But that’s why it’s so nice that there are some gems who actually have scientifically backed formulations, or even better: contribute to science by doing studies and creating new categories!

    • Chais@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      In regards to safety, yes. They have to make sure you don’t develop a rash or something. Good thing there are regulations for that, otherwise at least some companies would try without that, too.

    • akrzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i mean if it is required for safety reasons then that’s okay imo

      • EdanGrey@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not required though, many companies do just fine without the testing on animals while still being compliant.

        • akrzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Often those companies just use ingredients and formulations that have been tested on animals by other companies and the patent has run out/it is not patented. Companies doing animal testing probably would not do animal testing on such products too. Most companies try to avoid costs.