Tuesday, 14 September 2010

Whats the deal with L'Oreal and animal testing?

This is an open question, so if you can help me in my search for an answer please leave a comment.

I recently received an email from the press office at L'Oreal asking if I would like to try some of their new products. I replied with my standard reply to such companies :-
"Thank you for getting in contact.
We do not knowingly use any products tested on animals and as L'Oreal still features very highly on the animal testing list (PETA) I need to check where L'Oreal stands on animal testing."


I received this statement in reply:-

"Thank you for your recent enquiry requesting further clarification of L’Oréal’s policy on animal testing.
L’Oréal voluntarily stopped using animal testing for the evaluation of its entire range of finished cosmetic products in 1989.  It was possible to do this due to the considerable time and effort we have invested for over two decades, including developments of databases on ingredient toxicity profiles and the results of a large-scale programme carried out over several years to develop appropriate in vitro methods such as Episkin.  Moreover, we have also co-operated with our competitors in this common objective.

We are totally committed to a future without tests on animals.  We comply with all EU and national laws in ensuring the absolute safety of our products.  These are positions we share with The Body Shop whose policy of not using any ingredients that have been tested or retested on animals for cosmetics purposes since the end of 1990 remains unchanged.

The industry and many opinion formers believe that this common objective of eradication of animal testing for safety purposes can only be totally achieved through research, development and validation of alternative methods and approaches. L’Oréal has invested more than any other company in this endeavour during the last 25 years.   This is a fact that was recognised and endorsed by Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop and campaigner against animal testing for cosmetics.  Below is some more detailed information regarding this subject that you may find helpful.

Some of our achievements to date:
in the early 1980s, L’Oréal developed Episkin - reconstructed human skin models complete with a barrier function.  These have since been routinely used to obtain a better understanding of the biological mechanisms of skin and to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of our products. Some of these models can be used to study skin pigmentation or its immune response;
a specific protocol, using the company’s reconstructed epidermis model Episkin, has been validated by the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) for the purposes of evaluating skin irritancy and corrosion.  This method provides a full replacement for the corresponding animal test;
our researchers have also developed the first epidermal model containing Langerhans cells which play a decisive role in the skin’s allergic response.  Having been a pilot for a European Commission programme, similar models are currently being studied as alternative methods to skin allergy tests; and
the acquisition by L’Oréal of the tissue engineering company, Skin Ethic, is further testimony to our continued commitment to the development of alternative methods to replace animal testing.

L’Oréal is an active member of the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to animal testing (EPAA) led by the European Commission, and we are committed, in our field of expertise, to progressing and promoting this programme.

For your reference, please visit the website for Episkin - http://www.invitroskin.com/_int/_en/.

Thank you again for contacting us and giving us the opportunity to respond
Kind regards,

L’Oréal UK"


So please tell me what am I missing. Is this statement cleverly worded and misleading or have they actually stopped testing? and if they really stopped in 1989 why has PETA not picked up on this?

107 comments:

  1. I just can't believe they have stopped testing on animals. Although a lot of companies pretend they don't test on animals, they don't know whether the actual ingredients they have bought in have been previously tested...if that makes sense?! If they were so sure they've stopped testing on animals, then does it say this on their products, and if not, why not? It just doesn't make sense. For this reason, I completely avoid Loreal, Max Factor etc.

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm so confused! I really would be happy if they do not animal test, because I stopped using them when I found out that they did!

    ReplyDelete
  3. From what they said, it reads to me that they do not test their 'finished' product on animals.

    This usually means that the ingredients are, and often the ingredient testing is contracted out to another company. So 'technically' it's not L'Oreal that is doing the testing - even though they're using the results.

    I think the only company owned by L'Oreal that is truly cruelty free is The Body Shop (a recent acquisition).

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think they have stopped. The clever wording is that they do not test their FINISHED cosmetics.
    Their is also very clever wording around The Body Shop section of this statement...read that bit again.
    "We are totally committed to a future without tests on animals. We comply with all EU and national laws in ensuring the absolute safety of our products. These are positions we share with The Body Shop whose policy of not using any ingredients that have been tested or retested on animals for cosmetics purposes since the end of 1990 remains unchanged."
    It implies that share all policies with The Body Shop but only confirms that they comply with all EU and national laws in ensuring the absolute safety of products.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "L’Oréal voluntarily stopped using animal testing for the evaluation of its entire range of finished cosmetic products in 1989. "

    So basically I think they are telling you in this sentence that they don't test on animals with the finished product but they might test the individual ingredients on animals, or test sample products on animals...the only thing that isn't tested in the "finished cosmetic product".

    I just feel like they worded it a bit tricky and it is kind of hard to decipher what they are actually trying to say....I think they do test and are just trying to make it seem as humane as they can....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually most of cosmetics compagnies say that they don't do animal testing for the finished products. It "finished" which is important...because raw materials are still tested on animals...
    I hope what I wrote is understandable lol because I'm french and it's not very easy to explain that in english for me!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, as far as I can see from what was written, they don't test any final products on animals. But like previous commenters have said, that doesn't mean that ingredients in said product hasn't been tested on animals (either by Loreal themselves or by a manufacturer). Does that make sense?!
    It was never stated in the letter that no part of their products are tested on animals.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe that they do not in the EU because of the restrictions, but that they still practice inhuman testing in other parts of the world that do not have laws against them (China, USA, etc).

    It gets to be a sticky situation all around, when it comes to cosmetics honestly. Most do test on animals, and companies that don't, their parent companies may still.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm guessing they do test ingredients, which is what perhaps PETA are picking up on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In France they say that they do test on animals. I think there is something weird here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Basically all animal testing on non-medical products - and ingredients is now banned by The European Council. Most cosmetic companies these days use very little animal tasting for their finished products, however L'Oreal have been known for testing ingredients and thus not making it on PETA's safe-list. As fare as I know L'Oreal have also not been interested in signing an agreement with PETA (they ask all companies to do this) which makes the producer legally liable if they should perform any animal testing.

    In the EU L'Oreal *can* get away with some animal testing today if the ingredient have some medical properties etc. L'Oreal have hundreds of subsidiaries of which most are known for their reluctance to sign binding agreements against animal testing apart from The Body Shop. Until they do so I see no reason to trust their commitment. In the statement you have been given they do actually not say that no animal testing is taking place.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "This usually means that the ingredients are, and often the ingredient testing is contracted out to another company. So 'technically' it's not L'Oreal that is doing the testing - even though they're using the results"

    So then a lot of ingredients could have been tested on animals a long time ago but not now, where does one draw the line then?

    How would you know, I couldn't find a list of "cruelty free ingredients " on the PETA website

    ReplyDelete
  14. The more I think about this, the more I think that email is probably a scripted standard they save for when people contact them regarding animal testing (as I'm sure many inquire).

