| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 276.3 | Some charities are rip-offs. (Some aren't.) | TOPDOC::SLOANE | Notable notes from -bs- | Tue Jul 08 1986 12:54 | 16 | 
|  | 
    Many fund raising groups are pure scams - most of the funds raised
    go to pay "salaries" of the fund raisers, and only 2 or 3 cents
    of each dollar donated goes toward the stated purpose.
    
    There are organizations which set guidelines and keep track records
    of various charities, but I don't have any details. You can usually
    tell the scammy ones by their heart-rendering appeals and photos.
    
    Some will send you a small "gift" and then expect you to "pay" for
    it. Every year I get some address labels with my name misspelled
    from some group whose name I have forgotten (Save the gay Biafran 
    whales?). When I don't donate I get another letter asking me for
    "only $5.00" to cover their mailing and printing costs.
    
    -bs
 | 
| 276.4 | No, Indeed! | INK::KALLIS |  | Wed Jul 09 1986 10:55 | 16 | 
|  |     As a rule, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a
    good reoputation.
    
    Some of the animal shelters that have strong ties to that and/or
    the national SPCA have reports of which of the charities seem more
    reliable.  There's one outfit that sends our mailings with photos
    of cute little critters that I've been told by folk at the Clearwater,
    Florida SPCA that they've a bad reputation; for whatever that's
    worth -- I don't remember their name.  Out of New Jersey, I _think_,
    but check with the societies.
    
    As a rule, anyone who offers a come-on ("win this in our sweepstakes,")
    is probably someone to be viewed with a little suspicion.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
 | 
| 276.5 | Cat Fancy Reviews | DELNI::WIX |  | Wed Jul 09 1986 13:51 | 6 | 
|  | Cat Fancy magazine has been running a review column of humane organizations
in each issue. I haven't seen a really bad review yet so I can not remark
on their critical reporting.
							.wIx.
 | 
| 276.8 | Enforce the laws... | DSSDEV::COLLINS |  | Thu Jul 10 1986 15:25 | 21 | 
|  | 
	Using phrases like "ripping open" can unduly bias the readers
attitude. It should be pointed out that many medical advances that have saved
thousand of lives were carried out via animal experiments (I believe the polio
vaccine was perfected on Rhesus monkeys). I don't want this to turn into a
debate, but medical research with animals has a place in the advancement of
mankind. I view our role as the "custodians" of the world, and as responsible
custodians we shouldn't abuse this "power". I also get revolted by the
accounts of animal abuse by many medical clinics, much of it unnecessary or
the research not well thought out. The problem isn't so much with existing
legislation but with enforcing it and the publics concern about the issue. If 
the public was more informed about these things I think the pressure to 
enforce the laws would be greater, resulting in a benefit to both animals and 
the people who care for them.
	Question: Does New Hampshire require Humane societies to sell the 
		  animals to Medical research facilities if they are going to
		  be euthanized (I know some states do ...) ???
/harry
 | 
| 276.10 | Nobody's Questioning _Nexcessary_ Research; But What's "Necessa | INK::KALLIS |  | Thu Jul 10 1986 16:48 | 19 | 
|  |     Re .8, .9:
    
    One problem about turning over a to-be-euthanized animal as an
    experimental animal is that the animal is _conditioned_ to be a
    pet; that makes the status change truly inhumane.
    
    _No_ animals should be used for needless experiments (e.g., repeating
    known experiments more for the sake of spending grant money than
    finding out anything new).  Those experiments that have to be done
    ought to be done in as humane a way as possible.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  There has been some work on doing some research with computer
    simulations rather than live animals, I understand.  But I haven't
    heard how far it's progressed.
    
    -S
    
 | 
| 276.11 | Cosmetic experiments? | KOALA::FAMULARO | Joe, ZK02-2/R94, DTN381-2565 | Fri Jul 11 1986 13:35 | 5 | 
|  |     Does anyone know if there is a list available of which cosmetic
    companys use animals for the testing of their products?
    
    These have to be the most useless experiments I can imagine.
    
 | 
| 276.12 | Try Antivivisectionists | NZOV01::PARKINSON | Hrothgar | Sat Jul 12 1986 04:53 | 6 | 
|  |     Try your local antivivisection society. I, personally, find some
    of the antivivisection people's attitudes a bit extreme but the
    New Zealand one printed a list of cosmetic companies showing who
    does and who does not use animals which is really good. The trouble
    is it consists mostly of New Zealand companies, no point in putting
    it here.
 | 
| 276.13 | National Anti-Vivisection Society | MMO01::BAKER |  | Sun Jul 13 1986 13:01 | 14 | 
|  |     Re .11 and .12
    
    Try writing to The National Anti-Vivisection Society
                   100 East Ohio Street
                   Chicago, Illinois  60611
    
    I am a member and one of the things they do is send informative
    literaturon companies that do use animals for cosmetic and household
    products.
    
    -Mark
    
    PS  If you do make a contribution and become a member, don't forget
        the matching contribution program with Digital.
 | 
| 276.14 | Cosmetics testing | DELNI::WIX |  | Mon Jul 14 1986 08:07 | 15 | 
|  | In tlaking with one anti-vivisectionist organization it was pointed out that at
that time cosmetic companies were required by law to test their products on
rabbits eyes to demonstrate their benign qualities. One of the legislative
actions that this group supported was to replace this procedure with one using
human dermal cells. 
It was not therefore a capricious whim on the part of the cosmetic companies
but a legal necessity that they do this. 
I am not excusing procedures or excesses that these companies may also perform
during development of their products but merely pointing out that, as with most
things, the situation is not wholly straight-forward.
							.wIx.
 | 
| 276.15 | COMPANIES THAT DO & DO NOT TEST THEIR PRODUCTS ON ANIMALS | USMRW7::DMARKS |  | Tue Dec 29 1987 14:50 | 144 | 
|  |     Below is a list of Companies that DO and DO NOT use their products
    on animals.  I received this list from the NEAVS.  
    
