As a person who attempts to avoid inflicting pain and suffering on animals, I am careful to buy and use products such as shampoos that are made without animal products and also not tested on animals. Does anyone know if ink used in fountain pens, ball points, gel, and water-based roller balls are generally free of animal products or testing?

I'm sorry - your question doesn't even make sense. Why in hell would anyone test ink on animals?

Roger W.

IMHO, the only time ink would even touch an animal would be a doctor using a marker to indicate a surgical incision.. And I'd bet he/she would use a special pen for that.


It genuinely seems like a waste of cycles to bother yourself with this question.. As fountain pen ink would never be used on or fed to an animal.

hi~
I'm not familiar with the formulas used to make up fountain pen inks, but there are some traditional inks (and pigmented colors) that do contain animal products. Some sumi inks, for instance, use hide glue as a binder; "ivory black" or "bone black" pigments were traditionally made from charred animal bone, though most paint and pigment makers have switched to synthetic or mineral substitutes. Not all have, however, but you can often find information about product ingredients on individual manufacturers' websites.

Most animal-based pigments are used in the form of ground-up particles that would clog a fountain pen, so my guess is that fountain pen ink manufacturers wouldn't use them. If you're concerned, however, it doesn't hurt to contact them and ask.

Animals are used to test the toxicity or other ill effects of substances on humans. I think that's why the poster is asking the question. There are biocides in inks to prevent the growth of weird stuff. I doubt that inks themselves are tested, but I would guess that the biocides are tested in some manner to determine their effects on humans and their persistence in the environment.

Anyway, it's an interesting question. Maybe some queries to ink companies would help answer it?

Doug

Yeah they are animal friendly. As long as they don't get it on their paws while changing cartridges, or filling a converter. I hear getting ink out of fur can be a real bitc........

Interesting question.
The only thing I can add is I have noticed that the dogs we have shy away from inks. Guess there is a smell that does not appeal to them.

That is a very difficult question to answer. PETA has a list with companies that do and don't test on animals. You can find it here. On the list of companies that don't test their products on animals are Pilot, Sandford and Staedtler. On the list of companies that do test on animals is BIC (with a moratorium on testing). However: these lists focus on companies and not on the products (pens and pencils). It also doesn't tell anything about the animal testing policy of the suppliers of the manufacturer. That means that a manfacturer can state that it's products are not tested on animals, while some parts/components are. The manufactuer can also claim that it is 'against animal testing' but let it's products or parts of it test on animals at specialised animal testing laboratories. It's almost impossible to know for the consumer if this is the case with a certain manufacturer or product. It's not very different when buying soap, shampoo or other cosmetics.
Most modern inks are, as far as I know, free of animal products. However, as long as ink producers are not obliged to print the ingredients on the packaging (as manufacturers of soap and cosmetics must do in some parts of the world), one can never be sure about it.

Quite possibly two of the rudest responses that I have ever seen on the forum. The OP asked about products AND testing. If either of you two are willing to state, unequivocally, that NO INK on the market contains any animal products then you are both speaking way above your pay grades, as this would be an impossible statement to make.

Hence, the OP's question is completely reasonable and your responses are completely unreasonable - and, quite frankly, unwelcome. And markc - if this is such a waste of cycles, who did you get in on it?

Really? Fountain pen ink is dyes, water and some minor ingredients. I doubt (though my pay grade will not allow me to say absolutely-really ) that fountain pen ink has ever been tested on animals - honestly, what would be the point. As for the supporting ingredients ever having been tested by other companies for other purposes how would you ever know!?!?!?

So sorry, this question strikes me as not making sense on the question (which I stated "I'm sorry" to the questioner). However, any question on a chatsite is completely fair to ask and my response did not state otherwise. Stating a response, given with complete honesty and not meaning to demean the questioner in any way, is indeed fair game too (I read no malice in markc's response as well). So the answer was unwelcome to you - I apologize - can't speak for markc. If the answer is "quite frankly, unwelcome" to the chatsite as a whole I'm sure I will hear from the moderators - not your call on this. Your response stated that I was rude and unreasonable and not even couched in terms of this being your opinion but, the opinion that should be held by all (I'll say it is just shy of a personal attack). Perhaps you stated your response more strongly than you intended and it was not truly meant to offend so I am taking it in that light but, I'm giving you the widest possible latitude in that.

Sincerely,

Roger W.

That's something I never thought of. I try to steer towards animal-friendly products when I can, and would like to know the answer to this question.

And to those posters who said it was a dumb question and a waste of time, clearly you have no idea of the ridiculous, nonsensical things they test on animals.

