vegan1975
October 27th, 2005, 01:19 AM
My pharmacy's (Shoppers Drug Mart) generic brand of products is "Life Brand". Life Brand tries to duplicate any and all brand-name products (i.e., razors, glass cleaner, dish detergents, shaving creams, dental products, anti-perspirants, etc.) - ones that are usually tested on animals by corporations like P&G or Colgate-Palmolive. But my pharmacy's animal testing policy states the following:
"In accordance with the generally recognized meaning of this term, the finished products are not tested on animals. At present and based on current information, Shoppers Drug Mart does not actively support or commission the testing of any Life Brand product in order to establish clinical support for safety, efficacy, or allergic reactions. This phrase does not guarantee that the individual ingredients were not tested on animals. For new ingredients, testing is sometimes essential to determine that the ingredient is safe." (Source: http://www.shoppersdrugmart.ca/english/surveys/contact_us_dialogue.html)
I like the first part of their answer. It's the last two sentences that bother me. The purpose of creating a generic brand product is to take similar (or the very same) ingredients and try to reproduce the brand-name version at lower cost. Is it reasonable to assume that these "individual ingredients" were all tested by companies like P&G or Colgate-Palmolive beforehand? Are generic brand companies just profiting off the research of these animal-testing corporations? It seems to me that generic brand companies only skip animal-testing on finished products because it's already been done by other companies (the same companies that test at every stage: individual ingredients and finished products).
That seems to leave me with very few alternatives. I just paid $6 for one tube of cruelty-free toothpaste and another $6 for one stick of cruelty-free anti-perspirant. This won't be a problem when i'm settled in a career but i'm between school and job right now and the cost of cruelty-free household and hygienic products is oppressive. I'm still willing to fork over the cash but i was hoping there were cheaper alternatives...
"In accordance with the generally recognized meaning of this term, the finished products are not tested on animals. At present and based on current information, Shoppers Drug Mart does not actively support or commission the testing of any Life Brand product in order to establish clinical support for safety, efficacy, or allergic reactions. This phrase does not guarantee that the individual ingredients were not tested on animals. For new ingredients, testing is sometimes essential to determine that the ingredient is safe." (Source: http://www.shoppersdrugmart.ca/english/surveys/contact_us_dialogue.html)
I like the first part of their answer. It's the last two sentences that bother me. The purpose of creating a generic brand product is to take similar (or the very same) ingredients and try to reproduce the brand-name version at lower cost. Is it reasonable to assume that these "individual ingredients" were all tested by companies like P&G or Colgate-Palmolive beforehand? Are generic brand companies just profiting off the research of these animal-testing corporations? It seems to me that generic brand companies only skip animal-testing on finished products because it's already been done by other companies (the same companies that test at every stage: individual ingredients and finished products).
That seems to leave me with very few alternatives. I just paid $6 for one tube of cruelty-free toothpaste and another $6 for one stick of cruelty-free anti-perspirant. This won't be a problem when i'm settled in a career but i'm between school and job right now and the cost of cruelty-free household and hygienic products is oppressive. I'm still willing to fork over the cash but i was hoping there were cheaper alternatives...