    COMPANIES THAT DO NOT USE ANIMAL TESTS
    --------------------------------------
    
    ABRACADABRA
    A.J. FUNK AND CO.
    AUBREY ORGANICS
    AURA CACIA, INC.
    AUROMERE AYURVEDIC IMPORTS
    AUTUMN HARP, INC.
    BABY TOUCH, LTD.
    BEAUTY WITHOUT CRUELTY
    BEAUTY NATURALLY
    BIOKOSMA
    BIOLINE
    BODKINS, LTD.
    BODY LOVE
    BON AMI
    BORLIND OF GERMANY
    CHENTI PRODUCTS, INC.
    CHICO-SAN, INC.
    CLIENTELE
    COMFORT MANUFACTURING CO.
    COMMUNITY SOAP FACTORY
    COUNTRY COMFORT
    DESERT ESSENCE
    DR. E.H. BRONNER
    EARTH SCIENCE
    GOLDEN LOTUS
    GRUENE KOSMETIK
    HAIN PURE FOOD CO.
    HOME SEVICE PRODUCTS
    HUMPHREY'S PHARMACAL
    ILONA OF HUNGARY
    IRMA SHORELL, INC.
    JASON NATURAL PRODUCTS                
    JEANNE ROSE HERBAL BODY WORKS
    JLM ENTERPRISES
    JOJOBA FARMS
    JOJOBA RESOURCES
    KEY WEST FRAGRANCE AND COSMETIC FACTORY
    KISS MY FACE
    KMS
    KSA JOJOBA
    LADY FINELLE
    LAGUNA SOAP CO.
    LIFE TREE PRODUCT
    LOANDA HERBAL PRODUCTS
    MARLY SAVON CLAIR
    MILL CREEK
    MOUNTAIN OCEAN, LTD.
    NATURE DE FRANCE
    NATURE'S GATE
    NEVAD NUTRITIONAL
    NEW WORLD MINERALS
    NEXXUS
    NO COMMON SCENTS
    NORTH COUNTRY SOAP
    NUTRI-METRICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    ORJENE NATURAL COSMETICS
    O'NATUREL, INC.
    ORIFLAME INTERNATIONAL
    PATRICIA ALLISON BEAUTY SORORITY
    PAUL PENDERS
    PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
    RAINBOW RESEARCH CORP.
    W.T. RALEIGH CO.
    THE REAL ALOE CO.
    REVIVA LABS, INC.
    RICHLIFE
    I. ROKEACH & SONS, INC.
    SCHIFF
    SHIKAI PRODUCTS
    SOMBRA (C&S LABORATORIES)
    SUNSHINE SCENTED OILS
    TOMS OF MAINE
    UNI PAC LABORATORY
    VEVLET PRODUCTS
    VITA WAVE PRODUCTS
    WALA-HEILMITTLE
    WELEDA, INC.
    
    Many of these products can be found in health food stores and
    occasionally in your local drugstore or supermarket.
    
    COMPANIES THAT DO TEST THEIR PRODUCTS ON ANIMALS
    ------------------------------------------------
                                          
    ALBERTO CULVER
    AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.
    AMWAY CORP
    ARMOUR-DIAL, CO.
    AVON
    BEECHAM PRODUCTS DIVISION OF BEECHAM, INC.
    BONNE BELL, INC
    BOYLE-MIDWAY DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS
    BRISTOL MEYERS
    CARTER WALLACE, INC
    CHANEL, INC.
    CHESEBROUGH-PONDS
    CLAIROL, INC.
    THE CLOROX COMPANY
    COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY
    COTY (PFIZER)
    DANA PERFUMES CORP
    ELI LILY AND CO (ELIZABETH ARDEN)
    ESTEE LAUDER, INC.
    FABERGE, INC.
    THE GILLETTE CO.
    LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY
    HELENE CURTIS INDUSTRIES
    JERGENS
    JHIRMACK ENTERPRISES
    JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
    JOVAN, INC.
    L'OREAL (COSMAIRE, INC)
    MAYBELLINE (SCHNERING PLOUGH)
    MENNEN COMPANY
    MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS
    MINNETONKA, INC
    MORTON THIOKOL, INC
    NORTON SIMMON, INC
    NOXELL
    PROCTOR & GAMBLE
    REVLON
    RICHARDSON-MERRELL
    S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC
    SQUIBB, CHARLES OF THE RITZ GROUP, LTD
    VICKS TOILETRY PRODUCTS DIVISION OF RICHARDSON-VICKS, INC
    PUREX INDUSTRIES, INC.
    STERLING DRUG, INC.
    WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY
    WELLA CORPORATION
        
    It looks like most of the well known cosmetic companies
    DO test their products on animals.  Sadly, PETA (People for the Ethical
    Treatment of Animals) maintains that animal testing is not on the
    wane.  The only thing we can do is to stop buying these companies
    products.  
    
    Donna
         
 |