Conference misery::feline_v1

    I just noticed that I entered .0 exactly 24 hours after the note I
    extracted was entered into the CATALOGS conference.  Amazing...!

							-- Nina

    During lunch I was listening to the radio station called WZOU 94.5.
     This afternoon you can call in and voice your opinion about laboratory
    experiments on animals.  their number is (617)931-1945.  Let's all
    call and voice our opinions!!
    
    Holly
    
    

    I wish there was a symbol for cruelty-free products that manufacturers
    would use on the labels.  Are you listening, somebody?
    

    RE.4
    There is only one product that I have seen that specifically sates
    that it does not use experimnets on Animals which is AUBREY, they
    havve a line of shampoos, skin care etc.
    fran
    

    Yes, Gillette is a GREAT offender of animal experimentation.
    Both the Framingham Humane Society and CEASE have boycotted
    Gillette (I know - my daughter was one of the boycotters
    from Framingham). I believe CEASE (Colition to End Animal Suffering
    and Abuse) boycotts it frequently. CEASE is becoming
    very active and a powerful force in influencing state house
    affairs. Are any reader of the notes file CEASE members? If anyone
    would lke more info on CEASE I'd be VERY happy to supply it. You
    may want to become a member.
    
    CEASE also publishes lists of products not tested on animals.
    Actually the list is quite long - pages long. I for one
    use shampoos by Nature's Gate which has no animal testing/no animal
    by-products. (Paul Penders make-up is another testing free product
    but there are several other brands which I think are much better).
    I also use Mill Creek products which I like very much. 
    I can  get the list which ranges from make-up to household cleansers, 
    to personal hygiene products. My daughter
    took it to school with her (in Cambridge) so she can bring it home
    on her vacation (April 18th) and I can post it. For sooner
    data, you could call CEASE (617) 628-9030   -  Somerville.
    
    CEASE sends our Dog Officer brochures on results of animal testing
    and she send them to me, I in turn give them to my daughter who
    distributes them at her college- along with impending legislation
    regarding animal rights/experimentations.
    
    Animal testing is a VERY HOT BUTTON with me. Anytime a product says
    "New, Improved....." implies that it has been tested on animals.
    The tests are frequently painful, repetitious, and unnecessary. 
    
    I'll be real happy to provide any CEASE info I can.
    
    Pat
    
    

    Try reading the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Food, Drug
    and Cosmetics Act, and several other pieces of Federal regulation
    aimed at keeping consumers from exposure to injurious substances. 

    Re: .7
    
    I'm not sure what tyou mean Frank.  I do know that a lot of the
    tesing on animals that cosmetic companies do is not required by
    law.  In particular, I think the infamous test that measures the
    amount of a substance that will kill 50% of the test animals is
    not.
    

    Thanks for the info. on available alternative product lines...If
    we all start asking for them at our drugstores and markets, eventually
    they'll get the hint to carry these lines.
    
    I get sick in the morning if I even SEE a Gillette razor.  I tried
    to explain the moral scenario to my sister, but she didn't want
    to hear it.  ("I LIKE that kind!)  That's the trouble -- Most people
    DON'T want to hear it.  If they throw out the appeal letter, the
    problem doesn't exist.
    
    When I worked in the HLO Employment Group, I was SOOOO tempted to
    throw out resumes of anyone who has worked at Gillette.  ;-)
    
    I'm not a member of CEASE (not yet anyway), but so many of the groups
    I try to support (PETA, NEAVS, National Animal Protection Fund,
    National Humane Education Society (?), International Fund for Animal
    Welfare, and so many others) have been active for years trying to alleviate
    animal suffering.  Let's hope this is their (our) decade!
    
    Maureen

    Not all animal testing-free  products are currently available
    at local stores - probably because people don't ask for them.
    I live in Framingham, and therefore get some of my products
    at Bread and Circus in Wellesley, and at the Natural Food Store
    in the Natick Mall. My daughter sends away for some of her products.
    
