Thursday, May 22, 2014


I have a question. Actually, I have many questions. Like 'How is it possible that humanity has allowed its own entertainment to devolve so dramatically?' or 'How come no-one's thought of a boob-burger yet?"

But the topic I'd like to address today is animal testing. Now before you gear up to go all teary-eyed-indignant-PC-animal-crusader on me, thereby confirming your status as self appointed guardian of all things humane and ruler of the online higher ground because you know where the share button is, let me stress that this is not a post in which I am attempting to make myself look like a bleeding heart who lives in a pooh hut in Joostenbergvlakte surrounded by a gazillion rescued shelter animals. On the contrary, I live in an urban dwelling too small to house the dog I so crave. Or dogs, plural. I don't even like cats. And am pathologically terrified of birds. Also, for the sake of avoiding any accusations of hypocrisy, I am an avid meat eater and although I am painfully aware that a lot of the meat I eat is more than likely from a source which doesn't always practice the most humane farming methods, I still braai as often as I can.

So here goes... And I'm hoping for a cogent argument, for or against, as I am trying my best to understand why this is still allowed to happen in this day and age of apparent enlightenment. How is it still necessary to use domestic animals for lab testing to ensure that (mostly) cosmetic products are safe for humans to use?
My feeling is that the basis of all cosmetics - the ingredients and the formulas - are pretty much established and have been for many years. Surely the active ingredients that form the chemical building blocks of these products are by now documented and used universally. Anti-aging cream... Same shit for everyone bar the packaging - or am I wrong? What then remains variable? Colour? I'm not convinced the giant cosmetic firms have teams of scouts scouring the Bornean rain forests discovering new toad venom that may or may not help Edna with her bunions. So the chances that new "secret ingredients" (a ruse to fool rubes, incidentally) being discovered on such a consistent basis is very low, if not non-existent. Then what in the ever-loving fuck are they still testing? We know humans eventually develop emphysema from tobacco smoke. We know that poking your eye with a mascara wand will lead to tears. We know that too much hydrochloric acid in your hand cream might lead to some discomfort. Surely the decades of brutally cruel testing have yielded such vast and conclusive results that they cover every eventuality. Is the market so competitive that manufacturers are forced to up the ante by adding nitroglycerin to their eye drops just to move units? For fuck's sake, even Jacques Kallis's ex wipes snail slime on herself for Verimark or whatever... Botox hasn't killed Helen Zille yet, you can release the monkeys!

And do the HIGHLY EDUCATED and therefore, I assume, not complete fucktards administering this barbaric torture - because bunnies and beagles are more expendable than humans - not feel the pangs of compassion like a red hot sword through the heart? Do they go merrily into work every day, after kissing their immaculately made up wives goodbye, and joke around the office and eat their polony sandwiches as the rats whine and cringe and scream and suffer? How long does one need to work in a lab like this before you become desensitized? Or is the orientation video enough?

If someone can offer a cogent argument for this practice I am more than willing to listen. I will not label you monster or super villain. I am genuinely interested in finding out if there is any valid reason why this should still be of any necessity. I am of course a layman in the world of animal torture testing, but at least I understand a little of the workings of a laboratory, having spent 5 years making coffee in one and distracting the Jewellery Design students whilst sitting very near a lab for many more. Anyone?

Activists - please refrain from using this as a platform upon which to further your own agenda. We are as painfully aware of your compassion as we are of the heinous nature of the topic under discussion. And it is after all just that, a discussion. And the entire point is to see if there is another side to the story, no matter how unpopular. Just remember, onions and lentils suffer as well.

And just because you've had the patience to make it through this entire diatribe without vomiting, and to make up for causing you any personal discomfort, here, have a video of cute dogs after being rescued from a lab testing facility. It's a feel good romp the likes of which haven't been seen since the holiday montage in American Pie and the reason I put finger to keyboard this morning.

NGDG: My only complaint about Playboy's Facebook posts is the lack of articles.

Spread The Love. Test On Animal Abusers.


  1. I've had to split this post into two sections, apologies.

    PART 1:
    Let me start by stating that I am AGAINST animal testing for beauty treatments.
    I am, however, FOR testing when it comes to legitimate science and medical treatments.

    No matter the situation, or how and why this argument crops up (news feeds, blogs or simple conversation), you’re immediately inundated with dirty looks and questions along the lines of “but what about the animals”, “how can you be so cruel”, smug statements of “well lets see how you like it”… There is a special ring in hell demarcated for people like me; and, honestly, if the testing process cures one person, then I will happily sauna it up with the rest of my ilk for all eternity.

    So… “How can you differentiate or legitimize levels of cruelty. Why should science take precedence over cosmetic, and why does that not make you a hypocrite?”

