List of companies that test on animals!!!

[redambition]

you do make some good points in terms of the money i spend at TBS going to L'Oreal (ugh). My spend has decreased with them since they were purchased, but I still a have a few must-haves from TBS that I have not found alternatives for yet. guess i have to keep looking.

as an aside - does anyone know if EA (Elizabeth Arden) is testing or non? the only conclusive info i can find is "unknown" on the skin deep report. there are a slew of websites that say EA is owned by UniLever, but i have been unable to find proof that is the case.

[eulchen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halocaustic

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.

i do not have many infos on the latest developments, but i know of several methods that are deveolped that neither need an animal or a human being and are supposed to substitute the animal tests, but not the later human tests. google should bring up some infos on that!

look, found something:

Quote:

To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include:
• An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(6)
• The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test, which uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
• Human skin model tests such as the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(7)
• The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
• The use of a clinical patch test in human volunteers, which can confirm that a chemical will not cause irritation or allergic skin reactions.(8)
For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit ECVAM.jrc.it and StopAnimalTests.com.

[eulchen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 parent for the actions of his/her child". 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.

wouldnt it be "punishing the child for the actions of its parents"? as l´oreal is the parent and garnier the owned company?

i do have my own opinion on that and ill share (nobody has to agree with me!) butcontinuing buying at these companies will show nobody that they are supposed to change. garniercan stay the way they are, l´oreal stay the way they are. boycotting them both would send signals: either to garnier (ouh... purchases fall since were owned, we better try to get back to independent as the customers dont seem to like this) and l´oreal. continuing to buy there makes l´oreal happy as they get the money that garnier would deserve if they were independent. l´oreal profits from other owned companies being ethical superior, but ethical companies do not really profit from being owned by l´oreal. (i guess there are economic reasons, as everywhere. bah!)

my 2 cents. free for all!

Quote:

Originally Posted by redambition

you do make some good points in terms of the money i spend at TBS going to L'Oreal (ugh). My spend has decreased with them since they were purchased, but I still a have a few must-haves from TBS that I have not found alternatives for yet. guess i have to keep looking.

as an aside - does anyone know if EA (Elizabeth Arden) is testing or non? the only conclusive info i can find is "unknown" on the skin deep report. there are a slew of websites that say EA is owned by UniLever, but i have been unable to find proof that is the case.

i cant find them on here so i guess not?
http://www.unilever.com/ourbrands/

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eulchen

i cant find them on here so i guess not?
http://www.unilever.com/ourbrands/

neither could i

did some more digging... UniLever did buy EA in 1989, then sold them off to FFI (no idea who they are). It's possible that EA have split again from there as Elizabeth Arden, Inc is listed as the parent company of Elizabeth Arden (the brand).

so, let this be a word of warning to all - be careful about the research you do in regards to which company owns which brand, and if they test on animals. just from my EA search it appears there is a lot of inaccurate and outdated information around.

i've emailed EA corporate to get an answer on their animal testing status as I can't find anything concrete.

[semtexgirl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eulchen

wouldnt it be "punishing the child for the actions of its parents"? as l´oreal is the parent and garnier the owned company?

i do have my own opinion on that and ill share (nobody has to agree with me!) butcontinuing buying at these companies will show nobody that they are supposed to change. garniercan stay the way they are, l´oreal stay the way they are. boycotting them both would send signals: either to garnier (ouh... purchases fall since were owned, we better try to get back to independent as the customers dont seem to like this) and l´oreal. continuing to buy there makes l´oreal happy as they get the money that garnier would deserve if they were independent. l´oreal profits from other owned companies being ethical superior, but ethical companies do not really profit from being owned by l´oreal. (i guess there are economic reasons, as everywhere. bah!)

my 2 cents. free for all!




i cant find them on here so i guess not?
http://www.unilever.com/ourbrands/

You are right - just edited my post. But since we don't live in a perfect world, and I work with what products are available right now, I'll continue to purchase from Garnier as long as they keep their products remain free of any animal-testing.

