this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
20 points (95.5% liked)

SkincareAddiction

875 readers
5 users here now

A lemmy community for skincare enthusiasts.

Some ground-rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
kiboutrash@sh.itjust.works
akrz@programming.dev
bookworm@feddit.nl
bookworm@feddit.de
octagon3488@programming.dev
20
showerthought: many skincare brands are sadly mostly marketing and no science (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by akrz@programming.dev to c/skincareaddiction@sh.itjust.works
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

But that’s why it’s so nice that there are some gems who actually have scientifically backed formulations, or even better: contribute to science by doing studies and creating new categories!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Alanjaow@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Aren't the majority of skin care things (and makeup) tested on animals though?

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

In regards to safety, yes. They have to make sure you don't develop a rash or something. Good thing there are regulations for that, otherwise at least some companies would try without that, too.

[–] akrz@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i mean if it is required for safety reasons then that's okay imo

[–] EdanGrey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not required though, many companies do just fine without the testing on animals while still being compliant.

[–] akrz@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Often those companies just use ingredients and formulations that have been tested on animals by other companies and the patent has run out/it is not patented. Companies doing animal testing probably would not do animal testing on such products too. Most companies try to avoid costs.