Quote Originally Posted by jobob View Post
Could it be ... animal testing ?????
Unlike a lot of environmental additives (paints, fabric treatments, plastics etc.), the artificial chemicals in personal care products already are tested on animals. That's where the EWG data comes from. They're tested on animals, found to be dangerous, and passed for human use anyhow. Companies that use chemicals that someone else has tested can claim that their finished products aren't tested on animals. Completely natural products like Dr. Bronner's or pure coconut oil get waived because they're grandmothered in as Generally Recognized as Safe. (Although on a side note, the pharmaceutical companies are now testing natural foods on animals so that they can make health claims. )

Some people (i.e. for-profit corporations) have instilled the idea that "progress" means abandoning ancient ingredients and traditions, and that anyone opposed to that abandonment is a "Luddite" (which the history and reality of Luddism is actually another discussion...). In reality, it's more about selling people Vytorin because their patent on Zocor is about to expire. The lotion in the colorful plastic package at Wal-Mart (or the natural food store) doesn't necessarily work any better than the ugly weed growing in your backyard, or the nondescript jar of oil in the baking aisle.

Occasionally there is room for improvement, and for products that really do show some practical value, there's been a lot of advances recently in in vitro testing on human tissue. Yes, those advances do unfortunately involve comparisons with animal testing. But IMO the discussion about animal testing for pharmaceuticals and surgical techniques - whatever your position on that - is a completely different discussion from the question of animal testing for cr*p that they just want to sell you for around the house.