[redambition]

In case anyone is interested, email response from Elizabeth Arden re: animal testing:

Dear [snipped out name] ,


Thank you for contacting Customer Service at www.elizabetharden.com.

No, our products or ingredients are not tested on animals and Elizabeth
Arden does not have animal testing conducted on it's behalf by anyone
else. Instead, Elizabeth Arden ensures product safety through state of
the art testing methods.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can do for you, and
thank you again for contacting Customer Service at
www.elizabetharden.com.


Sincerely,

[snipped out name].
Customer Service Representative
Customer Service at www.elizabetharden.com

[mello]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know so many companies tested on animals! I'm definitely switching to cruelty free products from now on.

[banjobama]

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.

THIS IS HORRIBLE!

[frocher]

Thank you for posting this.

[SparklingWaves]

That Iams video was awful. Then, I saw what they do to meat on PETA. I felt like crying.

[cleodelinda]

I wonder about Wella... It's on PETA's cruelty-free list, but it is listed as a Procter & Gamble brand on the European P&G sites. It doesn't make sense...
http://www.uk.pg.com/otherPGsites/otherPGsites.html

I'm sad to hear about Yves Rocher, I always thought that it was one of the few brands I could rely on...

[StelliR]

Wow, this has been an illuminating thread to read. For a while I was gung-ho about ridding my home of animal-tested products but became frustrated at how pervasive this repulsive practice is in that it affects EVERYTHING I buy, from toilet paper to mascara. Anyway, reading this again thoughtfully has re-motivated me to commit once again to ridding my home of these companies products (and writing them letters to let them know what I am doing and why). My family and I share our home with 2 dogs, 3 cats and 2 birds, and to do anything less makes me a hypocrite. *goes upstairs to sort through makeup, and bid goodbye to my beloved Shu blushes*

[Love Always Ivy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Showgirl

I'm surprised the Body Shop are still on the Caring Consumers' list - they've recently been bought over by L'Oreal, from what I hear one of the very worst offenders on the animal testing front - all my vegan friends are vetoing the Body Shop now...

i work for the body shop and our company does not test on animals at all!
absolutely none of our products are and they have no animal byproducts.
just because L'oreal, who just bought us out does, does not mean that we as a subsidiary company threw away our morals and beleifs. we still retained our integrity. i have a meeting with corporate tomorrow and i can verify this with them.

[hotmodelchiq]

WHERE SHOULD I BEGIN...Its important for everyone to do their own research and not believe EVERYTHING we read on the internet... I know for a FACT that a few of these companies don't use animals to test their products. This is EXTREMELY irresponsible to cause this type of defamation against these companies and you could end up attacking the wrong one and get sued... I work for Cover Girl and WE in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM have ever used any animal testing and I know for a fact a few others on this long imaginary list don't either...

[AmberLilith]

A couple of points about animal testing:

1. Often, the claim made by a company is that they do not test products or ingredients on animals. This does not always mean that the ingredients haven't been tested by other companies.

2. One of the solutions often used is Fixed Cut-off Date, where a company refuses to use products that have been tested (in the past by other companies) after a certain date.
This rule is advocated by Naturewatch.

Anyway, more information can be found on the site NatureWatch.org

They also publish a guide 'The Compassionate Shopping Guide' which lists the companies that do use ingredients that have been tested. This publication is not expensive (about £3) and is updated fairly frequently.

Edit: Naturewatch also has some recipes for handmade beauty products.

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotmodelchiq

WHERE SHOULD I BEGIN...Its important for everyone to do their own research and not believe EVERYTHING we read on the internet... I know for a FACT that a few of these companies don't use animals to test their products. This is EXTREMELY irresponsible to cause this type of defamation against these companies and you could end up attacking the wrong one and get sued... I work for Cover Girl and WE in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM have ever used any animal testing and I know for a fact a few others on this long imaginary list don't either...

