comment: >
  
  You apparently don't know the difference between emergency use authorization and approval. The first vaccine wasn't actually approved by the FDA until August of 2021 and by that point millions and millions of people had been vaccinated. Emergency use authorization is needed specifically because it hasn't gone through all the requirements to be approved. If it had gone through all the trials it would have been approved prior to being used.
  Canada didn't approve them until September of 2021.
context: Many years ago a girl I knew volunteered for testing instead of animals. She lost all of her eyelashes when testing a mascara. >
  
  Ugh, why would that be a volunteer thing? At least clinical trials almost always compensate you with cash. >
  
  Simply because of the paper work and beaurocracy required to perform a clinical trial. Therefore the cosmetic industry run "volunteer studies". They still require ethics etc. but you can set up your own ethics committee and pass off your own experimental protocols. >
  
  Why would anyone volunteer though? So it doesn't happen to animals? >
  
  $$$$$ >
  
  Is it still "volunteer" if you're paid to do it? >
  
  Yes. In college, there's so many studies to sign up for as volunteers and you get small honorariums. >
  
  You volunteer to be a paid research participant same as clinical studies. >
  
  You guys are getting paid? >
  
  Depends on amount of involvement needed. He wasn't lying about the honorarium being small tho compared to clinical studies. For obvious reasons.
  But i did plenty of surveys, and small things over the years for various grad students so they could get data for what they needed. >
  
  does this include imported products? >
  
  In the article, it says any product sold in Canada. This would logically include imports. >
  
  Yes, cosmetics tested on animals will not be allowed to be sold in Canada once this passes. >
  
  but they'll still be readily available on amazon.ca >
  
  Is that how it will work? Either way, it’s a good step in the right direction >
  
  Is it?
  This sets up pretty bad (on bigger scale) precedent.
  Because as inhuman as it sounds any chemical/biological compound should be tested. On living organism. However bloody this looks/sounds and so on. This test should be regulated, this tests should have some restrictions, but there must be some tests. And last part, they are usually performed on specifically breeded animals, no one uses your precious pet or some species from wilds for this.
  And while 'oh, that's just cosmetics, why do we need to torture poor animals', how you can assure this won't happen with medicine next? Where's the borderline, especially if it is as you mention 'step in the right direction'? Which one? Restricting any tests on animals right here right now, or you assumed something else? 
  And yes, 'clinical tesing' is made after scientists know that thing they're about to test at least should not be lethal/too brutally damaging to a living organism. 
  And unfortunately I'm in a very big doubt that we've got good enough technology to throw away tests on living creatures to compensate by running tests on some artificial model of living organism and be certain about results. At some point we probably can do this. At some point, when we have good enough technology. >
  
  
  And last part, they are usually performed on specifically breeded animals, no one uses your precious pet or some species from wilds for this.
  
  How is this any better? This just makes it worse.
  "What is my purpose?" "You're tortured for cosmetics."
  
  how you can assure this won't happen with medicine next?
  
  Ohh shut up with your slippery slope. How can we know that humans won't be bred to test cosmetics if we keep allowing breeding for cosmetic trials? >
  
  
  Ohh shut up with your slippery slope. How can we know that humans won't be bred to test cosmetics if we keep allowing breeding for cosmetic trials?
  
  You mean I'm exagerrating, yeah. And despite that there is a clear answer. It's just too big costs and too big amount of time needed(at least right now) to breed human. To grow one human for 10-15-18-21 years is just enormous cost with very delayed possible profit.
  And now a bit more why I'm bringing medicine. There's number of reasons why this(the one being discussed, cosmetical trials) ban mayhave occured.
  
  
  This tests are unnecessary and companies just torture animals. As much as I want to blame malicious corporations for everyevil thing in the world... This tests are pure R&D. And they cost, they're quite big costs most likely. Breeding, feeding, wages for scientists running this tests, additional time before final product reaches market. Even if there's evil maniac boss running evil corporation and loving to torture animals it is better for this boss to put few more millions to their pocket and buy some puppies to torture, because under this costs this boss won't be able to enjoy this torture that happening somewhere far away. There is no profit in running this tests for companies. If there's no reason to do so... Why wasting money on it?
  
  
  No one really runs this due to it being unnecessary and just stamps rabbit on packages for marketing. Well, in this case - no tortures.
  
  
  Tests are unnecessary, but governments require to run them. Well, just fire guys that should manage this and get rid of stupid laws. Corporations will be insanely happy to save money. Profit that came out of nowhere.
  
