Friday, August 20, 2010

The Bunny Factor

The Bunny Effect of The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
At Valhalla Soap Co. we have always made it our mission to bring you safe, natural, quality products, while leaving the smallest impact on Mother Earth as possible. Along with that, we have been and will always be opposed to animal testing in any form. Why should a product made for humans, be tested on innocent animals? Many of you have been our testers at some point or another. I find it interesting that the government can sanction animal cruetly, torture and the like in the name of "testing". But the general public is arrested for lesser degrees of cruelty towards animals. What is the difference?? Cruelty is cruelty! Torture is torture!! It's dispicable and disgusting regardless of who the perpetrator is!!

That is why I was stunned when I had read that Anne-Marie of Brambleberry uncovered how the EU Initiative increased the number of animal tests, rather than what I thought the EU was committed to doing, which was decreasing the number of animal tests.







We have always strived to bring you Cruelty Free Products. However, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 will force our industry into even more testing on animals than the EU Inititative has caused. Certified Vegan and Cruelty Free Cosmetics will become virtually non-existent if this bill is passed. And it will not make personal care cosmetics any safer for human topical use with the passage of HR 5786. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!

We urge you to please read the Bunny Factor (below) and then vote to Oppose The Safe Cosmetics Act with these action steps. The testing required by REACH is significantly less than what would be required here in America to comply with HR 5786.

The Bunny Factor
Source Anne-Marie Faiola

When the European Union passed REACH, the proponents of REACH legislation suggested that the testing would use 9 million laboratory animals and the ongoing costs for conducting the tests would amount to €1.3 billion. The study now published by Costanza Rovida and Thomas Hartung suggests that the testing required would involve 54 million vertebrate animals and that the costs would amount to €9.5 billion (20 times more animals and cost 6 times as much as previously stated). Animal testing is the most viable form of testing for many of the allergen, toxicity, reproductive health (etc.) issues that HR 5786 purports to protect against, yet the very bill that is requiring the testing is calling for a decrease in animal testing and in fact is requiring a testing method that is ‘superior in scientific quality’ to animal testing. Unless humans can be used, sadly bunnies and primates are still the ‘gold standard’ for safety substantiation of data.

• C. Rovida & T. Hartung: Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals – a report by the Transatlantic Think Tank for Toxicology. ALTEX 26, 1/09.

• T. Hartung & C. Rovida: Chemical regulators have overreached. Opinion in Nature, vol. 460, 27 August 2009.

• Nwaogu, T. & Vernon, J; European Commission Directorate General Enterprise and Industry: Impact of European Regulation on the EU Cosmetics Industry September 2007

• Source: UK Department of Trade and Industry (2004): Final Regulatory.

• Frost & Sullivan: Active Ingredients – Key Drivers, Constraints and Challenges in the European Markets

**Original Blog post came from Essential U Blog. I've paraphrased, edited and added my own 2 cents :-)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them and read each and every one of them. It may take me a few days, but I will do my best to leave a response back.
Blessed Be,
GW