n tests sur animaux horreur , mensonge = "aucune' cruauté!

La Lógica Cuestionable de los Experimentos Animales

Un experimento físico sólo puede resolver las cuestiones físicas y un experimento químico sólo puede resolver las del campo químico. La cuestión es si hay realmente un "experimento médico." Cuando se trata del arte de la curación, ¿podemos experimentar en un sentido científico? Hay seguramente una manera de realizar estudios sobre los seres humanos o los animales con una formulación bioquímica o fisiológica de la proposición, tal como "¿Cómo reaccionaría un animal (una rata, p.e.) si se le administrara etanol (alcohol etílico) o metanol (alcohol metílico)?" En ambos casos, el animal demostrará más o menos unos efectos secundarios violentos. Pero, ¿qué relevancia tiene tal prueba para los humanos? Un humano a quien se le administra etanol reaccionará de manera similar al animal, pero usando metanol pronto le causará ceguera, pero no es así con la rata. Se puede encontrar la causa de estas reacciones tan distintas entre humanos y ratas en los distintos métodos de procesamiento del metanol en el hígado. El problema de la dependencia fisiológica del etanol se puede también estudiar en los animales. Se les puede administrar alcohol a las ratas durante un período más largo y después de la interrupción, estudiar sus síntomas de abstinencia. Pero aún dejando aparte las diferencias inprevisibles entre las dos especies, se sabe bien que la dependencia al alcohol en los humanos no es sólo de carácter bioquímico, sino también psicofísico (lo cual no se puede estudiar sobre un animal). Por consiguiente, no hay -a pesar de todos los modelos animales- ninguna droga para tratar la dependencia al alcohol. El reproche de que la ciencia médica basada en la experimentación animal sólo tratará los síntomas, tiene su origen en el hecho de que un experimento terapéutico en un sentido holístico no es posible y que las pruebas con animales sólo inciden en una parte de los aspectos sin previsibilidad exacta sobre su relevancia para los seres humanos.

6

El Progreso de la Medicina a Pesar de los Experimentos Animales

Ud. se preguntará, por supuesto, por qué a pesar de la cuestionable extrapolación de los resultados basados en experimentos animales obtenidos en los últimos 80 o 90 años, se ha desarrollado un número creciente de terapias obviamente eficientes. He aquí la respuesta: no se debe a los experimentos animales, sino a pesar de ellos se consiguió desarrollarlos y estudiarlos en pruebas clínicas para averiguar su eficacia. Aunque en décadas recientes el número de experimentos animales ha aumentado astronómicamente, raramente han llegado al descubrimiento de nuevos agentes activos y no hay ningún descubrimiento sensacional contra las plagas modernas como el cáncer y las enfermedades cardíacas crónicas. Por otro lado, se sabe actualmente que esas enfermedades muchas veces se pueden evitar con una dieta vegetariana y con un modo de vida razonable sin cigarillos ni alcohol.

El Peligro de la Experimentación sobre la Medicina

El gran daño que las ciencias médicas han provocado debido a la experimentación animal consiste en el sobreénfasis del aspecto científico con una supresión simultánea de los aspectos mentales y espirituales para la salud y las enfermedades en los seres humanos. Nadie negaría que ciertos mecanismos importantes en el sistema funcional de los humanos y de los animales se expliquen fácilmente sobre una base científica. Pero el enorme paralelismo forzado por el sistema de investigaciones sobre animales conduce a creer que sólo esos aspectos son esenciales para la salud y las enfermedades que se explican científicamente y que se prueban tangiblemente. Debido a este error fundamental, la ciencia médica de hoy investiga sin hacer caso al núcleo del problema que causa una enfermedad cualquiera y no progresa en la lucha contra las más esenciales enfermedades epidémicas de la civilización, y todo esto sucede a pesar de las inversiones más gigantescas y la existencia de una cantidad increíblemente grande de conocimiento detallado.

7

La Crítica de los Experimentos Animales desde el Punto de Vista Científico

Es por buenas razones que ha crecido conisderablemente una actitud general de rechazo hacia los experimentos animales y es apoyada cada vez más incluso por los médicos y científicos críticos. No es tanto por razones de bienestar animal como por la aceptación del hecho de que una orientación mecánica y materialista en las investigaciones médicas ha conducido al arte de curar hacia un "callejón sin salida". Los modos de pensar reduccionistas han reducido los conceptos de la vida, la conciencia, el alma, la enfermedad, la salud y la curación a unas ideas fundamentales bioquímicas y físicas, y a simples interpretaciones mecánicas, dejando de lado el aspecto holístico. Así, algunos de los valores más esenciales se han perdido.

La medicina del futuro

¿Los médicos del futuro realmente van a curar, o serán meramente unos autómatas guiados por la industria? Hay muchos signos hoy en día que prueban que la práctica de las ciencias médicas ha alcanzado sus límites en todos los aspectos, y que los pacientes (así como los médicos) las consideran desorbitantemente caras, en cierto modo muy peligrosas, y, con respecto a las más importantes enfermedades epidémicas, totalmente ineficaces. Si la raza humana va a sobrevivir los problemas globales de la época moderna, las ciencias médicas recogerán la herencia de los métodos curativos tradicionales y poco convencionales incorporando un conocimiento científico útil. La experimentación animal dejará ciertamente de tener importancia, y quedará en la historia de la ciencia médica como una gran equivocación asesina.

Para contactar: Dr. Bernhard Rambeck
Bethel, Maraweg 13, 33546 Bielefeld, Germany (Alemania),
Tel.+49 521 144 3236, Fax: +49 521 144 2027

8

Noticia del 29 de septiembre de 2008 :

From the shampoo or shaving cream we use in the morning to the cologne we apply to go out on the town, our personal care products say a lot about us.

But there's one thing your makeup or shampoo choices should never say: that you support torturing and killing animals.

Of all the ridiculous reasons that people inflict needless suffering on animals, vanity is one of the most pathetic. Despite the availability of effective and cruelty-free product-testing methods, countless individual rabbits, mice, and other animals are still poisoned, blinded, and killed every year in outdated and ineffective tests—all for the personal care products that fill many people's bathroom cabinets.

You can help end this horrific cruelty by donating to PETA today for our special "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge. Your gift will be matched, dollar-for-dollar :

https://ibiz.isiservices.com/peta-e/peta/donation.asp?section_code=H08V374R&ask4=--25-35-50-100-o

Thanks to all our supporters who've stepped up in this special challenge, PETA has raised $64,417 toward our $250,000 goal. Please donate as much as you can today–your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar, up to $250,000 and will go towards helping end the terrible experiments done on animals in laboratories.

Your generous gift in this campaign can help strengthen our unique Caring Consumer program. When PETA's investigations expose companies testing on animals, we tell people to shop elsewhere. And this economic pressure gets corporate attention, often when nothing else will. Major corporations, including Revlon, Mary Kay, Method Home, Estée Lauder, Bath & Body Works, and others, have signed PETA's pledge against animal testing. In the last year alone, 44 companies have licensed PETA's cruelty-free bunny logo, which certifies their stand against cruel and unnecessary tests on animals.

Yet some companies, such as L'Oréal, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson, remain in the "dark ages," performing cruel and crude tests on rabbits, mice, guinea pigs, and other animals. Companies like these drip caustic chemicals into the sensitive eyes of rabbits, blinding them before they kill them, or they pump nail polish down animals' throats to see how much they can endure before dying in agony.

And for what? Animal tests on most consumer products are not required by the government. These experiments are bad science and do nothing to make products any safer. Even if a cosmetics maker finds that its mascara blinds animals, the company can still legally sell it to you! With the availability of so many effective non-animal testing methods—which are cheaper, faster, and more reliable—conducting animal tests for personal care products is not just unnecessary but also inexcusable.

Please make a generous donation to PETA today to help us end this senseless cruelty during this special matching campaign. Your gift today can do twice as much good for these animals.

You—both as a caring consumer and a PETA supporter—are the single most important person in our efforts to go after companies that continue to experiment needlessly on animals.

Thank you for taking action to help end this injustice.

Noticia del 02 de octubre de 2008 :

Government animal testing: cruel and ineffective

Picture a group of dogs, hamsters, or other animals trapped in cages and given higher and higher doses of toxic chemicals or drugs until they die.

This is called lethal-dose testing. It is so cruel and unreliable that even the companies that perform it want to use other methods.

But because of resistance by the federal government, which blocks more effective testing methods that do not involve animals, they can't. PETA is aggressively calling on the government to end its use of cruel and outdated animal experiments—and to stop stonewalling more accurate alternatives that don't cause suffering to animals. And we urgently need your help.

By making a donation to PETA today, your contribution will be matched dollar-for-dollar and will help us bring an end to the needless torture that is inflicted upon millions of individual animals who are innocent victims in government-mandated tests. :

https://ibiz.isiservices.com/peta-e/peta/donation.asp?section_code=H08V474S&ask4=--25-35-50-100-o

Through our special online "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge, we've already raised $115,611 toward our vital $250,000 goal. But we have a long way yet to go to reach the matching goal set by generous PETA donors. I hope I can count on you to help us get there!

Over a decade ago, because of the initiative and hard work of animal protection groups, Congress created the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to encourage the development of non-animal tests. It was supposed to be a turning point for animals who were trapped in laboratories. Ten years later, ICCVAM has approved only four non-animal testing methods and has ignored or even rejected many tests that have been government-certified in Europe and widely used there for years.