    The fact that they're sending you a long worded reply that doesn't actually say "No, we do not test on animals" is highly suspect. It screams bullsh!t.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In relation to this topic I would like to know if other brands of cosmetics test on animals, like MAC, Channel, Yves Saint Laurent...or cheaper like Bourjeois, Revlon and so. Is there any list?

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Barbarella

    Check out:
    http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/
    http://www.caringconsumer.com/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cleverly worded for sure... if they didnt test on animals .. they would just say it clearly. I always go to CaringConsumer.com to check before i buy. I try to stick to elf and revlon mostly since i know for sure they do not test on animals.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Definitely cleverly worded and I've seen this statement before. Not testing on finished products certainly doesn't mean they're not testing the ingredients that go in to the finished product. I also saw a statement on SO FAR, SO CHIC the other day (I think it was for Rimmel), similarly they insert clauses which mean it's not a definitive no. In Rimmel's case, I think they said by law they had to test some new products/ingredients.

    Certainly, L'Oreal are very involved in researching skin equivalents. Hopefully as these become more sophisticated they will stop altogether. I do think they like the get out clause though. I think it's safe to say if it's not an outright no, then they definitely are still testing!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think the "finished product" is not tested on animals. My mum works for Avon, who are btw cruelty free, when they get the ingredients they might not test them on animals but before they recieve them the companies who make the ingredients may test. If that is the case they can say their products havnt been tested on animals, even if they have. A lot of companies have been able to use this to say that they themselves havnt tested, so their products can be classified as cruelty free, even though they have been. x

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Nic and Sam, it's always annoying to receive such a cookie-cutter response, but in this case from my research it looks like L'Oreal Paris DOES NOT test on animals.

    I subscribe to "beautypedia.com" which has a clear list of who does and doesn't test on animals - if you'd like, I can pass the list on to you. Let me know, gloss.spot@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  21. From what i understand, L'Oreal is saying that they do not test their finished products on animals, which would suggest that they do test the ingredients on animals - i would reply to ask them to clarify the matter, because they clearly said 'finished cosmetic products'. They are not being very forthcoming with regards to testing incomplete products, or individual ingredients on animals

    ReplyDelete
  22. I really don't like how they worded that. I don't trust it - it's too vague, focuses on what OTHER countries stand for (saying they stand for the same thing), and focuses on achievements. The person who wrote this did not full out say they stopped all animal testing, only animal testing on finished products. I don't trust this.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sam, they haven't stopped testing. In that cleverly worded little email they sent you they state they agree with the policies that the Body Shop enforces, not that they themselves enforce such policies. They still do continue to test on animals because while they do comply with EU regulations, there is no regulation put forth by the EU banning testing of individual chemicals and additives that are in makeup. SO while Loreal may not test their finished products, the ingredients in them (dyes, chemicals, acids, detergents) are all still tested on animals.

    Shameful, you should pass those emails on to PETA, they would give them a nice word.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, in a list of companies that test on animals I saw the other day it said "L'oreal USA".. so maybe it's different in UK? Why would it say "USA" next to it? Or is "L'oreal USA" the official name of the company? I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm with absolutely everyone else on this. I hope you write them back and tell them you see right through their cleverly-worded bullcrap.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Can you give me a list of companies that don´t test its products on animals? Thank you and sorry about my english (I read you from Spain)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is all animal testing cruel? Just wondering.

    It seems to me that once you start boycotting every make-up company that may have had some of its products tested on animals in the early stages of development, say by a manufacturer of an ingredient early on, you're going to be severely limiting yourself in what you as a make-up artist can use and/or promote.

    This is why boycotting can be very sticky. Companies are so interconnected these days, many of them being part of huge conglomerates, that it's almost impossible to separate them for boycotting purposes.

    That said, I am against senseless cruelty to ANY living creature, whether it be an animal or an unborn baby. And I applaud those of you who have the courage of your convictions and apply them to your daily lives.

    ReplyDelete
  28. They specifically stated that they do not test finished products on animals, but that by no means guarantees that they do not test ingredients, etc. on animals, though in my country (United States), at least, that means they can say their products are cruelty free, not tested on animals, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  29. i received a similarly opaque reply when I contacted Sisley to ask about their stance on animal testing - still none the wiser.
    Amina
    http://aminasbazaar.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  30. That's a really interesting point Cindy. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that animal testing is "cruel", there are extremely strict guidelines about how the testing is done. All animal testing has to be approved by the home office in this Country. Certainly, they can't just decide one day to do it. That's why it's daft to be so vague about it, they certainly know full well what testing is going on.

    I am definitely against needless animal testing and for the most part I would say that covers cosmetics. I would prefer wherever possible that they would use alternatives. I personally don't boycott but do avoid when it's possible. I think it must be very difficult though for someone who wants to absolutely avoid products tested on animals. With statements like this that don't clarify at all!

    ReplyDelete
  31. For some reason I don't believe them...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sam and Nic, I think that both of you are absolutely brilliant and talented and I thoroughly enjoy your videos and this blog dealing with my passionate love affair with makeup!! :-) While I am not a makeup artist such as yourself, I have worked in the medical and cosmetic research industry for over a decade with a company that contracts out to "big name companies" to conduct in vitro and human testing for their products. (I am emphatically against animal testing of any kind!!) While it is a breach of contract to tell you this, we have worked extensively with L'Oreal and I can assure that they and a great number of cosmetic companies do not perform animal testing whatsoever. In vitro testing in a lab is a form of testing that assimilates the products toxicity and safety levels using cells and tissues from an artificial nature. No animals of any kind are used. This is then usually tested on the epidermis of human skin. This is done in a very controlled and safe environment regulated by the FDA where a paid panel of people with Fitzpatrick I-V skin types come into a clinic for application of cosmetics (i.e, lipsticks, blushes, mascaras etc., etc.) on the upper dorsal area by what is called an HRIPT/Comedogenicty/Berger Bowman aka 21-Day Cumulative Irritancy, etc. Patch Tests. A product can be tested and tweaked this way for years to assure absolute safety before being put out on the market. I can certainly understand your confusion over this carefully worded reply you received from L'Oreal, but I hope that my comment can alleviate some of your cynicism. :-) I hope the above makes some sense as I am writing this on a completely fried brain. haha. But if you have any further inquiries about the aforementioned, please feel free to ask! All the best to you! xox

