More on the continuing animal testing of cosmetics in the UK.
Doug
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
controversial testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences. The report
HLS UNMASKED 2011 outlines such experiments in a 12-page report, along
with previously unknown customers who are actively financing
experiments..."
"...These documents are yet more evidence of the sheer lunacy behind
the kinds of animal experiments that are allowed to continue inside
places like Huntingdon Life Sciences - experiments which must end. HLS
have been exposed previously as testing coffee sweetener Splenda [11],
cleaning chemicals [12], mushroom extract [13], fermented vegetables
[14] on animals. All animals were killed either during or after
experimentation took place.
Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC, “these new research papers reveal, once
again, the true horror and idiocy of this failing laboratory. When
they are not getting exposed for gross misconduct or severe animal
welfare breaches, they are thrust into the spotlight for testing
bizarre and useless products on animals – products which we all use
already on a daily basis. While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLS. We strongly
condemn all experimentation on animals, but this blatant abuse of a
gaping legal loophole regarding cosmetic testing is absolutely not
acceptable. HLS must finally be made accountable for their cruel and
unnecessary experiments which are taking place on a regular basis
behind locked doors.”"
More:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/02/474168.html
http://www.shac.net/HLS/HLS_Unmasked2011.pdf
Doug.
Doug
BrianW
> "Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the
> Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
> have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
> controversial testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences. The report
> HLS UNMASKED 2011 outlines such experiments in a 12-page report, along
> with previously unknown customers who are actively financing
> experiments..."
More lies, Doug? As the paper makes clear, none of the ingredients
tested are cosmetic products, nor are they used exclusively in
cosmetic products. The paper therefore provides no evidence
whatsoever of "the continuing animal testing of cosmetics in the UK",
as per the thread title.
Doug
in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
understand?
Doug.
NotMe
> "Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the
> Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
> have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
> controversial testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences. The report
> HLS UNMASKED 2011 outlines such experiments in a 12-page report, along
> with previously unknown customers who are actively financing
> experiments..."
>
> "...These documents are yet more evidence of the sheer lunacy behind
> the kinds of animal experiments that are allowed to continue inside
> places like Huntingdon Life Sciences - experiments which must end. HLS
> have been exposed previously as testing coffee sweetener Splenda [11],
> cleaning chemicals [12], mushroom extract [13], fermented vegetables
> [14] on animals. All animals were killed either during or after
> experimentation took place.
[11] could be used as a sweetner in medicines for children.
[12] cleaning chemicals include acetone, used by the medical
profession.
[13] mushrooms are used for medicinal purposes, including treatment of
tumours and fiddling with the immune system. Many people are also
allergic to them, meaning research into their effects is important.
> Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC,
Why should we believe a protest group whose members and leaders have
been jailed for crimes like blackmail.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5384003.ece
If, as you say, cosmetics are tested on animals Doug, then do you use
cosmetics yourself?
Have you used any cosmetics in the last 15 years, and that includes
soap?
> Doug.
BrianW
<sigh>
Because, Gollum, all the ingredients can be (and are) used for other
things. Botox, for example.
Why don't you stop lying and admit that cosmetic testing on animals no
longer takes place in Britain?
Nightjar
> "Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the
> Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
> have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
How remarkably convenient. Anonymously provided (and therefore
unverifiable) reports that just happen to be exactly what the campaign
needs.
Colin Bignell
Doug
> On Feb 15, 4:15 pm, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > "Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the
> > Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
> > have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
> > controversial testing laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences. The report
> > HLS UNMASKED 2011 outlines such experiments in a 12-page report, along
> > with previously unknown customers who are actively financing
> > experiments..."
>
> > "...These documents are yet more evidence of the sheer lunacy behind
> > the kinds of animal experiments that are allowed to continue inside
> > places like Huntingdon Life Sciences - experiments which must end. HLS
> > have been exposed previously as testing coffee sweetener Splenda [11],
> > cleaning chemicals [12], mushroom extract [13], fermented vegetables
> > [14] on animals. All animals were killed either during or after
> > experimentation took place.
>
> [11] could be used as a sweetner in medicines for children.
> [12] cleaning chemicals include acetone, used by the medical
> profession.
> [13] mushrooms are used for medicinal purposes, including treatment of
> tumours and fiddling with the immune system. Many people are also
> allergic to them, meaning research into their effects is important.
>
>
> > Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC,
>
> Why should we believe a protest group whose members and leaders have
> been jailed for crimes like blackmail.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5384003.ece
>
have bothered to read it?
>
> If, as you say, cosmetics are tested on animals Doug, then do you use
> cosmetics yourself?
> Have you used any cosmetics in the last 15 years, and that includes
> soap?
>
"Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC, “these new research papers reveal, once
again, the true horror and idiocy of this failing laboratory. When
they are not getting exposed for gross misconduct or severe animal
welfare breaches, they are thrust into the spotlight for testing
bizarre and useless products on animals – products which we all use
already on a daily basis. While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLS. We strongly
condemn all experimentation on animals, but this blatant abuse of a
gaping legal loophole regarding cosmetic testing is absolutely not
acceptable. HLS must finally be made accountable for their cruel and
unnecessary experiments which are taking place on a regular basis
behind locked doors.”"
'Gaping legal loophole'?
Doug.
Nightjar
> "Previously unseen research papers, which were anonymously sent to the
> Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign at the start of 2011,
> have shed new light on shocking experiments carried out by
Doug
ingredients which HAVE been tested on animals here in the UK. Also,
none of you animal torture supporters have yet addressed the issue of
imported cosmetics on sale here, from countries where cosmetic testing
on animals is still allowed.
It follows that no one using cosmetics can be sure it hasn't involved
animal testing and there is indeed a gaping hole in the law.
Doug.
AndyW
news:990d8e3c-8953-45ec...@s3g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
What is it about, "While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLSs", You do not
understand?
-----
Doug. You are your own worst enemy.
Let's actually look at your evidence
(http://www.shac.net/HLS/HLS_Unmasked2011.pdf) and your assertions shall we?
Experiment 1: HLS pump unleaded gas into the lungs of over 70 pregnant rats.
Year and place: 2001, HLS New Jersey (USA)
Experiment 2: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats, only
to summarise the use of rats in toxicity testing is not relevant to humans.
Year and place: 2001, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 3: HLS test a herbal dietary supplement made from grape seed and
grape skin extract on over 200 rats. Year and place: 2002, HLS New Jersey
(USA)
Experiment 4: HLS test PCBs banned since 1979 on Rhesus primates. Year and
place: 2002, HLS New Jersey (USA)
Experiment 5: HLS test anti-wrinkle and muscular treatment, Botox, on rats
and rabbits. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 6: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats and
mice - again. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 7: HLS test food additive, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), on rats and
mice. Year and place: 2003, HLS New Jersey (USA)
Experiment 8: HLS test food additive, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) on 200
pregnant rats. Year and place: 2003, HLS New Jersey (USA)
Experiment 9: HLS test soybean fiber on 176 rats. Year and place: 2003, HLS
New Jersey (USA)
Experiment 10: HLS test a food preservative (LAE) on rats and rabbits. Year
and place: 2004, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 11: HLS test paraffin wax on animals. Year and place: 2010, HLS
New Jersey (USA)
Experiments 1,3,4,7,8, 9 and 11 are all US based and so have no relevance to
your asserion that "While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned in the UK,
here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics still being tested
on vast numbers of animals at HLSs"
Before we move on to the UK only experiments let's just have a quick look as
some of the US ones:
Experiment 1: Really? Can you not think of another use for Unleaded petrol
other than cosmetics? Really?
Experiment 3: HLS test a herbal dietary supplement. A dietary supplement!
did you miss that bit? Not a cosmetic unless you regard vitamins and
minerals as cosmetics.
