I’m not on the animal-rights bandwagon (though I think there are interesting questions to be asked about intelligence in some primates). I generally have no strong objections to those who are, though I think they’re on the wrong track. I am offended by irresponsible groups like ALF and PETA, and think their illegal acts should be strongly punished, and I am equally offended by false accusations often raised against animal experimenters (though I also agree there have been lapses that should themselves be corrected and punished). In general, I think that the animal-rights activist community is as believable, mature, and responsible as the anti-choice activist community – which is sad, because in many ways their issues and arguments are in fact better grounded.

However, I’m always amused by and contemptuous of the labels on “green” foods and products self-righteously proclaiming that “this product was not tested on animals”. (Today I tried some shaving cream, from a cosmetics company run by two gay men, which was reassuringly labeled “tested only on boyfriends, not animals”. Great product, by the way.) There are only two things that can mean, and they both are predicated on the assumption that you’re an idiot.

As is widely known, the FDA has only limited regulatory authority over “dietary supplements”, and virtually never exercises what authority it does have. In addition, by federal law any ingredients in use prior to October 15, 1994 are presumed safe by virtue of experience; “new dietary ingredients” introduced after that date must merely be reported to the FDA, but no testing is required. The FDA has no authority whatsoever over cosmetics, other than their labeling. It does not even have that much authority over soap. It is illegal to market any actually dangerous product, but the FDA has no mechanism for ensuring non-drug product safety before people start dying, going blind, or looking like Boy George. Manufacturers have perfect freedom to conduct whatever testing they choose to ensure their products are safe – including none at all. Some conduct animal testing, some do not.

So, if you’re using any “health supplement”, cosmetic, or soap product that advertises “no animal testing”, you can be assured of one of two things: that product was “tested” by use on other human beings with no prior assurance of its safety, or, that product is now being tested on you. You’re either volunteering to be the guinea pig, or taking advantage of the fact that a lot of other people (probably unwittingly) already did so, though you have no actual knowledge of the outcome in their cases.

Since, in fact, most of the additives in hygiene products are well-known and fairly safe, I usually ignore the issue of testing (it’s hard even to find a product that was responsibly tested before marketing these days). But I regard the “no animal testing” label as indicative of two things, both of which I resent: (a) the company didn’t care enough to do proper safety testing, but was willing to just wing it with their customers’ health, and (b) they assume their customers are dumb enough not only to buy untested products, but to make buying decisions on the basis of the fact that they’re untested! I’m willing to take some of this risk if there’s no easy alternative, but I don’t like the company assuming I’m so dumb I actually think that’s a good thing! As for you . . .