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sam and Nic, I think that both of you are absolutely brilliant and talented and I thoroughly enjoy your videos and this blog dealing with my passionate love affair with makeup!! :-) While I am not a makeup artist such as yourself, I have worked in the medical and cosmetic research industry for over a decade with a company that contracts out to "big name companies" to conduct in vitro and human testing for their products. (I am emphatically against animal testing of any kind!!) While it is a breach of contract to tell you this, we have worked extensively with L'Oreal and I can assure that they and a great number of cosmetic companies do not perform animal testing whatsoever. In vitro testing in a lab is a form of testing that assimilates the products toxicity and safety levels using cells and tissues from an artificial nature. No animals of any kind are used. This is then usually tested on the epidermis of human skin. This is done in a very controlled and safe environment regulated by the FDA where a paid panel of people with Fitzpatrick I-V skin types come into a clinic for application of cosmetics (i.e, lipsticks, blushes, mascaras etc., etc.) on the upper dorsal area by what is called an HRIPT/Comedogenicty/Berger Bowman aka 21-Day Cumulative Irritancy, etc. Patch Tests. A product can be tested and tweaked this way for years to assure absolute safety before being put out on the market. I can certainly understand your confusion over this carefully worded reply you received from L'Oreal, but I hope that my comment can alleviate some of your cynicism. :-) I hope the above makes some sense as I am writing this on a completely fried brain. haha. But if you have any further inquiries about the aforementioned, please feel free to ask! All the best to you! xox

    ReplyDelete
  34. Why does my post keep getting deleted?? Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Alright, well, I was trying to provide helpful knowledge about an industry I have worked extensively in. If you are determined to assume the worst based out of ignorance, then that is certainly your prerogative. All the best to you!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jessie, I wonder if the spam filter is removing it for some reason. It might also be the mention of the breach of contract? With confidentiality contracts it can be tricky being so specific. They may have been asked to take it down? I found your information very interesting though, having worked in this area too.:)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jessie,
    I have not touched your reply.
    All replies are automatically added. I do not have these replies on approval beforehand. Please email me the post because I did not get a chance to read it before and I am extremely interested.

    ReplyDelete
  38. All I know is that if someone really had no involvement with animal testing they would go the lengths in getting certifications and statements applied to every product and their website, stating that they absolutely do NOT conduct testing on animals. They obviously found a way (since 1989) around having to say that they are involved.

    ReplyDelete
  39. They stopped using animal testing procedures back in 1989 but this was just for the final product. Interesting how they brought on The Body Shop to bamboozle you. It's a typical generic coporate reply that doesn't give you a straight answer. You might as well tell the man to stick it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why can't they just say "Yes we test on animals in this, this and this way". If they are ashamed of doing it then they shouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Adding what everyone else says and in an attempt to keep it short and to the point, even companies like the body shop use products that have been tested on animals. They didn't comission the testing, so they can still claim they don't test on animals, but the company that owns them tested the products for them.

    Another thing to think about when talking about animal testing is that they can claim they don't test on animals and mean that they don't test the finished product on animals but still test the ingredients.

    Lastly, PETA is really unreliable when it comes to it. You see they never investigate whether or not the company does or does not do animal testing. All a company has to do in order to be on their "approved" list is send them a letter saying they don't test on animals. If you want a more comprehensive list of real cruelty free companues, try the buav one which you can find here http://gocrueltyfree.org/downloads/pdf/BUAVA_LittleBook-2010.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  42. I have also done a good bit of research on this specific topic and the information out there is incomplete and contradictory. According to CBS news: "L'Oreal has decreased its use of animal testing over the years, but still relies on the technique to test certain new chemicals."

    I think the safest assessment is that L'Oreal and it's subsidiaries are, at present, mostly(though not entirely) cruelty free in terms of ingredients and probably cruelty free in terms of finished products. I suspect that they will soon be entirely cruelty free, as the EU ban on animal testing create a situation where it will make more economic sense than maintaining two different testing standards on the EU vs non-EU products. There are always loopholes in wording and statements that make it possible for companies to market themselves as cruelty free when in fact they are still doing very limited testing. Since nearly all commonly used ingredients were, at one time, tested on animals, even if it was decades ago, no company can truly declare itself 100% cruelty-free. And in some countries, *new* ingredients are required by law to be tested using established (ie animal)testing methods. Hope this helps.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/13/tech/main6094982.shtml
    http://www.naturewatch.org/Campaigns/L%27Or%C3%A9alBoycott/Loreal_facts.asp
    http://www.naturewatch.org/Campaigns/L%27Or%C3%A9alBoycott/Loreal_facts.asp
    http://www.sustainabledevelopment.loreal.com/innovation/safety-assessment.asp
    http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=60040

    ReplyDelete
  43. also - re Patty's statement:
    "Lastly, PETA is really unreliable when it comes to it. You see they never investigate whether or not the company does or does not do animal testing. All a company has to do in order to be on their "approved" list is send them a letter saying they don't test on animals."

    This is absolutely true. PETA featured an American company called Urban Apothecary which they lauded for their humane, vegan products.
    (http://tiny.cc/a0z8y) It has since been alleged, almost certainly correctly, that Urban Apothecary does not manufacture their own products, merely redistributes 'private label' products which are definitely not vegan and probably not cruelty-free:
    http://honestly-beautiful.blogspot.com/2009/10/contradictions-in-claims-and-reality.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. L'Oreal still test the ingredients of the products bbut not the finished products :/

    ReplyDelete
  45. Some weeks ago, i got exaktly the same answer (in german) and i guess its more importent what they do not say then what they say.

    "stopped using animal testing for the evaluation of its entire range of finished cosmetic products in 1989"

    but whats the matter with all the none finished products?!

    whether they are testing/tested or not, in fact it seems they aren't telling the truth at all. and thats the reason im trying not to buy any l'oreal product.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think it is carefully worded. The first sentence tells all. They don't test their "finished cosmetics" on animals. That doesn't mean that they don't test the ingredients on animals, also it specifies cosmetics, what about their skincare?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sam, please accept my apology then. :-) I had posted my comment twice which initially showed up and then minutes later, had disappeared. I clearly jumped to the wrong conclusion that it had been deliberately deleted.