Experiment 4: HLS test PCBs banned since 1979. Quote from Wikipedia "PCBs
were widely used for many applications, especially as dielectric fluids in
transformers, capacitors, and coolants. Due to PCB's toxicity and
classification as a persistent organic pollutant, PCB production was banned
by the United States Congress in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001". So not a cosmetic either.
Experiment 7 & 8: HLS test food additive. Food additive - not a cosmetic.
Experiment 9: HLS test soybean fiber. Hardly a cosmetic is it?
Experiment 11: HLS test paraffin wax. If you cannot think of other uses of
paraffin wax than cosmetics then I will be surprised.
This leave us the following:
Experiment 2: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats, only
to summarise the use of rats in toxicity testing is not relevant to humans.
Year and place: 2001, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 5: HLS test anti-wrinkle and muscular treatment, Botox, on rats
and rabbits. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 6: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats and
mice - again. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 10: HLS test a food preservative (LAE) on rats and rabbits. Year
and place: 2004, HLS Cambridge (UK)
Experiment 2 & 6Comarin is used in the pharmaceutic industry either directly
or as an ingredient.
Experiment 5: HLS test anti-wrinkle and muscular treatment, Botox can be
used for
Experiment 10 is clearly shown as a food additive and not a cosmetic
So in summary you have listed 11 experiments. more than half occurred
outside the UK.
3 are food additives
1 is a food product
1 is petrol and while it is used in the cosmetic industry it does have one
or two other, minor, secondary uses....
1 is paraffin wax, occassionally used in candles, cleaning products, medical
uses as well as cosmetics
1 is a dietary supplement.
2 are used in the pharamaceutical industry
http://www.medicinenet.com/coumarin-type_drugs-oral/article.htm,
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/phytochemicals/pages/coumarin.html
1 is an industrial coolant used in power transformers.
1 is botox used as a cosmetic treatment but also used to treat muscle
disorders, spasms, rigity, motor neurone disease and migrane.
Could you please quote the experiments that prompted you to post :
What is it about, "While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLSs", You do not
understand?
Which experiments fulfil the criteria of "cosmetic testing is supposedly
banned in the UK"?
Andy
AndyW
It follows that no one using cosmetics can be sure it hasn't involved
animal testing and there is indeed a gaping hole in the law.
----
But where is your cutoff?
Over the course of history most ingredients in Cosmetics have been tested on
animals or have been used in foodstuffs.
Palm oil, olive oil and beeswax have all been animal tested.
Would you exclude these from cosmetics because they have been tested or
allow them because it was along time ago? Where do you draw the line because
until we know where you stand it is not a straightforward debate?
Andy
Doug
previously tested on animals and would stop the importation of
cosmetics which have been tested on animals. I would also tighten up
the law on animal testing of cosmetics.
Two points.
The source suggests that some of the ingredients have recently been
retested unnecessarily by HLS.
Hypothetically. Suppose a cosmetic has 10 ingredients, only one of
which has never been tested on animals. Could the manufacturer then
claim that it is animal testing free and therefore lawful?
Doug.
BrianW
Well of course they do. No-one has ever denied that. You yourself
said in an earlier thread that you wouldn't ban the use of ingredients
which were *historically* tested on animals. So why do you continue to
bang on about it?
> Also,
> none of you animal torture supporters have yet addressed the issue of
> imported cosmetics on sale here, from countries where cosmetic testing
> on animals is still allowed.
> It follows that no one using cosmetics can be sure it hasn't involved
> animal testing and there is indeed a gaping hole in the law.
<sigh>
The law says that testing can't be done in the UK. We have no power
to ban testing in other countries. Again, why are you banging on
about it?
Incidentally, I had a detailed look at that HLS report prepared by
your terrorist mates. You should read it, Doug (I assume that, as
usual, you haven't, and just rely on what your mates say about it).
It lists 11 examples of experiments:
1. Petrol, tested in the USA. Last I heard, the USA is not part of the
UK. Therefore not relevant to testing of cosmetics in the UK
2. Coumarin - has a number of pharmaceutical uses (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin). Not relevant to testing of cosmetics
in the UK
3. MegaNatural grape seed & grape skin extract supplement pills,
tested in the USA. Not relevant to testing of cosmetics in the UK
4. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) / Aroclor 1260, tested in the
USA. Not relevant to testing of cosmetics in the UK
5. Botulinum neurotoxin (Botox) - has a number of pharmaceutical uses
including treating muscle spasms and motor neuron disease (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botox). Not relevant to testing of cosmetics in
the UK
6. Coumarin - has a number of pharmaceutical uses (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin). Not relevant to testing of cosmetics
in the UK
7. Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), tested in the USA. Not relevant to
testing of cosmetics in the UK
8. Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), tested in the USA. Not relevant to
testing of cosmetics in the UK
9. Soluble soybean fiber, tested in the USA. Not relevant to testing
of cosmetics in the UK
10. N-a-Lauroyl-l-arginine ethyl ester monohydrochloride (LAE). Food
preservative, not relevant to testing of cosmetics in the UK
11. Paraffin wax, tested in the USA. Not relevant to testing of
cosmetics in the UK
In other words, the document doesn't provide a single shred of
evidence that testing of cosmetics on animals is taking place in the
UK. Your mates are telling lies when they say "While cosmetic testing
is supposedly banned in the UK, here we see products which are largely
used in cosmetics still being tested on vast numbers of animals at
HLSs". Now I've explained it to you, you'll be telling lies if you
repeat your claims. Do you now retract your title for this thread?
<tumbleweed>
BrianW
> On Feb 16, 10:15 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:9b2ec995-b34b-42ce...@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It follows that no one using cosmetics can be sure it hasn't involved
> > animal testing and there is indeed a gaping hole in the law.
>
> > ----
>
> > But where is your cutoff?
>
> > Over the course of history most ingredients in Cosmetics have been tested on
> > animals or have been used in foodstuffs.
> > Palm oil, olive oil and beeswax have all been animal tested.
> > Would you exclude these from cosmetics because they have been tested or
> > allow them because it was along time ago? Where do you draw the line because
> > until we know where you stand it is not a straightforward debate?
>
> I would draw the line at any new cosmetics which contain anything
> previously tested on animals
Ah, right, so contrary to what you said earlier, you *do* believe in a
retrospective ban. Given, however, that almost every conceivable
cosmetic ingredient (including water, soaps and petroleum jelly) has
at some time been tested on animals, you'd make life a tad difficult
for cosmetic manufacturers.
> and would stop the importation of
> cosmetics which have been tested on animals.
> I would also tighten up
> the law on animal testing of cosmetics.
No need, given that you've been unable to provide a *single* example
of such testing taking place in the UK now.
BrianW
> Why have you deleted and failed to comment on this text?
>
> "Says Debbie Vincent of SHAC, “these new research papers reveal, once
> again, the true horror and idiocy of this failing laboratory. When
> they are not getting exposed for gross misconduct or severe animal
> welfare breaches, they are thrust into the spotlight for testing
> bizarre and useless products on animals – products which we all use
> already on a daily basis. While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
> in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
> still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLS. We strongly
> condemn all experimentation on animals, but this blatant abuse of a
> gaping legal loophole regarding cosmetic testing is absolutely not
> acceptable. HLS must finally be made accountable for their cruel and
> unnecessary experiments which are taking place on a regular basis
> behind locked doors.”"
Perhaps because it's a lie, as I explain elsewhere?
> 'Gaping legal loophole'?
No, the evidence shows no such thing. It's another lie.
Doug
> 1 is an industrial coolant used in power transformers.
> 1 is botox used as a cosmetic treatment but also used to treat muscle
> disorders, spasms, rigity, motor neurone disease and migrane.
>
> Could you please quote the experiments that prompted you to post :
>
> What is it about, "While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
> in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in cosmetics
> still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLSs", You do not
> understand?
>
> Which experiments fulfil the criteria of "cosmetic testing is supposedly
> banned in the UK"?