  
  Government just made something not very thoughtful and did it due to pure humanity in it's most common sense - 'do good things, don't do bad things'. Yaaay. Then scenario where next 'bad thing' is experiments on animals for medical purposes is the next target. And while we don't have technology level to stop using animals, this may really backfire.
  
  
  In reality we probably have mix. Bad laws that doesn't account for cases when trials are unnecessary, corporations that make tests even when they are not needed and still cost a lot just to stick to laws(or even better, breaking the law falsifying tests), people that think that this trials are just useless torture and have to be stopped completely no matter what. That's the reason why I say this has to be properly regulated, checked, but why just straight up banning this is very bad idea and bad precedent. It's always easy to ban. >
  
  
  “The Department is developing a proposal to ban cosmetic testing on animals and continues to support the development and use of alternative methods to animal testing for other products or uses,” Health Canada said in a statement.
  
  (emphasis added)
  What kinds of alternatives are they talking about?  Growing cloned skin to test upon? Synthetic skin-like substances? >
  
  Lab grown skin for testing is an option. It's good for certain tests but incredibly expensive. There are other in vitro tests which can be done which are cheaper but only suitable for some information. I used to manage a contract research lab for this kind of thing where we grew in vitro skin models. >
  
  What's in vitro? >
  
  In Petri dish like controlled environment.  Not in live body basically. >
  
  Im glad they are finally banning testing on animals. Will this sort of testing give them the same sort of results? E.g allergic reactions. >
  
  No, unfortunately not.  In general, this type of testing is the precursor to in vivo testing, aka live body testing.  Be it animals or humans.  Often times, you get great results in vitro, but when you throw all that in vivo you get vastly different results because of how complex our bodies(including animals) are.
  And this is the very reason you would hear about all these promising cancer cures that kinda just fall off the grid.  They would try on humans and won’t work as well.  Or sometimes after successfully testing on monkeys, pigs, or mice, they don’t translate to humans well. >
  
  I haven't bought cosmetics like ever, but they still do that kind of shit? >
  
  I don’t know how chemists and biomedical researchers are able to stomach testing on animals. Tough job. I know I couldn’t do it. >
  
  I'm convinced we're rapidly approaching a level of tech that could make it unnecessary. What animals go through is just so barbaric and I'm sorry, what gives us the right to inflict that level of suffering on animals? 
  Medical tests- it's admittedly a tough call. New treatments and medicine are indeed valuable, on the other hand it's just so barbaric.
  And before I get yelled at, no I don't eat them either. My choice, I'm not asking anyone to approve or disapprove or change what they do. >
  
  In nature animals rape and torture other animals for no good reason, so by law of nature we have plenty of "right". However like you I would hope we would be above that and prevent as much pain as possible. >
  
  I'm not a nature expert but I'm not sure animal on animal rape and torture is a thing? >
  
  "but it's natural!" >
  
  I just really want to move to Canada >
  
  So who are they being tested on... >
  
  Don't worry, the mice are safe, we'll just test products on the poor now! >
  
  There are in vitro tests for irritation and sensitization. So you can reduce animal testing for minor stuff. But not for anything actually systemically toxic >
  
  So, how do you test for makeup then? Genuinely asking. >
  
  Human testing is a logical conclusion. 
  Then again, that's exploiting the poor and vulnerable with extra steps. 
  "Ohh we'll just test our new formulation on paid volunteers to see if their faces melt or start boiling.." 
  "Don't worry they get paid 100$ per product line.." >
  
  Cosmetic testing isn't regulated or compensated any where like medical testing. The people who sign up might get their travel expenses or a voucher. Most people in my experience who want to test a cosmetic product either have a cosmetic condition they are looking for a cure for or like going to have conversations with the study leaders. >
  
  Good. Now they can test on influencers instead >
  
  Just make it a tic tok challenge and people will do the testing for you >
  
  Natural selection challenge! >
  
  Love this >
  
  Dog gone it Elle Woods finally did it in Canada, too >
  
  If a product is also sold in china, then it has been tested on animals. It is the law there.
  Really this is one of these all or nothing sort of propositions, if a company sells in china, then they are animal testing. I suspect they will end-run such a law by trying to pretend they are different products or even different companies. >
  
  That's old information though. Since 2022 a product can be both cruelty-free and be sold in China. >
  