    Essentially what I had said was that I have worked in pharmaceutical and cosmetic research for the past decade. I work for a lab/clinic that contracts out to perform research studies for big name companies. (We have worked extensively with L'Oreal for years.) What we do is what's called in vitro and human panel testing. In vitro is done in a lab setting where a particular product will be tested on artificially composed cell and tissue matter. This allows us to assess for things such as harmful toxicity levels without putting anything or anyone at risk. This always proceeds human panel. Human panel testing is where a group of paid individuals with Fitzpatrick I-V skin types are screened and selected to participate in a particular study such as HRIPT, Comdeogenicity, 21-Day Cumulative Irritancy Patch, etc., etc. This is a very controlled and safe environment regulated by the FDA where a product (i.e., lipstick, mascara, blush, lotion, etc.) is applied to the epidermis of the upper dorsal area. It is then monitored closely for irritation (erythema, edema, vesicles, bullae and the like) for a set duration of time. I am *emphatically* against animal testing and therefore am very sensitive to this issue. I can certainly understand where their reply to you left room for confusion and speculation, however, to my inside knowledge, L'Oreal does not perform animal testing of any kind. Hopefully this makes sense, but please feel free to inquire further! :-) I have discovered PETA and similar companies are not always diligent about confirming their facts and therefore are not always reliable sources for information - which is incredibly frustrating for an animal lover such as myself. On a side-note, I very much appreciate you taking the time to first determine whether or not a product is "animal friendly" before endorsing it! You have my enormous respect from me for that!! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sam, please accept my apology then. :-) I had posted my comment twice which initially showed up and then minutes later, had disappeared. I clearly jumped to the wrong conclusion that it had been deliberately deleted.

    Essentially what I had said was that I have worked in pharmaceutical and cosmetic research for the past decade. I work for a lab/clinic that contracts out to perform research studies for big name companies. (We have worked extensively with L'Oreal for years.) What we do is what's called in vitro and human panel testing. In vitro is done in a lab setting where a particular product will be tested on artificially composed cell and tissue matter. This allows us to assess for things such as harmful toxicity levels without putting anything or anyone at risk. This always proceeds human panel. Human panel testing is where a group of paid individuals with Fitzpatrick I-V skin types are screened and selected to participate in a particular study such as HRIPT, Comdeogenicity, 21-Day Cumulative Irritancy Patch, etc., etc. This is a very controlled and safe environment regulated by the FDA where a product (i.e., lipstick, mascara, blush, lotion, etc.) is applied to the epidermis of the upper dorsal area. It is then monitored closely for irritation (erythema, edema, vesicles, bullae and the like) for a set duration of time. I am *emphatically* against animal testing and therefore am very sensitive to this issue. I can certainly understand where their reply to you left room for confusion and speculation, however, to my inside knowledge, L'Oreal does not perform animal testing of any kind. Hopefully this makes sense, but please feel free to inquire further! :-) I have discovered PETA and similar companies are not always diligent about confirming their facts and therefore are not always reliable sources for information - which is incredibly frustrating for an animal lover such as myself. On a side-note, I very much appreciate you taking the time to first determine whether or not a product is "animal friendly" before endorsing it! You have my enormous respect from me for that!! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hmm, I'm not sure if spam is the culprit or not. I keep posting and blogger keeps removing my posts for some reason. I'm going to try to post in segments and see if that has any better results. Please bear with me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sam, please accept my apology then. :-) I had posted my comment twice which initially showed up and then minutes later, had disappeared. I clearly jumped to the wrong conclusion that it had been deliberately deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jessie, I can see you keep posting and it keeps disappearing. Something in the text you are posting must be making bloggers automatic spam filter delete it immediately. I think you may have to email it to Sam or alter the wording to get it to stay up. Very annoying for you I imagine!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Essentially what I had said was that I have worked in pharmaceutical and cosmetic research for the past decade. I work for a lab/clinic that contracts out to perform research studies for big name companies. (We have worked extensively with L'Oreal for years.) What we do is what's called in vitro and human panel testing. In vitro is done in a lab setting where a particular product will be tested on artificially composed cell and tissue matter. This allows us to assess for things such as harmful toxicity levels without putting anything or anyone at risk. This always proceeds human panel.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Human panel testing is where a group of paid individuals with Fitzpatrick I-V skin types are screened and selected to participate in a particular study such as HRIPT, Comdeogenicity, 21-Day Cumulative Irritancy Patch, etc., etc. This is a very controlled and safe environment regulated by the FDA where a product (i.e., lipstick, mascara, blush, lotion, etc.) is applied to the epidermis of the upper dorsal area. It is then monitored closely for irritation (erythema, edema, vesicles, bullae and the like) for a set duration of time. I am *emphatically* against animal testing and therefore am very sensitive to this issue. I can certainly understand where their reply to you left room for confusion and speculation, however, to my inside knowledge, L'Oreal does not perform animal testing of any kind. Hopefully this makes sense, but please feel free to inquire further! :-) I have discovered PETA and similar companies are not always diligent about confirming their facts and therefore are not always reliable sources for information - which is incredibly frustrating for an animal lover such as myself. On a side-note, I very much appreciate you taking the time to first determine whether or not a product is "animal friendly" before endorsing it! You have my enormous respect from me for that!! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi Modesty, omigosh, it's insane! lol. I don't understand what blogger isn't liking that I'm posting. Hopefully my segmented posts will actually stay put!! If not, I'll definitely send an email. I feel like an ass cluttering everything up. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Sam, I always find this list helpful:
    http://www.mymakeupmirror.com/MakeupWithoutCruelty.php
    HTH
    G

    ReplyDelete
  56. I don´t belive, that they don´t do animal testing. I think, that letter means that they don´t do animal testing on the finished products, but if you read between the lines, you can understand that they don´t deny animal testing on the ingrediens. So, in my opinion they or their contractors do animal testing, if it´s on the final product or not!

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am interested to know if Make-Up forever, Illamsqua, and/or Rouge Bunny Rouge test on animals. I have done a little research on other cosmetic brands, but have found very little and a complete mix of responses as to whether or not these brands test on animals. I wrote to Rouge Bunny Rouge and received a response that they do not test on animals, but I am now curious to know if they may have had a lab test the ingredients that goes into making their products. If a company does not list cruelty free or no animal testing on their website.. is one to assume that they do in some part take part in animal testing?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I believe by law certain ingredients have to be tested. Also, what if an ingredient was tested 20 years ago, we know it's safe, etc... and it's being used in a cosmetic? Are you not going to buy it?

    ReplyDelete
  59. crystal thats the very difference... products and intrigences that have been tested years and years ago are done... we do have the results of those tests. but nowadays i believe theres no need of new tests on animals. there are different (maybe more expensive) ways of testing (e.g. i read something about the use of artifcial human skin).

    i guess the cosmetic industry should use those results and should be aware that the time of animal testing is gone and not nessasary any more. (on cosmatic matters)

    ReplyDelete
  60. On the subject of chemicals that "have been tested years ago and are done" heres something i dont *think* anyone else has mentioned.

    I know that cruelty-free companies often have a 'cut-off date' of when they decide that the testing was so long ago that they feel justified to use those chemicals. Truly cruelty-free companies will choose to not use chemicals that were tested from when the company was set-up for example, but other companies that aren't so committed to the cause will wait for the chemicals to drop below their acceptable cut-off date i.e. it was tested 5yrs ago so they can use it and say that they're not supporting animal testing, when really they're just playing a waiting game. also as most of this is going on in their own laboratories, i imagine that they would be testeing chemicals for furture products 5 or so years in advance anyway so it doesnt even affect the business. SO SNEAKY!

