No-brainer for pet stores to be banned from selling commercially-bred cats and dogs

There are several jurisdictions in the United States where pet stores have been banned from selling cats and dogs bred in puppy mills which means breeding establishments where they have inadequate standards of animal welfare and where commercial profit trumps the welfare of the animals.

Puppies at a puppy mill in Tennessee. Image: Humane Soc.

And in these jurisdictions pet stores can adopt out shelter animals with whom they work in partnership. That is my understanding of the aim of another jurisdiction namely the state of Michigan which is debating a new bill called HB 4838 which would ban the retail sale of commercially-bred animals in pet stores.

California enacted a similar law in 2017 and they were the first state to ban such sales according to the Associated Press. Other states followed such as Maryland which banned the sale of cats and dogs in pet stores. This caused a pushback from pet store owners of course and the breeders who supplied them. They challenged the measure in court.

Illinois followed along the same lines a year later. And New York band pet stores from selling cats, dogs and rabbits near the end of 2022.

Clarification needed

I am reading some reporting which appears to be misleading. These laws are meant to allow pet stores to adopt out rescue animals but not sell commercially-bred animals.

But some news outlets such as the Huron Daily Tribune state that there will be a ban on the sale of cats and dogs at pet shops. This appears to be an absolute ban. And it implies that you will be unable to adopt a cat or dog at a pet store in Michigan when the law is in force.

However, the bill's title states that there will be a requirement in pet shops for them to sell only certain animals. That comes direct from the bill itself.

So, my understanding of this is that pet stores will be able to sell some animals but not commercially bred cats and dogs (and rabbits) and they will be able to adopt out rescue animals. When a customer wants to adopt a rescue animal from a pet store, they will have to pay a fee of some sort I expect. This is not strictly speaking a purchase but it would be an adoption fee as I understand it.

No-brainer from animal welfare standpoint

I would like to see clearer reporting on this to be honest. But the concept is a no-brainer as I stated in the title. Why is it they no-brainer? Because of the obvious reason that there are too many unwanted cats and dogs in America in many jurisdictions where they are in shelters and where some of them will be euthanised because they cannot find a person to adopt them. These will be healthy animals. So, it's killing not euthanasia.

To be killing animals in one place i.e. shelters and then selling the same species of animal in another place i.e. pet shops is simply untenable and it is certainly unethical. That's why HB 4838 is a good bill and I would expect it to become law which is planned for July 1, 2025.

I also believe the law will refer to rabbits as well by the way. The Huron Daily Tribune also quotes a part of this bill which apparently states the following: "Beginning July 1, 2025, a pet shop shall not sell, adopt, exchange, or transfer, or offer for sale, adoption, exchange, or transfer, a dog, cat, or rabbit."

That confuses me as well because it's stating that a person coming into a pet store after the bill has become law would not be able to adopt a rescue cat or dog or rabbit from the store when this is the whole purpose of the bill.

If someone can clarify that then please do so in a comment.

It works

Here is a comment by Nathan Winograd:

Such laws do three things:

1. Encourage people to adopt/rescue;
2. Educate the community about dog and cat (and rabbit) abuse in mills;
3. Stop that abuse.

And they work. Thanks to the passage of these laws nationwide, the number of commercial breeders in the U.S. has declined by 30%, and “Nebraska Department of Agriculture records show that half of the state’s commercial dog and cat breeders have left the business.”

Local authority in the state of Victoria, Australia prohibits cats going outside

Bass Coast Shire Council have announced a ban on cats going outside and if cat owners violate it, they will be fined heavily - well not that heavily 😎. The council wants to protect Phillip Island penguins. Do domestic cats kill penguins? Well, apparently, yes, but so do other predators such as feral cats, feral dogs, domestic dogs, ferrets and stoats. How big an impact on penguin protection will this law have?

Bass Coast Shire Council is in Victoria's south-east. The local ordinance orders that domestic cats must be contained within their home 24-7.

