List of companies that test on animals!!!

[GreekChick]

I cant believe Biotherm is up there. So many of us here use this line.

[Beauty Mark]

A lot of products are tested on animals or the parent company does that.

The Body Shop, who prided themselves on their animal friendly style, was bought by PG

[eulchen]

L´oreal does not only own the body shop but also the "cheaper" alternative yves rocher who are advertising with no animal testing as well...


thats why im staying with lush, you know what you get: one of the strictes no-animal-testing-policy available on the market.


and good products

[semtexgirl]

Copied from Giorgio Armani's website today...

Does your company test on animals?


No. Giorgio Armani does not use animals to test its products, and does not have animal testing conducted on its behalf by anyone else. Instead, Giorgio Armani ensures product safety through state-of-the-art testing methods on human volunteers

I just sent an email to Aussie b/c I use their shampoos & conditioners. If they do test on animals, I'll stop buying their products.

[MAC_Pixie04]

My question is, how old is this list? It's possible that it's not very new, because the companies listed on it were much more popular in the 80s and 90s (Ladies' Choice anyone???) than they are now. So it's likely that a brand on there that surprised you may have been testing on animals before this list was published but is no longer continuing that practice. All the fragrance ones confuse me: why the hell would you need to test fragrance on an animal?? If it stinks, reform it, if it doesn't, sell it.

[Beauty Mark]

The list conceptually is created by the parent company. For instance, Proctor and Gamble (I think they produce Aussie, unfortunately) is the parent company of a lot of brands. Proctor and Gamble does a lot of animal testing with their products. If a company's parent company tests, they end up on that list, even if the off-shoot company doesn't test; I think the Body Shop's products are not tested on animals. I've seen lists that include Pringles, and I don't think anyone is feeding the animals chips.

I think they may do stupid testing with animals, like spraying perfume in the eyes, but I'm not 100% sure. Scientists do a lot of other stupid testing with animals, so it wouldn't surprise me.

[Artemis]

MAC no animal testing policy is one of the reasons I love the brand so much. I try my best to aviod animal testing brands. Which is why I aviod drugstore make up like the plague. I don't see the point of testing make up on animals.

[Fairybelle]

If you read Bath and Body Work's and Victoria's Secret Garden product labels, the last phrase is 'finished product not tested on animals'. Finished... makes you think about what happened during it's creation! Tricky play of words to make it look like no testing was done! Read carefully!!

[eulchen]

there is a ban on all cosmetic products animal testing in europe but since ingredients have to be tested under some circumstances (for example if they are chemics and brand new developed) so companies have to test the raw materials, and because its cheap, they do animal testing. that is why body shop had to change the slogan "no animal testing" to "against animal testing" (in europe only maybe?) because they were sued as they couldnt guarantee that all the stuff they bought from somewhere and used was NOT tested.

l´oreal is the big fish who are lobbying to abandon the animal testing ban on cosmetic products. makes you wonder why. i certainly dont understand why cosmetics need to be tested, there shouldnt be any potentially dangerous things in there in the first place...

[semtexgirl]

Here's the response I got from Aussie in response to my message (it's kinda long):

Thank you for contacting us regarding our use of animal testing.

We are glad to have the chance to share the facts about our product
safety testing program with you.

P&G has consistently refrained from making claims related to animal
research on our products and packaging, and in keeping with this policy,
we are phasing out that language from our packaging. This does not
represent a change in our research and manufacturing process, but is simply
a matter of making our labels consistent with P&G policy.

We at P&G want to ultimately eliminate the need for all animal testing
of products and ingredients for human use. We have already ended the
use of animals for evaluating the safety of all current non-food,
non-drug product formulations, except where required by regulations OR WHEN THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TEST AVAILABLE TO ENSURE HUMAN SAFETY. When evaluating the safety of foods, drugs, new technologies and never-before-used ingredients, we always look first to existing safety data and then to alternatives. A minimal amount of animal research is used only when we're unable to verify safety any other way -- let us stress that resorting to animal research is the exception rather than the norm. We'd rather use alternatives; not only is the use of animals avoided, but
reliable alternatives generally cost less and take less time.