>
UK cosmetic industry.
I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
Otherwise it is a complete phoney which deliberately evades the law
via an obvious loophole.
As regards which countries are relevant, how do you know that the UK
cosmetic industry doesn't import and use constituents that have been
tested on animals elsewhere in the world?
Seems to me now that the supposed animal-free testing of cosmetics is
presented as an obvious whitewash by our government to try to quiet an
ever increasing opposition to animal testing.
-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
"There is no way in the world to extrapolate animals to human
circumstance. Animal research is cruel to the animal, dangerous to the
public and misleading to the scientist". Dr G Dettman
BrianW
> > on vast numbers of animals at HLSs"
>
> > Before we move on to the UK only experiments let's just have a quick look as
> > some of the US ones:
> > Experiment 1: Really? Can you not think of another use for Unleaded petrol
> > Experiment 3: HLS test a herbal dietary supplement. A dietary supplement!
> > did you miss that bit? Not a cosmetic unless you regard vitamins and
> > minerals ascosmetics.
> > Experiment 4: HLS test PCBs banned since 1979. Quote from Wikipedia "PCBs
> > were widely used for many applications, especially as dielectric fluids in
> > transformers, capacitors, and coolants. Due to PCB's toxicity and
> > classification as a persistent organic pollutant, PCB production was banned
> > by the United States Congress in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on
> > Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001". So not a cosmetic either.
> > Experiment 7 & 8: HLS test food additive. Food additive - not a cosmetic.
> > Experiment 9: HLS test soybean fiber. Hardly a cosmetic is it?
> > Experiment 11: HLS test paraffin wax. If you cannot think of other uses of
>
> > This leave us the following:
>
> > Experiment 2: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats, only
> > to summarise the use of rats in toxicity testing is not relevant to humans.
> > Year and place: 2001, HLS Cambridge (UK)
> > Experiment 5: HLS test anti-wrinkle and muscular treatment, Botox, on rats
> > and rabbits. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
> > Experiment 6: HLS test naturally-occuring fragrance 'coumarin' on rats and
> > mice - again. Year and place: 2003, HLS Cambridge (UK)
> > Experiment 10: HLS test a food preservative (LAE) on rats and rabbits. Year
> > and place: 2004, HLS Cambridge (UK)
>
> > Experiment 2 & 6Comarin is used in the pharmaceutic industry either directly
> > or as an ingredient.
> > Experiment 5: HLS test anti-wrinkle and muscular treatment, Botox can be
> > used for
> > Experiment 10 is clearly shown as a food additive and not a cosmetic
>
> > So in summary you have listed 11 experiments. more than half occurred
> > outside the UK.
> > 3 are food additives
> > 1 is a food product
> > 1 is petrol and while it is used in the cosmetic industry it does have one
> > or two other, minor, secondary uses....
> > 1 is paraffin wax, occassionally used in candles, cleaning products, medical
> > uses as well ascosmetics
> > 1 is a dietary supplement.
> > 1 is an industrial coolant used in power transformers.
> > 1 is botox used as a cosmetic treatment but also used to treat muscle
> > disorders, spasms, rigity, motor neurone disease and migrane.
>
> > Could you please quote the experiments that prompted you to post :
>
> > What is it about, "While cosmetic testing is supposedly banned
> > in the UK, here we see products which are largely used incosmetics
> > still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLSs", You do not
> > understand?
>
> > Which experiments fulfil the criteria of "cosmetic testing is supposedly
> > banned in the UK"?
>
> The use of any animal experiments related in any way whatsoever to the
> UK cosmetic industry.
>
> I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
> in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
That's odd, Doug. You see, when I asked you the same question in an
earlier thread, you replied: "All existing ingredients should remain
and only new ones should not be tested on animals and modern
alternative testing methods used instead. It would be pointless to
dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for human benefit
that has been allowed to continue up until the present".
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/b77ab12085ac39e2
What has prompted this change of mind, Doug? Have your SHAC mates now
told you what to think? Would you also apply it to the pharmaceutical
industry i.e. all new medicines can only contain ingredients that have
never been tested on animals?
AndyW
---
So should we ban the sale of Vaseline?
It has cosmetic uses and has been animal tested.
What about Haemorroid cream?
It is commonly used to tighten the skin around the eyes as a cosmetic
treatment and has been tested on animals
What soaps do you use?
If they are based on palm oil, groundnut oil, olive oil or just about any
natural oil (and certainly most synthetic oils) then they have been tested
on animals. Or do you not use soap?
What about ethanol used as a carrier for many perfumes, skin cleansers and
deoderants? Almsot the whole range of alcohols have been animal tested.
Should they be banned?
Let's look at a hypothetical case of an aromatic that has been tested on
animals and is used in a face cream. Following your criteria above it should
be banned.
Supposing it is also used to make a foodstuff. Should that foodstuff be
banned?
No what happens if it is an oil used in the same face cream that is also
used in cooking. Should it be banned?
Andy
AndyW
news:f555cd5c-856d-4e1d...@q36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
That's odd, Doug. You see, when I asked you the same question in an
earlier thread, you replied: "All existing ingredients should remain
and only new ones should not be tested on animals and modern
alternative testing methods used instead. It would be pointless to
dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for human benefit
that has been allowed to continue up until the present".
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/b77ab12085ac39e2
What has prompted this change of mind, Doug? Have your SHAC mates now
told you what to think? Would you also apply it to the pharmaceutical
industry i.e. all new medicines can only contain ingredients that have
never been tested on animals?
------
I suspect that he would accept that stance with a few minor exceptions......
ie all the drugs that he needs to take.
Everything else should be banned.
We all witnessed the breathtaking wriggling and rationalisation that
occurred when he tried to justify his use of pharmaceuticals.
Andy
BrianW
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:728f47ab-40cd-47cf...@s11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 10:01 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
> The use of any animal experiments related in any way whatsoever to the
> UK cosmetic industry.
>
> I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
> in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
> Otherwise it is a complete phoney which deliberately evades the law
> via an obvious loophole.
>
> ---
>
> So should we ban the sale of Vaseline?
> It has cosmetic uses and has been animal tested.
>
> What about Haemorroid cream?
> It is commonly used to tighten the skin around the eyes as a cosmetic
> treatment and has been tested on animals
>
> What soaps do you use?
> If they are based on palm oil, groundnut oil, olive oil or just about any
> natural oil (and certainly most synthetic oils) then they have been tested
> on animals. Or do you not use soap?
As if you need to ask?
> What about ethanol used as a carrier for many perfumes, skin cleansers and
> deoderants? Almsot the whole range of alcohols have been animal tested.
> Should they be banned?
>
> Let's look at a hypothetical case of an aromatic that has been tested on
> animals and is used in a face cream. Following your criteria above it should
> be banned.
> Supposing it is also used to make a foodstuff. Should that foodstuff be
> banned?
> No what happens if it is an oil used in the same face cream that is also
> used in cooking. Should it be banned?
Hey, whoah, you are expecting Duhg to propose a coherent position.
Dung reserves the right to change his mind halfway through a post, let
alone from day to day. Be fair, now.
NotMe
> I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
> in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
> Otherwise it is a complete phoney which deliberately evades the law
> via an obvious loophole.
Supposing the chemical dihydrogen monoxide which has for years been
used in the cosmetics industry finds a use in the pharmaceutical
industry. dihydrogen monoxide is then tested on rats to see if there
is an adverse affect. Would that then stop it being used in any way in
the cosmetics industry?
Seeing as dihydrogen monoxide has been tested on animals, probably on
many occasions, will you stop using it?
> Seems to me now that the supposed animal-free testing of cosmetics is
> presented as an obvious whitewash by our government to try to quiet an
> ever increasing opposition to animal testing.
