Philosophical Vegan Forum

Do you guys use dyes? Since they're tested on animals, they seem to be a problem.
What do you think?

I do not use dyes, mainly because I am satisfied with my natural hair color. But if they are tested on animals then that would be a great reason not to use them.

^Oh, this isn't just about hair dyes. It's about dyes in general, like 'Red 27 Lake'. They can be in a lot of products (like in many foods).

There's a difference between constantly tested on animals, and were tested on animals in the past to determine safety. Most things are in the latter category.
I wouldn't worry about things in trace amounts, although very often food with coloring in it is not healthy for other reasons anyway.

^Do you have a source about what dyes are currently tested? I can't seem to find anything when I search, 'dyes currently tested on animals'.

EquALLity wrote:^Do you have a source about what dyes are currently tested? I can't seem to find anything when I search, 'dyes currently tested on animals'.

Nope. Which is why I don't really worry about it.

I know animal testing seems terrible, but it's such an incredibly small issue by comparison, and it's difficult to even find information on.

Animal charity evaluators had a good chart comparing animal suffering vs. the contributions put into stopping it, but I can't find it now.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Nope. Which is why I don't really worry about it.

I know animal testing seems terrible, but it's such an incredibly small issue by comparison, and it's difficult to even find information on.

If there isn't information on it, it seems to me to be the best option to avoid dyes entirely. It's not really difficult to do so.
Just because it's less of an issue than factory farming doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

But then, what about companies like LUSH, that use those dyes, but fight against animal testing?

brimstoneSalad wrote: Animal charity evaluators had a good chart comparing animal suffering vs. the contributions put into stopping it, but I can't find it now.

I think I've seen that graph.

Yeah, this, right?: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... donations/

EquALLity wrote:But then, what about companies like LUSH, that use those dyes, but fight against animal testing?

I've seen you mention LUSH before. From what I know it's actually not that hard for a company to avoid using animal-tested ingredients in their products (there are alternatives), but they may be doing more good by being vocal about animal testing....

Side note: From what I can tell, LUSH products smell/look nice and the bath bombs give you a really nice experience. But that's it.
Obviously I haven't tried all of their products, but just reading the ingredient list on some of the more popular ones made me cringe. Natural doesn't always mean better, not even in cosmetics. Too many of the "natural" and "gentle" products have many ingredients that are proven skin irritants (SLS, fragrances/essential oils, and other nasties), or comedogenic ingredients that really have no business being in there. Especially for those prices.
There's nothing wrong with buying skincare for how it feels, looks and smells, but I think most of their products are better for enjoyment/aesthetic purposes than serious skincare.

EquALLity wrote: Yeah, this, right?: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/ ... donations/

Yeah, that's it.

EquALLity wrote: If there isn't information on it, it seems to me to be the best option to avoid dyes entirely.

There's no reason to think that will necessarily help animals, though.
Testing is done due to legal requirements; and it's the law that's the problem here. We need legislative action and tort reform. Avoiding products that contain traces of chemicals once tested on animals isn't necessarily going to encourage that; it may just produce inferior/more expensive products, or cause companies to give up on vegans and just put gelatin and other animal products in their foods.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

Remember, we're talking about traces here, that are maybe tested in some places because of laws.
I would certainly never encourage anybody to avoid these as part of being vegan, it will just make veganism look too anal/difficult, particularly when these aren't even made from animal products, and we don't even know they're tested.

EquALLity wrote: It's not really difficult to do so.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. And it's going to vary with people and where they live. When you start getting into trace ingredients like that, you reach a zone of perfectionism that can be very difficult for most people to maintain, and makes buying things off the shelves in many places impractical.

If there are two good products in competition, one with dyes and one without, that are otherwise basically equal, then buy the one without -- sure. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend worrying about it.

EquALLity wrote:Just because it's less of an issue than factory farming doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

At this time, I think choosing from among cosmetic companies that say they don't voluntarily test their products on animals is sufficient. Doing otherwise requires an investment of time and resources that is not going to be a good payoff -- the returns are diminished to such a degree, that you really are just better off doing vegan advocacy (and not advocating for that level of perfection). As stated, it also makes veganism look very difficult to consider these trace ingredients too carefully, and it really doesn't have to be. It's the 99.9% that's important. If we make headway on those issues, the rest will be solved much more easily.

EquALLity wrote:But then, what about companies like LUSH, that use those dyes, but fight against animal testing?

Buy from them if you want. Or don't -- because they're expensive. But don't avoid them because of possible animal testing in some markets they have no control over.

inator wrote:I've seen you mention LUSH before. From what I know it's actually not that hard for a company to avoid using animal-tested ingredients in their products (there are alternatives), but they may be doing more good by being vocal about animal testing....

LUSH is against animal testing, but because of recent legislation passed in Europe, it may currently be supporting third party testing.

inator wrote:Side note: From what I can tell, LUSH products smell/look nice and the bath bombs give you a really nice experience. But that's it.

They give you a really nice experience... but that's it?
I wasn't planning on trying them for health reasons.

inator wrote:Natural doesn't always mean better, not even in cosmetics.

Oh yeah, I know. I never said that natural means better. I'm just worried about animal testing.