We're committed to the ultimate elimination of animal testing FOR
PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR HUMAN USE. In order to reach this goal, we're doing a number of things. We've invested almost $160 million in alternatives,
making us an industry leader. We're working with the FDA and respected
animal welfare groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States,
to work on reforming regulations and validating alternative methods so
that we can reach our goal. These are just a couple of our efforts in
the area of alternatives. To learn more, we invite you to visit our
website: http://www.pg.com/science/animal_alt.jhtml

For additional information about alternatives, you might visit the
following websites:
http://www.biorap.org(Biological Research for Animals & People)
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/(Alternatives to Animal Testing site)
http://www.hsus.org/(Humane Society of the United States site)
http://www.ampef.org/(Americans for Medical Progress Educational
Foundation)

We hope this explanation of our position will serve to answer your
inquiry and assure you of our continuing attention to this matter.

The Consumer Affairs Team
013085469A/EJL

"Committment" to the ultimate elimination of animal testing for products intended for human use (what about products for animal use?) and "committment" to the ultimate elimination of animal testing for products intended for human use (again, what about products for animal use?) is simply not enough. Until Aussie (at least but preferably, P&G as a whole) stops this practice, I'll be using a different brand of shampoo/conditioner.

[Hilly]

I am presenting this topic in a speech for my professional speakers group- Toastmasters. Thanks for the idea!

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by semtexgirl

"Committment" to the ultimate elimination of animal testing for products intended for human use (what about products for animal use?) and "committment" to the ultimate elimination of animal testing for products intended for human use (again, what about products for animal use?) is simply not enough. Until Aussie (at least but preferably, P&G as a whole) stops this practice, I'll be using a different brand of shampoo/conditioner.

well, i suppose they can't really feed dog or cat food to humans for taste test purposes... hah.

however, if they were going to use animals to taste test their pet food, i'd like to hope it was done as a consumer trial on actual pets, not on animals kept in cages in labs who are mistreated as they do now, according to the PETA report on PG's pet food brand.

i try not to use any PG products if i can help it, as i don't agree with their animal testing policies.

[mae13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC_Pixie04

My question is, how old is this list? It's possible that it's not very new, because the companies listed on it were much more popular in the 80s and 90s (Ladies' Choice anyone???) than they are now. So it's likely that a brand on there that surprised you may have been testing on animals before this list was published but is no longer continuing that practice. All the fragrance ones confuse me: why the hell would you need to test fragrance on an animal?? If it stinks, reform it, if it doesn't, sell it.

My guess is that they test the various components in perfume for toxicity and photo-sensitivity. A lot of aroma chemicals and essential oils are problematic, so they need to test to figure what proportions of those ingredients are safe to use, if any at all. (For example, most citrus oils are phototoxic, a lot of resins cause sensitization and wormwood is a neurotoxin.)

The IFrA keeps a list of banned and problematic components, and they update periodically.

[cno64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis

MAC no animal testing policy is one of the reasons I love the brand so much. I try my best to aviod animal testing brands. Which is why I aviod drugstore make up like the plague. I don't see the point of testing make up on animals.

I couldn't agree more!
I am soo thankful that MAC is a non-animal-testing company!
If they weren't, I'd have to give them up, and that would be sooo painful!
I had to give up the Body Shop for this reason, and they made some of my very favorite fragrances.
I've found alternatives, though.

[Pushpa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilovexnerdsx

hm. i used to work at a vet. one day a lady from PETA came in and adopted four puppies, then euthanized them in the parking lot, claiming that having pets is like having slaves.

so in situations like this, i'm not sure who to believe i buy what i need, but in no way do i support animal testing.

i believe peta actually perform euthansia on 85% of the animals they 'rescue'

peta annoys me...sorry if to offend anyone affiliated with them but they are too much

[cno64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pushpa

i believe peta actually perform euthansia on 85% of the animals they 'rescue'

I'm not and never have been associated with PETA, but I'm friends with a lot of animal rescue folks, and have done some rescues myself. Unfortunately, the euthanasia rate you quote is probably fairly commonplace, even among humane organizations.
It's gotten better in a few areas, but still not enough people are spaying and neutering, and there are far, far more pets than there are suitable homes and resources for them.
As for the woman who feels that owning pets is tantamount to owning slaves, I know that there are people who regard their pets as "property," and treat them accordingly.
However, many people(and I am among them) regard their pets as beloved friends, companions, and family members.
I've noticed that more and more animal lovers/respecters refer to themselves as "pet parents" rather than "pet owners."
I like that; I don't think of myself as "owning" my cats and birds. We just share our lives, in a mutually beneficial arrangement.

[TIERAsta]

Wow, at this day in age, I would have thought that list would be a lot shorter... this makes me sad

[SpareMyHeart]

This is a touchy subject.