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi Sam and Nic
    I am really glad you have written this and are undergoing this enquiry as I have been thinking about you both since the awesome waterproof mascara tests and your position regarding Max Factor. I share the same values as you and have been writing to companies too. I have had special interest in those who are NOT on PETA's lists, but who also claim not to test. When I ask I am clear to ask about the development of ingredients as well as finished products. For example, Dior are not on PETA's list but wrote to me to say animal testing isn't used in the development of prods. I think they are not on PETA's list as they are part of LVMH?
    Regarding L'Oreal. I read that they had a good relationship with PETA until evidence came to light that on at least one occasion the company used animal testing. PETA no longer trust the brand. I think they do use animal testing sometimes but not across the board (i.e. not Bodyshop ever and I think not Maybelline anymore but might be wrong.) They are not yet committed to never test and I think they do sometimes in the development of new ingredients where an outside agency is sourced and where country policy allows or requires it. I only use L'Oreal in moments of weakness; I wish they would draw a line under it.
    But - you guys use Rimmel...? Have you word on their policy?
    Sorry to be long-winded xxx

    ReplyDelete
  63. I can personally vouch that the manufacturers of Rimmel (Coty, Inc.) do, in fact, test their products on animals.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks JessiePY10, I thought so.

    I am glad to hear what you said about L'Oreal NOT testing. I wish they didn't leave so much room to read negatively between the lines. Don't they know that consumers are no longer prepared to be spoken to in wishy-washy terms!

    It's so good to have Pixiwoo address this, as for the first time, through Youtube and blogs, it may be that consumers DO have the power to change things! Especially when audience members are so high!

    Juicy Couture are part of Elizabeth Arden now, I think, but they did write to me and say they do not test at any stage of development (I like their perfumes). But EA are renowned for it - and I suppose that means the zillions of fragrances owned by that brand - Britney Spears, etc.
    Thank goodness for the Estee Lauder group and Clarins!! All safe: Clinique, MAC, Michael Kors, Thierry Mugler, Aveda, Tom Ford, Bobbi Brown...
    I think also safe are Prada, Nina Ricci, Paris Hilton, Caroline Herrera, Paco Rabanne...
    Cartier told me I could enjoy their fragrances guilt free...
    Prestige and Barry M don't test. Revlon are goodies now. I'm all for change so don't boycott those who have a history of testing. I think change is progressive - we all have to change the way we live our lives for the better, because of global warming, awareness about the economy, global crises, etc.
    But WOW is it a complicated business finding out the nitty gritty!
    xxx

    ReplyDelete
  65. If L'Oreal don't test on animals, they would happily add the "cruelty free" label on their products. L'Oreal may not do the testing themselves, but there are certainly 3rd parties involved. HCS (Human Cosmetic Standard) is the only internationally recognised scheme and guarantees the product is completely cruelty free. The logo is the rabbit and stars - other than that, animal testing along the production line possibly has occurred. Check out BUAV site @ http://www.buav.org/campaigns/gocrueltyfree

    ReplyDelete
  66. PavementsBeauty, I absolutely agree with all you've said. Unfortunately, so many companies are not opposed to animal testing as it's beneficial (monetary, convenience, etc.) to them in many ways - though completely wrong and unethical. It's utterly frustrating trying to sort out those grey areas in the world of cosmetic/consumer testing. You may hire a company like ours to do in vitro, or human panel testing, but you may have also initially tested a particular ingredient at an animal lab for other intents and purposes. One thing I've learned in dealing with big consumers is you must always read between the lines as they're usually covering footprints of some sort to make themselves come out looking good. I guess at the end of the day, go with you gut. If Sam and Nic decide to not endorse L'Oreal, then I fully support that decision! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jessica, I don't know about Make-Up forever, or Rouge Bunny Rouge but Illamsqua definitely does not test on animals. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  68. PavementsBeauty
    This L'Oreal statement has made me review all the other brand statements that I insist on before using their cosmetics. The Rimmel statement was in the very same vein as this one so we will refrain from using Rimmel in the future.
    However, The statement from Elizabeth Arden was very forthright and encouraging. They said that they do not test on animals and that they don't purchase ingredients from suppliers that test on animals. They realise that the public are skeptical about them because they are such a large company, but they assured me that not only do they not test on animals but that they are also on the forefront of using computer modeling and other non-animal ways to insure that their products are safe.

    ReplyDelete
  69. While I am totally against animal testing, I would not rely on the word of the clowns at PETA for anything. They're so twisted they make politicians look good.

    But yeah, from L'Oreal's oh so carefully worded statement it's obvious that while their 'finished' products are not tested on animals, plenty of their ingredients still are or they'd have come right out and said 'We use *NO* animal testing.'. It's a big selling point for a lot of people and they'd be all over it if they legitimately could.

    ReplyDelete
  70. On their website, L'Oreal claims (as you mentioned) "L'Oreal Paris ended all animal testing on finished products in 1989; HOWEVER, new chemical ingredients MUST BE tested on animals when there is no other approved method guaranteeing their harmlessness." I would remain cautious of their claims if I were in your position. It seems that they still carry out their animal testing practices, it's a shame. (By the way, I love your tutorials!)

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hmmmm I've just read it again and it is instead cleverly worded. This makes me hate L'oreal even more than I did!!!

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  72. OH and one more thing and that is to say I completely agree with Patty and this is what I was trying to say in my first reply but you put it 100 times better! I am extremely cautious of any company that says it doesn't test on animals because they haven't a clue whether their ingredients that make up their products have been tested beforehand. The only brand I fully trust is LUSH. Even though I worked there for many years, they are the only company to me who are fully commited. I've never seen this statement from any other company:

    'Lush is firmly committed to a policy that not only precludes testing its products and ingredients on animals, or engaging with third-party suppliers to do so on their behalf, but that also prohibits buying any ingredient from any supplier that tests any of its materials on any animals for any purpose. This policy is unique in its field and is pioneering a new way to stop animal tests for cosmetics. Lush runs a Supplier Specific Boycott Policy. There are clear benefits to this policy, which is different and distinct from the Fixed Cut-Off Date policy employed by the Humane Cosmetics Standard.'

    Many just say the finished product isn't tested, so we'll not bother to find out if the other ingredients are!

    Source: http://www.lush.co.uk/articles/against_animal_testing/introduction.html

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cleverly worded. They said they stopped testing on "FINISHED" products. That doesn't mean they can't test new products or perhaps individual ingredients. Proctor and Gamble does the same thing. It is just a way for them to say something that they think people want to hear, but still do what they want.

