Where is the love?

For those of us who suffer symptoms from fragrance exposure from other peoples’ (or our own) use of products that have apparently and allegedly been ‘tested’ by the fragrance industry, themselves, and then deemed safe for human use, you need to see this short clip, ‘Where is the Love‘, from Vegan Revolution: it’s changed the way I make personal-care product choices:

At least we have a voice that we can use to say what’s acceptable and what isn’t; we can lobby; we can protest; we can blog; we can write articles; we can make YouTube clips; we can tweet. The animals can’t do a thing.

I see a mahoosive connection between ethical veganism and medical illnesses that have symptoms of chemical sensitivity, and with the condition Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. James Bourne, a Neurobiologist says that testing on animals is important so that our lives, or those of our grandparents can be saved.

But if this is true—and I’m an ardent believer in the fact that science will save us—why is it then that so many of us get so ill from breathing in fragrance-irritants used to make products smell nice, industrial solvents used to disperse them, and even natural substances used in their formulations? And, as the video, ‘Where is the Love’ clearly shows, these products are in fact tested on animals, and because they’re on our shelves, they appear to be deemed to be safe for personal use. (When was the last time you heard someone say: “Don’t use Pantene, it can make you sick?”)

Rhesus Macaque but mostly it’s the marmoset monkey used for testing

Without swearing, I am just going to say: This can’t be right!

@VeganRevoIution @Neurdboy I believe science can save us but there must be a better way, surely???

— Michellina van Loder (@michevanloder) March 2, 2016

Science might be saving some of us but there’s this concealed crack in Australian medicine and our very own chemical regulation system that many of us have slipped through. Where is the proof that fragrance chemicals are safe? Where’s the statistics for those animals used for Teaching and Research purposes for products known to contain chemical-irritants that impact on human health?

(May I make the suggestion that we test drugs and pharmaceuticals on actual humans? Say humans who’ve committed horrific crimes such as mass-pedophillia and murder, instead of animals who are innocent?)

I can’t find any research papers or published literature on the testing of fragrance ingredients on animals but, James Bourne, who bravely wrote the Guardian article, ‘You might find my research using monkeys abhorrent, but it could save your life‘ transparently passed on these statistics in regards to the use of animals for testing purposes of Research and Teaching in Victoria via Twitter:

Animals Used for Research and Teaching In Victoria 2014

2014 Statistics – frequently asked questions

PDF Versions

Microsoft Word versions

Animals Used for Research and Teaching In Victoria 2013

PDF versions

You can read the the preceding years’ Annual Statistics from Agriculture Victoria here

The Good News

@michevanloder If only. But numbers are reducing with alternative techniques that we all employ e.g cell based research and imaging.

— James Bourne (@Neurdboy) March 2, 2016

I slept better after reading the tweet above. Or maybe it’s the medication I’m on. Cell based research and imaging sounds like a great option but will it work for testing fragrance ingredients like those that go into Pantene?

Yeah, I know, give the self-regulated fragrance industry, IFRA, a break from the ‘Wellness’ bloggers and the ‘Caution’ community. Perhaps no one is at fault here. Or, maybe our immune systems are to blame? If that is the case then, what if the research subjects, the animals that they test on have faulty immune regulation and/or inhalant allergies, autoimmune disorders or real Somatoform disorders (like for really real, yes?) What if they have MTHFR mutations (nearly swore big time there, caught myself just for journalistic purposes, of course)? Are they using the same Biomarkers to identify the right or wrong monkey to use for their tests? That would make their testing methods on animals faulty, as well as wrong. And what if they are not even using biomarkers for CFS/ME (SEID actually) or MCS and their chimpanzee has chemical sensitivities and they just deny the poor bugger even has it? If someone, like myself, breathes in personal care products that don’t contain fragrance-irritants, my respiratory system doesn’t get inflamed; yet if I breathe in fragrance, perfume, spray deodorants, hair products, all containing fragrance-irritants and industrial solvents, I’m bed ridden for days. At the time of writing this, I am using oxygen twice a day and after exposures.

You can read medical documentation proving that chemical-irritants impact my health greatly, here. (I don’t yet have a post about how pharmaceuticals (mostly, but not always) help my health but the way things are going, it’s sure to arrive soon. Can I offer you a pancreatic enzyme made from pigs’ stomachs while you wait?)

Thank Dog for the pharmaceutical industry because, sometimes, it feels like fragrance-chemical-irritants (and mould exposure) are ruining my life: besides being sick, besides getting chronically ill each time I go out, I need to spend an extraordinary amount of time on organising fragrance-free accomodations with dentists, Uni, doctors, and the workpeople building our Allergy-Free, Eco-Friendly House; but inhaling these are not, nor are they going to end my life. (Sure, it’s possible that fragrance exposure while undergoing medical treatment may cause complications that could then end my life (probably from staying sedentary, unable to walk around the hospital because I need to practice chemical avoidance, therefore dying from a blood clot!), but who cares, really. Live for today, I always say!)

And it’s not like us humans are the ones being tested on here, anyway, is it? (Did you see what I did there?)

Say that they (‘They’ being IFRA, a Pharmaceutical company, or a Neurobiologist) use a monkey to test the drugs used to treat CFS/ME (SEID, actually.) or a Neurological or Biological disorder, perhaps the drugs are for your dying grandfather, it’s still wrong but is it as wrong?; but is it worth testing on animals for your Spicebomb aftershave if that aftershave has not even been proven to be safe? Or sorry, unsafe. (I mean, don’t listen to the 12,000 or so Canaries who say fragrances impact on their health, making them chronically ill. Read the statistics instead.)

Where’s your statistics on animal testing, IFRA?

My views may or may not be right but testing on animals, especially in regards to products that are deemed safe yet make many of us incredibly, indescribably sick, is ludicrous. Testing on animals. Is. Just. Wrong. I know this in my body. Now you know it, too.

The Guardian: You might find my research using monkeys abhorrent, but it could save your life

The Guardian: Drugs research hampered by substandard animal testing procedures

Fairfax Media: The Sydney Morning Herald: Baboons used in ‘Frankenstein-like’ medical experiments

MCS Review Factsheet: From the Australian Government National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)

Plant Based News: REACH: EU’s Shocking (& Avoidable) Animal Testing Programme

Agriculture Victoria: The full list of Annual Statistics on Animals used for Testing for Teaching and Research Purposes in Victoria, Australia, dating back to 2009

Let’s End Animal experiments: It was Supposed to Be Safe, a well-written blog piece about how drugs tested on animals and deemed safe for humans, one man ended up dead, others ended up with brain damage.

Search the Labyrinth

Where is the love?