No, it is a smoke screen created by your anarchist mates telling you
what to do. They are just trying to pull the wool over your eyes so
that you sprout their cause.
NotMe
> What soaps do you use?
> If they are based on palm oil, groundnut oil, olive oil or just about any
> natural oil (and certainly most synthetic oils) then they have been tested
> on animals. Or do you not use soap?
Doug uses soap, he is famous for it.
> No what happens if it is an oil used in the same face cream that is also
> used in cooking. Should it be banned?
I believe dihydrogen monoxide is often used in food preparation, and
has been tested on animals.
Should dihydrogen monoxide be banned from food use Doug?
Bilbo Warble
>> No what happens if it is an oil used in the same face cream that is also
>> used in cooking. Should it be banned?
>
> I believe dihydrogen monoxide is often used in food preparation, and
> has been tested on animals.
> Should dihydrogen monoxide be banned from food use Doug?
Nasty shit, killed Leah Betts.
BrianW
> On Feb 16, 1:31 pm, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
> > What soaps do you use?
> > If they are based on palm oil, groundnut oil, olive oil or just about any
> > natural oil (and certainly most synthetic oils) then they have been tested
> > on animals. Or do you not use soap?
>
> Doug uses soap, he is famous for it.
Point of order: Doug "recycles" soap
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.people.consumers/msg/77e989dddeee10b5?hl=en
AndyW
> Doug uses soap, he is famous for it.
Point of order: Doug "recycles" soap
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.people.consumers/msg/77e989dddeee10b5?hl=en
----
I just steal mine from hotels. :-)
Andy
Doug
Doug
Doug
pretending to. All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
animals and why are you and others still evading the points about
imported cosmetics and ingredients?
Doug.
AndyW
What is it about 'Recently' you do not understand?
---
I understand it fully but it appears that you do not.
You said (and I quote):
"I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed in the
UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients."
Note "Recently manufactured". Not recently tested, recently improved or
recently developed.
If I buy a jar of vaseline from the supermarket that was "recently
manufactured" (say in the last few weeks or months depending on the speed of
the supply chain) it has still been tested on animals.
Therefore since it has been "Recently manufactured" and is not "completely
free of any animal tested ingredients" should it be banned?
What about olive oil and the other items above?
Or is it perhaps just the case that you were wrong
Andy
Doug
Again, what about imported cosmetics and their constituents? Is anyone
on this list ever going to answer this, or will you all finally admit
there is a gaping hole in the law regarding animal tested cosmetics?
Doug.
BrianW
Right, gotcha. So new cosmetics should not contain water, right,
because water has been tested on animals? Nor must they contain any
currently used soap or detergent, mineral oil, vaseline etc?
And I'll ask you again - would the same rule apply to pharmaceuticals?
> and why are you and others still evading the points about
> imported cosmetics and ingredients?
I'm not. The ban on animal testing in relation to cosmetics (which
you have not managed to show is being broken in the UK) never
purported to extend to imported goods.
AndyW
------
Doug you clearly said:
> > The use of any animal experiments related in any way whatsoever to the
> > UK cosmetic industry.
>
> > I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
> > in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
Please point out the bit where you said NEW cosmetics? Recently manufactured
is not the same as a newly developed product.
To answer your question. Yes New cosmetics should be covered. We should not
be importing cosmetics that have been tested on animals but not necessarily
for ingredients largely because of the questions I have asked but you have
not answered fully.
It is a matter of drawing a line in a very grey area and the definition of
cosmetic ingredients and how long ago they were tested is a very difficult
one.
Example do we ban cosmetics that use olive oil that has been tested on
animals? If so do we do it for cooking oil?
If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
Andy
AndyW
On Feb 17, 8:12 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> ---
>
> I understand it fully but it appears that you do not.
>
> You said (and I quote):
> "I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed in
> the
> UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients."
>
> Note "Recently manufactured". Not recently tested, recently improved or
> recently developed.
>
> If I buy a jar of vaseline from the supermarket that was "recently
> manufactured" (say in the last few weeks or months depending on the speed
> of
> the supply chain) it has still been tested on animals.
> Therefore since it has been "Recently manufactured" and is not "completely
> free of any animal tested ingredients" should it be banned?
>
> What about olive oil and the other items above?
>
> Or is it perhaps just the case that you were wrong
>
OK Mr Nitpicker, how about 'Any NEW cosmetic'? Does that satisfy you?
Again, what about imported cosmetics and their constituents? Is anyone
on this list ever going to answer this, or will you all finally admit
there is a gaping hole in the law regarding animal tested cosmetics?
----
Nit picker? Really?
You post a sentence that has a totally different meaning to the one that you
later claim and somehow I am a nitpicker?
I keep hearing the sound of shifting goalposts whenever you posts Doug.
The title of the post is clear. "More on the continuing animal testing of
cosmetics in the UK."
You quote a document to suport your claim that "While cosmetic testing is
supposedly banned in the UK, here we see products which are largely used in
cosmetics still being tested on vast numbers of animals at HLSs",
It is pointed out that almost everything in the document either took place
outside the UK or is not a cosmetic (eg petrol, food additives and
pharmaceuticals) you shift to animal testing of cosmetics outside the UK but
that have been imported into the UK.
Your arguement has shifted from the thread header. Maybe we need to either
change the header or get back to the header subject.
I will answer you questions although you seem to avoid answering mine.
If we ban the testing in the UK then we should ban products that have been
tested elsewhere, however we have the problem of drawing the line on what
has been tested, what testing was, how long ago is it when line is drawn,
what type of testing it was etc.
It is not a simple matter.
Where do you draw the line on animal testing and ingredients?
How long ago does it need to be for the testing on animals to be permitted?
If we use an ingredient in the UK that is tested abroad recently should we
stop using it?
What happens if the testing was completel independent?
Andy
Doug
alternative word.
>
> To answer your question. Yes New cosmetics should be covered.
>
>
> We should not
> be importing cosmetics that have been tested on animals but not necessarily
> for ingredients largely because of the questions I have asked but you have
> not answered fully.
>
that have been tested on animals, which makes a nonsense of the law?
>
> It is a matter of drawing a line in a very grey area and the definition of
> cosmetic ingredients and how long ago they were tested is a very difficult
> one.
>
>
> Example do we ban cosmetics that use olive oil that has been tested on
> animals? If so do we do it for cooking oil?
>
>
> If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
again and again.
From the source...
"All of the products HLS tested in these latest documents have already
been tested on animals in previous years, are already circulating on
the market, and used routinely by humans on a daily basis. Despite
this, thousands of animals have been poisoned and killed inside HLS to
pass a product as ‘safe’, using a method of testing that HLS
themselves admit cannot even be applied to humans (see experiments 2
and 11)..."
AndyW
On Feb 17, 9:28 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> Please point out the bit where you said NEW cosmetics? Recently
> manufactured
> is not the same as a newly developed product.
>
As I said, you were nitpicking.and I have now provided you with an
alternative word.
No nitpicking is argueing over trifles.
As you wrote it you were dealing "recently manufactured" not "Recently
developed" completely changes the meaning of the discussion.
> We should not
> be importing cosmetics that have been tested on animals but not
> necessarily
> for ingredients largely because of the questions I have asked but you have
> not answered fully.
>
)So you are now admitting that new cosmetics can contain ingredients
)that have been tested on animals, which makes a nonsense of the law?
I never said otherwise. To say that I am "now admitting" implies that I said
otherwise in the past.
Please quote the passage where I said otherwise?
> It is a matter of drawing a line in a very grey area and the definition of
> cosmetic ingredients and how long ago they were tested is a very difficult
> one.
>
)The grey area is obviously a loophole that is being freely exploited.
Not a loophole, just ver
> Example do we ban cosmetics that use olive oil that has been tested on
> animals? If so do we do it for cooking oil?
>
)A way should be found of not using that ingredient.