    I wouldn't accept them. If they are not on PETA's list or not backed by any other awards that are strictly cruelty free then they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Please do your research before we get all worked up about who use more animal test and do more offings of our beloved earth creatures. Companies using animal test to support cosmetics is a thing of the past - it is a last resort since the goal is do no harm to humans (plus the law requires safe products). Drug and chemical industries are the same -3Rs approach - minimize animal usage to ensure safer products for consumers. Unfortunaly there is wordsmithing in these public response statement because we live in a litigious society and we have ambulance & parachute lawyers & Pseudo-Green/Environmental group movements.

    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-research-pros-and-cons.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704517504574589952331068322.html

    PETA kills more animals than we care to realize....http://www.petakillsanimals.com/, http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y9Qa2GrHJA

    Stop funding animal euthanasia/killings and pseudo-Green/Environmental Working Groups. Simply do your own reseach and check your facts. Boycott if need so but for sure please stay clean & naturally beautiful without chemicals.

    ReplyDelete
  75. From what they said it sounds like (using a lot of words) They're doing a lot to EVENTUALLY not test on animals at all.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cleverly worded, and I stay far away from them...

    ReplyDelete
  77. If they didn't test their products on animals the answer should be very simple

    ReplyDelete
  78. Using animals in safety testing as first line is a thing of the past for cosmetic companies. However, when human safety is on the line, it is a last resort for most cosmetic companies due to cost, policy, and market-driven liability. i.e. there are instances where there are no substitute for animal study and it is carried out to protect human safety. This is true also for drugs and chemical industry which by far consume more animal in their research compared to cosmetics. Unfortunately, there is no near solution on animal test since protecting human safety comes before animal life. BTW one should not rely on PETA for animal welfare since they kill animals routinely - just google or youtube "PETA kills animals", you will find data to support PETA's effort in animal genocide. Be fair and be sure to look into PETA's record as well. Lo'real, P&G, and other big cosmetic companies have to use these wordsmithing canned PR answers because we live in a litigious society.

    When you go with a product that does not have any form of safety testing, you run the risk being the guinea pig. Sure boycott all you want. Don't be fooled by the green and natural products - do your own research - natural products can be as toxic as synthetic. Be aware of negative campaigns by competitors who write blogs on Lo'real/P&G/etc and try to sell you their ala natural green products.

    Bottom line, the main reason why PETA has not found evidence of animal test by Lo'real today is simple, there is none. There is simply too much to risk these days if you are a reputable cosmetic company, and alternatives to animal test methods is the current practice.

    ReplyDelete
  79. PETA kills animals info:
    http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
    http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html
    http://www.google.com/#q=peta+kills+animals&hl=en&prmd=iv&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=tDOUTMn5FMK78gaht8CRDA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQqwQwAw&fp=1de331493393b8ab

    Be aware who you support and count on as animal lover.

    ReplyDelete
  80. The reason why it is cleverly worded is because we live in a litigious society - EWG, NGOs, and likes suing companies, state and government & lawyers are the folks that get rich. An important note is that Lo'real like other cosmetic companies are market driven and conducting animal test is just not a standard practice since the '80s. Thanks to PETA and other movements. It is a true fact that PETA kills more animals today then we care to realize. Be aware of your support for PETA and like organizations. Secondly be aware of bloggers who condemn Lo'real, P&G likes on one hand and endorses specific brands just because they work for that company or have a potential financial gain. Note while it is not a standard practice, companies in any business, drug, chemical and cosmetics included, will conduct animal test if absolutely necessary to protect human safety or consumers. This is a fact of evolution, protection of human life come first before animal well-being.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I just hate the fact that no one ever speaks the truth and use 'clever wording' soo you cannot trust anyone when it comes to business!
    The thing is that mostly all cosmetic companies test on animals and the ones that dont are more expensive! I just wish this whole animal testing would stop...
    The wording they used doesnt sound very convincing because if they TRULY do not test on animals they would be proud of it and say it directly. Since they didnt do that, I don't really believe them, sorry!

    & btw thanks for sharing :)

    ReplyDelete
  82. I've worked for Lush for a couple of years, and since they're extremely conscious of not wanting anything to do with animal testing they've tried to fight some new laws from the EU. Pretty recently the EU put through some laws or other that make all companies having to try their products on animals whether they want it or not, I just can't remember what it's called :S

    It totally sucks, if this will actually happen, it's such a backlashing on like 50 years of hard work towards gettin rid of animal testing!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Maybe we should ask PETA what their take is on this.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Some countries, e.g. the US and Japan, insist on animal testing to pass certain stringent safety tests. Therefore, while a lot of companies say they don't test finished products on animals, depending on their ingredients in their cosmetics they cannot say that all their ingredients are not tested on animals.

    I personally don't use L'Oreal products because of their racist internal hiring policies; however, unless you are a vegan, don't wear leather/suede, don't set mice traps, etc, it seems a bit hypocritical to boycott a whole line of cosmetics because they MAY use some ingredients which have been tested on animals.

    Also, it should be noted that PETA themselves are not the most ethical of organizations out there, I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason why L'Oreal isn't on their safe list is because they have not signed PETA's agreement and not necessarily because of their actual practices.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I can confirm that testing on animals have been prohibited in France.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hello
    I'm new here, just saw this post and I wanted to write what I know..
    First the animal testing is reduced since the EU declaired it will be eradicated. BUT some procedures has no good alternative (I bet its anti aging staff mostly).
    So right no alot of companies (some that used to test and other that dont like Estee Lauder) are working together to replace these tests.
    I think i'ts a nice effort on both sides. but I still think that if Estee Lauder can allow herself not to test (Ingredients because most companies don't test the finished product anyway..)
    So right now I use only few (2-3) products by Loreal.

    The most important thing I have for you is - do the hard work yourself (as I did) each company who is presumed "Testing" check for yourself. read what THEY are saying in the web site (most companies write about it) and decide for yourself.
    Non of the companies can lie to you because you can sue them if you find out they are lying, right?

    PLEASE DONT USE PETA INFORMATION which is NOT APDATED and sometime just WRONG!!
    I don't believe their statements anymore, they use only very old arguments on companies. they ask for alot of "paperwork" from the companies and since they are FANATIC they won't accept most of the "bad" companies gooing good... they remember the testing they used to do..

    you know the company that manufacture Kleenex and Kotex (can't rememeber the name and really have to go now.. sorry..)
    they DO animal testing BUT only on MEDICAL products. they never did any experiements on cosmetics just what the medical products require BY LAW.
    so WHY are they on the "big no no" list?

    please note that we don't really know the reasons for PETA's behavior. we don't know their REAL motives.
    I think they are just a FANATIC group that soon (when the EU finished the replacement of the animal tests) won't have enogh power so now they shout and scream but really its all smoke and mirrors...