Even one of the creators of ICCVAM says that the committee is failing to do its job. "One should ask why after years of existence they have reviewed so few tests," said Dr. Neil Wilcox, who also worked for the Food and Drug Administration. "The fundamental reason, in my opinion, is that the ICCVAM process has become recognized as an obstacle to getting tests validated as opposed to helping having tests validated" [emphasis added].

The stonewalling by ICCVAM is only part of the problem. Through its lack of initiative and head-in-the-sand approach to testing issues, the U.S. government's policies are forcing hundreds of companies to use hopelessly outdated and cruel experiments such as lethal-dose testing, which I mentioned above. The government is needlessly condemning millions of individual rabbits, dogs, mice, guinea pigs, and other animals to die in pain and terror.

Please donate online to PETA today and have your gift doubled to help us push the government to stop turning a blind eye to the misery that it causes to so many helpless animals.

Backed by some of the most credible experts in the field, PETA scientists and researchers are forcing the U.S. government to recognize that advancements in biology and computer modeling have made its reliance on animal testing as wasteful as it is cruel. Our efforts have recently been validated by the government itself. The National Academy of Sciences—the government's chief scientific advisory body—has released a report calling for an immediate shift to more reliable non-animal tests. And PETA is working hard to compel Congress, scientists, and regulators to make sure that this happens.

By modernizing regulatory testing, the government can stop wasting your tax dollars and—more importantly—save the lives of many scared and vulnerable animals. But we can't do it without your support.

I urge you to make a generous online gift to PETA today. In this "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge, your donation will do twice as much to protect animals who are suffering in government-mandated tests.

Thank you for coming to the aid of these animals.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

P.S. I refuse to accept that our taxpayer dollars are used to fund the government's cruel and pointless experiments on animals. I won't have these abuses committed in my name. Please join me in working to end this terrible injustice by donating to PETA's online "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge today.

Noticia del 15 de octubre de 2008 :

In only a few days, children around the world will be ringing doorbells and looking for Halloween treats. As scary as some of their costumes might be, the true horror this holiday will actually be the M&Ms, Snickers, or Skittles candies that lie in your child's candy bag. All these candies, along with many other candies sold under household names, are manufactured by Mars Inc., a company responsible for the deaths of numerous animals in unnecessary animal tests.

We need your help to change that this Halloween season. Please support our "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge. Right now, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of generous PETA donors. That means your donation will go twice as far toward making sure that no animal has to suffer through painful, outdated tests for the sake of a chocolate bar. :

https://ibiz.isiservices.com/peta-e/peta/donation.asp?section_code=H08V674U&ask4=--25-35-50-100-o

PETA is hoping to raise $92,533 before the end of the month to reach our goal of $250,000 toward ending animal tests like those conducted on behalf of Mars. Won't you please support this challenge today?

The experiments funded by Mars, including the following examples, are truly the stuff of Halloween nightmares:

Rats have been force-fed chocolate chemicals and had needles jabbed directly into their still beating hearts.
Rabbits have been cut apart to determine the effects of cocoa on muscle tissue.
Guinea pigs have had cocoa ingredients injected into arteries in their necks to measure the impact on their blood pressure.
And these are only a few of the tests that Mars has funded. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, not one of Mars' experiments on animals is required by law.

Thanks to PETA's hard work and pressure, many of the world's major food corporations—including Mars' chief rival, Hershey's, and Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Co—have pledged not to fund or conduct experiments on animals.

But we cannot stop the torture of animals in laboratories without your immediate help. By giving online in this challenge today, your gift will be doubled to help stop Mars and other cruel corporations from conducting unnecessary tests on animals.

You know how crucial our work in behalf of animals in laboratories is, and so do the vivisectors, corporate researchers, and government officials PETA confronts with the hard facts about flawed and useless animal tests. Our success in stopping these tests and saving animals' lives dates back to PETA's very first case more than 25 years ago, and with your help during this special online challenge, we can add Mars and many others to that list.

But that success now depends on your caring and generosity. Please help us end the needless suffering of animals in tests for Mars and other companies by making a special online gift towards this challenge!

Thank you for all that you do for animals.

Noticia del 20 de febrero de 2009

1.- ¿QUIÉNES SON LOS MAL LLAMADOS ANIMALES DE LABORATORIO?


Cada año son utilizados en contra de su voluntad cientos de millones de animales no humanos para la experimentación. En las estadísticas oficiales no se incluyen a los animales criados para la investigación pero que son asesinados como excedentes, ni los que mueren durante su transporte.
Algunos de los animales no humanos utilizados son secuestrados de su hábitat (como primates, reptiles…), transportados (solo el 10% llegan vivos) y confinados en los laboratorios donde se experimenta con y sobre ellos hasta que mueren a consecuencia de éstos o son asesinados por los experimentadores; otros proceden de criaderos (ratas, ratones…) o de perreras (perros, gatos…).


Los animales no humanos más utilizados son:

* Ratas, ratones, cobayas, hamsters, conejos,
* Primates (babuinos, chimpancés…)
* Perros (especialmente beagles), gatos y caballos
* Ovejas y cerdos
* Anfibios y peces también son cada vez más utilizados para la investigación.

Todos estos animales no humanos son utilizados como “sujetos” de experimentación porque:

-tienen respuestas similares a los animales humanos hacia muchos tipos de estímulos,

- les sirven a los experimentadores de criba para nuevos fármacos,

- sirven de sparring para nuevas armas, de probeta para nuevas (o no tan nuevas) sustancias, de medida de diferentes estímulos psicológicos…

En definitiva, la ciencia asume que los animales humanos y no humanos tenemos respuestas similares ante estímulos similares y que tenemos una fisiología suficientemente parecida como para que sus pruebas puedan ser justificables a los ojos de los “científicos”. Se asume que los demás animales también sienten, sufren, buscan el placer, pasan miedo, les duele cuando se les pega… en definitiva, que si se les causa dolor eso afecta al sujeto que tienen entre sus manos y pese a eso, pese a saber, ver, confirmar, que somos similares, siguen encarcelándolos, quemándolos, envenenándolos, apaleándolos… en nombre de la ciencia, de la estética, de la mejora de las armas…

Así, no existe un sufrimiento para los "humanos" y otro para los “demás animales", tan sólo existe el sufrimiento. La terrible experiencia del dolor, el estrés, la angustia y del miedo, resultan tan indeseables para unos como para otros. Por ello, el mismo grado de padecimiento ajeno debería tener por nuestra parte la misma consideración ética. Aceptar como más deseable el dolor de un ratón, que el de un ser humano, es tan injusto como aceptar lo mismo entre personas de diferente sexo, edad, estatus o raza. Podemos poner en práctica la discriminación que deseemos, pero cualquiera de ellas será injusta. Por ello, la salud y el bienestar individual es tan importante para nosotros como pueda serlo para un gato, un salmón, una paloma o una rana.

En todo ello está la base del especismo, por el que los intereses de los demás animales (aunque sean tan fundamentales como la vida, la libertad, el no sufrir…) son infravalorados frente a los de los animales humanos, simplemente porque no son de nuestra especie (discriminación similar a la que podría hacer un racista con los intereses de individuos de una raza o cultura diferente a la suya).
Pero, aún en el hipotético caso de una cierta eficacia de la experimentación con animales no humanos, estaríamos ante un mero intercambio de "dolor por dolor". Incluso el más entusiasta vivisector aceptará como válida la teoría de que, si queremos obtener datos realmente significativos para los humanos sobre una enfermedad concreta, deberemos estudiar los modelos más próximos a nosotros, por lo que si queremos “buena ciencia” lo ideal sería experimentar directamente con humanos (cosa que si se hace sin el consentimiento del sujeto implicado la propia sociedad ve como totalmente carente de ética). Las capacidades cognitivas de los individuos no son importantes a la hora de valorar si sus intereses merecen ser respetados. Si no utilizaríamos a un bebé humano, a un discapacitado cognitivo o a un enfermo de Alzheimer (humanos con una menor capacidad intelectual, similar en muchos casos a la de otras especies no humanas) en un experimento de abrasión dérmica por ejemplo, tampoco es ético hacerlo con conejos, ya que éstos tienen la misma capacidad de sentir (dolor, angustia, pánico, desasosiego, estrés…) que los humanos.



Son privados de espacio, luz solar y vida social, y son torturados ante congéneres, provocandoles estrés, pánico, depresión,...







“Si pudiéramos ver lo que pasa permanentemente en los laboratorios, nuestro sueño se vería turbado y no podríamos mantener la alegría de espíritu por un solo momento".
Dr. Ralph Birker





"StopExperimentacionAnimal.org" es una web informativa de la ONG "DefensAnimal.org"
para promover el veganismo (no uso de animales no humanos).

Más información en:

www.defensanimal.org
info@defensanimal.org
Tfno. (+34) 630152401

Noticia del 03 de enero de 2009

2.- ¿PARA QUÉ SE LES UTILIZA?

Mucha gente asumiría que la prohibición de los zoos, la industria peletera, las corridas de toros o las carreras de galgos no afectaría en gran medida a nuestro bienestar, y que por tanto podríamos prescindir de esos usos de los animales. Pero, ¿qué sucede con la experimentación?, ¿tenemos que aceptar la experimentación con animales no humanos por parte de los investigadores como un deber desagradable pero necesario para nuestra salud?. Podemos aceptar dócilmente los mensajes amenazantes y al mismo tiempo esperanzadores de la industria de la investigación, o analizar el fenómeno de manera global y mas crítica.

