Earlier in the year we discussed on The Beauty Brains the recent buy out of The Body Shop by cosmetic giant L’Oreal. Well, six months later the founder is still defending herself against claims of being a sell-out. Company found Anita Roddick continues to hold the belief that she did the right thing and that L’Oreal is an honorable company.
The main issue, L’Oreal continues to test their cosmetic products on animals. The Body Shop had a strong anti-animal testing reputation, so it would seem that the two companies couldn’t mix. But this is business. Money is ultimately the most important for all companies. Anita says she ultimately sold the company because she didn’t want to die rich. She preferred to do something constructive with the money. Well, we’ll keep an eye on Anita and see what constructive thing she does with the hundreds of millions of dollars she received from the sale.
This paradox is what happens when a company tries to claim it is “morally superior” to the rest of the industry. The truth is The Body Shop claimed they didn’t test on animals. The only reason they could say this is because they used ingredients that other people had tested on animals. As we’ve said before, companies that say they don’t test on animals are not telling you the truth. Animal testing is still being done in this industry and will be until there are suitable alternatives. Cosmetic companies can not legally sell products that are not safe. The only way they can prove they are safe is to have data from animal testing to show they are.
Right now, no matter what anyone has told you, there are no acceptable alternatives to some animal testing. If you are really ethically bothered by animal testing you better stop using cosmetics or start making your own.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
this was a great post. i was not even aware the body shop had sold. and i just finished estetican school and we were taught the same thing you wrote about animal testing! they might not do it but someone else already has. shame on anita for “selling out” maybe she should go into politics!
That is a very interesting post! The only thing that I disagree with
is that if you don’t want to use cosmetics that have been tested
on animals then you can’t make your own either. Like the post said every
ingredient used in the formulation of cosmetics was tested on an animal at one point in time. Therefor you run into the same problem making your own beauty products as the larger companies do in that at some point someone tested “germall plus”
or “stearic acid” (whatever you’re using) on an animal. It’s kind of a thin line for sure and it can be very hard when a customer asks if your products are tested on animals. Of course you want to be as honest and forthcoming as possible but how much does the customer actually “want” to know.
I’d like to comment on your thoughts that the only true “cruelty-free” products are those you make yourself.
Isn’t it true that there are companies out there who produce semi-natural cosmetics or beauty supplies without animal testing–or ingredients that require animal testing? How about Burt’s Bees? Kiss My Face? Tom’s of Maine requires that every company that SELLS them ingredients must certify that the ingredients are not tested on animals.
While, for the most part, mega-corps like The Body Shop still use lots of chemicals and additives that must be legally tested on animals, there are a few companies that basically use the same ingredients you would if you were mixing up body care products in your kitchen.
One other thought: Some (though not all) mineral make-ups are also completely free of animal-testing because they’re composed only of minerals.
It IS possibly to find cruelty-free options if you’re willing to do the legwork, research ingredients, and carefully check labels. Yes, it requires more time and effort. But it’s possible.
Carla, it is NOT possible to find truly cruelty-free options. The compaines you mentioned Burt’s Bees, Kiss My Face, and Tom’s of Maine all use ingredients that were at one time tested on animals. For example, look at Burt’s Bees Baby Bee Tear Free Shampoo & Wash.
They use decyl & lauryl glucosides. These have been tested on animals. They also use cocobetaine (tested on animals), xantham gum, soy protein, glycerol oleate, etc. All tested on animals. Mineral make-ups are also not free from animal testing.
Tell me of a functional ingredient that hasn’t been tested on animals. I can’t think of any.
Incidentally, Toms of Maine was just bought out by mega corporation Colgate. ToM also uses Sodium Lauryl Sulfate in their toothpastes. Defintely an ingredient that’s been tested on animals.
ISBgirl, you can make your own cosmetics if you use ingredients from your kitchen. For example, you could use egg whites as a facial mask. The products won’t work nearly as well as modern cosmetics but they’ll provide some functionality.
Ah… I think you misunderstood. I didn’t mean that ALL these company’s products were cruelty free. I meant that SOME of these products from these companies wre cruelty free.
Moreover… yes, you’re right. Many of these ingredients WERE tested on animals at one time. But a lot of “cruelty-free” companies use ingredients that were proven safe by animals a long time ago–the ingredients are already approved, so there’s no need to re-test.
So sure…. some of the stuff was tested once in the past. But that’s a heck of a lot different from a company that continues to test on a regular basis.
