Stop Requiring Animal Testing for Sex Lubricant


Target: Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf

Goal: Stop recent requirements that sexual lubricant be tested on animals to be declared marketable.

Sexual lubricant will now have to be tested on animals before being made available to the public due to a change in its classification. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently decided that personal lubricants are no longer to be classified as “cosmetic” goods and upgraded them to the category of a medical device. This category puts them in the same classification as some pregnancy tests and powered wheelchairs. This, coincidentally, also requires that all lubricants must be tested on animals before they will be approved for marketing by the FDA.

During this incredibly ineffective testing, animals such as rabbits or guinea pigs are injected with the lubricant. They are then killed and cut open so that scientists can inspect for any signs of reaction or irritation. This is supposed to set a standard for human consumption safety. However, since rabbits and guinea pigs have vastly different genitalia than humans, these reactions or lack thereof are inconsistent between the animals and humans.

Whereas a rabbit may not have a reaction to something, it could have an extreme, negative affect on a human. Rabbits, for example, have fewer specialized cells in their genitalia than humans. This means that there are types of cells that products can interact or not interact with in these animals, that cannot be accounted for in humans. Ultimately, this testing is needlessly cruel and incredibly inefficient–almost useless when judging the “safety” of a product.

The good news, for those who want to avoid buying products that fund animal cruelty, is that there are other alternatives such as coconut oil and aloe-based products which do not require animal testing. These products also have the benefit of lacking the many chemicals included in lubricants. So while this new dark cloud is being cast by the FDA, people, if informed, will not have to make the choice between supporting this inhumanity and their own intimacies.

Urge the FDA to end this superfluous and ineffective requirement for marketing personal lubricants. Encourage them to seek more effective and humane alternatives to testing these products, rather than the torture of animals.


Dear Dr. Califf,

Recently, a decision was reached by the FDA to declare personal lubricant as a medical device rather than a cosmetic. This change in classification will required that all lubricant companies begin testing their products on animals before they will be allowed on market. The projected time range for this to completely take effect is five years. That is five years for the decision to be changed and senseless slaughter of animals in a process that is unreliable at best to be prevented.

Due to the vast anatomical and cellular differences in animal genitalia and human genitalia, results of testing are often inaccurate. This leads to horrible reactions in humans or to the product proving useless. This wastes resources, time and lives. It expresses a degree of indifferent cruelty that is appalling in the face of more progressive legislation to protect animal welfare.

Please seek an alternative route to testing products that doesn’t involve slaughtering countless animals for an unreliable test or stop requiring the testing altogether. In this day and age, it is barbaric to continue such practices. With the leaps and bounds of science and technology, there is no excuse for safer and more humane alternatives for testing not to be pursued.


[Your Name Here]

Photo credit: The Petition Site

Sign the Petition

  • Only your name will be displayed. By signing, you accept our terms and may receive updates on this and related causes.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
FacebookCare2 NewsTwitterEmailShare


  1. says:

    Why don,t they try it on themselves. The heartless bastards. Leave the innocent animals alone.

  2. Elaine Robinson says:

    Test the lubricants on people who will be using the stuff . . . NOT ANIMALS

  3. Annie Conway says:

    Sick bastards

  4. Julie Casagrande says:

    What is the status of this petition?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




6653 Signatures

  • Elizabeth Fleming
  • irene sette
  • Stephen Brown
  • Taylor Hernandez
  • Fateh Sidhu
  • Ashni Karan
  • Jambrina Sakellaropoulo
  • Margaret Murphy
  • joanne Nelson
  • Sandra Doyle
1 of 665123...665
Skip to toolbar