    PETA, which Maureen referenced, (People for the Ethical Treatment
    of Animals), put out a list of Gillette products which include:
    Soft & Dry, Right Guard, Dry Idea, Image Body Spray, Foamy Shaving
    Creme,Atra, Face Saver, Daisy, Trac II, Good News, Gillette Swival,
    Silkience, White Rain, Mink Difference, The Dry Look, Tame, Toni
    Perms, Aapri, Jafra, Paper Mate Pens, Flair pens, S.T. Dupont pens,
    Liquid Paper (White Out), and Correction FLuids. These are just
    Gillette products- but there are 1000's of other products too-
    Avon, Beatrice, Elizabeth Arden, Maybelline, Johnson & Johnson,
    Proctor and Gamble. 
    
    The White-Out test is -  how much White-out can go into 
    a rabbit's eye before he goes blind (how many times have YOU tried 
    putting so much White-Out into your eye before you have gone blind??). 
    Also the LD test is - how much White-Out can a rabbit ingest before
    it dies. (How many people do you know drink White-Out?)
    
    The problem is that some tests are unnecessary and some are repeated
    after results have been confirmed by testing already done.
    Also, they can be extremely painful and not administered with a
    pain-killer. 
    
    It is REAL hard to break away from using these common products because
    they are so readily available everywhere we shop. But some of the
    natural products are better for us anyway - whether or not a person
    is concerned with testing - because there are no chemicals in them.
    Nature's Gate shampoo smells great (at least **I** think so), and
    while its conditioner looks disgusting it is just as good as its
    shampoo.
    
    Sorry to have gone on and one. This "notes" really gets to me.
    
    Pat

    LD-50
    =====
    
    Lethal Dose - 50%
    
    The dose at which  50% of the test subjects die.
    
    Results where >50% of the animals die, means the dose being
    tested is 'lethal'.    When <50% of the animals die, the
    dose is considered non-lethal. 
    
    This is essentially what the LD-50 test is all about.  
    
    Donna
    
    p.s.  I hope Frank will correct me if I've misrepresented
          or misinterpreted LD-50.
    

    Products marketed in the US have to be safe for the cusomer (= people).
     Some signs of toxic resonses are hard to quantitate unfortunately
    death is easy to quantitate.  The LD50 was developed as a "standard"
    test for comparing the relative (acute) toxicity of one material
    with another.  It is the dose which kills 50% of the rats or mice
    given the material in a given time frame.  Below the LD50 the material
    may well be lethal but to a smaller percentage, e.g., LD10.  The
    test is being phased out in favor of range tests which require far
    fewer animals.  Eye and skin irritation tests are usually done in
    rabbits.  I have never seen a protocol to determine a dose which
    will blind an animal in seventeen years in the field.  On occasions
    a material will unexpectedly cause a severe reaction and pain in
    the rabbits eye at which point the protocol requires killing the
    animal with a euthanesia agent.  If a material has certain physicial
    properties which make it highly likely to cause severe damage it
    is automatically labelled as an irritant or corrosive and the testing
    is omitted.  I don't like to see an animal suffer but If the choice
    comes down to a rabbit's or my seven year old daughter's eye for
    a reaction the rabbit loses.
    
    I don't even want to consider the attorney's impassioned plea to
    a jury when a person using an untested product suffers injury. 
    The liabilty is going to be sky-high.
    
    Frank - who has been on all sides of this fence already 

    I think most of us agree that products should be tested; the question
    is whether the current types of animal testing are necessary or
    even useful - and, if necessary *and* useful, are they conducted
    with proper care taken to minimize the animals' suffering. 
    
    -b

    Here's another way in which this NOTES file works.  I'm not patting
    myself on the back, but I thought you might be interested ...
    
    Gradually I'm becoming better educated about this issue.  Not long
    ago I received a packet from a CANINEr that listed products that
    are not tested on animals.  Last evening I went shopping, with 
    assorted coupons in hand.  When I discovered the deodorant I was
    about to buy was a Gilette product, I tore the coupon up!
    