El primer error consiste en creer que la experimentación con animales tiene lugar única y exclusivamente en el área de la medicina y la farmacología. Pero una parte significativa de los animales a los que se maltrata en pruebas de laboratorio se llevan a cabo en campos como el militar, el espacial, el de la cosmética o el industrial. Hacer sufrir y matar caballos para probar armas químicas y biológicas que posteriormente serán utilizadas para esos mismos fines en seres humanos resulta, simplemente, perverso. Someter a monos a crueles pruebas de descompresión para enviarlos al espacio, irritar deliberadamente los ojos de conejos con sustancias corrosivas, o envenenar ratas obligándolas a ingerir grandes dosis de aditivos alimenticios, son actos difíciles de justificar, y tras los cuales se ocultan grandes intereses económicos.

Pero incluso cuando entramos en el terreno de la investigación médica, nos encontramos con numerosas situaciones absurdas. Las pruebas sobre drogodependencias o las que se realizan en el campo de la psicología son tan sólo algunos de los ejemplos más inmorales. ¿Qué información podemos obtener de convertir roedores sanos en alcohólicos, o de obligar a monos a inhalar humo hasta provocarles cáncer, que no obtengamos de la ingente cantidad de datos que nos ofrecen a diario los miles de personas aquejadas de estas dolencias en la consulta del médico?. ¿Qué nos puede enseñar el hecho de inducir conscientemente a la depresión a un bebé mandril que es arrebatado a su la madre?. ¿Acaso no hay ya suficientes enfermos mentales humanos de los que obtener conocimientos realmente valiosos?.

No existe un sufrimiento "humano" y otro "animal", tan sólo existe el sufrimiento. La terrible experiencia del dolor y del miedo, resulta tan indeseable para unos como para otros. Aceptando este hecho incuestionable, debe entenderse que el mismo grado de padecimiento ajeno debería tener por nuestra parte la misma consideración teórica. Aceptar como más deseable el dolor de un conejo que el de un ser humano, es tan injusto como aceptar lo mismo entre personas negras y blancas, niños y adultos, pobres y ricos, o mujeres y varones. Podemos poner en práctica la discriminación que deseemos, pero cualquiera de ellas será injusta. Por ello, entendemos que, analizado moralmente, la salud y el bienestar individual es tan importante para nosotros como pueda serlo para un perro, un pez, o una rana. Aún en el hipotético caso de una cierta eficacia de la experimentación con animales no humanos, estaríamos ante un mero intercambio de "dolor por dolor". Incluso el más entusiasta vivisector aceptará como válida la teoría de que, si queremos obtener datos realmente significativos sobre una enfermedad concreta, deberemos estudiar los modelos más próximos al hecho que nos interesa.

Las variables que entran en juego en el desarrollo de una patología incluyen factores ambientales, sociales, y en gran medida individuales, de manera que ante una situación idéntica, los resultados son muy diferentes, cosa que ya sabíamos porque todos conocemos personas ancianas fumadoras que gozan de excelente salud, mientras otras fallecen de cáncer de pulmón en plena juventud. La mayoría de las pruebas consisten en recrear situaciones; las enfermedades que desarrollan los animales en los laboratorios son inoculadas por humanos deliberada y artificialmente a individuos en principio sanos, a pesar de que la dolencia original humana se desarrolló durante décadas en condiciones que nada tienen que ver con los modelos experimentales.

La diferencia interespecífica resulta casi siempre insalvable, de tal forma que una sustancia inocua para nosotros puede matar a los gatos y otras que utilizamos como tranquilizantes, a ellos les excitan. Aunque, naturalmente, el fenómeno es mucho más complejo y en el intervienen factores económicos, culturales y políticos, se puede afirmar que la experimentación con animales no humanos es hoy un fraude científico y una aberración ética inaceptable.

Pero el secreto de la buena salud no está tanto en los asépticos laboratorios, sino en aplicar un elemental sentido común y utilizar de forma eficaz toda la información obtenida de la observación y la experiencia de siglos, y que no requieren el sufrimiento de seres inocentes. Tan sólo una pequeña parte de los medicamentos son realmente importantes para nosotros. Y la realidad es tozuda respecto a las causas de la mayoría de nuestros problemas de salud: unos hábitos de vida incorrectos, que además, sabemos como corregir. Una alimentación equilibrada, hacer ejercicio, evitar el estrés, no ingerir sustancias nocivas conscientemente y otros pequeños secretos por todos conocidos son mas efectivos que cualquier otra cosa.

Así, los demás animales son utilizados en los laboratorios con varios fines:


A.- Para prácticas médico-quirúrgicas.
B.- Para determinar la toxicidad de productos de consumo humano.
C.- Para prácticas de biología en Escuelas o Institutos de disección o en Facultades.
D.- Para Xenotransplantes.
E.- Para la Industria Espacial y experimentos Militares.
F.- Para experimentos de Cosmética.
G.- Para experimentos de Psicología "humana".
H.- Para experimentar nuevos medicamentos.


“Nunca podremos entender la agonía, el dolor y sufrimiento de estos animales porque la mayoría de nosotros nunca lo ha visto y no lo ha vivido. Pero yo he visto experimentos con animales. He escuchado los gritos de un conejo al morir por fractura de columna. He visto desesperación en los ojos de primates confinados en jaulas pequeñas. He visto gatos juguetones que desconocían su destino en un laboratorio, y he visto jaulas vacías que contenían cachorros cariñosos unas horas antes.” A.

Noticia del 3 de enero de 2009

2.A.- Para prácticas médico-quirúrgicas:

Se practican nuevas técnicas quirúrgicas con animales no humanos antes de utilizarlas en humanos (trasplantes de órganos), o sin un fin inmediato (por ejemplo, en algunos casos se les corta la cabeza a monos para posteriormente hacerles un trasplante).

TEST DE DRAIZE

Consiste en verter sustancias diversas (cosméticos, blanqueador de ropa, champú, tinta, detergentes, abrillantadores de suelos,...) en los ojos de animales no humanos para ver los resultados que se producen.

El conejo albino es el más comúnmente usado para esta prueba porque es dócil, barato, tiene unos grandes ojos y sus glándulas lacrimales producen muy poco líquido, viéndose así más fácilmente el efecto de abrasión que podría tener en el ojo humano. Los conejos están en el interior de unas cajas que los inmovilizan por el cuello (muchos se lo rompen intentando escapar), lo que impide que se froten o rasquen los ojos.

Se separa el párpado inferior y se coloca la sustancia en la pequeña cavidad resultante, después se mantiene el ojo cerrado. Se repite la aplicación varias veces, durante varios días. Se observa diariamente a los conejos para ver si se produce hinchazón, ulceración, infección y hemorragias, hasta que el ojo del animal se vuelve una masa irritada y dolorosa.

Incluso muchas veces, se pasa a usar el otro ojo para no encarecer costes. La reacciones que se observan son: párpados inflamados, úlceras, hemorragias, ceguera... Los investigadores no están obligados a usar anestésicos, y si lo hacen es en pequeñas cantidades, lo que no alivia en absoluto el dolor que puede producir un limpiador de hornos en el ojo durante 2 semanas.

Un médico de emergencias, con varios años de experiencia en el tratamiento de envenenamientos accidentales y exposiciones tóxicas indicaba: "no conozco una sola ocasión en la que un médico de emergencias haya usado los datos obtenidos con la prueba Draize para solucionar un daño ocular. Se utilizan informes de otros casos, experiencias clínicas e información experimental de pruebas clínicas con humanos cuando hay que determinar el tratamiento óptimo de los pacientes". Existen más de 60 métodos de sustitución que algunos laboratorios ya aplican con éxito.

3

Noticia del 19 de octubre de 2008

In these tough economic times, please don't let an important chance to help animals like this pass you by. Your gift, large or small, will be matched—dollar-for-dollar—when you give to our "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge today.

https://ibiz.isiservices.com/peta-e/peta/donation.asp?section_code=H08V776V&ask4=--25-35-50-100-o

This is your chance to have your gift doubled in our "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge! If we reach the challenge goal, your gift, along with others, will put $500,000 into our vital campaign to protect animals in laboratories!But right now, we only have $221,006 of our $250,000 challenge goal. So we urgently need your support today. You see, when we hit our $250,000 goal, it will mean that $500,000 will go toward saving the lives of animals destined to suffer in laboratories. Please give a gift of any size today.

This unique challenge is made possible by the generosity of a dedicated group of PETA donors who—like you—want to see an end to the cruel experiments that so many animals endure at this very moment. These generous donors have spoken up against animal testing by supporting this challenge. Now it's up to you, as a valued PETA supporter, to answer their call and help end animal testing today.

You know that PETA's work gets results. For the last few weeks, I've been telling you how we're doing the following:

* Shutting down nightmarish experiments in laboratories, like those exposed by a whistleblower at Columbia University
* Convincing major companies, like Estee Lauder and Revlon, to end outdated product tests and sign PETA's cruelty-free pledge
* Pushing the U.S. government to abandon archaic, outdated animal testing programs immediately and approve more accurate—and often less expensive—non-animal methods

Because of the support of caring people like you, PETA scientists, investigators, and campaigners have spared millions of individual dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, monkeys, and other animals from cruel tests. Our dedicated staff takes the fight for even the smallest number of animals tortured in laboratories to huge multinational corporations, entrenched government bureaucracies, and secretive university laboratories. But to continue our remarkable and effective work, we need every donation possible.

