the scope of sanctity has not been stable over time, and really isn’t rooted in any objective science. Negroes were once not human, then the Jews, and non-human animals have lost out all along. “Human” itself is a fuzzy category, anyway (this need not have anything to do with my point above value-judgments).

So, yes, we’re committing a rabbit holocaust, and L’Oreal is our Doctor Mengele. Rabbits, for their part, committed a carrot holocaust, and carrots, in turn, committed a nitrogen holocaust. Anyone want to explain the natural process which created nitrogen out of more basic building-blocks?

Matter feeds matter feeds matter feeds matter. It’s all a change of form, or simply flow if you don’t buy the idea of forms.

#10

<edit>…my point above value judgments=…my point [above] *about value judgments</edit>

#11

Ahahahaha…I messed up the tags again. I often read what should be there, and not what actually is there, which is compounded by me never having used a forum that forbids editing before. :rolleyes:

#12

I thought L’Oreal stopped?

#13

Plenty of cosmetic companies do not test their products on animals. They say it in pretty big print on their merchandise. Vote with your dollars, if you like.

#14

Oh, goody, another animal rights thread. Isabelle, ever swatted a mosquito that was on your arm? If so, is it right to kill insects for comfort reasons, but not fluffy bunnies? If so, why?

#15

Well, I’ll just step right up and agree with the OP wholeheartedly. There is no reason to torture animals so our hair can be shinier. And, yes, the majority of the manufacturers print a statement about not testing on animals on their product. robertliguori, bunnies (rabbits) are capable of pain, just like you and I. Comparing them to a mosquito is idiotic, at best. Is anyone comfortable with the vision of a bunny screaming while shampoo is poured into his bleeding eyes? OK, I thought not.

#16

Umm, mosquitoes sure do feel pain, Blonde. Just because you do not like mosquitoes, and they do not complain audibly does not make it morally ok to kill them in an absolute sense.

That said, I feel there is a difference between testing cosmetics on animals, and testing other things, like drugs. There are already tons of cleansers and moisturizers that do the job well enough, it’s not like we need hair any shinier or skin any softer. There is a slightly more pressing issue to obtain more effective drugs. So, I do not condem all animal testing, just testing of products that are 100% superfulous. If you must have the glossiest hair and the reddest lips, then you pays your nickel and you takes your chances. If you need the latest version of an anti-malaria drug, then you at least know that it worked in rabbits withuot liver failure before they used it on people.

#17

P.S. I do kill mosquitoes that try to eat me, and I feel a little bad about it, until I remember that the little jerk was gonna freakin eat me if given long enough.

(ok, suck my blood to aid the fertilization of its eggs, I think, either way, she didn’t ask.)

#18

I’m not opposed to killing mosquitos either scabpicker, but there are computer models out there that can replicate drug reactions without resorting to animal testing. I understand that I’m a minority in those who care about animals in Texas (where most folks eat animals every day for lunch) but I feel it’s important to share this planet with other creatures.

#19

Well, actually I was saying that you are drawing the line a little arbitrarily. Why do you get a free ride karmically because you eat vegetables exclusively? Are they somehow not creatures?

(BTW, I was a vegeterian for years before I realized this myself)

That said, if you think that computer models are worth their electrons when dealing with an unknown substance, I suggest you look into their effectiveness at modeling other complex problems, like the weather.

#20

A number of years ago, I was dying my hair one morning and I accidentally caught myself squarely in the eye with hair dye straight from the bottle. At that moment, horrible as it may make me sound, I was grateful for all the testing done on animals. No harm was done, and I now pay a beauty shop about 5 times as much to do the job for me.

My father was a research engineer and I’ve been a programmer. Even the most sophisticated computers are limited by what is known. They cannot be set up to control for unknown reactions. I am opposed to unnecessary testing and cruelty, but physiology is an incredibly complex and variable things, and there is a great deal we don’t know yet. Maybe this makes me a species-ist, but I would much rather testing be done on animals than humans.

Also, to throw out a minor nitpick, I think it’s been years since L’Oreal used the “I’m worth it.” slogan.

Isabelle, if I may give you a bit of general advice, you are far too intelligent and curious a person to be ruled by a teenager who’s being ruled, in turn, by propoganda. Issues are very seldom as simple as the exteremists at either end of them make them out to be. Hold fast to your ideals by all means, but don’t be afraid to ask questions.

CJ