Council in Victoria, Australia bans outdoor cats

The press say that it is part of a 'desperate attempt' to protect the famous penguins of Phillip Island.

If you let your cat out and you are caught you will be fined AU$180. The news has been welcomed by the community. Although I sense that Australians have been indoctrinated into believing that outdoor cats are more of a problem than they truly are. They've been pummelled with news for years. There is a propaganda campaign.

Cats can go into their backyard but that's about it and if they escape their backyard the owner will be fined if they are caught.

A question that I have is whether there is already in place a legal obligation to microchip your cat within this local authority. If not, it may be difficult to enforce this ban. The difficulties in enforcement of these sorts of ordinances is one of the big reasons why they can be problematic.

The local mayor, Michael Whelan said that the council's orders purpose is mainly to protect the penguins and to protect the cats.

During 2020-2021, 155 cats were caught roaming around and they were seized and taken to the local pound.

On Phillip Island, cats are trapped currently and on average they say that they are catching 40-70 cats but they don't tell me over what period! Not good.

And what happens to the cats? It's almost certain that they are euthanised. Are they killing people's pets?

It seems that most residents think that the ban on outdoor cat should have been imposed years ago. The council thinks that they are a role model for others to follow across Australia.

This news is just one more step in what I foresee being a total ban on outdoor cats across the entirety of Australia at some time in the future. There's been a war of attrition against feral and outdoor domestic cat for a very long time now.

Another example is Perth's City of Bayswater Council which is considering a ban on cats from 42 natural areas. Similar bans have already been set up in several Melbourne councils.

Another Victoria council, Bendigo, also discussed confining cats to their homes and that was in the middle of last year. The spokesperson said that people wouldn't dream of letting their dogs wonder around so why do they have an issue in banning outdoor cats? Comment: there is a difference actually because dogs are much bigger and more dangerous to the public.

P.S. Toronto in Canada is thinking about a law making it obligatory to have your cat on a leash when outside. Cat confinement is a developing worldwide phenomenon but only in developed countries and the West at present. The world is very divided on how to relate to domestic cats.

Public are outraged by Kurt Zouma's cat abuse. I'm pleased.

The public are outraged by Kurt Zouma's Bengal cat abuse. I'm very pleased. I am also surprised by the strength of the sentiment. And it isn't just the public; the news media have come down hard on him too. It is great. Anything which supports cat welfare is progress as far as I am concerned.

There has been an outpouring of anger against Kurt Zouma because of his obnoxious behaviour in drop-kicking one of his Bengal cats and also slapping the cat while the cat was being held by a child. And he slapped the cat hard. Arguably that is also child abuse. He is at least potentially psychologically damaging this child and he is certainly teaching his child that it is all right to behave like that was an animal. Shame on him.

RELATED: Premier League footballer videoed kicking and slapping a Bengal cat.

Kurt Zouma. Photo in public domain.

And to compound the bad behaviour, his brother videoed the whole thing and uploaded it to social media. And to make matters even worse his brother laughed while he videoed the abuse. It was terrible but what is delightful is the fact that the public have got behind cat welfare. They want to see Zouma punished. They don't want him to play in the forthcoming football matches. He has been fined two weeks wages which has told the world how much he earns because the fine is £250,000.

Ironically, his playing colleagues are complaining that they are underpaid because they have, for the first time, discovered what he earns. David Moyes the West Ham manager insists that he will play in the next match this weekend against Leicester. He was criticised by the public and others including Garry Lineker for playing him in the match against Watford which occurred 24 hours after the cat abuse incident. Garry Lineker accused West Ham of being tone deaf to the gravity of the event.

And this is what I really, really like about the story. People are concerned about cat welfare. I do not think that this would have happened like this 10 years ago. There is much more awareness about animal welfare nowadays than in the past. I believe that this may be a result of a concern for the planet in general because of global warming. People are concerned about the environment and what they do that might damage the environment.

It is quite a short step from this way of thinking to be concerned about animals. In part this is because the way we treat animals has an impact on the environment. I'm referring to livestock and meat eating.