    Meital.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Clever wording for sure.

    The substance of what this letter ACTUALLY said is pretty much that they've developed some kind of fake skin that can be used for product testing. They did NOT, however, state that they even use this as a method of testing themselves, in any way, shape, or form.

    This ambiguous double talk makes me sick, to be honest. Rather than clearly stating a yes or a no, they waffled around the question, just painting the best picture of their company they could.

    There's so many steps that go into developing cosmetic products that they can definitely take advantage of sidestepping the question, which they obviously have.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm glad that you have stopped using Rimmel as well! I posted on your Mascara Video, when you mentioned you were against MaxFactor for using animal testing, that Rimmel, as far as I was aware, also tested on animals.

    To the person who made the comment, "Unless you are a vegan, who doesn't wear leather or suede" that it was hypocritical to boycott products tested on animals... I dont think so at all, I think you are making a step in the right direction. Its comments like that that make people say "Well, I wont bother then". You need to care people, if it affects only one teeny tiny segment of your life, then that's progress.

    You don't need to torture for the sake of vanity. There are plenty of products that provide excellent quality even at cheap prices without using these methods! It can only be beneficial to know not only what's in your products but also how it got there!

    ReplyDelete
  89. There is definitely some sneaking wording in there. I have to agree with Patty that PETA is an unreliable source, as they are too busy planning their next 'shocking' publicity stunt to bother with thoroughly researching the things that are actually important. Honestly I don't trust them any more than I trust the sneaky big brands such as L'Oreal. If you do a bit of research on Ingrid Newkirk (the founder of PETA) you will find that the only type of animal she doesn't care about are humans. She has said on numerous occasions that our species is a cancer on the face of the earth, and has insinuated that the world would be better off if we were not on it. I'm all about the humane treatment of all species of animals, but anti-humanism is where I draw the line. There is no shame in having pride in the success of your own species. I'd also like to point out that there is substantial proof that PETA supplies funding to ALF (Animal Liberation Front), who are essentially eco-terrorists.

    Sorry for the rant, I just can't stand to see PETA referenced as a respectable source by anyone, especially someone as intelligent as you ladies!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hello everyone,
    I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here by agreeing with what Hopelove said. The EU laws are stating that finished products (lipstick, mascara, and so on...) cannot be tested on animals. And l'Oréal definitely respect these laws. If a company is developing products consisting only of ingredients that have been tested before (on animals, because it is mandatory!) and considered harmless, then the finished product can be sold without being tested on animals but will be tested on humans (like JessyPie said) because they can't be sure that the mix of these ingredients will be harmless. They also use extensively the skin models they developed and financed research so that these models can be reliable and, in the future, can hopefully replace animal testing (for information, you can go to http://ecvam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, it's a bit boring but if you want scientific info, it's trustworthy). However, when a new ingredient is used, they HAVE to test it on animals. The human safety comes before animal well-being. But the testing protocols used on animals are given more and more strict legal framework since 15-20 years, and concerning cosmetics you can't test just anything you like, it has to be justified. So it's a choice between using only known products and not test on animals or trying to develop new ingredients and test on animals. L'Oréal tests ingredients on animals, which is what they implied in the answer they gave you (but not very clearly I admit). I don't know the status of other companies about this. I truly respect you both for being faithful to your beliefs. Sorry for the mistakes, English is not my mother tongue. Good day to you all.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I find www.gocrueltyfree.org a very useful site with regards to this issue, they list the companies who have qualified to display the leaping bunny logo which means they no longer conduct or commission animal testing, must submit to an independent audit throughout their supply chain and adhere to their animal testing policy and the Standard's strict criteria.
    The initiative, developed by BUAV, was brought about to aid consumers in getting past the clever wording and making it really simple to buy a non-animal tested product, here is a relevant quote from their website:
    n 1996 the BUAV joined a global coalition of animal protection groups from Europe and North America. This coalition recognised that statements made by companies claiming their products are not animal tested can often be misleading, causing considerable confusion among consumers. For example, product packaging may state 'This product has not been tested on animals.' However, even though an end product may well be free from animal testing, the individual ingredients may not.
    To help consumers identify and purchase true cruelty free products, the coalition introduced the Humane Cosmetics Standard and the Humane Household Product Standard (known in the US as the Leaping Bunny scheme).

    I'm not affiliated with this organisation I just wouldn't give PETA the time of day nor recommend them as an accurate source of information either but I find this site very helpful in weeding out the manipulators.

    ReplyDelete
  92. its sad that these companies test on animals still when technology is around so they dont have to... they should label their products, for some reason I had remembered at one point hair products had and i thought some cosmetics did, but I don't see those labels anymore...perhaps governments should force companies to label whether they do test or not, I bet that would get them to quit... I hope benefit doesn't use animal testing because I quite like their luster duster...won't buy anymore til its found out though...and I hope rimmel doesn't either since I used some of their products.

    ReplyDelete
  93. hi, I just found out from sephora that benefit cosmetics do not test on animals...so thats a relief if its true

    ReplyDelete
  94. L'Oreal might not test their finnished products on animals, but they do purchase ingredients which have been tested on animals. I know only few "famous" brands here in UK which don't test finnished products, nor use ingredients which have been tested on animals: Urban Decay, Too Faced Cosmetics, Burt's Bees... Check http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/companies.php?cat=42

    The Body Shop is on the list, but as you know it is L'Oreal's company, so dont know if they use "cruelty free" ingredients in body shop's products.
    Another iportant fact is that American policies on animal testing are different from Europian policies. For example PETA claims that MAC doesen't test on animlas. They don't test finnished product, thats true, but they do buy ingredients for their cosmetics which have been tested on animals! Also so many companies are owned by L'Oreal, it's almost imposible not to buy something from L'Oreal. These for example: Maybelline, Garnier,Lancome, Biotherm, Helena Rubinstein, Shu Uemure..... Check: http://www.loreal.com/_en/_ww/brands-l-oreal.aspx
    There seem to be only a handfull of products on the market which haven't been tested on animals 100% (product itself AND ALL ingredients), which is so sad!

    ReplyDelete
  95. I wouldnt trust them... What i get from the email they sent you is that they do not test the finished product BUT I'm sure they buy tested ingredients or hire someone to test every single ingredient in some poor creatures. They are just trying to wash off all the blood and suffering from their hands because they know how many people follow and admire you and trust the products/review you use/do.