“ISBgirl, you can make your own cosmetics if you use ingredients from your kitchen. For example, you could use egg whites as a facial mask. The products won’t work nearly as well as modern cosmetics but they’ll provide some functionality”
~~~ hey have you seen the cruelty in chicken farms recently..lol..
My “thing” is that I buy products from companies that no longer do animal testing. any new ingredients they develop are not animal tested. I think that is all we can do.
Bas and Carla,
You both seem to be saying that you are ok with companies that use ingredients that were tested on animals but aren’t any more. This is certainly an understandable position.
But no company (big or small) tests on animals unless they absolutely have to. The only time anyone tests on animals now is when they are using a brand new ingredient. If they are using existing stuff, no testing is done. It’s a risky position because a consumer could easily sue them if they were somehow injured by the product. But typically, companies take this chance.
So, any company that says they won’t use ingredients tested on animals is also saying that they won’t use anything except existing ingredients. You’ll get no new technology from them. The good news is that you don’t really need new technology because cosmetics work pretty well right now.
I just don’t think it’s fair for a company to imply they are more environmentally friendly than another just because they only use ingredients that were tested on animals 20 years ago instead of 20 days ago. 20 years from now, will it be ok for these same companies to use ingredients that are being tested right now? It just doesn’t seem to be right.
I don’t think what you say is true. Cannot a company test new ingredients chemically instead of using animals?
I don’t think you can sell a product with an ingredient that has not been tested to be safe on humans. At the same time it would be extremely irresponsible to expose a human to any compound that might harm them, even if they are test subjects. Although from animal testing arise some ethical issues, exposing a human being to something that might harm them without first trying it on a model that has similar characteristics and tissue composition as the humans would have worse ethical complications. Unfortunately, a better model for human tissues has not been found even though there is ongoing research on that field.
Well said Tinni. Despite what you want to be true Bas, companies can not sell products with ingredients that haven’t been proven safe for humans. The only accepted method for proving this is through animal testing. There are other options (tests using tissue engineering, HET CAM tests) but these aren’t suitable replacements for animal tests. Governments do not accept them. Until the technology gets better, animal testing will continue.
If that is true. why would a group like PETA give awards to cosmetic companies for their “non-animal testing ” products and business ethics? Isn’t non-animal testing (chemical testing) accepted in some countries?
I wouldn’t know if chemical testing is a method use *instead* of animal testing in other countries. Although there IS ongoing research in that direction and it is currently being used in some companies in addition to animal testing (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7723/7723.html) the field is YET to come to the point in which the American scientific community could say that is SAFE to use exclusively. As long as the life and well-being of individuals is at stake we can’t depend on any one technology until it is *thoroughly* proven to work.
Bas,
PETA would give an award to companies that don’t use animal testing (like The Body Shop pre L’Oreal purchase). They seem to think it’s fine that companies use ingredients that were PREVIOUSLY tested on animals. They just don’t want companies to use any new, untested ingredients in their cosmetics.
If you don’t use any new ingredients, you don’t have to test on animals. Sure, you’re destined to have products that don’t use the latest technology, but they will be free from causing any new animal testing.
This may be ok for now, but in 10 years will you feel good about using cosmetics that are no different than the ones created in 1991?
Tinni, the field hasn’t produced a method that is acceptable to European governments either. There is a proposed EU statute that is supposed to go into effect a couple of years that says “no animal testing is allowed on cosmetics”, but the manufacturers are trying to kill the law. Basically, if they can’t use animal testing, they can’t sell improved cosmetics.
Thanks for letting me know ; ) I couldn’t find anything about it in the time I had to search (blogging on lab = bad practice)
Well, for me it’s all about least harm. Yes, these companies that promote themselves as “cruelty-free” are capitalizing on harm done to animals years ago. However, many of these (not Body Shop, but companies like Burt’s Bees) use very FEW ingredients that were ever tested on animals. In some of their products there’s only one or two ingredients that can’t be found in a standard kitchen, unlike some cosmetic companies that have a HUGE list of animal-tested ingredients (whether previous or current).
Those companies do have something to be proud of. They’re minimizing harm by simply using fewer animal tested ingredients, and by not adding new technology to their products.
Does the quality and effectiveness of the product suffer? I guess that’s a personal choice.
But while you don’t think it’s fair for these “natural” companies to set themselves apart, I don’t think it’s fair to lump them in with big companies that use tons of animal-tested ingredients, and are continuously testing on animals (even as we speak).
IMHO, there are two separate categories of cosmetics here.