Some people have been surprised. One person wondered if cat abuse is as bad as racism. I don't think that you can compare the two. But if a premiership footballer was prosecuted for racism or homophobia or was punished by the club for a racist remark, this person argued that he would be punished less than Kurt Zouma will be for abusing his cat. I get the point but this person is guessing how Zouma will be punished. We don't know. The RSPCA is investigating on behalf of the police and we expect them to make a statement about their intentions soon. They've seized his two cats. They may or may not return them depending on the outcome of their deliberations.

Here are the screenshots from the video of Zouma kicking and slapping his Bengal cat. Please click on the links.

• Kurt Zouma forcefully slaps his Bengal cat. Photo 1.
• Kurt Zouma drop-kicks his Bengal cat. Photo 2.
• Kurt Zouma drop-kicks his Bengal cat. Photo 3.

Zouma's brother - the guy who filmed the abuse - has been dropped by his football club which is in one of the lower divisions (Dagenham and Redbridge). A different approach. Moyes wants to play Zouma because he is a good footballer (left back) and Moyes is desperate to finish in the top four in the Premiership to enable West Ham to play in the European Championships next season. It is money over morals.

They should prosecute him under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for animal abuse and cruelty. I expect that to happen. And if he's convicted, he will be punished but the punishment will not be severe. Although he could, technically receive a five-year prison sentence as a maximum, this is not going to happen. The abuse was not as bad as that. It was bad and callous and stupid and it betrayed an ignorant person but he will be fined if he is prosecuted and convicted.

There are much wider issues too, which come out of the story. A lady on LBC radio made the point that the UK is not a nation of animal lovers. This is the opposite to what people in other countries believe. Great Britain is portrayed as a place where animal welfare is prioritised. It isn't true. Of course, it is better than all the countries of Asia and South America and the Middle East but there is still lots of animal abuse in the UK. There are lots of idiots in the UK would like to harm animals. We could do a lot better.

Letting the domestic cat roam freely breaks European Union law. Discuss.

The EU Birds and Habitats Directives places an obligation upon an EU member states to protect wildlife. It requires member states to implement two main sets of provisions, the first of which is to take steps to establish a strict protection regime for all wild European bird species and other endangered species as per an annex of the directive. Member states are also required to designate core sites for the protection of species and habitat types as listed in the annex. In other words member states have to do certain things to make sure that they protect wildlife.

Outside cat stalking prey. Image in public domain.

The directive seems to come into conflict with the natural order of things which is to let domestic cats go outside freely, unsupervised. This is the default position for domestic cats in Europe as far as I am aware. It certainly applies to the UK. Although of course the UK is no longer a EU member state.

Campaigners in the Netherlands under the banner Huiskat Thuiskat which means 'domestic cat' in Dutch are bringing a test case to the Dutch courts. The argument is that the Dutch government is not doing enough to meet their obligations under the EU directives referred to. One thing they could be doing is to make it obligatory to keep domestic cats indoors or allow them outside only when supervised. The Dutch government should issue national legislation which meets the requirements under the EU directives.

The campaigners want the court to rule on this, to force the Dutch government to do something about the predation of domestic cats on wildlife. There are, apparently, between two and 3 million domestic cats and about 10,000 feral cats and strays in the country. They say that the caretaker agriculture Minister has a legal obligation to act if damage is done to protected species by predation of free-roaming cats.

The Dutch have become cruel to cats

The argument is that they pose a serious threat to some 370 species in the Netherlands. It is a well rehearsed argument in many other countries including perhaps most importantly America. It is certainly an argument which constantly challenges the politicians of Australia who have tried all manner of means to limit predation of native species by both domestic and feral cats.

ASSOCIATED POST: Pictures of the Shop Cats of China by Dutch photographer Marcel Heijnen

In the Netherlands, the campaigners say that the rules are in place i.e. the EU directives place an obligation upon EU member states to do something about conservation, but the rules are not being applied. The reason given is that it is a hot potato as there are 3 million domestic cat owners in the Netherlands. I guess there might be a loss of votes in favour of the ruling party. The politicians do not want to antagonise their voters.