  Unless someone lodges a complaint, then it needs be tested on an animal. >
  
  Back to the unpaid and caged human trials! >
  
  They'll probably just move those animals out of the cosmetic field and into food or medicine or something. Cosmetic is the key word in this headline. Animal testing runs rampant elsewhere still. >
  
  Cruelty free is the way to go >
  
  For real, this should have been done decades ago. The EU banned animal testing for cosmetics in what, 2002? And clearly Paris still doesn't have any issue pushing out cosmetics. It's a cruel practice that should not be happening in this day in age. Governments should ban it and consumers in countries where it's not banned should only buy products not tested on animals. >
  
  I'm just shocked they haven't done this long time ago. In EU this happened years ago. >
  
  40 years later, and we're still having this conversation. >
  
  Biotherm ain’t gonna like this >
  
  As a part of the wild myself I like it bare >
  
  All the components have already been tested on animals. >
  
  Sparks : WHY? Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first?
  Dr. Quentin Q. Quinn : Because that's...
  Sparks : Et-hey! A rat doesn't wear lipstick okay? A rabbit doesn't use hairspray! A monkey doesn't need pills, to get ramped up for hot monkey sex! It's people, man! We're miserable! So why shouldn't we try it all first? >
  
  WTF!!?? I  thought Canada had done this decades ago!! >
  
  Cosmetics, bah, humbug.
  Just wear the face you were born with. >
  
  No more lipstick on pigs? >
  
  Wonderful Canada. Finally making a move to help eliminate animal suffering. Now Please examine the conditions that Lucy (elephant) of Edmonton is being held. Help her move to the sanctuary in warm climate. >
  
  I agree. 
  There is currently a bill being developed in Canada to end the captivity of elephants in zoos. >
  
  Why the hell would they put anything in cosmetics that they haven’t already long established as being safe for people?! >
  
  so basically they just offshore it to countries where it's legal. >
  
  So basically you can't read? >
  
  you think foreign countries wouldn't just forge their records of having done it? >
  
  If you’re going to use this logic then that would mean there’s no point having laws for any imported products, which is just silly. >
  
  Interesting to see how this plays out. All major brands that alsl sell in China test on animals because China requires it. >
  
  Huh maybe they can work out a deal to test it on people who would otherwise choose MAID due to economic reasons. Everyone wins! >
  
  Sounds great. However, watch them continue to import products tested on animals and export to countries that require third party testing. >
  
  Go Canada! >
  
  I hope this legislation isn't just lipstick on a pig. 💄 🐖 >
  
  Where else will we buy lipstick for pigs ? >
  
  Cool Canada. Allowing all their cosmetics to be tested in animals in OTHER countries >
  
  As far as I’m aware, Canada is also banning the sale of all cosmetics that are tested on animals. >
  
  It does not matter. They just test it in China. Until you stop buying shit from companies that do not operate in these shitholes, thing are not going to change. >
  
  How about banning selling them to children too? >
  
  Yes!
  No child under puberty age should wear cosmetics.  It is pure social pressure.
  (Note use of "should". Not in favor of laws "banning" cosmetic sales or use)
  . & . & . & . & .
  As a connoisseur of pretty women :-) I would go further.  Most young women, under say 25, don't need cosmetics, and shouldn't wear any.  The chemicals long term damage skin. It blocks their inner beauty.
  You want a truly intimate "naked" weekend?  Convince your girlfriend to go outside without any makeup, speak with friends, without putting on her "face".
  Yeah, I know, 95% of females of mating age would run me out of town. >
  
  
  Yeah, I know, 95% of females of mating age would run me out of town.
  
  Probably because 'females' don't like being told what to do. Also yikes >
  
  👏 Wonderful news and excellent work Canada. >
  
  Hip hop hooray for our animal friends!!! 😘😘😘 >
  
  Worthless.  They may ban testing, but they will still buy from companies and corporations who do the testing in foreign lands.
  Either you are in, or you are out.  I don't care which one you choose, but choose one and follow through.
  In the case of animal testing, if you don't like it, then stop buying things from companies and corporations who use animal testing. >
  
  They’re also banning the sale of cosmetic products tested on animals >
  
  Should have never been a thing in the first place. It's unfortunate the people who did this shit to animals for fucking cosmetics will go unpunished.
  Edit- why was this downvoted? I said cosmetics, not food. Lot of wrinkly old hags browsing Reddit today it seems. >
  
  There are only two ways: test on animals (that can be harmed) or test on humans (that can be harmed).
  Choose one. >
  