Roger - I'm not going to engage in a flame war. There are too many of those things around this forum, and I have thus far been able to avoid them. Just because something is unwelcome, does not mean that you will hear from an admin. because, as far as I know, being rude and unwlecome is not against the rules! So, if you do not hear it from a fellow member of the community, I do not know where you will hear it. Of course, you can ignore me, and keep your own counsel that your response was measured, constructive, and appropriate.

And I stated my response no more strongly than I intended.

Well, I guess we will agree that rude is perfectly acceptable. I'm good with the fact that this applies only to the comments made on boths side of the aisle on this topic and I don't take it personally. I look forward, as always, to your posts elsewhere - I mean this quite sincerely.

Roger W.

I asked myself the same question as the original poster a few months ago when I noticed the following sentences in the section of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation that deals with the the testing of certain products upon animals:

'The animals [rabbits] are usually placed in holding devices from which only their heads protrude. This prevents them scratching or rubbing their eyes. A test substance (such as bleach, shampoo, or ink) is then placed in one eye of each rabbit.'

The original edition of the book is over thirty years old, of course, but the reference to ink is still there in the second edition (p. 54, to be precise), which came out in 1990. Singer doesn't say anything else in the book about the testing of ink upon animals, though, so it's impossible to know for certain from this source whether or not contemporary fountain pen inks are tested in this way.

Neil

Ink in the eyes... it could also be tested on skin to check for staining, rashing, etc.

If I were going into the ink business, I would certainly want to test my products before putting them on the market. The last thing I would want to do is be strictly liable for blinding someone, or permanently tattooing them. So how would I test the products? I am not in the ink business do I do not know.

I don't know about fountain pen inks, but if you have an inkjet printer, your cartidge ink is probably tested on animals. See here for instance:

http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-b...&id=3037015

Ray

I don't quite understand why replies from Roger and MarkC were so defensive and intemperate (the 'I'm sorry' in Robert's reply hardly countervails the 'doesn't make sense' and the 'Why in hell would anyone test it on animals'; MarkC reference to feeding an animal ink to dismiss my question makes no sense). As a few other responses to my question suggest, this is hardly a nonsensical or baseless query; as is widely known in some circles, animal testing unfortunately is practiced widely--from corporations' fear of litigation, required compliance to laws, and corporate greed (often much cheaper than other available forms of testing, such as computer modeling).

In quick searches to date, I have found several websites which indicate that indeed many inks contain such ingredients as animal-based glycerides (as an emulsifier), gelatin (for consistency and stabilizing), and lecithin phospholipids (as preservatives and emulsifiers). Some years back, Parker (purchased by Gillette Corp) was included in boycotts by Peta, but I could not verify if this specifically pointed to ink or other Parker products. I still know nothing about the ingredients or the testing protocols used by any specific ink brands and products we use in our daily lives.

If the inkjet printer is from Hewlett Packard, animal testing means testing on bacteria or waterfleas. See this link.



The Material Safety Data Sheet of Parker Quink ink gives some (but not much) information about the ingredients used. The pdf file of this document can be found on the Sanford website. It seems that Quink and Penman inks are composed of water, ethylene glycol (107-21-1), dyes and preservatives.
These Material Safety Data Sheets can be found here

maybe they should test on squids-then the squid could test back...
Sorry if this caused offence-fully intended as humour, I don't condone animal testing or using animal products, although I do eat meat and wear leather...and keep my pens in leather pouches.
I do hope the ink I use has not been tested on animals though, and if anyone can give definitive answers I would be disinclined to continue purchasing that...I hope its not true that BIC test becauser I rather like skrip ink, which is now owned ny bic...

We use to get asked about the feathers Holly uses in her work and we posted a disclaimer on the old site.
Most of the feathers come from friends we have made over the years and the feathers are what the birds molt naturally.
None come from birds that were killed for the feathers.
The only reason I mention this is because I was pleasantly surprised when the questions came in.

I never stopped to think about inks and some of the posts here have me all over the net trying to find out about animal testing.
I hope anyone who comes across a yes or no story will post it.
It is difficult, to say the least, to wade through all the different Corporate names and attempt to figure out who is who.

I have noticed that all of the soaps and such we use come from people who do not use any animal testing at all.
That kind of happened naturally, I wasn’t even aware that it happened (sorry to Say).
We were just looking for soaps that were not detergents and were also free of chemicals.
They are so much better then the massed produced stuff.

Unfortunately all soaps are full of chemicals, as well as you and me and every animal alive and every plant and every...

