Foreskin use and cosmetic companies

[Cynthia Mosher]

I've received a PM of concern about this issue and find that we have several threads on the subject of companies being identified as using, testing on, or otherwise involved in the use of foreskin in cosmetic production. I'd like to offer some guidance to help us avoid legal concerns and to help you avoid getting a thread removed due to statements of concern.

It is entirely acceptable state your opinion about a subject that involves an individual or company. We do ask that you be respectful and civil in doing so and offer it as part and parcel of informative discussion. However, a statement that convey's your opinion as FACT ("I KNOW Avon tests on foreskin") steps into a legal concern as you are conveying information about a person or company that, if false, could be libelous. That becomes a concern for us here at Mothering.

Rather than make such a statement, provide your evidence and let others read and reach their own conclusions. Clear evidence speaks very loudly for itself and statements of implication and accusation should be backed by evidence, not just expressed and left to stand alone as an 'opinionated fact'.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Sarah]

Cynthia- It appears at this point that the use of foreskin derived testing products is so commonplace in the cosmetics industry, that we might all just assume that all companies do use these methods. So, instead of naming names to point out if they do... it might make more sense to try us to try to find ONE SINGLE COMPANY who doesn't. I'm sure they would not mind being ruled out.

Love Sarah

[Frankly Speaking]

Cynthia:

It is clear and well known that many people want to quash the discussion of this issue and disemmination of information that counters the the practice. It is apparent they want to squelch discussion on this aspect so as not to affect their profiting on the bodies of children.

Thank you for the brave stand you have taken in allowing this discussion to continue. This is valuable information to many of us here.






Frank

[grisandole]

But what if it is a fact? What if a company admits to it?

Kristi

[Cynthia Mosher]

Kristi, you'd need to point to where that information can be found. Stating something as a fact needs to be provable.

[Frankly Speaking]

Kristi:

Maybe I can provide a little clarification.

In one of the links above, it stated that Mary Kay provided funding for a specific research project that used human foreskins. In this kind of funding, an application for funding is provided to the potential donor stating the purpose and methods of the project as well as what they expect to accomplish or learn. This application would have clearly stated that the project's intent was to research the use of human foreskins as a donor source to grow testing material for laboratory research. That's the smoking gun and proof that The Mary Kay Foundation knew what was going on and approved funding for the project. Now, if they had provided general funding to the institution that did the research and not to the specific project, there would be no smoking gun because they probably would not have known how the money would be used.

In another link above, it showed that The Mary Kay Foundation sponsored a poster contest for students. The winning poster was one on the use of human foreskins for testing purposes. The Mary Kay Foundation would not have known before hand what the subject of the student's posters would be at the time they agreed to sponsor the competition. Therefore, there is no smoking gun and no evidence of unethical behavior in that particular instance. If the contest had been for students to create a poster about the use of human foreskins in manufacturing the testing material, that puts a totally different spin on the subject because they specified the subject matter and in essence, promoted the use of human foreskins for testing.

If we had only seen the sponsorship of the poster contest, it could not be legitimately inferred that The Mary Kay Foundation had acted in any unethical behavior. However, the other link shows they knew what was going on.

We also have to understand the meaning of "ethics." Something that is done in the normal course of business is not considered "unethical" by dictionary standards. The fur industry is not considered unethical when they kill baby seals by clubbing them because this is the normal way they conduct their business. Fishing fleets are not considered unethical when they catch porpoises on their nets and drown them instead of taking steps to prevent the deaths because that's the way the fishing industry normally conducts their business. It is known that about 60% of all hysterectomies are done without indication and are simply for the cash flow of the medical practice. In the medical profession, the procedure is called "The doctor's welfare procedure." We all would call that unethical but it is so prevalent in the medical industry that it has become ethical by definition. The logging industry clear cuts thousands of acres of timberland and leaves the mess for all of us to have to look at and that is not unethical because that's the normal way they conduct their business. The cosmetic industry doesn't feel they are unethical to use the purloined body parts and play a part in the sexual damage to men because that's the way their business is normally conducted. I doubt any of us would agree with any of the examples above and would consider all of them unethical practices. However, if you go by the dictionary definition, every single one of them are ethical. Of course, since I am not in any of those industries, my opinion of unethical behavior is not the dictionary or industry definition of unethical behavior and when I have said a particular behavior is unethical, that is my opinion only. (How's that for dancing around the legal issues?)