The question is whether the judge will rule in favour of birds or cats? My personal opinion is that the legal action won't work perhaps because the EU directives are worded too generally. They are not specific enough. A member state can do lots to protect wildlife and thereby comply with the directive without confining domestic cats to their homes.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 allows for 5-year prison sentences for certain animal cruelty offences

I am republishing verbatim some of the explanatory notes of the above act which explains why it has come into existence. In summary the above act allows judges to apply much stiffer prison sentences to the crimes specified below in the bulleted table to a maximum of five years and an unlimited fine. The unlimited fine is unchanged.

 Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 allows for 5-year prison sentences for certain animal cruelty offences

The above UK act "increases the maximum penalty for specific offences related to animal welfare in England and Wales from 29 June 2021. It does so by extending the maximum penalty, specified under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, of six months and/or an unlimited fine to a penalty of five years and/or an unlimited fine. These offences therefore become triable either way, and may be heard in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.

And:

".....the 2006 Act set out a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for the more serious 'prevention of harm' offences. There are five such offences under section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006:

• causing unnecessary suffering (section 4, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• carrying out a non-exempted mutilation (section 5, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• docking the tail of a dog except where permitted (section 6(1) and 6(2), Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• administering a poison to an animal (section 7, Animal Welfare Act 2006); and
• involvement in an animal fight (section 8, Animal Welfare Act 2006). 

There were a number of cases related to these offences in which judges expressed a desire to impose a higher penalty than that which the 2006 Act provided for, prior to this Act passing. There was a particular desire to increase the penalties available in the case of crimes that relate to deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour."

The RSPCA has been lobbying for this change and they are understandable thrilled. They said:

"This is a landmark day for animals and animal welfare in England and Wales. For almost 200 years the RSPCA has been investigating animal cruelty and rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming animals. While we’ve seen vast changes in the way we keep animals during that time, as well as huge advances in legislation to better protect animal welfare, our sentences for animal abusers have long been letting our animals down. We’re absolutely thrilled that we’ve now reached this milestone moment and that courts will now have more flexibility to hand out sentences that better reflect the severity of the crimes they are dealing with and we hope the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act will act as a greater deterrent and help us cancel out cruelty once and for all."

The UK is a world leader with other countries such as Sweden on animal welfare laws protecting animals from abuse and cruelty. At the other end of the scale is China and some other Asian countries where there is either no animal welfare laws or poor enforcement. Without enforcement even the best laws are worse than useless. 

Dictatorships Russia and China bonded by animal cruelty and belligerence

China is certainly a dictatorship. Russia is, in my view, a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. China has no genuine animal protection laws. There is mass animal cruelty. There is change afoot because there are people in China who want to see change and animals protected. But for such a large country to have no overarching animal protection law is a scandal and it surprises me that they are not made pariahs internationally.

 Dictatorships Russia and China bonded by animal cruelty. The circus lions of Russia where they are exploited and kept under deplorable conditions and trained cruelly. Image: see credit bottom left.

Russia lives in the past. My research indicates that in 2010 there were no federal laws in Russia to protect animals. In 2014, Russia for the first time adopted an overarching animal welfare act Federal Law Number 498 but it seems to be defective and I would argue poorly enforced. There is mass fur farming which is inherently cruel and what prompted this post was the desire by Russia to hang onto the past and continue to use animals in circuses.

Below is a list of countries which have passed bans on the use of wild animals in circuses according to Stop Circus Suffering.com. 

• Austria
• Bolivia 
• Bosnia and Herzegovina 
• Colombia 
• Costa Rica 
• Croatia Cyprus 
• El Salvador
• England 
• Estonia 
• Greece 
• Guatemala 
• Ireland 
• Israel 
• Luxembourg 
• Macedonia 
• Malta 
• Mexico 
• The Netherlands 
• Paraguay 
• Peru 
• Romania 
• Scotland 
• Serbia 
• Singapore 
• Slovakia 
• Slovenia

There is a growing movement in Russia to ban the exploitation of animals in circuses but they think their circuses are the best. There is a long tradition. The state-run company Rosgostsirk which, as I understand it, organises 38 static and five travelling services across the country received 1.3 billion rubles in state aid. The organisers of the circuses regard animal advocates as nutcases spreading myths. Their attitude is very similar to sport and trophy hunters who also like to entertain themselves with cruelty to animals.

My focus on circus animals in Russia was prompted by a story in the Mail Online in which the Saratov circus was opening after a Covid lockdown. They were very proud of their reopening but a vicious fight broke out between lions which scared the spectators. Some of them ran for the exit. The trainers gained control with sticks but the whole thing was unedifying and unpleasant. 

It highlighted the need for change. Lions and tigers in zoos are an outdated concept. The world has moved on. Russia refuses to move on which is why they are a pretty poor country with perhaps the biggest difference between the rich and the poor on the planet.

Note: This is a video from another website. Sometimes they are deleted at source which stops them working on this site. If that has happened, I apologise but I have no control over it.

The video above from the Mail Online shows the scuffle or fight that broke out between the lions. It is sad to see because these lions are kept in deplorable conditions, constantly caged up and moved from pillar to post. Everybody knows it is inherently cruel to do this to lions and tigers but the Russians don't seem to see it that way. 

They considered the reopening of the circus as a "splendid momentous event". One trainer Vladislav Goncharov admitted that many countries had banned live animal performances but he said that Russia will continue to have them because children come to the circus primarily to see animals and clowns. He said "We will support and popularise it."

Cruelty is pretty well essential if you're going to train circus animals. It is inherent in the process. It is so demeaning to see these magnificent lions treated like this. As one animal rights group spokesperson, Irina Novozhilova, said, "No circus conditions will be humane for one simple reason. Training goes hand-in-hand with cruelty. Circuses are always cruel beyond limits. And circuses with animals should be banned."

Russia and China need to wake up on animal rights and welfare. Their outdated attitude to animal welfare damages them internationally. It brands them as insensitive thugs. It is time for change in these dictatorships.

Plattsburgh man commits a crime for looking after feral cats

COMMENT: I think that the Plattsburgh city council have got this entirely wrong. Plattsburgh is in New York state as I recall. They have a local ordinance which states that if you feed cats on your property you are deemed to own those cats. But that seems irrelevant in this instance! That's because the guy was feeding feral cats under a TNR program on, I guess, public property. I'm also told that the city code states that feeding feral cats is a violation level offence whatever that means. Perhaps he was feeding them on his property but we are not told that.

 Plattsburgh man commits a crime for looking after feral cats. Pic in public domain. Sorry for the poor image quality.

The upshot is that this guy, Mike Clowney, has been told to appear before the local court because he's been feeding feral cats as part of a TNR program. He's been doing it for more than a decade. He attends the cats twice a day every day. He is a dedicated volunteer providing a good service to the community I would argue.

He said that they would have to put him in prison if they want to stop him helping the feral cats within his community.

As reported on Yahoo News the picture is highly unclear. The reporting is bad in my opinion because I just don't know what law is applicable in this instance. Under what law is this man being charged with a crime? I would doubt that there is any law applicable in Plattsburgh which gives the city the authority to punish this man for helping out in a TNR program. I would expect the case to be dropped for that reason. This appears to be a mistake by the authorities.

He wasn't arrested but has been asked to attend court as mentioned. Apparently, his violation of the local ordinance comes under the Pigeons and Other Wild Animals section of the City Code. Other volunteers engaged in TNR programs are worried that the language of the ordinance is going to affect them. They think that it may deem them to be owners of the feral cats that they look after.