I think you might be thinking synthetic chemicals but even then lots of them are just trying to duplicate natural ones on larger scales. So looking at a label and reading lists of long multisyllable chemicals and getting worried isn't always the best idea since many of those synthetic chemicals are based on natural sources. And some of the natural stuff has low concentrations of compounds that no one really knows if they are good.

K

yeap


Hmm,... I thought this is called homeopathic medicine

I am courious about something here. When ever we go to the doctor, and he prescribes a medication, it seems no one ask if this was tested on animals. Where does the line get drawn?

Nit picking at an extraordinary level.

I bet %99.999999999 of the folks reading this know exactly what I meant.

OMG, we are all made of chemicals, all life is made of chemicals?

The list of ingredients that we use to make soaps and creams include, in varying amounts and mixtures according to the requests made, or the type we are making.
Raw Shea Butter
Fragrance oils and Essential oils from natural products:
Jojoba
Almond
Aloe
Etc and etc.
Natural fruits and herbs:
Blueberry
Bay
Mint
Etc and etc.
The base is made from, in varying proportions and recipes:
Vegetable glycerin.
Blessed Ohm Water.
Vegetable based Stearic acid.
And just for me, natural sulfur.

I think it is more of scaring people to buy your product as an advertising ploy than anything else.

That is chemicals are really really bad and you should only buy things not made from the really really bad chemicals. But the organic whatever is made of chemicals lots and lots of chemicals. So what the (I'm sure you can do better) is the difference except that someone can feel good about making a purchase and the seller can make money.

I have very strong feelings about this topic (chemicals) so I will hold them close so as not to cause flaming.


K

[...

Personally, I have no objection to animal testing. Stuff like medicine ought to be tested before humans take it and provided that you can show that testing on certain animals is predictive of efficacy and safety in humans, go for it.

What I do object to is unnecessary testing on animals. We could get involved in a whole 'how long is a piece of string' thing here, of course, but peoples views of what is necessary and what isn't will vary.

Ray

I am assuming you were not intending to be mean by making that statement.
I am also gonna assume you have never made soap.

Im gonna go a bit off topic for a moment...

Not all people or businesses create a ‘Ploy’ to sell their products. Not all are out to get you, especially in the selling arena I am a part of. I raised dairy goats for 20+ years. Why? I wanted a healthy alternative for my children, rather than store bought milk & cheese. Why? Because after milk is heat-treated (pasteurized & homogenized) it LOSES ALL of its ability to be digested by us, human beings. We get nothing from it, regardless of what the media tells you. Heating milk kills off ALL bacteria & organisms required for milk to be … um…milk. This process of heat treating milk began to lengthen shelf-life, and yes, in a manner of speaking protect us from the bad bacteria which can grow when not cooled properly. But it also has good bacteria in it also, bacteria we need to actually digest it. One of the reasons cow milk is not tolerated well by many people & especially infants.

Okay, back to the point. My children are grown now, all of them begging Momma to start dairying again. Why? Because they all have little ones now too. My children never had ear aches, never had ANY dental problems OR cavities, and other than minor colds and all 3 getting the chicken pocks at once, they were never sick. They got raw milk, digestible organic milk, all of their growing up years. And homemade cheese & yogurt also. I also made organic vegetable based soap, and no one had or has acne.

JD came to me with very sensitive skin when we were married 3 years ago. Nothing worked for him, until I made him some specially created soaps. I use NO chemicals, everything is organic, and he healed. When you find something which works so well you cannot help but talk about it, promote it, try your best to inform others about the good, bad, and the ugly in regards to whatever it is which causes such passion. Its human nature, and not necessarily a ploy.

And in regards to animals testing. My older brother Mike worked for Medtronic (I think that’s the name) keeping their computers updated and maintained. Not the regular run of the mill type computers either. This company tested on animals, and it made my brother so depressed he actually got sick. He no longer works for them. There are other alternatives…

Yes and you meant that a man-made chemical is bad and a natural chemical is good.

And it makes me angry every time that I see that.

Well, strictly speaking, everything is a chemical, but I think I know what you meant. I envy your kids having access to fresh, unpasteurised cheeses. I love them.

Ray

What is mean about having an opinion? you attack on me was rather rude.

I never thought I would be replied to in such a hostile and defensive way.

So I'm outta this thread.