Please make a special gift in this online challenge. Every dollar that you give today will go twice as far toward stopping unimaginably painful experiments in laboratories and getting terrified animals out of their cages. Please don't wait another moment to give.

Thank you for your timely response.

Kind regards,

Ingrid Newkirk
Ingrid E. Newkirk
President

P.S. We have only raised $221,006 of the $250,000 goal in our "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge. Please help us raise the full $500,000 to stop animal testing by having your gift doubled today.

Noticia del 05 de abril de 2008


Non–Animal-Tested Companion Animal Food

Cat and dog eating foodIf you have companion animals, it is likely you will do whatever you can to ensure their safety and comfort, including feeding them the very best food. What some pet food companies are hiding from consumers, however, is that animals like your own are confined to laboratories and subjected to invasive tests for claims on their products.

We have compiled a list of companies that do not test their pet food on animals and that only carry out palatability tests with companion animals at home. Palatability studies involve feeding animals new formulations to see if they will eat or like them.

The list below outlines the companies that have signed a PETA Statement of Assurance pledging that they do not conduct, contract out or fund tests in the developing, manufacturing, testing or marketing of their products. You are entitled to know if the pet food company you give money to is responsible for the confinement and pain of animals in laboratories who are just like the animals you care for at home.

One particularly notorious company which has carried out cruel and invasive tests is Iams, which has a history of abuse toward animals, including near-constant confinement to barren cages, surgical debarking and cutting chunks of muscle from dogs' thighs. While Iams have made some improvements in response to an exposé by PETA US and campaigning pressure from PETA affiliates across the world, they still confine cats and dogs in their own American laboratories for many years to conduct tests. You can learn more about Iams at IamsCruelty.com.

Important Notice: Ever thought about a meat-free diet for your animal companion? Dogs and cats can thrive on appropriate vegetarian and even vegan diets. You can find out more on PETA US' Helping Animals website. Check out the other great advice on being an "angel for animals" on those pages.
UK Companies

Ami
02392 45 33 55
www.aminews.co.uk
(vegetarian/vegan food, available in the UK from www.veggiepets.com)


Applaws Natural Cat & Dog Food
08707 508606
www.applaws.co.uk

Barker & Barker
01253 811887
www.dogtraininginfo.co.uk
(includes vegetarian dog treats)


Benevo
02392 45 33 55
www.benevo.com
(vegetarian/vegan food, available in the UK from www.veggiepets.com)

Burns Pet Nutrition Ltd
01554 890482
www.burns-pet-nutrition.co.uk


Cambrian Pet Foods Ltd
01559 384216
www.gelert-petnutrition.co.uk

CLINIVET Nutrition
028 9447 3840
www.clinivet.com


The Co-operative Food
www.co-operative.co.uk

CSJ Specialist Canine Feeds
01745 710470
www.csjk9.com


Europa Pet Foods
0845 658 0987
www.europa-pet-food.co.uk

Feelwell's
0870 977 0044
www.feelwells.co.uk


Forthglade Ltd
01837 83322
www.forthglade.co.uk

Fromm and Eagle Pack
01531 633985
www.postalpetsproducts.co.uk


Haith's
0800 298 7054
www.haiths.com
(bird food)

Harlequin Nutrition Ltd
08700 421 014
www.natures-harvest.org
www.bertiescomplete.co.uk


Healthy Paws
0151 931 3336
www.healthypaws.co.uk

Land of Holistic Pets Ltd
0845 373 4120
www.landofholisticpets.co.uk


Laughing Dog
01788 810283
www.bakersmill.co.uk

Lily's Kitchen
0845 680 5459
www.lilyskitchen.co.uk


Mark and Chappell
01582 583888
www.markandchappell.com

My Pet Foods
01227 723816
www.mypetfoods.co.uk
(rabbit food)


Nature Diet
08700 132960
www.naturediet.co.uk

Organipets
0845 3880935
www.organipets.co.uk


Pero Pet Foods
0800 917 9697
www.pero-petfood.co.uk

Pooch & Mutt
020 8133 7667
www.poochandmutt.com


Roger Skinner Limited
01379 384 247
www.skinnerspetfoods.co.uk

Solid Gold Health Products
(available in the UK from www.zooplus.co.uk)


Supreme Petfoods Limited
01473 823296
www.supremepetfoods.com
(food for rabbits and small animals)

Trophy Pet Foods
01367 240333
www.trophypetfoods.co.uk


Vitalin Pet Foods
01765 605156
www.vitalinpetfood.co.uk

Yarrah
www.yarrah.com
(vegetarian/vegan dog food which can be ordered in the UK from their Netherlands-based website)



EU Companies

Anfit AG
+41 71 788 56 90
www.anifit.ch
(available in Switzerland and Germany)


Aniwell
+39 0172 47001
www.aniwell.it
(available in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Belgium)

Biomill SA
www.biomill.ch
(available in Switzerland and Germany)


Perro GmbH
www.perro.at
(available in Germany and Austria)

Vivaldi Tiernahrung VertriebsgmbH
+43 2236 48 810
+41 241 10 10
www.vivaldi-tiernahrung.at
www.vivaldi-tiernahrung.ch
(available in Switzerland, Germany and Austria)

If you know of a companion animal food company not listed here which you think should be on this list, please contact the company directly to ask them to get in touch with PETA.

Noticia del 7 de mayo de 2008

PETA will never tire in our campaign to end all animal testing. Wherever and whenever companies or institutions think that they can get away with experimenting on, cutting open, performing invasive procedures on or killing animals for sales purposes, PETA staff and our worldwide network of activists will be there!

Food and beverage companies are among the worst abusers of animals. But hard-hitting anti-vivisection campaigns have already convinced PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, POM Wonderful and Ocean Spray to abandon their use of animal experiments in favour of high-tech computer programmes and other sophisticated techniques that are more effective and humane.

We've set our sights on confectionery-maker Mars, Inc, which is paying for animals to be abused in laboratories simply so that the company can make health claims about its confectionery in advertisements. Please make an online donation to PETA today, and help us convince Mars and other food and beverage companies to stop animal tests.

Before agreeing to demands PETA US made in their campaign against POM Wonderful, the juicemaker funded gruesome animal tests. In one experiment, balloons were inflated in live rabbits to study erectile dysfunction. In another experiment, baby mice were suffocated to the point of brain damage before their heads were cut off. As a result of PETA US' pressure, POM Wonderful no longer funds or conducts any tests on animals – a huge victory for animals in laboratories!

Because consumer pressure is also one of our most effective tools, we have compiled a list for you of some of the world's worst companies for animals in laboratories. You can find many other useful bits of information on our website, too – including a guide on product testing in the UK and EU and a list of dog and cat foods that are not tested on animals in cruel ways. Please use this information to choose cruelty-free everything when shopping, and share it with your family, friends and colleagues too.

Of course, it's not just food and drink tests on animals that we intend to end. We work to end all animal tests!

Please help us spread the growing success of our anti-vivisection campaign to every company that continues to hide animal abuse. Make an online donation to PETA today. The victims of animal experimentation are depending on all of us, so please help today

Noticia del 03 de febrero de 2008


Hall of Shame: World's Worst Companies for Animals in Laboratories

Every year, millions of animals around the world suffer and die in painful experiments conducted at the hands of pharmaceutical laboratories, contract testing facilities and companies that breed animals to be sold for experimentation. Many of these companies are multi-national, exporting their brand of cruelty across the globe. PETA US recently compiled a list of the worst offenders – and many of them are prominent in Europe too.

Hall of Shame: World's Worst Companies for Animals in LaboratoriesPETA US has taken full advantage of the US Freedom of Information Act – as well as undercover investigations and information from whistleblowers – to expose these companies' activities. You can find out more by visiting PETA US' "top 10" site, but here are some of the companies on that list, with a focus on those which also operate in Europe. It's a shocking insight into the world of poisoning animals for profit.

1. Covance
At number one is a business with a truly global reach. Covance is a contract testing company that tests everything from drugs to industrial chemicals to cosmetics ingredients for client companies. Covance's deadly work includes dripping chemicals into animals' eyes; applying substances to their raw, abraded skin; forcing animals to ingest or inhale deadly toxins; and intentionally inducing cancer in animals. PETA US' undercover investigation at a Virginia Covance laboratory documented that employees were hitting and screaming at monkeys. Covance also has animal facilities in the UK and other European countries, including Germany, where the abuse of monkeys was exposed in an undercover investigation in 2003.

2. Charles River Laboratories
Charles River Laboratories is the world's largest breeder of animals for use in experiments; the company operates across Europe as well as the US. In 2005, the US Department of Agriculture cited Charles River Laboratories for 22 serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The company runs a large animal-testing laboratory in the countryside – not far from Edinburgh – and supplies animals, animal housing and other support facilities to labs around the world.

3. Wyeth
Wyeth's pharmaceutical business involves a vicious cycle of repeatedly impregnating horses, confining mares to tiny stalls, and ripping away their foals for slaughter. This cycle continues until the mare is worn out and she also ends up on a slaughterhouse floor. All this is done to collect mares' oestrogen-rich urine to produce the menopause drug Premarin. In 2002, a study of women using Prempro (Premarin plus progesterone) was abruptly halted by the US government after it concluded that hormone-replacement therapy raises the risk of strokes by 41 per cent, heart attacks by 29 per cent and breast cancer by 26 per cent. There are more than a dozen synthetic and plant-based menopause drugs available that safely and effectively ease the symptoms of menopause without causing horses to suffer and die. Wyeth is a global pharmaceutical company and produces vaccines in the UK.

