Parabens. Many people claim that parabens are unsafe to use. This is a false claim made by many natural companies that want you to use their products, just another way to advertise.
Proctor and Gamble performed another test back in 2004 to prove that parabens are indeed safe to use for all cosmetic companies. The test was perform on pregnant rats, because the concern was that parabens were unsafe for reproductive health.
Now a UK based animals rights charity, called Uncaged, is accusing Proctor and Gamble, and boycotting their Herbal Essences line for cruel and unnecessary treatment to animals.
The parabens test was a once and for all test to prove to everybody in the industry that parabens were safe to use, thus no further tests would be needed. The tests were requested by European regulators and the methods used were approved internationally. Still many human and environmental health campaigners are demanding more tests on parabens.
Uncaged is just targeting Proctor and Gamble because they are a big company and feel like they should pay. “With regards to Uncaged, unfortunately they really aren’t interested in establishing the facts and will continue to target P&G to drive their campaign,” stated Marina Barks of Proctor and Gamble.
I think I might have to go buy some herbal essences shampoo to boycott this animals rights group.
source: cosmeticsdesign.com
Thank you for visiting my Skincare Femme Facade Blog!
Feel free to subscribe, Digg, and comment!
Posted in Uncategorized 
Tags:
The author seems to have a callous attitude to animals. It's also a bit poor to form an opinion about an issue on the basis of one article that only quotes a P&G PR person.
In fact, the test in question proved nothing and added no knowledge regarding the possible effects of parabens on human health. It simply repeated a previous finding that 'butylparaben does not have the potential to cause development toxicity in the Sprague-Dawley rat'. If you had actually looked at the paper you would realise that.
There is no evidence to suggest the test was requested by EU regulators, and, contrary to the blog, yet more animal tests have been conducted (by P&G) into butyl and other parabens.
Actually, we are targetting P&G because they are in effect the 'market-leader' when it comes to animal testing for cosmetics – a gratuitous form of cruelty that has been banned in the UK now for 10 years and is due to be banned across the EU, notwithstanding further lobbying from P&G to block the ban.
To go out of your way to pay for animal cruelty when there are plenty of ethical options implies a degree of sadism on the blogger's part.
regards
Dr Dan Lyons
Uncaged
dan@uncaged.co.uk
The parent group of Herbal Essences – P&G are continually testing on animals in order bring 'new and improved' trivial products to the market to maximise their profits. They even admit as much on their website.
Most people – me included – are against testing on animals for cosmetics.
Herbal Essences could have conducted this test without killing thousands of baby rats, by using modern alternatives.
I say boycott Herbal Essences and support animal protection!
Wow, thanks for stopping by Dr. Lyons! I see you are really committed in boycotting against P&G.
Here are some more quotes from the article:
"However, the US-based manufacturer has responded by saying that the testing of the chemical in question was performed at the request of European regulators, and underlined that P&G Beauty products are not tested on animals.
"Uncaged are referring to a study involving Butylparaben which P&G conducted at the request of EU regulators in 2004 on behalf of the entire cosmetics industry to ensure the continued safe use of parabens," P&G's Marina Barker told CosmeticsDesign."
And many natural companies should not falsely advertise that they are animal cruelty-free when many of their ingredients are in some way tested on animals.
Unfortunately, testing on rats is still occurring until they find complete alternatives.
In another article, "Chris Flower, the director general of Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) in the UK, told CosmeticsDesign.com: "Science is not ready to provide a comprehensive range of alternatives to animal testing in time for the ban. Science doesn't just follow political will."
The article went on to say, "The head of the trade association said if the development of alternatives were easy the industry would have abandoned animal testing years ago."
http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/Search-for-alternatives-to-animal-testing-remains-slow
"Scientists at Procter and Gamble Beauty are working to improve human models for product safety and efficacy testing as the race to reduce reliance on animal tests continues."
http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/P-G-Beauty-explores-alternatives-to-animal-testing
So P&G are looking for alternative ways. Until the time comes, I think I will say that I am a bit sadistic when it comes to rats, but I am not a masochist.:) I do not want to loose an eye, because they test on me instead!