(And yes I have made soap)

That IS an important issue, I agree. But the problem is that the companies who test typically draw the line way over on the side of "caution"--where, to be frank, it is not caution so much as preemptive strategy in anticipation of possible future litigation. Thus, cosmetics are exempt from testing requirements that pharmaceuticals are subject to, but cosmetic firms routinely conduct animal testing on their products no matter what their product is. We should recognize that (1) the vast majority of animal testing is utterly useless according to 'distinterested' (meaning objective, non-corporation-paid) scientific opinion, but it is conducted anyway, as is most med-school acts of vivisection and other practices that the students gain nothing from in 90+ % of situations; (2) animals continue to get subjected to such testing despite the fact that there are modeling techniques considered far superior to them. But, in many cases, habit, existing circuits of animal-consumption (for testing) and most importantly, cost (animals being generally the cheap alternative) trump any concern about subjecting animals to what are prolonged acts of torture. Dogs get used in high numbers, as do monkeys (far more than chimps, orangutans and their other cousins). As the joke among insider critics go, we know a hell of a lot about physiological reactions of dogs, monkeys, and all these animals, but not that much about humans.

Perhaps contrary to 'Wizergig''s intention in posting this question, it actually would be a good idea to make such inquiries to one's physicians, just as it makes sense to inquire about why any given physician prescribes drug A rather than drug B or some non-invasive alternatives.

Added: Shelley is right -- this thread has been sooooo highjacked. I have removed my response to the highjack.

And no, Shelley, I don't know whether any ink companies (other than those making ink jet cartridges) test on animals. I don't know why ink jet carts are tested on animals anyway, but maybe one of the personal injury or occupational health legal specialists on FPN can answer that question. Maybe fountain pen inks are not required to be tested on animals, although the components of the inks probably are (but not by the f.p. ink companies).

In the "old days" they did all sort of nasty stuff testing on whoever was "abnormal", now they test on bacteria, then animals then volunteer humans, pruducing a drug is expensive and time consuming...however the orginal threas was about ink, not milk or soap pr cheese or drugs or chemicals...so does anyone know whether or not ink companies test their products on animals or not?

I too didn't intend on any malice, I just thought that the topic of the question doesn't make much sense. Most products that would be tested on animals fall under the cosmetic category. Fountain pen ink is rarely if ever thought of as a cosmetic. I certainly wouldn't be using it on my face as a skin cream.

But if people feel that I was being rude, I am sorry. It wasn't my intention.

To get an answer on your question, the first thing is to answer the question from what ingredients the ink is made. For example Quink: water, ethylene glycol (107-21-1), dyes and preservatives. It is impossible to know for consumers what is meant by 'dyes' or 'preservatives' (as it is impossible to know what for example 'parfum' or 'fragrance' means in cosmetics), but ethylene glycol is known by most people (as antifreeze). It is also known that ethylene glycol is tested on toxicity on animals. See for this for example this link. That already means that Quink inks can not be labeled as 'not tested on animals', because at least one ingredients is. Most ink products do contain some very basic chemicals and all of these were in the past tested on animals. That means that there is no such a thing as 'not tested on animals' ink products (in the same way as there are no real 'not tested on animals' cosmetics). Sometimes a product is also labeled 'not tested on animals' when a product or its ingredients/components are not tested for a certain time (mostly 5 years). Consumers can only look at the current policy of a manufacturer on animal testing to make an 'animal friendly' choice. They can do that by asking the manufacturer about it (and hope the answer will be honest and not misleading) or get the information from organisations like PETA.

[Sorry, I erred in properly imbedding Mr. T's quote, which is what follows: "If the inkjet printer is from Hewlett Packard, animal testing means testing on bacteria or waterfleas. See this link.

This comment is a bit misleading. Here is what that site--Hewlett Packard's own website (the link you provide)--says:

"Animal testing will not be conducted unless HP determines that animal test data is needed and acceptable testing alternatives are not available." So, they determine its need as they see fit. And while they say, "Testing will be conducted on the lowest acceptable level of species, such as Daphnia (water fleas) and Salmonella bacteria," this leaves open the very fuzzy and subjective area of "acceptable level of species." The way you refer to it--"animal testing means testing on bacteria or waterfleas"--is incorrect, since this is not at all assured; and your statement has the effect of trivializing the issue--whether intended that way or not.




I agree that there is a kind of infinite regress here that will pretty much assure that just about any product that is processed today will contain ingredients that have been subjected to some "animal testing". That is important to note in its own right, but as consumers today it would seem that a stronger ethical concern would be regarding any testing that is done now. IF (a big if) an ingredient has been tested and effectively standardized so that ongoing and new animal testing does NOT have to be repeated on any formerly tested ingredient because its toxicity and other offending traits are known, then its use in a product otherwise not animal-tested seems to be a less troubling than an ingredient which gets re-tested using animals for any new or current product containing that formerly tested and no-longer-tested ingredient.

