comment: >
  
  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.
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.