Evasion noted. This is not answering the questions.
Do we ban it. Either we allow it or we do not allow it. What about its use
as a cooking oil?
>
> If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
)Preferably. The worry is of course that it will be tested on animals
)again and again.
No.
Prefreably is not a valid term. Either we ban or we do not. Prefereable
intorduces more loopholes than it closes.
The law should be as clear as possible.
Where will you draw the line on allowing use of animal testing if it was
done sufficiently long ago?
Andy
BrianW
> > If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
> Preferably. The worry is of course that it will be tested on animals
> again and again.
I'll ask again, Doug - does the same principle apply to
pharmaceuticals?
Doug
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e65e6da3-07de-4023...@k9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 9:28 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:> Please point out the bit where you said NEW cosmetics? Recently
> > manufactured
> > is not the same as a newly developed product.
>
> As I said, you were nitpicking.and I have now provided you with an
> alternative word.
>
> No nitpicking is argueing over trifles.
> As you wrote it you were dealing "recently manufactured" not "Recently
> developed" completely changes the meaning of the discussion.
>
resolved.
>
> > We should not
> > be importing cosmetics that have been tested on animals but not
> > necessarily
> > for ingredients largely because of the questions I have asked but you have
> > not answered fully.
>
> )So you are now admitting that new cosmetics can contain ingredients
> )that have been tested on animals, which makes a nonsense of the law?
>
> I never said otherwise. To say that I am "now admitting" implies that I said
> otherwise in the past.
> Please quote the passage where I said otherwise?
>
>
> > It is a matter of drawing a line in a very grey area and the definition of
> > cosmetic ingredients and how long ago they were tested is a very difficult
> > one.
>
> )The grey area is obviously a loophole that is being freely exploited.
>
> Not a loophole, just ver
>
>
> > Example do we ban cosmetics that use olive oil that has been tested on
> > animals? If so do we do it for cooking oil?
>
> )A way should be found of not using that ingredient.
>
> Evasion noted. This is not answering the questions.
> Do we ban it. Either we allow it or we do not allow it. What about its use
> as a cooking oil?
>
>
>
> > If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
> )Preferably. The worry is of course that it will be tested on animals
> )again and again.
>
> No.
> Prefreably is not a valid term. Either we ban or we do not. Prefereable
> intorduces more loopholes than it closes.
> The law should be as clear as possible.
> Where will you draw the line on allowing use of animal testing if it was
> done sufficiently long ago?
>
my text and not dealt with it. Suggest that you learn how to use
Usenet properly.
Doug
about COSMETICS testing, see thread title. Maybe you are trying to
change the subject so as to confuse the issue?
AndyW
BrianW
> On Feb 17, 10:25 am, BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 17, 9:47 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > > If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
> > > Preferably. The worry is of course that it will be tested on animals
> > > again and again.
>
> > I'll ask again, Doug - does the same principle apply to
> > pharmaceuticals?
>
> Duh! It should be perfectly clear to you by now that this is only
> about COSMETICS testing, see thread title. Maybe you are trying to
> change the subject so as to confuse the issue?
Not at all, Doug. It's just that if the principle that no-one should
benefit from animal testing applies to cosmetics, it's difficult to
see why that principle shouldn't also apply to pharmaceuticals (and,
indeed, to everything else as well). So, I'll ask again (for about
the fifth time) - does the same principle apply to pharmaceuticals?
I really can't see why you won't answer this question, Doug. It's as
though you've got something to hide on the issue ...
AndyW
On Feb 17, 10:12 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e65e6da3-07de-4023...@k9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 9:28 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:> Please point out
> the bit where you said NEW cosmetics? Recently
> > manufactured
> > is not the same as a newly developed product.
>
> As I said, you were nitpicking.and I have now provided you with an
> alternative word.
>
> No nitpicking is argueing over trifles.
> As you wrote it you were dealing "recently manufactured" not "Recently
> developed" completely changes the meaning of the discussion.
>
)resolved.
Evasion noted.
You posted one phrase and claimed it meant something different and then have
a go at me for nit-picking.
> )So you are now admitting that new cosmetics can contain ingredients
> )that have been tested on animals, which makes a nonsense of the law?
>
> I never said otherwise. To say that I am "now admitting" implies that I
> said
> otherwise in the past.
> Please quote the passage where I said otherwise?
>
)Well I am glad we have cleared that up at least.
Evasion noted.
In what way does announcing that we have 'cleared that up' address the fact
that you have neither proven your point nor withdrawn it?
Please answer the question "Please quote the passage where I said
otherwise?"
Put up or at least have the honour to withdraw the statement.
>
> > It is a matter of drawing a line in a very grey area and the definition
> > of
> > cosmetic ingredients and how long ago they were tested is a very
> > difficult
> > one.
>
> )The grey area is obviously a loophole that is being freely exploited.
>
> Not a loophole, just ver
>
)What?
Sorry. Brain fart on my part.
I don't think that it is a loophole, it is a gaping grey area that is large
enough to drive a coach and horses through. Big fat ones.
Very poorly defined boundaries cause problems which is why I have asked you
where you would put the boundaries.
> > Example do we ban cosmetics that use olive oil that has been tested on
> > animals? If so do we do it for cooking oil?
>
> )A way should be found of not using that ingredient.
>
> Evasion noted. This is not answering the questions.
> Do we ban it. Either we allow it or we do not allow it. What about its use
> as a cooking oil?
>
)It is not an evasion it is an answer.
To what? Are you saying that we should not cook with olive oil or that we
should not use olive oil for cosmetics?
Can you be clear on this?
I asked two question, you gave one answer, does this answer apply to the
former, the latter or both?
> > If animal testing was carried out 100 years ago do we still ban it?
>
> )Preferably. The worry is of course that it will be tested on animals
> )again and again.
>
> No.
> Prefreably is not a valid term. Either we ban or we do not. Prefereable
> intorduces more loopholes than it closes.
> The law should be as clear as possible.
> Where will you draw the line on allowing use of animal testing if it was
> done sufficiently long ago?
>
)You have made a layout mess of your response and have deleted some of
)my text and not dealt with it. Suggest that you learn how to use
)Usenet properly.
I agree with your first point it is a bit of a mess, not your second, if you
feel that I have deleted anything that still needs addressed then please
accept my apologies and repost, and by way of the third I do know how to use
Usenet and have been using it for decades but for some reason your posts do
not format properly in reply. It does not happen with posts from real usenet
clients, just google groups.
I suspect that there is an issue with google group posting as I have used OE
for text NGs for years without a problem.
Andy
AndyW
On Feb 17, 10:25 am, BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll ask again, Doug - does the same principle apply to
>> pharmaceuticals?
>>
>Duh! It should be perfectly clear to you by now that this is only
>about COSMETICS testing, see thread title. Maybe you are trying to>
>change the subject so as to confuse the issue?
Given that your source documentation contains pharmaceutical testing in its
11 experiments and actually does not contain purely cosmetic experimentation
does make it valid.
You are the one who introduced the confusion by quoting 11 experiments that
purportedly were relevant to cosmetic testing but actually were
experimentation on food additives, dietary supplements, paraffin, wax,
pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs and petrol.
By limiting your arguement to purley COSMETICS testing you effectively
exclude you own source data.
The confusion of the issue lies with you I think unless you can explain why
your 11 experiments are relevant to cosmetics?
Which of the 11 experiments (testing food preservative, food additives,
paraffin wax, petrol, grape skins & seeds, industrial power transformer
coolant and dielectric, soya bean husks and a treatment for motor neurone
disease) were the ones that were relevant to your cosmetics testing
arguement?
Andy
BrianW
You forgot to add <tumbleweed>
Duhng doesn't deal with specifics.
BrianW
>
> news:441d5a3d-0a76-406f...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 1:12 pm, BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 12:36 pm, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > > The use of any animal experiments related in any way whatsoever to the
> > > UK cosmetic industry.