  I think that if humans are the only living things using them then humans should be the only living things testing them, I personally agree with Canada on this. I just hope the testers are paid well. >
  
  How am I going to know what shade of lipstick looks good on my terrier? #think >
  
  Elle Woods would be proud. >
  
  Plot twist, this decision will require dog makeup to be tested on humans. >
  
  Stupid question,  but what will they test these chemicals on to ensure safety and efficacy in an ethical way?
  Only asking because I work in medical devices.  Everything medical usually has a healthy list of surviving animals before the device or medicine ever can ethically be used on a human.  
  The bigger the heap of sheep,  the less likely your company is going to succeed. >
  
  Medical devices are not cosmetics. >
  
  True,  but chemicals should be tested for safety.  Even foods.  It's possible some people could suffer consequences without sufficient due diligence. >
  
  That is why they are only banning it in regards to cosmetics. >
  
  Animals wear cosmetics?… just joking, I’m glad they finally did that here in Canada >
  
  Well yeah, since humans also qualify as animals. >
  
  Nah, seems ridiculous. We should just continue testing them on animals. >
  
  Id rather test them on you. >
  
  LOL, nah. I'd rather test them on some dumb ass mut lmao >
  
  Sounds like you two are in agreement >
  
  So they'll be testing on humans now? lol... >
  
  If it is immoral to do it on human beings, it is immoral to do it on non-human animals. They are conscious, sentient beings, and just as complex as humans. To believe that their exploitation and suffering is more acceptable than that of a human being is naive and philosophically and ethically wrong. >
  
  You're a vegan right?
  Because how could you possibly eat or use any animal products with this logic.. >
  
  I am vegan, yes. >
  
  Hopefully they also ban using products that were tested on animals. >
  
  Imagine a country compassionate enough to stop testing the most worthless of human vanity items on non humans. >
  
  What do you think big corporations will do with this ban. Can’t test on animals. So they will test on financially vulnerable people. >
  
  Sorry, not really a fan of humanity, Humanity gets what it deserves. >
  
  No that’s literally what they’re doing. Products tested on animals won’t be allowed to be sold in Canada. >
  
  You don't' need to test the products overseas though, you simply need to test the formulation.
  There are so many easy loopholes, one of which is simply owning a company overseas who make a different brand who happens to test their products on animals.
  The only way this would work is if any association with testing on animals is banned, but that would likely ban all companies who innovate. >
  
  Ok so they should just give up and let people rest on animals then?? What is your alternative solution?!
  Also you have no idea of the loopholes if you haven’t read the bill. >
  
  They should focus on the alternatives first. >
  
  What do you mean? >
  
  Businesses need to test their new formulations for a reasonable cost. The focus should be on making animal testing unattractive, rather then trying to ban it when its not practical. >
  
  Lol what a terrible take. So you aren’t actually concerned about loopholes in the law, you’re just pro animal testing. Got it. >
  
  No I'm pro actually doing something about it rather then just shifting it around the world. >
  
  This remains the dumbest policy.
  Its always better to test on animals before humans. >
  
  Doesn’t that seem exploitative? I mean, what do the animals get out of this? >
  
  Seems like nature. >
  
  I disagree. >
  
  So... we going straight to humans instead? They say they are looking into alternatives but that doesn't make a lot of sense. >
  
  Does it stop companies in Canada from outsourcing the testing?
  I see it says something about not having animal stuff in the products, but still... It's not hard to pop up an subsidiary in another country that allows it and continue business as usual >
  
  The can not SOLD products that have being tested in animals in ANY part of this planet.
  So no. Even use a subsidiary dont work. >
  
  At this rate there won't be a single business operating in canada due to us banning everything that could harm or offend anything with a pulse >
  
  Canada to continue mass testing of unknown pharmaceuticals on humans though. We're all good. Whew. That was a close one. >
  
  I don’t see the problem with that, it’s not like people are being forced to sign up for clinical trials. They choose to do it. >
  
  I don't see the problem either, brother. >
  
  CAN WE START NAMING THOSE COMPANIES DOING THESE TESTS ON ANIMALS? AND YES, I AM SHOUTING >
  
  ODE: to an ANIMAL’S ABSENCE of MALICE 
  People, generally, can be quite cruel
  towards their animals, indeed so mean,
  yes, the abuse is truly quite obscene,
  where’s the law to take a staunch stand and rule
  against cruelty to Earth’s prime jewel?
  many creatures are basically clean
  and yet they need people to intervene
  in this cruelty—make love mutual.
  Society should not play the plain fool,
  the preciousness of unity between
  man and beast must exclude any dual
  over who should act as the household queen,
  indeed the friendship should hold renewal,
  pet, master should on one another lean. >
  