    My answer? Morality.
    I find it morally reprehensible to test and torture animals because you think the product / treatment makes you more desirable to the mouth breathing glamoraties surrounding you.
    Your no-tears shampoo is cruel. Don’t like soap in your eyes? Don’t open your eyes while shampooing your hair; or harden the fuck up, realize you’re stupid and should opt for a shaven head seeing as you lack the basic common knowledge to protect your eyes against chemicals.
    Injecting a dangerous (and I should point out that it’s technically a virus) chemicals into your face to kill the nerve endings so that you don’t frown so often, or filling your lips to preserve your teenaged pout not only makes me look at you like you’re an alien (chances are you have no idea how artificial you look), but I am judging your mental capabilities.
    Undergoing surgery to add silicone muscle sculpting, breast augmentation (enlargements, I am for and want a reduction due having a bad back), or any technically redundant surgery to make yourself more physically desirable to the opposite or same sex… Not only a waste of money, but creates an industry that charges more than they should, pushing up prices for medical procedures and over booked hospitals that could be used by those who actually need them.

    Furthermore, I am in agreement with the statement made in the blog “These technologies are as good as they will get”.
    Honestly, how much MORE do we need to test mascara? Why on this green earth is it necessary to add diamond dust to the layers of caked on shmutz you’re already wearing?
    Will the product promote regrowing the eyebrows you shaved off as a teenager? NO.

    Read the fucking label on your beauty product.
    The amount of ingredients on a tub of oil of olay (NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS BTW!) is so watered down, you would need to re-engineer the contents for it to have any viable “regenerative” results. Dermal application is NOT going to change anything happening on a sub-dermal level.

    Animals suffering for your so-called beauty, in and industry that is one great big marketing machine designed to eat a portion of your monthly disposable income? Fuck off.

    “Yes, but why don’t we test of prisoners, pedophiles and rapists, then”?

    Really? You honestly want any results gained from people who probably have genetic predispositions to either violent behaviors, depression, rage and a myriad of other mental disorders to be mass-produced and sold to the general public?

    DNA is an amazing thing, ladies and gentlemen. Truly. Who you are today has been defined, built and transposed from hundreds of thousands of your dead relations meeting, falling “in love” and humping to the point that you’re now sitting here reading this.
    Each time taking their own strains, mutating them with the introduction of other traits from their partners, perpetually changing and “improving” (although looking at some of the people reading this, I doubt it) stock.

    You HONESTLY want to introduce unstable results into a mass market. (Yes, that was redundant question).

  2. PART 2:

    “But you’re not answering my question”

    I was getting to that.

    As technology in medicine and science improves and develops (much faster than that of the beauty industry, I might add), the use of animals is shrinking. Recent break throughs like the work being done at [href=]Empiriko[/href] is a testament to that.
    Furthermore, most of the animals used for medical and scientific testing are specifically bread for these purposes - in most cases, these animals would not be able to survive in the wild – and, animal testing is highly regulated and monitored in most countries to ensure that cruelty is kept to a minimum.
    I’d go so far as to say that testing animals probably have better living conditions than most people and pets.

    First reason for animal testing:
    Using animals give us clean, controlled and accurately traceable, testable results.
    Certain rodents and monkies have DNA strands that get as close to that of a human being as possible.
    The animals being used in most studies these days are not your run of the mill field mouse or poodle.
    I have already said that animals are being specifically bread for these reasons. And please don’t say THAT’S cruel, especially when you go home and pet your pug, x-bread pitty, rag doll cat etc, tonight.

    Second reason:
    Morally it is less reprehensible to test the effects of drugs on animals in early stages of development than it is on people.

    Now, I am by no means a scientist, however, I am aware that animals selected are done for their overall health, and “quality”… Certain types of “people” have better cell growth, faster healing times, less damaged, “fresher” specimens: IE – Children, and there has been a history of “Unethical” testing on human subjects in the [href=]USA[/href] and during a certain German war, Russian war and so on and so forth.

    At this point I invite you to think about the demographic of people who would be interested in obtaining “test subjects” for medical testing, and if you’ve read the above link, the answer should be clear: the Poor or those members of society who are so inhuman that they would have no qualms trafficking the lives of children for profit.

    I’d sooner see a rat undergo this kind of testing, than children.
    Not that I like children, but I specifically dislike crying children, they generally grow up into whiny adults.

    Lets not forget that once the dangerous phases of testing have been completed and a stable product can be used, human testing is introduced and usually, in highly regulated, controlled environments.
    Cancer studies, drug side effect panels. Again. Who is being targeted? The desperate.

    Introduce human testing using the wrong demographic, consider the types of testing required, and consider the way the testing is carried out and let your knowledge of man complete the picture.
    Animal testing, is viable, offers results, and has improved the overall quality of human life for a large portion of the worlds population.

    The next time one of your loved ones is undergoing treatment for cancer, has had a successful skin graft, or any of the innumerable procedures that has improved their overall quality of life, or even extended their life, have a moment of thanks for the animals and scientists who have made it possible.

    I encourage everyone to learn both sides of the argument, and for you to do further reading: