:: Friday, November 11, 2005 ::

So I'm back on the social responsibility bandwagon. Or, at least, I'm running after the bandwagon, trying to catch up and jump on. But I'm not sure I'm up for the ride.

I was just at the PETA website, which I should have known was a bad idea. Now I want to become a vegetarian again. Only problems being: I love meat, I feel unhealthy when it's not a part of my diet, and I generally dislike soy. Of course, then there's always the issue of "do I actually have a probem with meat?" And the thing is, I don't. Provided they had a good life, then I don't really have a problem with killing animals for food. So, I suppose I should just make the financial commitment to eating only organic, free-range, locally-produced meat. Problem solved? Yeah, but then I had to go and watch the seal-clubbing video and now I just feel bad for the critters.

So yeah, I'm undecided. For the time being I guess I'm just going to find myself a good butcher, and put off thinking about vegetarianism until January.

So then I started to think about animal testing, so I went again to the PETA website to get their list of "companies that do/don't test on animals." Again, I'm very wary of PETA, but I didn't really know where else to go to get the list. Of course, I open it up only to discover that some of my favourite products come from animal testers. And that's unfortunate considering I'm not even THAT girly -- I don't use that many products! Luckily my facewash, soap, and all of my makeup is safe. But my toothpaste is not, and neither is the baby lotion I use, by Johnson & Johnson.

So I went to the Johnson & Johnson website, and read what they had to say about animal testing. And they gave their usual blahdeblah about how they have a "responsibility"... but I'm not so sure I'm buying it. I mean, if we can assume that PETA is providing accurate information, then J&J made it on their "companies that DO" list because they are performing tests that are not required by law. This means, testing baby shampoo for eye irritation is not legally necessary in order to get the product out there.

So I get that J&J wants to be able to market their "no more tears" brand. And I do think they genuinely believe that this is important. But... I can't help but think... is it really the end of the world if a baby gets a little shampoo in his eye? I mean, it's not like the kid is going to die or go blind or anything. And for that matter, if they've already done all this animal testing to develop formulas that are indeed tear-free, then why exactly do they need to continue this testing? Why can't they just develop from past knowledge? And hey, here's a thought: couldn't you pay a bunch of adult human beings to put shampoo in their eyes? Like, "here, take this five bucks. Tell me if you tear up." I don't know, I'm not a scientist, maybe that wouldn't work. But it does seem more ethical.

And finally, with regard to things like skin irritation and baby lotions... why are we abdicating responsibility for our babies health and comfort to the company? Would it be THAT hard to do a skin patch test on our babies with a non-animal-tested product to see if baby breaks out, BEFORE we slather the kid up with bedtime lotion? Why don't we take responsibility for ourselves and our children's health?

Hmm. So now I'm at this stupid crossroads again. To eat meat or not to eat meat? To stop buying J&J and Colgate, or not to stop? I feel like being socially conscious opens this floodgate... like once you say no to one thing, you have to start saying no to everything, and it's just too daunting. It seems easier to just keep lying to yourself and hide under the covers. Not saying that's a good idea or anything... but I'm just saying. It is easier.

Hm.


~song~ Beck - Golden Age

:: Katy 9:35 p.m. [+] :: ::