4. Merck
Merck – known as Merck, Sharp & Dome or MSD outside the US – developed the notorious Vioxx. The drug has been implicated in heart attacks, strokes and the deaths of tens of thousands of people, even though the painkiller was repeatedly tested on animals. In a precedent-setting case, the company was sued in the US – specifically for relying on animal tests and ignoring more effective safety-assessment methods, such as post-market surveillance of patient reactions, in vitro tests using human cells and tissues, and computer modelling. Merck's reliance on scientifically flawed animal tests led to injuries and deaths for humans.

5. Huntingdon Life Sciences
Already notorious in Britain, Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is the third-largest – and probably the most reviled – contract testing company in the world. HLS' "science" has been the subject of five undercover investigations exposing tremendous cruelty to animals. Every day, HLS experiments on and kills an average of 500 animals – including rats, rabbits, pigs, dogs and primates – who are forced to ingest and inhale all sorts of toxic chemicals, including toxic doses of pharmaceuticals, foodstuffs, and pesticides and chemicals such as weed killers and disinfectants.

6. Boehringer Ingelheim
They say it all comes out in the wash, but in Boehringer's case, what has come out is dead monkeys. The company's negligence resulted in the deaths of three monkeys in high-temperature cage washers. Add to this dead and dying dogs, traumatised monkeys and unqualified personnel, and it's little wonder that US officials found 19 violations of animal welfare laws in the first nine months of 2005. The $20,060 fine – one of the largest fines in recent years – was pocket change for Boehringer, but it indicates that things are terribly awry in the company's laboratories. Boehringer also operates in the UK and across Europe.

7. Novartis Corporation
Swiss-based Novartis and their subsidiaries have spent millions of dollars – and thousands of animals have died as well – to develop animal organs for transplantation into humans, but the only results have been animal suffering and a pitiful waste of precious scientific resources. Pointless and painful experiments in xenotransplantation have been one of the greatest medical research fiascos of all time. One hundred years of failed research shows that animals – even ones with transplanted human genes – do not have suitable spare parts for people. Novartis has their fingers in many pies, including GM crops, and is still conducting animal research in the UK.

8. The Jackson Laboratory
The three blind mice in the famous nursery rhyme had it easy compared to the more than 2 million transgenic mice who are bred and killed each year by The Jackson Laboratory. The Jackson Laboratory sells millions of genetically mutated mice to laboratories in the US and 63 other countries. The creation of transgenic animals, like JAX Mice, is responsible for an explosion in the number of animals who suffer and die in laboratories around the world – more than 1 million were used in the UK in 2006, and it's mostly because of transgenic animals that the overall number of experiments is now rising after years of decline.

9. Pfizer
Dogs in Pfizer's British breeding colony in Sandwich were used in fatal tests during the development of Viagra, and the multi-national company is now the leading supplier of drugs to the NHS. Shockingly, 10 official inspections of Pfizer's US animal research laboratories between May 2004 and August 2006 revealed multiple violations of animal protection laws – a dead cat was trapped in a drain line and went unnoticed for more than a month, a dog was scalded to death in the automatic cage washer, animals experienced stress and untreated infections, and a laboratory reeked from the stench of excrement. To avoid scrutiny and regulation, Pfizer has begun transferring animal testing to China, where, according to a recent article in Forbes magazine, "scientists are cheap and plentiful and pesky protesters held at bay".

Barbaric Business
Hundreds of other companies around the world make money by abusing animals in laboratories, and this list only scratches the surface of them. With profit as their motive, many businesses are willing to ignore the scientific evidence that animal testing is old-fashioned, misleading and even dangerous – and just as willing to turn a blind eye to animal suffering and death. Fortunately, enlightened scientists, institutions and companies are increasingly rejecting animal testing. To find out more, visit StopAnimalTests.com.

You can help end animal testing by these companies and others by putting pressure on the political leaders who are in a position of power over these companies. Also, please buy cosmetics, toiletries and household products that aren't tested on animals.

Keep an eye on PETA's Cruel Science campaign pages, and sign up for periodic updates on our campaigns.

nOTICIA del 05 de mayo de 2008


The Easy Way to Go Cruelty-Free

Confused by labels, rumours, company websites and impressive-looking claims about ethical policies? Want your money to go to companies that don't support animal testing? It's easy: just click here to see a list of companies which are guaranteed not to test on animals, and you can shop with a clear conscience.

That list is all you need, but if you want to know more about the list, who's on it and why, just read on.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics, Toiletries and Household Products
Find out more about animal testing. Warning: this video contains images of animal suffering.

Find out more about animal testing.
Warning: this video contains images of animal suffering.

The sale of cosmetics and toiletry products which have been tested on animals is already banned in the UK and across the European Union (EU), but that doesn't mean everything on the shelves is safe to buy. Since March 2009, the EU has also started to bring in a ban on the sale of cosmetics whose ingredients have been tested on animals, but loopholes mean that ban will not be complete until at least 2013. The ban is a huge step forward, but while animal testing for cosmetics is now very much reduced, it can still go on. You can read more about this new ban here. Meanwhile, there is no law whatsoever to stop animal testing for household cleaning products.

Companies with a real commitment to stopping animal testing go above and beyond the law and don't do any tests of any ingredients on any animals. They also don't pay anyone else to do the testing for them and don't use ingredients which are animal-tested.
The Good Guys
Leaping Bunny Logo

PETA only approves companies with the very best policies against animal testing. These are companies whose policies make a real difference today, helping to stamp out animal testing and stopping animal testing in the future. The good news is that these companies include top high street brands like Marks & Spencer, Lush, Co-op and The Body Shop as well as fantastic boutique brands available in other shops or online. All these companies do no animal testing of any kind and have made a real commitment to ensure that there is no animal testing in their supply chain. Not only are their products ethical, their buying power also helps persuade supplier companies to stop animal testing.

PETA's confidence in backing these companies is based on their approval by the Humane Cosmetics Standard (HCS) and Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS). The HCS and HHPS are independent and check that all approved companies have a strong policy against animal testing in place and that they and their suppliers stick to it. You can see the full list of approved companies here and read more about the standards and the criteria they adhere to here. A lot of these companies carry the "leaping bunny" logo on their packaging, but some do not.

The only company we approve that isn't on the HCS list is Lush. They aren't eligible to join for technical reasons, but they have a great policy and a real commitment to getting rid of animal testing.
The Rest
The Easy Way to Go Cruelty-Free

A handful of companies – like Procter & Gamble and Unilever – admit they test on animals, but most of the others either dodge the issue with fancy wording or just won't say. Beware of claims like "this product is not tested on animals", which can hide the fact that ingredients are tested on animals, or "this company does not test on animals", which may mean the company contracts out its testing to other companies.

There are too many companies making cosmetics, toiletries and household products to keep track of each one's involvement in animal testing but unless a company has a policy in place about their ingredients, it is very likely that the ingredients they buy will be tested on animals. That's why it's so important that caring consumers use their purchasing power to support companies that have strong, progressive policies which stop animal testing now and in the future. PETA approval tells you who those companies are.

New companies are being added to the cruelty-free list all the time. Some brand-new companies or very small ones may have good policies but they might not be approved on the HCS or HHPS yet. Not every company which isn't approved by PETA will do animal testing or buy animal-tested ingredients � but only those listed here are guaranteed to be 100 per cent cruelty-free.
Vegetarian and Vegan Products
Vegetarian and Vegan Products

Cosmetics and household products can contain animal ingredients. The HCS and HHPS list allows you to search for companies which are also approved by the Vegan and Vegetarian societies, and Lush have their own range of entirely vegan cosmetics. Of course, other companies may produce products which are entirely free of animal ingredients, and you can find out more by checking the labels before buying. You can find a list of animal ingredients on PETA US' Caring Consumer website.

To learn why it's important not to purchase items with animal products in them, click here. Thousands of animals suffer and are killed for cosmetics testing in Europe every year – and billions are also killed for food. Going vegetarian is healthy, humane and environmentally friendly. Meat production is the leading cause of global warming; causes pollution, deforestation and other environmental disasters; contributes to heart attacks, strokes and various types of cancer; wastes precious food that could be going to feed hungry people; and, of course, results in cruelty to animals. Those of us who care about animals, other people and the planet need to look at what we put in our faces as well as what we put on them!
PETA Europe

Because laws on animal testing differ around the world, it makes sense that different standards should apply in different countries. All the companies listed on these pages are approved by PETA here in Europe. Wherever there are PETA affiliates, we're all only interested in one thing: doing all we can to stop animal testing. If you buy products from this list, you can be sure you're supporting companies with the highest standards and the highest level of commitment to end animal testing in the UK.

Resources
Free Vegetarian Starter Kit Free 'Vegetarian Starter Kit'
Chew On This

Features
Help Us Convince Queen's Guards to Shed Unbearable Headgear Help Us Convince Queen's Guards to Shed Unbearable Headgear
KFC - Read the Colonel's Real Secret Recipe: Live Scalding, Painful Debeaking and Crippled Chickens' KFC – Read the Colonel's Real Secret Recipe
China's Shocking Dog and Cat Fur Trade China's Shocking Dog and Cat Fur Trade
Peta Goes Undercover Inside CovanceCovance: Huge Primate Testing Lab Busted ... Again!

