Human testing

Hello!

In 2011, the people at Lush Oxford street tested on a human to show customers what other companies did to animals.  A woman named Jacqueline Traide was tested on in a shop window which streamed live, for 10 hours. She represented an animal test subject for the cosmetics industry. She had to do a series of tests including force-feeding, liquids squirted in her eyes and two injections. During this, she suffered no pain. This performance upset many customers that had passed by, but this shows how testing on animals isn't right. if us, humans make a product, we should test it on our selves. That's why we 're against animal testing. It shouldn't be tested on humans infact, but if people want to make products, they should test in on them not animals.

Just remember, STOP Animal Testing, and raise awareness.
 
(P.S, well done Jaqueline Traide and thank you!)

Bye!

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Hello!

What can we do instead of using animals to test on?
Which way would be the most humane, not cruel way to test cosmetics?
These are some ideas of ways we could test cosmetics and how we could change things in the future.

• Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional "pyrogen" tests.
• EpiSkin™, EpiDerm™ and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin—can save thousands of rabbits each year from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests.
• The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry instead of live rabbits to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes.
• The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test can replace the use of mice and other animals in the testing of medicines and other products for their potential to cause sunlight induced "photo-toxicity."
• The Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay for skin allergy testing makes it possible to reduce animal use by up to 75 percent compared with traditional guinea pig and mouse tests.
• When testing to determine chemical concentrations that are deadly to fish and other aquatic life, use of the Fish Threshold Method can reduce the numbers of fish used by at least 70 percent compared with standard test methods.

Which way do you think we should test?

Are there any other ideas? Leave them in the comments!

Bye!