In short, I just want to warn against the conclusion your perspective above might be seen as promoting (this is NOT an accusation, just a caution!)--that since everything (or just about everything) we use today has animal-tested ingredients, there is no need to be concerned about the issue, or that we just succumb to resignation. It's really up to us, I think, to thoughtfully look at these matters and help the voiceless here who get tortured by the millions every year, just in the U.S. alone--animals. Some companies HAVE indeed responded by eliminating animal testing of their new products.

The animal testing thing has another twist: think of the many products which DON'T contain certain ingredients any more, because those ingredients were animal tested and found dangerous.
Like ink, which often contained Phenol as biocide, until it was found to be cancerogenic by animal testing.

I write on my cat all the time and he doesn't seem to mind..............KIDDING, KIDDING.

I found this on Richards web site:

Fountain pen ink is a solution. To the chemist, a solution consists of a fluid in which other substances are dissolved (the solvent), and the dissolved substances (the solutes). The solutes are actually reduced to the molecular level, the same as the solvent, and all the different molecules are mixed up evenly to create a uniform fluid. The solvent in fountain pen ink is distilled water, and the solutes are dyes, wetting agents, and mold inhibitors. Because it’s a solution, fountain pen ink contains no solid matter at all. This is an important point to remember.

In response to a query to Private Reserve Ink, I received this reply from them:

Hello
Thanks for your support of our inks.
No animal products in our inks and no testing of our inks using animals.
Thanks
[name of employee withheld]


Without knowing the specific ingredients, it's hard to make a more secure determination, but better than nothing, certainly.

To see if it feathers?

(Wow, I was away from FPN and am saddened at the emotions that have electrified this thread.)

I just wanted to point out that Nathan of Noodler's ascertained that he uses NO animal-derived products in his inkmaking. Check his post in this link (there's also a followup on page 3).

I would like to respond to your question herein manner, if I my? I understand what you are asking, as with so many things now days can have ill effects on the environment. I deliberate this way, with my cats who are my family, I would like to know whether wherein I was filling my PF a spill where to happen and my cat's as noisy as they can be gotten into the ink heretofore I could get it cleaned would I have to worry could it make them sick? I lost a cat because of carpet cleaning which put my cat into aggregate kidney failure and death. So your question does have merits in my book. Sorry that others did not see it as I have.

Your Forum Friend,
Penster1959 (Randy)

I certainly support Shalley's decision to use raw milk and make her own cheese, and definitely agree that the general population is missing something without all those beneficial bacteria. Of course in our society the mass-production and sterilization of products is, IMHO, necessary. As far as milk is concerned, the sanitation is necessary to public health as we can't be sure the commercial dairies are as clean as you probably keep yours. Especially since, unlike our meat, we don't usually cook the milk before drinking it. And since commercially-produced milk has a lot farther to travel before it reaches its consumer (economy of scale), any bad bacteria would have a greater opportunity to multiply to infectious levels. This is one of the beauties of active-culture yogurt and cheeses - you can get the bacteria without the risk. I want to emphasize that I am in no way arguing with Shalley, just adding my thoughts.

But to get back to the animal-testing topic ... I am all for necessary testing only. To me, this means the research can only be done effectively using animals, the lowest "tier" of animal possible is used, the research would in some significant way improve or protect human health, and sufficient data on the substance is not already availiable.

I'm ashamed to say I do not pay attention to the animal testing issue when buying shampoo, lotion, soap, or any other product. I respect everyone who gives such thought and attention to their purchases. To all those alert citizens: let us know of any especially egregious offenders to avoid.

Or as in Peachez case, the Blue Cat. Sorry to hear about your kitty. Yes, there are many things cats and dogs can get in to that can cause that. Cats in particular, seem to not be able to process a LOT of things through their kidneys.

This is off-topic, but I came across this reference to a study showing that the ink in some laser printers pose a significant health risk to those working in their vicinity. The article can be found at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../MNFBRAN0J2.DTL

Just a brief update in pursuit of my initial question. Three email inquiries made to Pelikan (almost a month ago) has resulted in no replies.

Today I received a message from a Peta representative who writes:

Thank you for your email. The following companies sell cruelty-free
office supplies, including pens and pencils.

Berol
Eberhard Faber
Food Lion
Pilot Corporation of America
Sanford
Staedtler, Ltd.

Okay, but this doesn't help that much given that my initial query to them was about inks.

Proprietary information from corporations that do not have to report such information is, not surprisingly, very difficult to get.

Edited because for some reason I thought you were asking if drinking ink is harmful to animals.