  Don't congratulate us until it is done. >
  
  It was pretty weird that they puti lipstick on a pig
  Or was that your mother? >
  
  Does Canada have any cosmetics companies? >
  
  Yeas, queen, do it directly on people in poor counties. >
  
  Cosmetics are not needed for anything. I would just ban that too. >
  
  I don’t think the female population would agree with you >
  
  Canada does so cool things sometimes. Very rarely, though. >
  
  Nah I think Canada does a lot of cool shit, at least compared to America. Legal weed, strong reproductive rights, more taxes on the rich, accessible gender affirmative care, strong infrastructure, great public transportation, universal healthcare, no pointless wars, way less gun violence, etc etc >
  
  Other than legal weed, Canada pales compared to the EU or the tiger asian countries on all of those issues. The US is a really low bar for the average citizen standard of living. >
  
  Yeah I’ve kinda grown to really dislike America the longer I’ve lived here, especially in recent years. >
  
  Lmao you did all that slobbing on Canadian knob and you don’t even live there? They lack freedom and treat their natives like shit. >
  
  America treats their natives like shit too, and how do they lack freedom? >
  
  I’m a native, living on native land. From what I’ve seen, its worse up there. >
  
  I don’t necessarily disagree, I think that’s debatable but I don’t doubt it. I never said Canada is perfect. But how does it have less freedom? >
  
  They’ve allowed themselves to be disarmed by their government. They value Safety over freedom, and if you value safety over freedom you don’t deserve either. Also food prices are ridiculous and it’s not because of covid inflation, the food companies were fucking up prices before this whole thing. From what I understand their economy is barely kept afloat, and will most likely crash soon. Again, not because of covid. Oh yeah and they’ve reached a point where they are starting to more actively promote Assisted suicide, which don’t get me wrong I support Physician Assisted Suicide, but they are doing it because they don’t want to spend money to continue keeping the old and sick alive if they can help it. >
  
  What are you talking about? Canada is ranked #7 for gun ownership per capita worldwide. >
  
  So basically we'll get cosmetics from countries that give little to zero fucks about animal welfare. As horrible as it can be, I'd rather have animal tested products from developed nations that hold up ethical standards, same goes for human tested too. >
  
  
  I'd rather have animal tested products from developed nations that hold up ethical standards,
  
  Thats an oxymoron. It is unethical to test these things on animals. If they are not dangerous, than theres no harm to test them on humans and its just unnaturally using animals ; if they are dangerous, how is it ethical to test them on animals?
  So no, fuck those cosmetic companies. Let them test on humans and see how many are willing to be guinea pigs. At least they got to pay those test subjects >
  
  That’s just fucking poor ppl for a little money, what u prefer animal testing or fucking poor ppl? >
  
  Poor people can make a choice whether they want to partake in these trials, animals cant. >
  
  I knew from reading your first comment that ur not very smart >
  
  You dont even see the irony here, do you? >
  
  Yeah but are they banning selling and purchase of products that was experimented on animals? Because if they didn't companies will just set up the experiment somewhere else and sell them in canada >
  
  At a certain point you gotta be an adult and conceptualize that to test things that need to be tested we have to find a balance that doesn’t result in lawsuits from actual humans and isn’t entirely inhumane. But what do I know? People just like to complain and whine >
  
  But they’re okay with human testing experimental medication. >
  
  Humans volunteer for that though, animals don’t >
  
  How do they test them on animals anyway? Do they put lipstick on pigs and see if they look cute? >
  
  Some times you dont know if the reaction lipstick - skin is innocuous or can harm the skin. Is not the result, is testing its SAFETY. >
  
  Yet Canadians can still eat horse meat…. >
  
  What is the ethical difference between eating horse and cow? >
  
  Can you provide that declaration? >
  
  The worst thing about testing on humans instead of animals is you have to pay the humans. -Cosmetic CEOs >
  