    Cindy

    Ref: note .12                
    
    I think you are being too easy on manufacturers and sugar-coating
    the industry methods. I was not referencing NEEDED medical research 
    - of course certain research must go on - I am not talking about 
    burn/heart/cancer/etc research in this note.
    
    I am talking about repetitive, painful research for household
    detergents, office supplies, oven cleaners, nail polishes, after-shave,
    shampoos, etc., all of which are either force-fed into the animal
    or dropped into the eyes of animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, mice,
    rats.                          
    
    The law in the U.S. requires that products be safety tested, but
    does not specify on animals. There are dozens of smaller companies
    producing wonderful products which haven't caused suffering to any
    animals. I think they should be encouraged by the consumer to grow. 
                               
    I'll admit- I have not had "17 years in the business" which I will
    assume you mean that you have been investigating and/or influencing
    legislation for humane treatment of creatures less fortunate than
    we are -   but I don't think it takes that long to know when
    an unnecessary situation exists and to recognize that action should
    be taken - either quietly on a individual basis by not purchashing
    specific product or requesting it at a store - or on a more activist
    level - by protesting and becoming involved in legislative policies. 
    Because people have different natures - not everyone can be expected
    to protest. But if they have an inclination want to improve the
    lot of test animals - which include cats and dog -there is always 
    a way to do it.
    
    Pat
    
                                                         

 	Here is a list of more "cruelty-free" consumer product companies,
	compiled from the pages of THE ANIMALS' AGENDA Magazine, in the 
	forefront of the Animal Rights movement.  The May issue has a
	timely update on product testing.  (If anyone would like to take 
	a look at this magazine, I'd be happy to circulate my copies via 
	interoffice mail, if that wouldn't be violating any DEC policies...)

	
	The Compassionate Consumer    ($1 for catalog of cosmetics, personal
	P.O. Box 27                    care items, HBA, pet products, bio-
	Jericho, NY  11753             degradable household cleaners, non-
	(718) 445-4134                 leather shoes/belts/wallets/pocket-
                                       books, gifts, books, cards, etc.)

	Without Harm                  (Free brochure of "cruelty-free personal
	4605 Pauli Drive               and household products.")
	Manlius, NY  13104
	(315) 682-8346
		

	Carole's Cosmetics            (Catalog $1, refundable w/ 1st order)
	3081 Klondike Ave.
	Costa Mesa, CA  92626
	(714) 546-6706


	Baby Products by County Comfort  (Cream, powder, oil w/o animal prods.)
	Panacea
	P.O. Box 294
	Columbia, PA  17512


	Heavenly Soap                  (Free brochure)
	5948 East 30th Street
	Tucson, AZ  85711


	Alida                          (Organic/hypo-allergenic cosmetics)
	P.O. Box 9517
	Ft. Collins, CO  80525
	(303) 223-1154


	Humane Alternative Products    (Personal/home care products -- free
	8 Hutchins Street               catalog)
	Concord, NH  03301


	Naturall                       (Free catalog -- home care products)
	P.O. Box 70A
	Farmington, MI  48332-0070


	Purely Natural Body Care       (Free catalog -- skin care prods.)
	68183 Northrup Creek Road
	Birkenfeld, OR  97016


	Paul Penders                    (Natural cosmetics and body care)
	D&P Products
	P.O. Box 878
	Old Canning Plant Rd.
	Seffner, FL  33584


	Jason Natural Cosmetics          (Deodorant/skin care/cosmet.)

	"Available at all better Natural Food stores"
	1-800-821-5791	


	Pamela Marsen, BWC (Beauty Without Cruelty)     (Makeup, etc.)
	451 Queen Anne Road
	Teaneck, NJ  07666
	(201) 836-7820

	[BWC is looking for interested sales reps., akin to Avon or
	Mary Kay...contact Ms. Marsen at the # above if interested in
	pushing cruelty-free cosmetics into the mainstream market.]