>
> > > I would also expect any cosmetic recently manufactured and marketed
> > > in the UK to be completely free of any animal tested ingredients.
>
> > That's odd, Doug. You see, when I asked you the same question in an
> > earlier thread, you replied: "All existing ingredients should remain
> > and only new ones should not be tested on animals and modern
> > alternative testing methods used instead. It would be pointless to
> > dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for human benefit
> > that has been allowed to continue up until the present".
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/b77ab12085ac39e2
>
> > What has prompted this change of mind, Doug? Have your SHAC mates now
> > told you what to think? Would you also apply it to the pharmaceutical
> > industry i.e. all new medicines can only contain ingredients that have
> > never been tested on animals?
>
> No change of mind. You obviously have a reading difficulty or are
> pretending to.
Er, no, Doug. Previously, you said "All existing ingredients should
remain and only new ones should not be tested on animals and modern
alternative testing methods used instead. It would be pointless to
dismiss out of hand all that animal torture purely for human benefit
that has been allowed to continue up until the present".
Now you are saying:
> All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
> animals and why are you and others still evading the points about
> imported cosmetics and ingredients?
In other words, you are now saying the exact opposite of what you said
only a few days ago. Do try to remember your position from day to
day, Doug.
Doug
still evading my question?
Doug.
Adrian
saying:
Because it quite blatantly IS. This, in itself, is your one area of utter
consistency - your unerring ability to flippety-floppety back and forth
whilst claiming no change. Then, when it gets too blatant for even you to
ignore, you change the subject completely, avoiding an existing thread
whilst starting several others, then complaining you're "too busy" to
answer...
> and why are you still evading my question?
There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and reality.
BrianW
Er, because it is, Doug. Try *reading* what you wrote. Initially,
you said "All existing ingredients should remain". Do you see that,
Doug? It means that anything which has already been tested on animals
should continue to be used.
Now you say "All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
animals". Do you see that, Doug? It means that anything which has
already been tested on animals should NOT continue to be used.
Do you understand now, Doug?
> and why are you
> still evading my question?
Already dealt with: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/ba9d4398097175d2
Now, how about answering my question: Does the same principle apply to
pharmaceuticals and food products i.e. should any ingredient which has
ever been tested on animals be banned from foods and pharma products?
The Revd
The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
Adrian
they were saying:
> On 18 Feb 2011 08:18:54 GMT, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>saying:
>>> and why are you still evading my question?
>>There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and reality.
> The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
Doug
>
> Now you say "All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
> animals". Do you see that, Doug? It means that anything which has
> already been tested on animals should NOT continue to be used.
>
should not contain ANYTHING that has previously been tested on
animals.
>
> Do you understand now, Doug?
>
>
> > and why are you
> > still evading my question?
>
> Already dealt with:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/ba9d4398097175d2
>
of cosmetics are allowed which have been previously tested on animals,
therefore the cosmetics legislation is a sham which pretends that
cosmetic testing is animal free when it is not.
>
> Now, how about answering my question: Does the same principle apply to
> pharmaceuticals and food products i.e. should any ingredient which has
> ever been tested on animals be banned from foods and pharma products?
>
in practice mandatory while that of cosmetics is not, or so we have
been led to believe.
Doug.
The Revd
Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
hypocrite? And how laughably you tried to justify it?
BrianW
Right. So you say that *existing ingredients* could continue to be
used, even if they've been tested on animals in the past.
> > Now you say "All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
> > animals". Do you see that, Doug? It means that anything which has
> > already been tested on animals should NOT continue to be used.
>
> Nope. What it means is that any brand spanking ****NEW**** cosmetic
> should not contain ANYTHING that has previously been tested on
> animals.
Oh, but now you say that *existing ingredients* could NOT be used (in
new products), if they've been tested on animals in the past. So
there's a blatant contradiction in your position, Doug. Perhaps you'd
better ask your mates at SHAC to tell you what you should really be
saying, because you haven't grasped it yet.
> > Do you understand now, Doug?
>
> The question now is, do you understand?
Yes, Doug, I understand that you are incapable of understanding basic
English and can't remember from day to day what you "think".
> > > and why are you
> > > still evading my question?
>
> > Already dealt with:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/ba9d4398097175d2
>
> Still not dealt with. What it clearly agrees with is that constituents
> of cosmetics are allowed which have been previously tested on animals,
> therefore the cosmetics legislation is a sham which pretends that
> cosmetic testing is animal free when it is not.
I'll clarify my stance for your benefit. At some point in the past
(I'm not sure of the exact year), the UK Parliament and/or the EU
decided that it is wrong to experiment on animals for development of
cosmetic products. Such experiments were therefore outlawed. You
have not been able to provide a single instance of such an experiment
taking place in the UK since the ban was introduced.
However, neither the UK Parliament nor the EU has any power to insist
that other countries ban animal testing for cosmetics. Such testing
may still continue in those countries - I don't know.
The legislation is therefore not a sham. It bans testing insofar as
the jurisdiction of the law-maker extends.
It would be, at the very least, a breach of advertising law to
describe an imported cosmetic product as "not tested on animals" if,
in fact it has been. Do you have any evidence that this happens?
Obviously, the law cannot undo all testing of ingredients which may
have taken place in the past. As you yourself said (before you
changed your "mind") "It would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all
that animal torture purely for human benefit that has been allowed to
continue up until the present". Therefore, cosmetic manufacturers can
continue to use ingredients which may in the past have been tested on
animals. However, they are not permitted to test a new ingredient, or
a new combination of ingredients, on animals. That is what the
legislation says. I think most people would understand that. Indeed,
I suspect most people would think it crazy to ban water, olive oil and
soap as ingredients of new cosmetic products, on the grounds that they
have been tested on animals in the past. How would you propose to
replace water, for example?
Incidentally, I'm highly amused at a self-declared anarchist wanting
to introduce a new law to outlaw virtually all new cosmetics.
> > Now, how about answering my question: Does the same principle apply to
> > pharmaceuticals and food products i.e. should any ingredient which has
> > ever been tested on animals be banned from foods and pharma products?
>
> The difference here is that the animal testing of pharmaceuticals is
> in practice mandatory while that of cosmetics is not, or so we have
> been led to believe.
I note that you carefully igored the reference to "food products".
Your answer is still awaited.
In respect of pharma products, you have said may times that you want
to change the rules, so your poor quality cop-out doesn't help you.
So I'll ask again. If the rules were changed, would you want to ban
the use of any ingredient that has ever been tested on animals in any
NEW pharma product?
I'm waiting, Doug.
BrianW
> The Revd <peeling...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > On 18 Feb 2011 08:18:54 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >>saying:
> >>> and why are you still evading my question?
> >>There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and reality.
> > The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
>
> What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
I thought at first that "The Revd" was referring to Doug's
hypocrisy ...
Adrian
they were saying:
>>>>> and why are you still evading my question?
>>>>There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and
>>>>reality.
>>> The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
>>What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
> hypocrite?
I've not tried to evade anything.
> And how laughably you tried to justify it?
You mean how patiently I tried to explain it to you?
Adrian
they were saying:
>> What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
> I thought at first that "The Revd" was referring to Doug's hypocrisy ...
They're two of a kind.
The Revd
I'm referring to Adrienne's hypocrisy. It appears he likes to dish it
out but can't take it.
The Revd
There's plenty of *your* kind here, sunshine.
The Revd
>The Revd <peeli...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>>>>> and why are you still evading my question?
>
>>>>>There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and
>>>>>reality.
>
>>>> The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
>
>>>What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
>
>> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
>> hypocrite?
>
>I've not tried to evade anything.
Liar.
>> And how laughably you tried to justify it?
>
>You mean how patiently I tried to explain it to you?