  Animals won't look as glamorous? >
  
  Wait…..we still do cosmetic testing on animals??? >
  
  Yay for testing on unwitting humans! >
  
  Wow, that sucks. My dog loves her mascara >
  
  Can we stop owning animals in general? >
  
  I'd be testing on adx inmates instead of puppies and kittens. >
  
  How about we don't test cosmetics on anyone who is unwilling. >
  
  Agreed but I'm sure inmates would barter. >
  
  How about we don't play games with prisoners lives by giving them inhuman conditions and then demanding they 'give permission' to have drugs and cosmetics tested on them if they want things 'luxury' items like non rotting food, toothpaste, blankets, etc.
  Its hardly any more moral then testing on caged animals. >
  
  Prisoners are literally caged animals. >
  
  Pretty sure caged animals get more protections under the law. >
  
  WHY? Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first? A rat doesn't wear lipstick okay? A rabbit doesn't use hairspray! A monkey doesn't need pills, to get ramped up for hot monkey sex! It's people, man! We're miserable! So why shouldn't we try it all first? >
  
  I hope they have the support of the NDP, or at the very least that their MP's are permitted to vote their conscience and not the party line - which has become anti-animal under Jagmeet Singh.  He showed his true colours in respect to animal protections when he got in bed with the PC's to support a federal AgGag law. >
  
  They need to ban baby seal clubbing also >
  
  Am I the only one who thought that dog looked like a child wearing a terrifying mask for a second, or am I going nuts? >
  
  Always said to test it on humans
  "Oh but it's inhumane" then don't do it
  "But the money and the jobs" then test it on humans
  Regulation, new solutions and so on, will it take time? Yes, is it gonna be easy? No, but it has to be done.
  And yes, i love me some tacos de carnitas >
  
  But hammers remain legal.   /joke >
  
  Agree with Canada on this. >
  
  I was going to make a mother in law crack, but I love animals too much. >
  
  100% thought that dog was a monkey wearing a leather football helmet >
  
  This tastes like Turtles 😢 -Bobby Hill >
  
  What about shampoo? >
  
  stupid sexy animals >
  
  2023… took long enough >
  
  Guess the Welsh will not know if the lipstick looks good on sheep before hand now. >
  
  I mean good step but I'm really curious about the alternatives. Like surely human testing is not good, even if you pay them there is so much risk and exploitation. >
  
  About time ? >
  
  Animals without makeup ! Good idea >
  
  Way to go Canada 🇨🇦  Now they'll just test on humanoids .. /S >
  
  “It’s about damn time!” - Lizzo >
  
  Great news! Let's test exclusively on humans instead! >
  
  That just shifts it to poorer countries. >
  
  Awesome >
  
  Good, cosmetics aren't important >
  
  I invested in a company 20 years ago that had the ability to test without the use of animals.  Lost all my money.  I think they are still around, have no idea why it did not catch on.
  Invitro International. >
  
  Congratulations Canada! >
  
  Are we going test them on homeless people instead? >
  
  Honestly it's disgusting that a ban is not already in place everywhere. >
  
  Great. A lot of pigs are gonna get depressed, now.
  We used to get free lipstick. >
  
  Great! Now make hospitals stop asking parents about circumcision so that they can sell the foreskin for use in cosmetics. >
  
  I’m kinda just picturing a pig with lipstick. >
  
  This is cruel 
  Like I understand medical testing on animals it saves lives
  but to test on them just for makeup and face cream is just fucked up >
  
  Yep cosmetics production should just be banned >
  
  I don't know why animals need cosmetics in the first place >
  
  is prime minister brown face still chill? >
  
  A great step for animal rights! A law is in committee right now in WA state to do the same! ✌️ >
  
  Off to the third world, again. >
  
  They’re banning the sale of products tested on animals. >
  
  OK what do i need to stock up on because of this? How many deoderant brands, etc, colognes are just going to disappear from this? I'm well stocked for cologne generally. >
  
  That's great! Our Beagle hates it when I put lipstick on her. >
  
  You joke but unfortunately beagles are still being used for testing due to their size and being docile. Poor animals. >
  
  I agree, except I'm not so sure docile is a good description. >
  
  Generally speaking, beagles are very docile. I’m sure it’s not always the case, but it is a common enough trait in the breed that they are specifically targeted for lab experiments. >
  
  They should. Covid has taught us that people are willing to be guinea pigs so why should poor animals have to suffer. >
  
  I don' think someone is a guinea pigs by taking vaccines that has passed all the necessary clinical phases as is the case for all vaccines. >
  
  All the necessary clinical phases would have taken about 5 years, so that is not really true. The vaccines were approved for emergency use without having to go through all the trials. That's where the controversy comes in.