NOTICIA DEL 9 de mayo de 2008

http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/companies.php


Go Cruelty Free
Return to Home HOME About Us ABOUT US Contact Us CONTACT View Site Map SITE MAP
Shopping Cruelty Free
Retailers
FAQs
Get Involved
Press Centre
Donate Here

The following companies are all approved under the Humane Cosmetics Standard (HCS) and/or the Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS). This means that they no longer conduct or commission animal testing for their cosmetics and/or household products.

Browse: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z : : All : : RSS Feed

Abiolo European Union
Link: http://www.abiolo.com/
Availability | EU | FR

Abra Therapeutics Inc United States
Link: http://www.abratherapeutics.com/
Availability | US

Ael Creation European Union
Link: http://www.herbes-traditions.fr/
Availability | EU | FR

Afrumos United States
Link: http://www.afrumos.com/
Availability | US

Afterglow Cosmetics United Kingdom United States European Union
Link: http://www.afterglowcosmetics.com/
Availability | UK | US | EU | AT | BE | BG | CY | CZ | DK | EE | FI | FR | DE | EL | HU | IE | IT | LV | LT | LU | MT | NL | PL | PT | RO | SK | SI | ES | SE

Alba Botanica United Kingdom United States European Union
Link: http://www.albabotanica.com/
Availability | UK | US | EU | NL

Allens Naturally United States
Link: http://www.allensnaturally.com/
Availability | US

Alvin Connor United Kingdom United States European Union
Link: http://www.alvinconnor.com
Availability | UK | US | EU | AT | BE | BG | CY | CZ | DK | EE | FI | FR | DE | EL | HU | IE | IT | LV | LT | LU | MT | NL | PL | PT | RO | SK | SI | ES | SE

Ameleon United Kingdom
Link: http://www.ameleon-skincare.com
Availability | UK

Anna Marie's Aromatherapy & Massage United States
Link: http://annieallan.biz/
Availability | US

Aqua Natural United Kingdom
Link: http://www.aquanatural.co.uk/
Availability | UK

Arbonne International United Kingdom United States
Link: http://www.arbonne.com/
Availability | UK | US

Aroma Bella United States
Link: http://www.aromabella.com/
Availability | US

Aroma Crystal Therapy United States
Link: http://www.aromacrystaleurope.com/
Availability | US

Ashambri Skincare United States
Link: http://www.ashambriwholesale.com/
Availability | US

Astonish United Kingdom United States
Link: http://www.astonish.co.uk/
Availability | UK | US

Atelier de cosmetique Artisanal European Union
Link: http://www.atelier-cosmetique-artisanal.com/
Availability | EU | FR

Aubrey Organics United Kingdom United States European Union
Link: http://www.aubrey-organics.com/
Availability | UK | US | EU | DE | EL | NL

http://www.aubreyorganicsuk.co.uk/

Aunt Bee's Skin Care United States
Link: http://www.privatelabelselect.com/auntbees.html
Availability | US

Auromère United States
Link: http://www.auromere.com/
Availability | US

Noticia del 07 de mayo de 2008


New Law Bans Cosmetics Tests on Animals — Almost

New Law Bans Cosmetics Tests on Animals ? Almost On 11 March 2009, the European Union (EU) implemented an amendment to its Cosmetics Directive bringing in a partial ban on the sale anywhere in the EU of cosmetics and toiletries containing ingredients which have been tested on animals. PETA welcomes this fantastic news as a mark of real progress in the cruel minefield of animal testing.

Since 1998, the testing of products and ingredients on animals has been banned in the UK, so it is important that we remember that the issue here is the sale of products which contain animal-tested ingredients. Up until now, shop shelves have been stocked with products from all over the world, from countries and companies which still carried out animal testing that was not allowed here. However, welcome as it is, the new EU ban doesn't make cosmetics testing completely go away, and caring consumers should still pay attention to what they buy.

Although the EU is making great strides, makeup and toiletries containing animal-tested ingredients will still be available in many high street shops after 11 March. Fortunately, so are cruelty-free products, whose manufacturers are sparing animals from suffering by going above and beyond the legal requirements.

The Good Points
The ban means that much less testing on animals will take place for cosmetics in Europe and that non-EU companies which want to export to Europe will have to change their ways too. What's really good about the ban is that its deadline has driven forward the development of humane testing, like the cruelty-free skin-irritation test which PETA helped to fund. These tests can also be used for drugs and other chemicals – so everyone's a winner. It is also an important step because it makes the point that animals shouldn't be used for any trivial purpose.

The Bad Points
The Cosmetics Directive has loopholes and exceptions which mean that animal testing can still take place, and ingredients which are tested on animals can still make their way into products on the shelves. The following loopholes are included:

* Certain kinds of animal tests will still be allowed until 2013.
* Tests could still be done on ingredients to meet other requirements, including meeting the requirements of different laws, such as to determine whether the ingredients cause damage to the environment, or laws abroad.

That means that it's still important to choose carefully when you buy cosmetics and toiletries. You can read more about product testing and see the great range of cruelty-free companies to choose from by clicking the button below!
Browse Our Cruelty-Free Guide

See Also
Guide to Going Cruelty-Free'Guide to Going Cruelty-Free
Watch 'Testing � One, Two, Three'Watch 'Testing … One, Two, Three'
Put Your Compassion to the TestPut Your Compassion to the Test
Jenny Seagrove Is Not a Guinea PigJenny Seagrove Is Not a Guinea Pig

Noticia de l 4 de mayo de 08

aqui hablan de los experimentos :

http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/c_faqs.php

noticia del 06 demayo de 08

resh Handmade Cosmetics
Home Against Animal Testing


Got a Voucher?
Wishlist (0) ( all )

Email:
Password:

Register Lost Password
Still Against Animal Testing
Lush'sAnimalTestingPolicy
Lush's Policy rabbits.jpg

Lush are firmly committed to a policy which not only precludes testing its products and ingredients on animals, or engaging with third-party suppliers to do so on their behalf, but we will also not buy any ingredient from any supplier that tests any of its materials on any animals for any purpose. This policy is unique in its field and is pioneering a new way to stop animal tests for cosmetics.

Lush runs its own Supplier Specific Boycott Policy. There are clear benefits to this policy, which is different and distinct from the Fixed Cut-off Date policy employed by the Humane Cosmetics Standard (Leaping Bunny logo).


Can the ingredients Lush use be tested for other purposes, but still used in cosmetics?

While some other policies only preclude the use of ingredients tested on animals for use in cosmetics, the Lush policy means the company will not do business with any supplier that is engaged in any animal testing for any purpose, be it cosmetics, food, agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc.

All of Lush’s suppliers have to sign a statement saying that they adhere to this policy, and the statements are resent to suppliers on an annual basis and reiterated and signed for with each purchase order for ingredients. In addition, the entire supply chain is audited by an independent consultant to ensure that suppliers are in compliance with the policy.

Why do Lush not have a Fixed Cut-Off Date like some other companies?

Other policies apply a specific timeframe during or after which a company will not buy ingredients which have been tested on animals, but therefore do not offer a financial incentive for ingredients manufacturers to stop all animal testing because, even if they did, under a fixed cut-off date the manufacturers would still not qualify for any additional business from that company.

The Lush policy actively encourages suppliers to switch from animal to non-animal testing methodologies by enabling them to immediately become eligible to supply the Lush when they stop testing on animals. This policy is like a traditional boycott campaign, in other words, stop doing the thing we object to (testing on animals) and we will call off the boycott (reward you with our business).

If you don't test on animals, how do you make sure your products are safe to use?

Lush feel that not only is the testing of cosmetic products and ingredients on animals unnecessary and unethical, but it is also scientifically unreliable, unable to adequately access the safety or efficiency of a product or ingredient, and may even allow unsafe products onto the market. We prefer to know that our products are safe for the humans that are going to be using them, so all of our products go through a rigorous assessment, and human trials using our panel of volunteer human testers. We prefer to use only natural ingredients with a proven record of safe use, and where we have to use synthetic ingredients we again use only those with a long and proven record of safe use.

Does Lush campaign against animal testing?

Lush encourage and support the development and validation of non-animal testing methodologies and will actively campaign for their use instead of outmoded and cruel animal experiments. Lush have also been actively engaged in trying to stop the use of animals in Europe’s largest animal testing programme, REACH, and to ensure that the EU Cosmetics Directive, which calls for a ban on all animal testing for finished cosmetic products and ingredients by 2009, is fully realised and implem ented.

https://www.lush.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6292&Itemid=74

Nticia del 08 de mayo de 08

ources >
Animal Ingredients List
About This List

PETA's list of animal ingredients and their alternatives helps consumers avoid animal ingredients in food, cosmetics, and other products. Please note, however, that it is not all-inclusive. There are thousands of technical and patented names for ingredient variations. Furthermore, many ingredients known by one name can be of animal, vegetable, or synthetic origin. If you have a question regarding an ingredient in a product, call the manufacturer. Good sources of additional informa-tion are the Consumer's Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients, the Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, or an unabridged dictionary. All of these are available at most libraries.

Adding to the confusion over whether or not an ingredient is of animal origin is the fact that many companies have removed the word "animal" from their ingredient labels to avoid putting off consumers. For example, rather than use the term "hydrolyzed animal protein," companies may use another term such as "hydrolyzed collagen." Simple for them, but frustrating for the caring consumer.

Animal ingredients are used not because they are better than vegetable-
1

derived or synthetic ingredients but rather because they are generally cheaper. Today's slaughterhouses must dispose of the byproducts of the slaughter of billions of animals every year and have found an easy and profitable solution in selling them to food and cosmetics manufacturers.

Animal ingredients come from every industry that uses animals: meat, fur, wool, dairy, egg, and fishing, as well as industries such as horse racing and rodeo, which send unwanted animals to slaughter. Contact PETA for our factsheets to learn more about the animals who suffer at the hands of these industries and what you can do to help.

Rendering plants process the bodies of millions of tons of dead animals every year, transforming decaying flesh and bones into profitable animal ingredients. The pri-mary source of rendered animals is slaughterhouses, which provide the "inedible" parts of all animals killed for food. The bodies of companion animals who are euth-anized in animal shelters wind up at rendering plants, too. One small plant in Quebec renders 10 tons of dogs and cats a week, a sobering reminder of the horrible dog and cat overpopulation problem with which shelters must cope.

Some animal ingredients do not wind up in the final product but are used in the manufacturing process. For example, in the production of some refined sugars, bone char is used to whiten the sugar; in some wines and beers, isinglass (from the swim bladders of fish) is used as a "clearing" agent.

Kosher symbols and markings also add to the confusion and are not reliable indicators on which vegans or vegetarians should base their purchasing decisions. This issue is complex, but the “K” or “Kosher” symbols basically mean that the food manufacturing process was overseen by a rabbi, who ensures that it meets Hebrew dietary laws. Kosher foods may not contain both dairy products and meat, but they may contain one or the other. “P” or “Parve” means the product contains no meat or dairy products but may contain fish or eggs. “D,” as in “Kosher D,” means that the product either contains dairy or was made with dairy machinery. For example, a chocolate and peanut candy may be marked “Kosher D” even if it doesn't contain dairy because the non-dairy chocolate was manufactured on machinery that also made milk chocolate. For questions regarding other symbols, please consult Jewish organizations or publications.

Thousands of products on store shelves have labels that are hard to decipher. It's nearly impossible to be perfectly vegan, but it's getting easier to avoid products with animal ingredients. Our list will give you a good working knowledge of the most common animal-derived ingredients and their alternatives, allowing you to make decisions that will save animals' lives.

2

Adrenaline.
Hormone from adrenal glands of hogs, cattle, and sheep. In medicine. Alternatives: synthetics.

Alanine.
(See Amino Acids.)

Albumen.
In eggs, milk, muscles, blood, and many vegetable tissues and fluids. In cosmetics, albumen is usually derived from egg whites and used as a coagulating agent. May cause allergic reaction. In cakes, cookies, candies, etc. Egg whites sometimes used in "clearing" wines. Derivative: Albumin.

Albumin.
(See Albumen.)

Alcloxa.
(See Allantoin.)

Aldioxa.
(See Allantoin.)

Aliphatic Alcohol.
(See Lanolin and Vitamin A.)

Allantoin.
Uric acid from cows, most mammals. Also in many plants (especially comfrey). In cosmetics (especially creams and lotions) and used in treatment of wounds and ulcers. Derivatives: Alcloxa, Aldioxa. Alternatives: extract of comfrey root, synthetics.

Alligator Skin.
(See Leather.)

Alpha-Hydroxy Acids.
Any one of several acids used as an exfoliant and in anti-wrinkle products. Lactic acid may be animal-derived (see Lactic Acid). Alternatives: glycolic acid, citric acid, and salicylic acid are plant- or fruit-derived.

Ambergris.
From whale intestines. Used as a fixative in making perfumes and as a flavoring in foods and beverages. Alternatives: synthetic or vegetable fixatives.

Amino Acids.
The building blocks of protein in all animals and plants. In cosmetics, vitamins, supplements, shampoos, etc. Alternatives: synthetics, plant sources.

Aminosuccinate Acid.
(See Aspartic Acid.)

Angora.
Hair from the Angora rabbit or goat. Used in clothing. Alternatives: synthetic fibers.
Back To Top

Animal Fats and Oils.
In foods, cosmetics, etc. Highly allergenic. Alternatives: olive oil, wheat germ oil, coconut oil, flaxseed oil, almond oil, safflower oil, etc.

Animal Hair.
In some blankets, mattresses, brushes, furniture, etc. Alternatives: vegetable and synthetic fibers.

Arachidonic Acid.
A liquid unsaturated fatty acid that is found in liver, brain, glands, and fat of animals and humans. Generally isolated from animal liver. Used in companion animal food for nutrition and in skin creams and lotions to soothe eczema and rashes. Alternatives: synthetics, aloe vera, tea tree oil, calendula ointment.

Arachidyl Proprionate.
A wax that can be from animal fat. Alternatives: peanut or vegetable oil.

Aspartic Acid. Aminosuccinate Acid.
Can be animal or plant source (e.g., molasses). Sometimes synthesized for commercial purposes.

Bee Pollen.
Microsporic grains in seed plants gathered by bees then collected from the legs of bees. Causes allergic reactions in some people. In nutritional supplements, shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants. Alternatives: synthetics, plant amino acids, pollen collected from plants.

Bee Products.
Produced by bees for their own use. Bees are selectively bred. Culled bees are killed. A cheap sugar is substituted for their stolen honey. Millions die as a result. Their legs are often torn off by pollen-collection trapdoors.

Beeswax. Honeycomb.
Wax obtained from melting honeycomb with boiling water, straining it, and cooling it. From virgin bees. Very cheap and widely used. May be harmful to the skin. In lipsticks and many other cosmetics (especially face creams, lotions, mascara, eye creams and shadows, face makeups, nail whiteners, lip balms, etc.). Derivatives: Cera Flava. Alternatives: paraffin, vegetable oils and fats. Ceresin, aka ceresine, aka earth wax. (Made from the mineral ozokerite. Replaces beeswax in cosmetics. Also used to wax paper, to make polishing cloths, in dentistry for taking wax impressions, and in candle-making.) Also, carnauba wax (from the Brazilian palm tree; used in many cosmetics, including lipstick; rarely causes allergic reactions). Candelilla wax (from candelilla plants; used in many cosmetics, including lipstick; also in the manufacture of rubber and phonograph records, in waterproofing and writing inks; no known toxicity). Japan wax (Vegetable wax. Japan tallow. Fat from the fruit of a tree grown in Japan and China.).

Benzoic Acid.
In almost all vertebrates and in berries. Used as a preservative in mouthwashes, deodorants, creams, aftershave lotions, etc. Alternatives: cranberries, gum benzoin (tincture) from the aromatic balsamic resin from trees grown in China, Sumatra, Thailand, and Cambodia.

Beta Carotene.
(See Carotene.)

Biotin. Vitamin H. Vitamin B Factor.
In every living cell and in larger amounts in milk and yeast. Used as a texturizer in cosmetics, shampoos, and creams. Alternatives: plant sources.

Blood.
From any slaughtered animal. Used as adhesive in plywood, also found in cheese-making, foam rubber, intravenous feedings, and medicines. Possibly in foods such as lecithin. Alternatives: synthetics, plant sources.

Boar Bristles.
Hair from wild or captive hogs. In "natural" toothbrushes and bath and shaving brushes. Alternatives: vegetable fibers, nylon, the peelu branch or peelu gum (Asian, available in the U.S.; its juice replaces toothpaste).

Bone Char.
Animal bone ash. Used in bone china and often to make sugar white. Serves as the charcoal used in aquarium filters. Alternatives: synthetic tribasic calcium phosphate.
Back To Top

Bone Meal.
Crushed or ground animal bones. In some fertilizers. In some vitamins and supplements as a source of calcium. In toothpastes. Alternatives: plant mulch, vegetable compost, dolomite, clay, vegetarian vitamins.

Calciferol.
(See Vitamin D.)

Calfskin.
(See Leather.)

Caprylamine Oxide.
(See Caprylic Acid.)

Capryl Betaine.
(See Caprylic Acid.)

3

Caprylic Acid.
A liquid fatty acid from cow's or goat's milk. Also from palm and coconut oil, other plant oils. In perfumes, soaps. Derivatives: Caprylic Triglyceride, Caprylamine Oxide, Capryl Betaine. Alternatives: plant sources.

Caprylic Triglyceride.
(See Caprylic Acid.)

Carbamide.
(See Urea.)

Carmine. Cochineal. Carminic Acid.
Red pigment from the crushed female cochineal insect. Reportedly, 70,000 beetles must be killed to produce one pound of this red dye. Used in cosmetics, shampoos, red apple sauce, and other foods (including red lollipops and food coloring). May cause allergic reaction. Alternatives: beet juice (used in powders, rouges, shampoos; no known toxicity); alkanet root (from the root of this herb-like tree; used as a red dye for inks, wines, lip balms, etc.; no known toxicity. Can also be combined to make a copper or blue coloring). (See Colors.)

Carminic Acid.
(See Carmine.)

Carotene. Provitamin A. Beta Carotene.
A pigment found in many animal tissues and in all plants. Used as a coloring in cosmetics and in the manufacture of vitamin A.

Casein. Caseinate. Sodium Caseinate.
Milk protein. In "non-dairy" creamers, soy cheese, many cosmetics, hair preparations, beauty masks. Alternatives: soy protein, soy milk, and other vegetable milks.

Caseinate.
(See Casein.)

Cashmere.
Wool from the Kashmir goat. Used in clothing. Alternatives: synthetic fibers.
Back To Top

4

Castor. Castoreum.
Creamy substance with strong odor from muskrat and beaver genitals. Used as a fixative in perfume and incense. Alternatives: synthetics, plant castor oil.

Castoreum.
(See Castor.)

Catgut.
Tough string from the intestines of sheep, horses, etc. Used for surgical sutures. Also for stringing tennis rackets and musical instruments, etc. Alternatives: nylon and other synthetic fibers.