CoverGirl is a brand owned by Proctor & Gamble, who admit to still doing animal testing (for some things) on their website.

They have updated their animal testing info page since the last time i read it a few years ago. It now says that none of their beauty and personal care brands (and no ingredients used in those) are tested on animals. This is different to the last info I read, which basically tried to explain why they still tested all sorts of things on animals.

If they have started to change their ways i applaud them, because they used to be one of the worst.

The choice someone makes about using PG products? that's personal and depends on how the individual feels about it.

[mae13]

Redambition, where on the PG site did you find the statement about not testing their cosmetics on animals. The only thing I could find was an explanation of how their are actively reducing their use of animal testing, and how it is always used as a last resort and when legally compelled to do so.

[Sound Of Vision]

I've been careful about do/don't test products for 2-3 years already. I don't want to buy products that are tested! Just take a look at the photos of testing...makeup is so not worthy of it!!

[FullWroth]

Are there lists like these available anywhere that aren't affiliated with/done by PETA? I'd love to be more aware of what products are actually animal tested and what products aren't, but I prefer not to get my information from terrorist activist groups with a history of lying out their asses and butchering animals.

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mae13

Redambition, where on the PG site did you find the statement about not testing their cosmetics on animals. The only thing I could find was an explanation of how their are actively reducing their use of animal testing, and how it is always used as a last resort and when legally compelled to do so.

i got it from here.

they also state that they don't test on animals unless required to do so by law here - this is also an improvement to their previous waffle on that page... but it is also quite a broad statement that misses points (eg - do they use ingredients from suppliers who test, do they get a different company to test for them etc) that are important in making an informed decision.

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth

Are there lists like these available anywhere that aren't affiliated with/done by PETA? I'd love to be more aware of what products are actually animal tested and what products aren't, but I prefer not to get my information from terrorist activist groups with a history of lying out their asses and butchering animals.

the skin deep cosmetics safety database (run by EWG) has a searchable database, but they have a lot of blanks (unknowns) in there.

www.cosmeticsdatabase.com

[Sound Of Vision]

AFC - Companies That Do and That Don't Test on Animals

This is a list I rely on. They don't have many international products, it's based on our market, but you can find some good info. They have White, Black and Grey list.

[mae13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redambition

i got it from here.

they also state that they don't test on animals unless required to do so by law here - this is also an improvement to their previous waffle on that page... but it is also quite a broad statement that misses points (eg - do they use ingredients from suppliers who test, do they get a different company to test for them etc) that are important in making an informed decision.

Thank you for the link.

That's a cagily worded statement. They don't actually out-and-out claim that they are no longer using animal testing for cosmetics, just that they are 'committed to eliminating' it. Which doesn't actually say anything about their current practices.

I e-mailed them to get a clearer answer.

The law thing is also a little tricky - from what I understand, the FDA requires animal tests to prove the safety of any new chemical that is to hit the market. Theoretically, any product with a newly developed ingredient would require such testing. The only cruelty-free items would be those that contained ingredients that had already been tested a while back - which would mean that a) you're not getting any innovative materials and b) you're still using a product with a history of animal testing.

[mae13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullWroth

Are there lists like these available anywhere that aren't affiliated with/done by PETA? I'd love to be more aware of what products are actually animal tested and what products aren't, but I prefer not to get my information from terrorist activist groups with a history of lying out their asses and butchering animals.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society has a really comprehensive resource page here: National Anti-Vivisection Society:

And a searchable index here: National Anti-Vivisection Society: Animals in Product Testing

[slowhoney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

Wow thanks for the info. Quite a few of these brands are pretty suprising to me, especially Aussie ( thought they always said they don't test on animals...) and the Healing Garden

Aussie uses kangaroos in their advertising and they test on animals. How appropriate. *rolls eyes*

Healing Garden surprised me too when I first saw them on an animal-testing list. These companies are such hypocrites emphasizing natural this and that... "but we spray our chemicals into animal eyes!"