I feel for all the animals that have to be subjected to being a guinny(sp?) pig(on pun intended) for all these companies.Regardless if its not "torture" as some might say, its still something that imo shouldn't be happening.

But we have to remember that some companies who don't test on animals are part of a bigger company that do.

IMO we shouldn't be treating animals as our own personal science project.But then again, some of the companies that are listed, I use alot of their products, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite

[greentwig]

Hey does anoyone know if Yyves Rocher does this???
I hope not, I love there stuff

TIA - LH

[eulchen]

yves rocher is owned by l´oréal. as is the body shop since last year. sorry.

[redambition]

i had no idea yves rocher was owned by l'oreal :/ luckily all i have from them is a couple of sample lippies (one of which i wanted to get the full size of!). into the bin they go.

The Body Shop may be owned by L'Oreal but apparently has provided documentation to PETA stating that they will not be testing on animals, and as a result PETA has asked people not to boycott TBS. Given how gung-ho PETA are about listing a company as one who tests if just the parent comapny does so, this is a big deal.

edit: looked at a couple of websites... it appears that yves rocher is an independant company, but their animal testing status is a bit unclear at the moment... can't find any solid info.

[eulchen]

i just rechecked and yes, i cannot find yves rocher anymore in the l´oreal list of companies, so either they have sold them or my mind is playing tricks on me. :confused: i just downloaded the "companies who dont test"-list from one of the links on the previous page of this thread and yves rocher is not on there. or my mind is playing tricks AGAIN...


point is: the money body shop makes goes to l´oreal. so no matter how non-testing the body shop are staying, the money to support them goes to a company that hasnt the same ethical principles. the money you spend at body shop could be spent in a shop thats not owned by somebody else and who actually ensure theyre moral standards are kept.

i do not agree with the advise of peta on this one. i would support going somewhere else to get animal testing free cosmetics. by buying the body shop l´oreal dont want to "learn", they just want their part of the business in the ethical awareness section, they wont change ANY of their other policies. they just make profit out of people who think they are doing something good without having to change the policies of their own trademark. this monopolization is annoying me.


anyways, heres the list of companies l´oreal owns

Garnier
Le Club de Creatueres de Beaute (CCB)
Maybelline NY
Softsheen.Carson
Kérastase
Redken
Matrix
Mizani
Lancôme
Biotherm
Helena Rubinstein
Kiehl´s
Shu Uemura
Giorgio Armani
Ralph Lauren
Cacharel
Viktor&Rolf
Vichy
La Roche-Posay
Innéov
Skinceuticals
and of course all different branches of L´oréal itself. i think thats not even all the companies they own, just the important ones...:confused:

and one article by the guardian bout l´oréal trying to stop the animal-testing-ban to come into power. ive recently read somwhere that theyre still lobbying, but i cannot find any data on that one *is frustrated at google*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...021527,00.html

sorry, long and rambling, but this annoys me.

[cno64]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redambition

PETA has asked people not to boycott TBS.

I still am[not buying from The Body Shop], and that has been my policy ever since I learned TBS has been bought by L'Oreal. TBS makes one of my all-time favorite summer fragrances, "Spirit of Moonflower," but I won't buy more. I can get nice light floral scents from Avon ...
And I haven't bought L'Oreal for years. I used to, in my pre-radical years, and they did/do make some good mascaras.
It doesn't matter. Now I buy (and love) Urban Decay's mascara.
My point is(and I promise there is one) that generally you can find an alternative if you shop around some.

[halocaustic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharyn

I dont.
Animal testing is not the most accurate way of testing. (From what I've heard/read so far)There's methods of testing medicine that are more exact than testing on animals.

ALL new medicines are normally required to go through some form of animal testing before they are considered safe for clinical trials, unless its a derivative of a well established drug or a reformulation. It's been that way for years. My sister is a pharmacist and often speaks about it....I'd be interested to hear about the more accurate methods you mean, things may differ from country to country. If you mean Drug Development studies involving human being, then animal testing is normally a prerequisite PRIOR to this. No drug company wants sued so they wouldn't risk going straight to human.

[semtexgirl]

While I won't by from L'oreal anymore I do use Garnier products b/c they do not test on animals. To me (and I quote my animal loving sister), "boycotting Garnier's products would be the same as punishing a child for the actions of his/her parent". In a perfect world, Garnier would be it's own company. But since we don't live in a perfect world, the fact that their products are animal friendly is enough to keep me as a customer.