Cera Flava.
(See Beeswax.)

Cerebrosides.
Fatty acids and sugars found in the covering of nerves. May include tissue from brain.

Cetyl Alcohol.
Wax found in spermaceti from sperm whales or dolphins. Alternatives: Vegetable cetyl alcohol (e.g., coconut), synthetic spermaceti.

Cetyl Palmitate.
(See Spermaceti.)

Chitosan.
A fiber derived from crustacean shells. Used as a lipid binder in diet products, in hair, oral and skin care products, antiperspirants, and deodorants. Alternatives: raspberries, yams, legumes, dried apricots, and many other fruits and vegetables.

Cholesterin.
(See Lanolin.)

Cholesterol.
A steroid alcohol in all animal fats and oils, nervous tissue, egg yolk, and blood. Can be derived from lanolin. In cosmetics, eye creams, shampoos, etc. Alternatives: solid complex alcohols (sterols) from plant sources.

Choline Bitartrate.
(See Lecithin.)

Civet.
Unctuous secretion painfully scraped from a gland very near the genital organs of civet cats. Used as a fixative in perfumes. Alternatives: (See alternatives to Musk.).

Cochineal.
(See Carmine.)

Cod Liver Oil.
(See Marine Oil.)
Back To Top

Collagen.
Fibrous protein in vertebrates. Usually derived from animal tissue. Can't affect the skin's own collagen. An allergen. Alternatives: soy protein, almond oil, amla oil (see alternative to Keratin), etc.

Colors. Dyes.
Pigments from animal, plant, and synthetic sources used to color foods, cosmetics, and other products. Cochineal is from insects. Widely used FD&C and D&C colors are coaltar (bituminous coal) derivatives that are continously tested on animals due to their carcinogenic properties. Alternatives: grapes, beets, turmeric, saffron, carrots, chlorophyll, annatto, alkanet.

Corticosteroid.
(See Cortisone.)

Cortisone. Corticosteroid.
Hormone from adrenal glands. Widely used in medicine. Alternatives: synthetics.

Cysteine, L-Form.
An amino acid from hair which can come from animals. Used in hair-care products and creams, in some bakery products, and in wound-healing formulations. Alternatives: plant sources.

Cystine.
An amino acid found in urine and horsehair. Used as a nutritional supplement and in emollients. Alternatives: plant sources.

Dexpanthenol.
(See Panthenol.)

Diglycerides.
(See Monoglycerides and Glycerin.)

Dimethyl Stearamine.
(See Stearic Acid.)

Down.
Goose or duck insulating feathers. From slaughtered or cruelly exploited geese. Used as an insulator in quilts, parkas, sleeping bags, pillows, etc. Alternatives: polyester and synthetic substitutes, kapok (silky fibers from the seeds of some tropical trees) and milkweed seed pod fibers.

Duodenum Substances.
From the digestive tracts of cows and pigs. Added to some vitamin tablets. In some medicines. Alternatives: vegetarian vitamins, synthetics.

Dyes.
(See Colors.)

Egg Protein.
In shampoos, skin preparations, etc. Alternatives: plant proteins.

Elastin.
Protein found in the neck ligaments and aortas of cows. Similar to collagen. Can't affect the skin's own elasticity. Alternatives: synthetics, protein from plant tissues.
Back To Top

Emu Oil.
From flightless ratite birds native to Australia and now factory farmed. Used in cosmetics and creams. Alternatives: vegetable and plant oils.

Ergocalciferol.
(See Vitamin D.)

Ergosterol.
(See Vitamin D.)

Estradiol.
(See Estrogen.)

5

Estrogen. Estradiol.
Female hormones from pregnant mares? urine. Considered a drug. Can have harmful systemic effects if used by children. Used for reproductive problems and in birth control pills and Premarin, a menopausal drug. In creams, perfumes, and lotions. Has a negligible effect in the creams as a skin restorative; simple vegetable-source emollients are considered better. Alternatives: oral contraceptives and menopausal drugs based on synthetic steroids or phytoestrogens (from plants, especially palm-kernel oil). Menopausal symptoms can also be treated with diet and herbs.

Fats.
(See Animal Fats.)

Fatty Acids.
Can be one or any mixture of liquid and solid acids such as caprylic, lauric, myristic, oleic, palmitic, and stearic. Used in bubble baths, lipsticks, soap, detergents, cosmetics, food. Alternatives: vegetable-derived acids, soy lecithin, safflower oil, bitter almond oil, sunflower oil, etc.

FD&C Colors.
(See Colors.)

Feathers.
From exploited and slaughtered birds. Used whole as ornaments or ground up in shampoos. (See Down and Keratin.)

Fish Liver Oil.
Used in vitamins and supplements. In milk fortified with vitamin D. Alternatives: yeast extract ergosterol and exposure of skin to sunshine.

Fish Oil.
(See Marine Oil.) Fish oil can also be from marine mammals. Used in soap-making.

Fish Scales.
Used in shimmery makeups. Alternatives: mica, rayon, synthetic pearl.

Fur.
Obtained from animals (usually mink, foxes, or rabbits) cruelly trapped in steel-jaw leghold traps or raised in intensive confinement on fur "farms." Alternatives: synthetics. (See Sable Brushes.)

Gel.
(See Gelatin.)
Back To Top

Gelatin. Gel.
Protein obtained by boiling skin, tendons, ligaments, and/or bones with water. From cows and pigs. Used in shampoos, face masks, and other cosmetics. Used as a thickener for fruit gelatins and puddings (e.g., "Jello"). In candies, marshmallows, cakes, ice cream, yogurts. On photographic film and in vitamins as a coating and as capsules. Sometimes used to assist in "clearing" wines. Alternatives: carrageen (carrageenan, Irish moss), seaweeds (algin, agar-agar, kelp—used in jellies, plastics, medicine), pectin from fruits, dextrins, locust bean gum, cotton gum, silica gel. Marshmallows were originally made from the root of the marsh mallow plant. Vegetarian capsules are now available from several companies. Digital cameras don't use film.

Glucose Tyrosinase.
(See Tyrosine.)

Glycerides.
(See Glycerin.)

Glycerin. Glycerol.
A byproduct of soap manufacture (normally uses animal fat). In cosmetics, foods, mouthwashes, chewing gum, toothpastes, soaps, ointments, medicines, lubricants, transmission and brake fluid, and plastics. Derivatives: Glycerides, Glyceryls, Glycreth-26, Polyglycerol. Alternatives: vegetable glycerin—a byproduct of vegetable oil soap. Derivatives of seaweed, petroleum.

Glycerol.
(See Glycerin.)

Glyceryls.
(See Glycerin.)

Glycreth-26.
(See Glycerin.)

Guanine. Pearl Essence.
Obtained from scales of fish. Constituent of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid and found in all animal and plant tissues. In shampoo, nail polish, other cosmetics. Alternatives: leguminous plants, synthetic pearl, or aluminum and bronze particles.

Hide Glue.
Same as gelatin but of a cruder impure form. Alternatives: dextrins and synthetic petrochemical-based adhesives. (See Gelatin.)

Honey.
Food for bees, made by bees. Can cause allergic reactions. Used as a coloring and an emollient in cosmetics and as a flavoring in foods. Should never be fed to infants. Alternatives: in foods—maple syrup, date sugar, syrups made from grains such as barley malt, turbinado sugar, molasses; in cosmetics—vegetable colors and oils.

Honeycomb.
(See Beeswax.)

Horsehair.
(See Animal Hair.)

Hyaluronic Acid.
A protein found in umbilical cords and the fluids around the joints. Used in cosmetics. Alternatives: synthetic hyaluronic acid, plant oils.

Hydrocortisone.
(See Cortisone.)
Back To Top

Hydrolyzed Animal Protein.
In cosmetics, especially shampoo and hair treatments. Alternatives: soy protein, other vegetable proteins, amla oil (see alternatives to Keratin).

Imidazolidinyl Urea.
(See Urea.)

Insulin.
From hog pancreas. Used by millions of diabetics daily. Alternatives: synthetics, vegetarian diet and nutritional supplements, human insulin grown in a lab.

Isinglass.
A form of gelatin prepared from the internal membranes of fish bladders. Sometimes used in "clearing" wines and in foods. Alternatives: bentonite clay, "Japanese isinglass," agar-agar (see alternatives to Gelatin), mica, a mineral used in cosmetics.

Isopropyl Lanolate.
(See Lanolin.)

Isopropyl Myristate.
(See Myristic Acid.)

Isopropyl Palmitate.
Complex mixtures of isomers of stearic acid and palmitic acid. (See Stearic Acid.)

Keratin.
Protein from the ground-up horns, hooves, feathers, quills, and hair of various animals. In hair rinses, shampoos, permanent wave solutions. Alternatives: almond oil, soy protein, amla oil (from the fruit of an Indian tree), human hair from salons. Rosemary and nettle give body and strand strength to hair.

Lactic Acid.
Found in blood and muscle tissue. Also in sour milk, beer, sauerkraut, pickles, and other food products made by bacterial fermentation. Used in skin fresheners, as a preservative, in the formation of plasticizers, etc. Alternative: plant milk sugars, synthetics.

Lactose.
Milk sugar from milk of mammals. In eye lotions, foods, tablets, cosmetics, baked goods, medicines. Alternatives: plant milk sugars.

Laneth.
(See Lanolin.)

Lanogene.
(See Lanolin.)

6