I mean how you laughably tried to justify snipping all but one
sentence? LOL
BrianW
I see. Are you going to join in the Doug-baiting, now you are here?
The Revd
He's the cyclist prat, isn't he? Why not!
Adrian
they were saying:
>>> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
>>> hypocrite?
>>I've not tried to evade anything.
> Liar.
<shrug> The proof is there for anybody to see.
So - please - feel free to "remind" me of it. Because I know exactly who
it'll prove right.
The Revd
>The Revd <peeli...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>>> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
>>>> hypocrite?
>
>>>I've not tried to evade anything.
>
>> Liar.
>
><shrug> The proof is there for anybody to see.
The proof of you lying, yes, absolutely.
>So - please - feel free to "remind" me of it. Because I know exactly who
>it'll prove right.
<shrug> Have you forgotten your reply where you snipped virtually
everything because you didn't have any answers, liar?
This is how I replied, feel free to look at the preceding post, liar:
On 17 Feb 2011 15:08:37 GMT, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Revd <peeli...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>> Bear in mind that lying to the police could lead to a charge of PCJ. LOL
>
>Just as well nobody's lied, eh?
Nobody has asked the question. Yet.
Wow! You've snipped almost everything. New depths of evasion!
Congrats.
Adrian
they were saying:
>>>>> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
>>>>> hypocrite?
>>So - please - feel free to "remind" me of it. Because I know exactly who
>>it'll prove right.
> <shrug> Have you forgotten your reply where you snipped virtually
> everything because you didn't have any answers, liar?
I must've done, yes. I distinctly recall snipping all the irrelevant
bollocks, though.
BrianW
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:53:29 -0800 (PST), BrianW
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 18, 3:11 pm, The Revd <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:05:10 -0800 (PST), BrianW
>
> >> <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 18, 12:18 pm, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The Revd <peeling...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> >> >> they were saying:
>
> >> >> > On 18 Feb 2011 08:18:54 GMT, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> >> >>saying:
> >> >> >>> and why are you still evading my question?
> >> >> >>There's only one person evading anything around here. You, and reality.
> >> >> > The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
>
> >> >> What passes for your mind is very easily boggled.
>
> >> >I thought at first that "The Revd" was referring to Doug's
> >> >hypocrisy ...
>
> >> I'm referring to Adrienne's hypocrisy. It appears he likes to dish it
> >> out but can't take it.-
>
> >I see. Are you going to join in the Doug-baiting, now you are here?
>
> He's the cyclist prat, isn't he? Why not!
He's that, and much much more. He's the anti-car, anti 4x4 campaigner
who used to drive a 14 mpg Land Rover. He's the anti-air travel
campaigner who used to go on his holidays to Morocco. He's the anti-
animal testing campaigner who happily takes medicines developed using
animal tests. In short, he is a lying hypocrite of the first order,
who deserves all he gets.
BrianW
> The Revd <peeling...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
Chaps,
Can we stick to arguing with Mr Bollen in this thread, and argue about
other stuff elsewhere?
Ta.
Adrian
they were saying:
> Chaps,
>
> Can we stick to arguing with Mr Bollen in this thread, and argue about
> other stuff elsewhere?
>
> Ta.
Terribly sorry, Sir.
Oi - Bollen. Will you PLEASE stop diverting oxygen from more worthwhile
purposes? Thank you.
Steve Firth
Don't forget he also incites others to take part in violent protest but
he's too much of a coward to take part himself.
The Revd
Ah, say no more...clearly someone suffering from a sexual
disorientation.
> He's the anti-
>animal testing campaigner who happily takes medicines developed using
>animal tests. In short, he is a lying hypocrite of the first order,
>who deserves all he gets.
Hypocrisy seems to be the trademark of such people....turning up for a
Reclaim the Streets march not on foot, not by bicycle, but in
someone's Land Rover.
The Revd
>The Revd <peeli...@invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>
>>>>>> Do you want me to remind you what you evaded in another thread,
>>>>>> hypocrite?
>
>>>So - please - feel free to "remind" me of it. Because I know exactly who
>>>it'll prove right.
>
>> <shrug> Have you forgotten your reply where you snipped virtually
>> everything because you didn't have any answers, liar?
>
>I must've done, yes.
Yes, liar, you did.
> I distinctly recall snipping all the irrelevant
>bollocks, though.
Is that how you charcaterise those things you have no answer for?
<snigger>
BrianW
There's just so much to say about him. He is, after all, a mean-
spirited, bitter, vindictive, hypocritical, dishonest,
terrorist-supporting, Stalin-loving, anarchist-pretending, holocaust-
denying, ex-4x4 driving yet now anti-car, Morocco-visiting yet now
anti-foreign travel, ex-country dwelling yet now believing everyone
should live in London, misogynistic, racist, senile, stupid, Gollum-
resembling and ignorant old turd.
He also has his bad points.
BrianW
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:17:47 -0800 (PST), BrianW
>
>
>
>
>
I don't think he does that (any more), but it is likely that he'd turn
up on an illegal e-bike. And then complain about law-breaking by
others.
The Revd
BrianW
No answer, Doug? I note you've had time to start a new thread,
"Vulnerable victim punched in the face by motorist", yet you haven't
been able to find time to answer my questions. It couldn't be that
you are now resorting to DougSilence, could it?
Tony Dragon
I am not resorting to DougSilence.
I start so many threads that it impossible to answer all the questions
asked of me.
Because of this I select which questions I answer.
I will not answer questions, where the only possible answer would prove
me wrong.
I will not answer question, where I would be proved wrong after the answer.
I will not answer questions, if I have no adequate answer.
I will answer questions, if I think I can twist the answer to prove my
point.
I will answer questions, by raising other questions that have nothing to
do with the OP
I will answer questions, by quoting 'reliable' sources that are not
reliable.
I will answer questions, if I think that the original question has been
forgotten.
I will answer questions, if it has taken me a while to compile an answer.
-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
BrianW
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:43:59 -0800 (PST), BrianW
>
>
>
>
>
Nah, Gollum is in a league of his own.
The Revd
Sounds like the ideal victim for a hate campaign.
Tony Dragon
No point, he would tell you that as he is a 'real cyclist' he is already
hated by everybody in this car-centric society.
Doug
yours for loosing an argument by pretending you are merely baiting?
Doug.
Doug
> On Feb 18, 12:33 pm, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:53 am, BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 7:52 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:28 am, "AndyW" <A...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:441d5a3d-0a76-406f...@w19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Now you say "All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
> > > animals". Do you see that, Doug? It means that anything which has
> > > already been tested on animals should NOT continue to be used.
>
> > Nope. What it means is that any brand spanking ****NEW**** cosmetic
> > should not contain ANYTHING that has previously been tested on
> > animals.
>
> Oh, but now you say that *existing ingredients* could NOT be used (in
> new products), if they've been tested on animals in the past. So
> there's a blatant contradiction in your position, Doug. Perhaps you'd
> better ask your mates at SHAC to tell you what you should really be
> saying, because you haven't grasped it yet.
>
>
> > > Do you understand now, Doug?
>
> > The question now is, do you understand?
>
> Yes, Doug, I understand that you are incapable of understanding basic
> English and can't remember from day to day what you "think".
>
>
> > > > and why are you
> > > > still evading my question?
>
>
> > Still not dealt with. What it clearly agrees with is that constituents
> > of cosmetics are allowed which have been previously tested on animals,
> > therefore the cosmetics legislation is a sham which pretends that
> > cosmetic testing is animal free when it is not.
>
> I'll clarify my stance for your benefit. At some point in the past
> (I'm not sure of the exact year), the UK Parliament and/or the EU
> decided that it is wrong to experiment on animals for development of
> cosmetic products. Such experiments were therefore outlawed. You
> have not been able to provide a single instance of such an experiment
> taking place in the UK since the ban was introduced.