The law was not intended to impinge upon the activities of TNR programs. It's a ridiculous mistake and I'm sure adjustments will be made. Mike Clowney said that TNR programs really work and that this local law might slow TNR work. He said that it will discourage people from helping. He is not discouraged however. But other people will be. He spent years finding new homes for feral kittens. He's doing council work! He's contributing to the amenity of the community in which he lives. To punish him for that is mindless.

Cats must have negative Covid test before entering India

The Indian government has made it mandatory for members of the cat family to have a negative test for Covid before they are allowed into the country. This includes domestic cats to the big cats, in fact any cat! The new rules also include gorillas. The objective is obvious, namely to try and minimise the spread of the disease in the country. It is the first of its kind. 

It's an interesting rule because the experts have consistently stated that there is no evidence that cats transmit the disease to people despite the fact that that it is a zoonotic disease. Zoonotic diseases are those that can be transmitted between humans and animals and vice versa.

Cats must have negative Covid test before entering India

So, I guess this rule has been enacted out of an abundance of caution, as the politicians say. The government states that large cats and gorillas are "having high susceptibility of infection against natural Covid-19 infection". The information for this they say comes from the World Animal Health Organisation Technical Fact Sheet.

The rule will be in place until the pandemic has ended. The negative test must be no older than three days. The world knows that India is going through a surge in infections for Covid. Their reported rate of infection and deaths are highly misleading. They are heavily underreported. The families of people who die of Covid do not report the matter. These people are not taken to hospital. There is no record of them dying. They are burnt on funeral pyres. We see them in car parks.

It is entirely wrong for the news media to list comparisons of infections and deaths on a country-by-country basis because each country reports this data differently. If there was a uniform reporting system you can compare the data but this is not the case.

The UK, for example, states that if anybody dies within 28 days of getting Covid their death certificate states that they died of Covid! There is no other country on the planet that is so generous in his assessment of death by Covid! And yet the UK is constantly criticised the high death rates. I'm digressing.

Big cats and zoos have been known to get Covid from their zookeepers. Domestic cats and dogs have contracted Covid but we don't know the numbers but they are very low. It is a minor issue in controlling the virus. Although some scientists believe that animals may become a reservoir for the virus when it has been quelled by social distancing and vaccinations.

I would expect further action to take place both in India and in other countries with respect to how we deal with zoo and companion animals. There is a call for vaccinating animals against the virus and in Russia they do have a vaccination for that purpose. But can we trust Russian vaccinations? Russian citizens do not trust their own vaccine which is why they have an incredibly poor rate of take-up of inoculations against the virus in Russia. I'm digressing again!

Woman in China wants to make a coat for a cold stray cat

This is a picture of a woman in China who is measuring up a stray cat for a coat. The picture you see was taken on the night of October 25 in the city of Qinhuangdao, Hebei Province which is in northern China. We don’t know the name of the good Samaritan in the photograph. 

The woman was filmed apparently planning to make a coat for the white stray cat that you see. She appears to be putting some felt material on the cat's back. The still image is part of a video captured by a passing woman who was with her husband. They spoke to the woman and found out that she was looking after some stray dogs as well. It tells us that this there are people in China who are very concerned about animal welfare. Sometimes people in in the West forget this because we see animal cruelty perpetrated at the wet food markets or the cat and dog meat market in the south of China and of course we can't forget the industrial scale of the cat and dog fur market. China is the major exporter of cat and dog fur. The industry is known for its cruelty.

The gentleness and kindness of the woman in the photograph also reminds us that there are no general animal welfare laws in China even in the 21st-century. The cat you see in the photograph is not protected by a nationwide animal welfare law. Thousands of years without proper protection of animals under the law has resulted in, I would argue, a generally poor relationship between the citizens of that country and their animals. This is manifested in the above-mentioned businesses which are based on animal cruelty. I know it is politically incorrect to criticise another country either directly or by implication but it is impossible to avoid it. 

