2 ms·

This is why I try to avoid products labeled "cruelty free", or "not tested on animals". If you don't test your product, how do you know it's safe? There are so

by ars 7y ago

This is why I try to avoid products labeled "cruelty free", or "not tested on animals". If you don't test your product, how do you know it's safe? There are so many cosmetics and food additives put on the market with no, or barely any testing. Why would you advertise "we don't know if it's safe, we never tested it"?

Pxtl 7y ago
Usually this means they're using products that are already proven safe, that they contain nothing novel. Of course, this case describes "nothing novel" since xantham gum was already an established-safe thickener.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
I agree with you. If you haven’t tested on animals, you are testing on your costumers.
jmull 7y ago
Well, here's an outside perspective with no particular axe to grind: Your position to avoid "cruelty free" products may or may not be valid. But this case does not support it. I think in this case you've fallen victim of the natural human tendency to confirmation bias ("the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories") Sorry... you may not be receptive to this info, in which case I'm sorry to bring it up since it's only going to annoy you. (Also, sorry if I'm wrong.)
- ars 7y ago
  I don't mind a discussion, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. > But this case does not support it. Seems to me it supports it. This was a product that seemed safe, no testing needed, just like "not tested on animals" products - the ingredients are probably safe, no need to test. Except that in the particular way it was used here, it wasn't safe. To lead back to cosmetics: What if a particular mixture of two otherwise harmless ingredients is toxic? What if an ingredient is thought safe, but next to the eye is actually not safe? Or for food additives, thought safe - except if used in an acidic food, or heated, or mixed with some other additive?
rsynnott 7y ago
The EU has banned the testing of cosmetics on animals for the last decade without the sky falling in. Medical products typically are tested on animals. But it’s only so effective.

by ars 7y ago

Pxtl 7y ago

Usually this means they're using products that are already proven safe, that they contain nothing novel. Of course, this case describes "nothing novel" since xantham gum was already an established-safe thickener.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

I agree with you. If you haven’t tested on animals, you are testing on your costumers.

jmull 7y ago

Well, here's an outside perspective with no particular axe to grind: Your position to avoid "cruelty free" products may or may not be valid. But this case does not support it. I think in this case you've fallen victim of the natural human tendency to confirmation bias ("the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories") Sorry... you may not be receptive to this info, in which case I'm sorry to bring it up since it's only going to annoy you. (Also, sorry if I'm wrong.)

ars 7y ago
I don't mind a discussion, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. > But this case does not support it. Seems to me it supports it. This was a product that seemed safe, no testing needed, just like "not tested on animals" products - the ingredients are probably safe, no need to test. Except that in the particular way it was used here, it wasn't safe. To lead back to cosmetics: What if a particular mixture of two otherwise harmless ingredients is toxic? What if an ingredient is thought safe, but next to the eye is actually not safe? Or for food additives, thought safe - except if used in an acidic food, or heated, or mixed with some other additive?

rsynnott 7y ago

The EU has banned the testing of cosmetics on animals for the last decade without the sky falling in. Medical products typically are tested on animals. But it’s only so effective.