>
that there is an anomaly in the law, which is that new cosmetics as a
whole are not tested on animals but they are still allowed to contain
constituents that have been tested on animals, which makes the law
ridiculous. Get it?
>
> However, neither the UK Parliament nor the EU has any power to insist
> that other countries ban animal testing for cosmetics. Such testing
> may still continue in those countries - I don't know.
>
>
> The legislation is therefore not a sham. It bans testing insofar as
> the jurisdiction of the law-maker extends.
>
>
> It would be, at the very least, a breach of advertising law to
> describe an imported cosmetic product as "not tested on animals" if,
> in fact it has been. Do you have any evidence that this happens?
>
>
> Obviously, the law cannot undo all testing of ingredients which may
> have taken place in the past. As you yourself said (before you
> changed your "mind") "It would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all
> that animal torture purely for human benefit that has been allowed to
> continue up until the present". Therefore, cosmetic manufacturers can
> continue to use ingredients which may in the past have been tested on
> animals. However, they are not permitted to test a new ingredient, or
> a new combination of ingredients, on animals. That is what the
> legislation says. I think most people would understand that. Indeed,
> I suspect most people would think it crazy to ban water, olive oil and
> soap as ingredients of new cosmetic products, on the grounds that they
> have been tested on animals in the past. How would you propose to
> replace water, for example?
>
cosmetics still contain ingredients which have been tested on animals.
> Incidentally, I'm highly amused at a self-declared anarchist wanting
> to introduce a new law to outlaw virtually all new cosmetics.
>
See above. All that is required is that all new cosmetics must not
contain any ingredients that have been tested on animals. Presumably,
pure water is OK as any testing of water is only to check for
contaminants and they can almost certainly be revealed anyway using
modern instrumentation and not animals. Can you provide any evidence
that water has been tested on animals?
>
> > > Now, how about answering my question: Does the same principle apply to
> > > pharmaceuticals and food products i.e. should any ingredient which has
> > > ever been tested on animals be banned from foods and pharma products?
>
> > The difference here is that the animal testing of pharmaceuticals is
> > in practice mandatory while that of cosmetics is not, or so we have
> > been led to believe.
>
> I note that you carefully igored the reference to "food products".
> Your answer is still awaited.
>
Again, testing of food products is mandatory.
>
> In respect of pharma products, you have said may times that you want
> to change the rules, so your poor quality cop-out doesn't help you.
> So I'll ask again. If the rules were changed, would you want to ban
> the use of any ingredient that has ever been tested on animals in any
> NEW pharma product?
>
> I'm waiting, Doug.
>
That'd all you ever do, ask questions and wait while providing no
answers of your own. Don't you have any opinions or are you too scared
to reveal them in public here?
My own opinion is that new technology and techniques have now made
cruel animal testing totally unnecessary and redundant but for reasons
known only to itself the State wishes to retain it and persecute
animal rights activists instead. My guess though is that animal
testing is cheaper than other forms of testing, just for now but maybe
not for much longer.
-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
"There is no way in the world to extrapolate animals to human
circumstance. Animal research is cruel to the animal, dangerous to the
public and misleading to the scientist". Dr G Dettman
BrianW
> > > > Er, because it is, Doug. Try *reading* what you wrote. Initially,
> > > > you said "All existing ingredients should remain". Do you see that,
> > > > Doug? It means that anything which has already been tested on animals
> > > > should continue to be used.
>
> > > Yep.
>
> > Right. So you say that *existing ingredients* could continue to be
> > used, even if they've been tested on animals in the past.
>
> Yep, as long as they are not in any NEW product.
Ah, right. Funny how you didn't say that at the time. Indeed, you
said "It would be pointless to dismiss out of hand all that animal
torture purely for human benefit that has been allowed to continue up
until the present".
> > > > Now you say "All NEW cosmetics should not contain anything tested on
> > > > animals". Do you see that, Doug? It means that anything which has
> > > > already been tested on animals should NOT continue to be used.
>
> > > Nope. What it means is that any brand spanking ****NEW**** cosmetic
> > > should not contain ANYTHING that has previously been tested on
> > > animals.
>
> > Oh, but now you say that *existing ingredients* could NOT be used (in
> > new products), if they've been tested on animals in the past. So
> > there's a blatant contradiction in your position, Doug. Perhaps you'd
> > better ask your mates at SHAC to tell you what you should really be
> > saying, because you haven't grasped it yet.
>
> Its you who have failed to grasp. Try harder.
Yes, Doug. In future, I'll remember to imply words like "as long as
they are not in any NEW product" into anything you say. Thanks for
the help.
> > > > > and why are you
> > > > > still evading my question?
>
> > > > Already dealt with:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/msg/ba9d4398097175d2
>
> > > Still not dealt with. What it clearly agrees with is that constituents
> > > of cosmetics are allowed which have been previously tested on animals,
> > > therefore the cosmetics legislation is a sham which pretends that
> > > cosmetic testing is animal free when it is not.
>
> > I'll clarify my stance for your benefit. At some point in the past
> > (I'm not sure of the exact year), the UK Parliament and/or the EU
> > decided that it is wrong to experiment on animals for development of
> > cosmetic products. Such experiments were therefore outlawed. You
> > have not been able to provide a single instance of such an experiment
> > taking place in the UK since the ban was introduced.
>
> What I have provided, and what you still are unable to understand, is
> that there is an anomaly in the law, which is that new cosmetics as a
> whole are not tested on animals but they are still allowed to contain
> constituents that have been tested on animals, which makes the law
> ridiculous. Get it?
Er, Doug, I fuly understand all that you say. I disagree with your
proposed course of action, but entirely agree with your analysis.
I always did agree with that, Doug.
> > Incidentally, I'm highly amused at a self-declared anarchist wanting
> > to introduce a new law to outlaw virtually all new cosmetics.
>
> See above. All that is required is that all new cosmetics must not
> contain any ingredients that have been tested on animals. Presumably,
> pure water is OK as any testing of water is only to check for
> contaminants and they can almost certainly be revealed anyway using
> modern instrumentation and not animals. Can you provide any evidence
> that water has been tested on animals?
You really like to make yourself a hostage to fortune, don't you
Doug? Of course water has been tested on animals - for assessment of
hyponatraemia amongst other things. Here's an example, Doug:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8236628
So, should water be banned from all new cosmetics, Doug?
> > > > Now, how about answering my question: Does the same principle apply to
> > > > pharmaceuticals and food products i.e. should any ingredient which has
> > > > ever been tested on animals be banned from foods and pharma products?
>
> > > The difference here is that the animal testing of pharmaceuticals is
> > > in practice mandatory while that of cosmetics is not, or so we have
> > > been led to believe.
>
> > I note that you carefully igored the reference to "food products".
> > Your answer is still awaited.
>
> Again, testing of food products is mandatory.
So? Please answer the question, Doug.
> > In respect of pharma products, you have said may times that you want
> > to change the rules, so your poor quality cop-out doesn't help you.
> > So I'll ask again. If the rules were changed, would you want to ban
> > the use of any ingredient that has ever been tested on animals in any
> > NEW pharma product?
>
> > I'm waiting, Doug.
>
> That'd all you ever do, ask questions and wait while providing no
> answers of your own. Don't you have any opinions or are you too scared
> to reveal them in public here?
Au contraire, Mr Bollen, I did reveal my opinions, as set out in the
text above.
> My own opinion is that new technology and techniques have now made
> cruel animal testing totally unnecessary and redundant but for reasons
> known only to itself the State wishes to retain it and persecute
> animal rights activists instead. My guess though is that animal
> testing is cheaper than other forms of testing, just for now but maybe
> not for much longer.
Your refusal to answer the question noted, Doug.
BrianW
Yes
> or is this merely an excuse of
> yours for loosing an argument by pretending you are merely baiting?
No. I think I've established in this thread, yet again, that you are
a lying weasel, Gollum.