 

Let's just say that this woman is an individual who is concerned about animal welfare and let's say that the government of China is not concerned about animal welfare. There is a disconnect between some citizens of the country and the government. But everyone says that there is a huge pressing need for the Chinese government to introduce animal welfare legislation ASAP in order to bring the country into the 21st century with respect to the relationship between the citizens and animals.

China Tests Cosmetics That Are Manufactured outside China on Animals

It may surprise people to know (or perhaps it won't) that the Chinese have a mandatory testing procedure on cosmetics manufactured outside of China on animals. There is no need for this testing because these manufacturers have found ways to test their products without testing them on animals. This is because the testing, marketing and selling of cosmetics in the European Union is banned. The European Union lead the way in this area of animal welfare. But for some peculiar and perverse reason the Chinese feel they have to test these products on animals which once again reinforces our belief, or at least my belief that the Chinese don't give a damn about animal welfare.

The question which now remains is whether these companies such as Revlon and Estee Lauder are in breach of European Union regulations despite the fact, as mentioned, that they are not testing their products on animals. It is bad enough allowing the testing of products other than cosmetics on animals such as medicines. But there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to test cosmetics which are products to enhance the appearance of humans on animals. It can only be described as immoral and unethical and actually it's quite depressing to think about it.

Clearly there needs to be representations to the Chinese on this subject. There won't be, as usual, because the West is dependent upon products manufactured in China to feed the greedy consumer in the West meaning Europe and North America. We don't want to upset them do we? We need their money don't we? We need the Chinese to invest in the West. We need their money to help build our facilities in the UK. The last thing that we want to do is to upset them on the matter of animal welfare. This is depressing.

Search results on PoC for "cosmetics".

This is a cross-post with the main website.

If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be illegal

The words in the title come from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). I like the words. What they say to me is that the legislators in a country, let's say the USA, do not believe it is wrong to exploit animals otherwise they would have legislated against it and made it illegal.

Some people believe that animal exploitation is immoral but some people don't. If something is immoral it can also become illegal if it is immoral enough and if enough people believe it is immoral.

Clearly not enough people believe that the exploitation of animals is immoral. Indeed, there are lots of questions about what is and what isn't the exploitation of animals. I recently wrote an article about Acro Cats; these are cats trained by a lady to perform circus style tricks and stunts.

Some people will say this is exploitation but a lady commented that she thought it was perfectly acceptable.

With such difference of opinion about exploitation it is impossible for there to be legislation against it because legislation must represent the people as a whole.

Legislation must certainly represent the people and there must be no doubt about it.  Sometimes animal exploitation is so obvious and abusive that it becomes animal abuse. Animal abuse, in developed countries, is always legislated against.  It is a sliding scale. The exploitation of animals can drift into the abuse of animals which in turn drifts into animal cruelty and ultimately killing.

This sliding scale makes it difficult to define animal exploitation but legislation must always be highly accurate otherwise it becomes unenforceable.  If it is difficult to define animal exploitation, it is one more reason why it is not illegal.

PETA list of companies that test on animals

If you click on the link below you'll be taken to a list of companies that test on animals. I would hope that animal advocates take the time to read the list. However, it is difficult, I believe, to avoid buying products on supermarket shelves that have been involved in any way with animal testing because, firstly, there is a plethora of products and secondly, you don't know which manufacturer is ultimately responsible; meaning the umbrella company.

APOLOGIES FOR THE INITIALLY WORD BLIND TITLE WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED (TWICE)!

Photo by Understanding Animal Research - original photo.

You might read that the manufacturer is a smallish company but it may well be owned by one of the big multi-national companies such as Colgate-Palmolive who do animal testing. I believe they contract it out but ultimately they are responsible for it.

In addition, most consumers in a supermarket are in a hurry to do their shopping and get home. Well, at least the men are!  However, the only way to have our say albeit with an almost insignificant effect, is to reject products which have some connection in their manufacture to animal testing. If everyone made a minute impact it would amount to a big impact.

Please click on this link to see companies that do animal testing one way or the other.

Associated: Animal testing for cosmetics. Sales of animal tested cosmetics are banned in Europe.