Ingredients from Herbal or Animal Origin?
Regarding effect and compatibility we prefer ingredients of herbal origin. As a matter of principle we do not use ingredients from animal origin. Abandonment of substances from animal origin makes sense for ethical reasons, environmental reasons and reasons of health.
As there is no or no decent legislation about experimenting with cosmetic substances on animals a producer of cosmetics never can guarantee products free of animal testing. Moreover, in many countries laws exist that place an obligation to producers of products to test products on animals before introducing them on the market. Although alternative procedures do exist already, legislators and lawmakers are often slow and sluggish to transform such findings into laws for the better of animals.
So even if producers of Skin Care products does not utilize “animal testing” by themselves or charge another company with such testing, they can never really guarantee that the processed substances had not been tested on living animals.
So even if such would be desirable from an ethical point of view, no producer of cosmetic products can guarantee products without animal testing, however he/she can guarantee products free of ingredients from animal origin. Since the origin of animal ingredients can’t be traced easily the answer can only be not to use such substances at all. (Thinks about hormones that are illegal within the EU but legal within the US, chemotherapeutica legal in the EU and the US, intensive farming, extraordinarily cruel and inhuman transportation methods to slaughterhouses etc.).Are there animal experiments for the cosmetics in Germany?
In §7 of the animal protection laws it says: “Animal experiments for the development of Tobacco products, detergents and Cosmetics are fundamentally forbidden”. The German Animal Protection Association writes in addition: “On the one hand, animal experiments for the testing of raw materials can be executed without reservation if these raw materials are used not only in cosmetics, but also in other products. There are however hardly any substances, which are developed and certified exclusively for the use in the area of cosmetics”
That means nothing else but, that in Germany obvious animal experiments for Cosmetics do not take place, but, those animal experiments take place because of others Products and these same ingredients which were tested on animals for other products are also used in Cosmetics.
Therefore, most cosmetic Ingredients are already tested on animals, although, those ingredients were not tested for specific use in Cosmetics.
Due to this unfortunate situation, no cosmetic manufacturer can offer cosmetic products while claiming that: “those products/ingredients were not tested on animals”, even if the manufacturer himself didn’t test the ingredients on animals or personally give those instructions others to test those ingredients on animals this does not exclude the possibility that certain ingredients were indeed tested on animals.
Therefore an honest cosmetic manufacturer cannot mention „cosmetics without animal testing” although the cosmetic manufacturer didn’t carry out these tests personally on animals or give instructions to someone else to test the ingredients on animals. Cosmetic Companies, for which animal protection is an issue of importance, disparage both animal ingredients from tortured animals or from mass herding and as a principle strictly abhor any killing and tormenting of animals.
As a result of the above mentioned incomprehensible situation naturally the so-called „positive list” „of the German Animal Protection Association” can offer no assistance in the search for animal-friendly cosmetics: Here companies are accepted and recommended, provided that their products contain no ingredients that were tested on animals after 1979. Meaning those tested on animals before 1979 were acceptable and those ingredients and products are still in the market. What is particularly shocking is that many of that many animal obtained ingredients where acquired from mass animal internment for testing purposes and that this animal internment and usage of ingredients obtained from theses animals was allowed. This is not only unacceptable regarding the ethics of animal protection and conservation groups but highlights a general „mass animal attitude” considered as bad form not only by animal welfare activists because of the deliberate tormenting of animals but because the use of raw materials from mass animal husbandry is regarded as a profitable business and is actively promoted as a result. The criteria is not only the quantity of the animal substances used in the Cosmetic industry but the refusal in principle to use any of these animal substances in any form and in this way give a clear direction and awareness to everyone regarding the avoidable suffering of millions of animals in these enforced, unnatural conditions and to enlighten people regarding developing a positive, humane and considerate attitude for humans animals and the environment. Living these mentioned ethical codes of respect consistently, convincingly and as role model has an additional value and credibility for others. Therefore any cosmetic company that consequently denounces and renounces the use of animal ingredients that even the particularly strict animal protection German Animal Protection Association” doesn’t manage to achieve even with its “Positive List” (with regard to the suffering of the many millions animals in mass animal husbandry) We challenge the arbitrary definition of „good” animal experiments 1979 and „bad” animal experiments after 1979 as unreasonable, illogical counter productive, because it does not address the fundamental problem a” animal-hostile law” and in fact gives an entirely misleading impression that cosmetics that have not been tested on animals actually exist!! An intelligent and humane decision would be to focus on and force the politicians and influential industrialist to jointly come out, take a stand and finally, abolish all legislations that the manufacturers of raw materials (according to the Chemical legislation are required to carry out tests on animals. This current legislation makes a “mad house” of everything honourable and just. „The German animal protection federation” says that animal experiments are in principle forbidden. They further state that animal experiments are not prescribed because of cosmetics, but because of other products. It follows according to this rationale that by either enforcing the abolishment of all cosmetics or only recognising the exclusive products on „the positive list” „of the German Animal Protection Association” no animal experiments would be abolished or even reduced and no suffering would be spared for the animals! Many cosmetic firms use this “not tested on animals” slogan as an advertising platform although it actually has absolutely nothing to do with the abolishment of animal experiments and the protection of animals. Is this not all completely absurd? What should one really expect of an association like „The German Animal Protection Association” when their President is a self confessed eater of meat? To kill and protect animals are two irreconcilable positions and an absurd unsolvable contradiction! Is it not absurd that „the major animal welfare activist” as a meat consumer supports the killing of animals because it has desire to eat meat? Also one should not forget that by the substantial deployment of Antibiotics in the animals designed for human consumption is extremely dangerous for the health of human beings as the antibiotics create bacteria that resist positive bacteria developed for medically assigned antibiotics. This has already resulted in (known) deaths because the assigned antibiotics for specific purposes in the human organism are no longer effective. This situation is supported by the actions of some physicians who prescribe antibiotics with regularity and without doing their homework. Let there be no misunderstandings here, Antibiotics are important and useful as Medication if they are prescribed correctly. They are out of place when treating viral illnesses in human beings or as assistance in mass animal husbandry.