    I cant afford right now but as soon as I can I'll switch to vegan cruelty free cosmetics like everyday minerals, lush... I dont like the idea of spreading someones grease or whatever all over my face... ewww ><

    ReplyDelete
  96. Because PETA puts these companies into categories of whether they Test Products on animals or not!! PETA does not define whether the company actually tests cosmetics on Animals. So L'Oreal, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Reckitt Benckiser and Unilever will always be on the PETA list because they have pharamaceutical companies, or drugs which are required to be tested on Animals. They are large mulitnational companies, with many different products besides just cosmetics. The only cosmetic company I saw which I do not know has "pharmaceutical" connections is Shisedo. These also have alot of skin whitening products (like L'Oreal, Unilever etc)...which I think could be tested on animals. So in answer to your question...I think L'Oreal is telling the truth when it says its cosmetics are not tested...but has investment in drugs which are. Think about it? How many times have you taken the pill, vaccine, lemsip? These products ARE tested on animals. So its an grey subject anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Really, what bothers me the most, is that animal testing doesn't even yield accurate results.. Animals skin is different to ours, react differently to chemicals. They are made to withstand different ordeals.

    Also, it may not be the testing itself that's cruel, but rarely have I heard of a "testplant" treating their animals with love and respect. This is what gets me, and this is why I use a very small selection of products.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Hi

    I have recently started using Neways cosmetics as not only do they not test on animals they avoid using toxic chemicals too. It would be interesting to hear in anyone else uses these products too?

    ReplyDelete
  99. yea.. they said they dont test the "finished cosmetics." all that means is they dont put lipstick and eyeshadow on bunnies. It does not mean they dont test all the ingredients used to make the finished products.

    Also, i think this only applies to L'oreal Paris, and not the one that is based in the US. The EU passed laws about animal testing, which the US did not.

    ReplyDelete
  100. L'Oreal does not test their finished products on animals, but still test the ingredients used to formulate these products. I like how they try to be slick & hide behind the fact that they bought The Body Shop & Bath & Body Works to try to clean up their image. Unfortunately, even though TBS & BBW may not test on animals, L'Oreal profits from those companies & I will never support L'Oreal. Larger companies do not buy out smaller companies to learn a lesson, they do so to make a profit. The Body Shop has sold it's soul to the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi, after reading all the comments I am still left confused with one question: Where is a reliable & non-biased list of companies that do not use animals to test any ingredients in their beauty care products?

    It seems PETA is not reliable, so who do I go to for such information?

    ReplyDelete
  102. I work for The Body Shop, hopefull this can clarify somethings up. Subsidiaries play an integral role in the ethical diction of a parent company, whether or not this takes place with "L'Oreal" is yet to be said. I do believe however that The Body Shop is being used in a way as sort of the scape goat... "See here, The Body Shop does not test on animals, so why would we..." hmm....no dice. With that said The Body Shop is owned by L'Oreal EU which reguarded it's policies when The Body Shop was purchased that they "EU" was not allowed to directly test on animals, whether by parent or affiliates due to a contractual fact with TBS. However I am unsure if L'Oreal USA is owned by or in conjunction with L'Oreal EU. I do know that they are revered as two separate entities. Whether or not they are related is beyond me. The Body Shop continues to not test any finished or unfished product on animals, and does not condone such acts. However who is to say that: "no one has tested the original 'butylphenyl methylpropional' on an animal at any time in history." L'Oreal USA does admit to using the information gathered from past testing. Hope that helps a little. This statement is purely my opinion based on deduction and anylitical thinking, giving the information I gathered was accurate, and may not be the opinion of L'Oreal and its affiliates. I want to inform you that there is no malice in my intent and is my 100% honest opinion not withholding.

    ReplyDelete
  103. The current stance of most companies is that they don't do finished product testing whatsoever on animals, rather they use simulated skin tissues or volunteers.

    Legally they can't test new ingredients straight away on people, because the safety profile hasn't been confirmed yet. Imagine if they used something which hasn't been tested at all straight away on people and it was toxic or poisonous! This is why animal testing hasn't been eradicated yet, even though there is considerable consumer demand to do so. Their steps in moving toward that, in a simplified form are two-fold:
    1. for testing of entirely new, novel ingredients, they are attempting to work with tissue simulation labs to produce skin tissue that is as similar as possible to human tissue. Unfortunately this is very hard to do, and the science just isn't there yet, the skin of us humans and fellow mammals is just too complex and it's hard to synthesize in a lab. at this point, skin of other mammals such as rats and bunnies, is the closest we can get to our own skin. L'oreal pointed itself out as the leader in funding research for this, and it makes sense. They're losing tons of money because so many consumers boycott them for animal testing, it's in their best interest to look for alternatives. Off course there's also always consumer demand for new technology, especially in skincare and they have to meet that too. After all, women are looking for products that actually make a difference or they wouldn't buy them in the first place.

    2. The vast majority of ingredients in products, L'oreal and every other company out there, have been around for quite a while and extensively tested. This includes standard moisturizing ingredients, detergents, preservatives and fragrances. Because they've been around so long and tested so thoroughly in the past, lot's of safety and effectiveness data is already available on these. Because all this data is from various sources, it would make sense to compile, categorize and digitize it, in order to have a comprehensive database to refer to. That's another initiative L'oreal leads the pack in, they have scoured past databases and journals and industry data and are working on putting it all together.

    All in all, remember the people your email goes out to when you email companies are marketing people, they are trained into talking a certain way. In this case they're telling you the truth, which in my opinion is very positive, L'oreal is doing everything they can within the current legal conditions to deliver the best products possible and cut down on animal testing as much as possible, but they have not 100% stopped yet. The person that replied to you is a trained marketing rep who is an expert at wording things so they sound as good as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I find great that master make up artists like you talk about this issue and ban trades which test on animals. Thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Four questions to ask:


    1. Does your company test any of its products on animals during any
    stage of development?

    (Usually they say that their "finished product" is not tested on animals but they *have* tested their product throughout all the stages of development)

    2. Do your suppliers conduct animal testing?

    3. Do you contract other companies to test your products on animals?

    4. Have you ever tested your products on animals?

    Also, if a company is a subsidiary of a company that does test on animals than it's profits fund testing.


    One reliable source : http://leapingbunny.org/

    In response to "you pick a name for me":

    Seriously, you are beyond ignorant. It's one thing to support the cruelty inflicted upon animals but *EVERY* other statement you made as to why you think it is necessary is incorrect. Even your statements about company practices are wrong.

    It's pointless to argue the ethical issue with you but you lose on the scientific front. Your entire response is comprised of personal opinion and uneducated assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  106. from what is see in the PETA list of animal testing company, L'Oreal UK is not on their list. But they do put L'Oreal USA in it.

    ReplyDelete