	Ecco Bella                       ($1 for catalog of cosmetics,
	Dept. AG                          color chart, HBA, household
	125 Pompton Plains Crossroads     items, pet care, mens prods., etc.)
	Wayne, NJ  07470

	********************************************************************

	ALSO:	Beauty Without Cruelty (BWC -- See Pamela Marsen, above)
		has come up with a seal of approval for most cruelty-free
		products (a rabbit dons the middle).  BWC publishes 
		the "Compassionate Shoppers' List," a comprehensive guide
		to humane products with detailed information about ingredients.
		For more info. on obtaining this list, contact BWC at:

		175 W. 12th Street, Suite 16G
		New York, NY  10011

		(I assume Ms. Marsen is a private representative)


	Please note that I have yet to obtain these catalogs myself, so
	I can't give any first-hand recommendations.

    My daughter has returned the list of cruelty-free products.
    It is 5 pages long and if you want a xerox'd copy of it I would be
    happy to forward it to you. Send your name and Dec address to
    me via vaxmail at WJO::DALEY and I'll drop it into the mail.
                                         
    The list  is too long to write here.
             
    Pat                                
    

    
    For the record, I am opposed to unneccesary experimentation on animals.
    I worked for a while at a cancer research lab. (I'll supply more details
    if you would like.)  The research (rats/mice were used for the most
    part) that we did saved people's lives.  Although it was difficult
    for me to watch animals that were in pain because they were given
    tumours (and the drugs that we were testing, which sometimes caused
    worse problems for the animals than the tumours!), they were treated as
    humanely as possible.  There were people that I knew who are now
    alive because of the work that we did there.  I have no qualms with
    this sort of research, provided the lab animals are treated as well
    as possible.  
    
    I feel that many (if not most) of the experiments done for products
    such as shampoos, colognes, etc., are NOT reasonable, and are NOT
    necessary.  I support action to eliminate this type of testing.
    
    Now that I've stated my position, I'd like to make a few points
    about replies to this topic:
    
    re: .9
    
    >When I worked in the HLO Employment Group, I was SOOOO tempted to
    >throw out resumes of anyone who has worked at Gillette.  ;-)
    
    Please, these people were trying to LEAVE!  It is easily possible
    that they were, in some case, leaving BECAUSE they learned about
    Gillette's test practices.
    
    My brother-in-law works for Gillette, and is trying to leave there.
    I mentioned this topic to him.  It was the first time he had EVER
    been made aware of these test practices.  Companies like Gillette
    do NOT post "WE ABUSE ANIMALS" articles in their company newspapers!
    
    Please be careful about blaming individual employees of a company
    who may not be aware of and may not support that company's practices.
    
    My next point:  Gillette is a major DEC customer.  They purchase
    VAXes, DEC-10/20s, workstations, and software from us.  I am concerned
    that some replies (my own included) may be inappropriate for this
    conference.  If one of the sales team that supports Gillette read
    this topic, FELINES could take some heat.  If someone from Gillette
    were to get access to this file, DEC could be in for a lawsuit.
    Advocating a boycott of the products sold by one of our customers
    is, I assume, a DEC no-no.
    
    Please, moderators, check this out with the legal department.  Much
    as I agree with the content of this topic, I must ask that you consider
    setting hidden all of the responses (including this one) that directly
    reference our customers' products in a negative fashion.  
    
    Rita_who_is_sad_to_be_wearing_her_DEC_hat_right_now

Re .18:

Deb and I have been debating this question (with the help of other noters)
for at least an hour and have also reviewed all of the notes left in the
string.  There is only one reply calling for a boycott of a particular
manufacturer and it will be set hidden and a note will be sent to the
author explaining why.

Other replies here are stating facts (such as "this organization has
stated that that manufacturer is guilty of the following") or stating
personal opinion without asking others to follow suit.  We believe that
these types of replies can stay.  But we do agree that notes suggesting
boycotts of any company (whether they be DEC customers or not) cannot
be allowed because they would expose DEC to legal liability.  We would
ask that the readership of this conference be sensitive to this in the
future.

Pam
(speaking as a moderator)