Hopefully, that will clarify the issue for you and will help guide you in writing your posts. Just remember that there has to be a smoking gun to indict a company and any charges of unethical behavior should be stated as your opinion because it may not agree with normal industry conduct and practices.





Frank

[be11ydancer]

Frank,
Great clarification as usual. Have you written a book about anything circ-related? Just curious.

Melissa

[mommymarliah]

Originally Posted by be11ydancer

Frank,
Great clarification as usual. Have you written a book about anything circ-related? Just curious.

I'm also curious....if you have not you really should. In my mind you are the expert and I greatly look up to you and trust your advice

[Frankly Speaking]

Thanks for the kudos. You don't know how much I appreciate that.

I did write a series of articles for a news letter publication a couple of years ago and I have writings at several websites around the web. I've been quoted at the NOCIRC site and newsletters and some well known writers have used some of my words and concepts in national publications. My posts are widely copied from here and reposted at other forums with my express or implied permission and usually with no credit.

I'm really a pretty private person and don't want publicity or the hassle that goes with it. Only twice has my real name been used, in the news letters and once at the NOCIRC site my first initial and last name was used after a quote. That's almost more exposure than I want.





Frank

[A&A]

I like Sarah's idea. Find me somebody who doesn't.

[mattemma04]

Though not a cosmetic company I wanted to post this article showing what big business *disgarded* foreskins are.

http://www.mlive.com/business/aanews...7822128920.xml

<<<
University of Michigan spin-off KeraCure Inc. said it has closed a $6.2 million investment - enough backing to advance its high-tech bandage through the patient testing process.

KeraCure scientists are attempting to construct a more effective bandage comprised of a dressing lined with skin cells extracted from discarded neo-natal foreskin tissue. Early evidence has shown the recovered cells help shield the wound and induce the release of proteins that help wounds heal more quickly.

>>>

[Sarah]

A&A- I contacted a rep from the company "Arbonne" today and asked her about foreskin derived testing products. She replied very quickly with a very resounding "NO WAY!" (gross) and offered this link to me. The link is a PDF file and I can't open it right now. I think it explains their testing system.

http://www.ascendingwings.com/SkinFunction.pdf

I would like to do a little more investigation just to be extra super duper careful that this is true... (cynical me- thinks everything is too good to be true) .. but if it is true- I will be a loyal customer (or even consultant)

Tell me what the PDF says if you can read it.

Love Sarah

[A&A]

It says, "extensively safety tested" but doesn't say how. It does clarify that no animal testing has been done.

I asked my makeup company, Yves Rocher, and they said "no," as well. But, like you, I'm not sure whether or not to trust that answer.

Perhaps we should contact the big guns--Marilyn Milos, Paul Fleiss, or Tim Hammond. (Tim runs noharmm). Maybe they could help us with this research.

[be11ydancer]

"...the use of no animal or human by-products." That was in a side bar on the document. I'll have to look into their products too. Thanks for the info.

[grisandole]

I would love to find a company that doesn't use this repulsive practice. The Arbonne info looks good- it says it tests using patch tests on humans..........

I'm almost out of makeup and need to restock!

What about Bare Escentuals?

Kristi

[mntlhlthxprt]

Both Clinique and Ecco Bella (Internet) test on human volunteers. They are the only two companies I buy from. Ecco Bella really has some fabulous products too---love the Lemon Verbana bath bar and lotion. Yummy.