|
|
Post by Vinny on May 6, 2023 6:45:25 GMT
Even though we're not members anymore the ECHA rules are that it's necessary to test cosmetics on animals. And our government are maintaining regulatory compliance.
Should we diverge for the sake of ethics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 7, 2023 1:54:25 GMT
Yes.
Vivisection for medicinal purposes may occasionally be necessary but for cosmetics?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 9:01:41 GMT
What, you mean they really do put lipstick on pigs?  Seriously, I'm not sure. Are there not enough cosmetics already available that are known to be safe? I would have thought so, but if testing was not allowed, it would stifle innovation in the market, so that the UK would fall behind. Producers would send their testing to other countries, or there would need to be human testing volunteers for new products. Either way, a ban looks to stifle innovation and economic activity. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 7, 2023 9:43:38 GMT
What, you mean they really do put lipstick on pigs? Seriously, I'm not sure. Are there not enough cosmetics already available that are known to be safe? I would have thought so, but if testing was not allowed, it would stifle innovation in the market, so that the UK would fall behind. Producers would send their testing to other countries, or there would need to be human testing volunteers for new products. Either way, a ban looks to stifle innovation and economic activity. Test them on people. Rabbits don't even use shampoo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 10:08:11 GMT
What, you mean they really do put lipstick on pigs? Seriously, I'm not sure. Are there not enough cosmetics already available that are known to be safe? I would have thought so, but if testing was not allowed, it would stifle innovation in the market, so that the UK would fall behind. Producers would send their testing to other countries, or there would need to be human testing volunteers for new products. Either way, a ban looks to stifle innovation and economic activity. Miss Piggy??  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 8, 2023 9:15:33 GMT
What, you mean they really do put lipstick on pigs? Seriously, I'm not sure. Are there not enough cosmetics already available that are known to be safe? I would have thought so, but if testing was not allowed, it would stifle innovation in the market, so that the UK would fall behind. Producers would send their testing to other countries, or there would need to be human testing volunteers for new products. Either way, a ban looks to stifle innovation and economic activity. Test them on people. Rabbits don't even use shampoo. Paid volunteers. Logical. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 11, 2023 2:01:48 GMT
Even though we're not members anymore the ECHA rules are that it's necessary to test cosmetics on animals. And our government are maintaining regulatory compliance. Should we diverge for the sake of ethics? Of course we should, the EU have an appalling record when it comes to animal welfare. Who knows what's going on behind the scenes. It seems to me that Sunak is quite ambivalent about Brexit. I'll never vote Labour, but I may vote Reform. We'll see. |
|