Carla,
You’re position is perfectly understandable. I can see how someone wouldn’t put these smaller companies in the same class as bigger companies who still actively use animal testing. They certainly don’t increase the amount of animal testing that is being done. That’s fair.
But it’s an exaggeration to say they use FEW ingredients tested on animals. ALL of their ingredients have been tested on animals. That you can find the ingredients in your kitchen is irrelavant. They were still tested.
These small, cruelty-free companies owe a debt to all the companies that came before them who took the risks and did all the animal testing. Burt’s Bees, Lush, Kiss my face couldn’t sell any products if it weren’t for the testing of the companies that came before them. And now, they hold themselves up as superior to those very companies. It just doesn’t seem right.
It also doesn’t seem right to have companies like Tom’s of Maine, or The Body Shop build a cruelty free reputation and then sell out to a bigger corporation who doesn’t share their values. It makes everything they did before seem disingenuous.
Well, Kiss My Face Pure Olive Oil Soap only has three ingredients, so I’d say that’s “fewer” than average. But I’m splitting hairs with that.
Anyway, I totally agree that the “selling out” of these companies seems to indicate that they cared very little about their products, their customers or the bunnies the whole time. Guess it was all about the $$$$.
I think it is time to sort the facts: Yes, everything has been tested on animals at one point, even water. Does this mean that water is a “cruel” ingredients in cosmetics? Does this mean that ethical consumers should boycott everything that contains this ingredient? I do not believe so.
My argument is that so long as a company has STOPPED using animals in its testing, and so long as they no longer purchase ingredients that are CURRENTLY being tested, they can and should be branded “cruelty-free”. Of course, some may argue that this is a contradiction from a marketing point of view, given the fact that the ingredients at some point have been tested on animals. I, however, think this is too detail oriented.
As long as the company boycott all forms of animal testing at present time, meaning they do not spend money on, nor encourage, animal testing, they have earned the position “cruelty-free”.
Companies that on the other hand continue to test on animals, such as the mentioned LÓreal, can not be branded as cruelty-free.
Thanks for your comments Billy. Currently, animal testing is the only way that a new ingredient can be created and used in the cosmetic industry.
If you buy products from companies that don’t currently test on animals, then you are relegated to using products that use old technology.
Under your system of “cruelty free” a company could simply start-up tomorrow and use all the currently approved ingredients. The fact that an ingredient was animal tested say 1 month ago wouldn’t really matter then because this new company didn’t exist. They could claim “cruelty free” and use the latest technologies.
I don’t see how they are any better than the companies that are around right now using the same ingredients.
Of course, the firms that are rightfully branded cruelty free, are not planning to use animal testing in the future either.
And, it is of course possible to be innovative with the ‘old technology’ as well. Just look at the body shop who creates product after product without animal testing. Or do you suggest that even this firm uses animal testing? (leaving the L’Oreal/Body Shop discussion out)
Some firms also operate with so-called fixed cut off dates, what is your view on this?
True. But L’Oreal doesn’t use animal testing on products it already has on the shelf like the Vive’s, Studio Line, etc. Most of those probably were never animal tested. The technologies are pretty standard so there would be no need.
Creating new products isn’t really innovating. You simply change the color, the fragrance, and packaging and people believe it’s something new. It’s really the same old stuff but it just looks and smells different. The Body Shop may never have done animal testing but their formulas aren’t any more special than any other company. Plus, the fragrances they used were most likely tested on animals by the fragrance suppliers. Sure Body Shop didn’t test, but some of their suppliers did.
As far as fixed cut-off dates go, let me get this straight. A company won’t use an ingredient that is being tested on animals today but will use it in 10 years or so. I don’t see how that is an incentive for raw material suppliers not to do animal testing. Sounds hypocritical and disingenuous to me.
The body shop do not use ingredients that have been tested after December 31 1990, meaning that anything that is tested after this they will not use. Hence, an ingredient tested today (2007) will not be used by the body shop in, say, 2012. My view is that on these terms there must be room for us to call the body shop, and similar companies, ´cruelty free´.
Billy, you can call them “cruelty free” if you like because they use arbitrary cut-off dates. I personally don’t agree. These companies can only exist because other companies did the dirty work of testing on animals. Then they imply a moral superiority over those same companies. It’s not right.
And also, when they get successful enough they sell out to the first big company that comes along. Even to someone like L’Oreal (one of the biggest users of animal testing). I guess they and all the other “cruelty free” companies around care more about the money than making cruelty free products.
As you can see from my posting January 9, 2007, 7:42 am I wrote “(leaving the L’Oreal/Body Shop discussion out)”, as this is a whole different matter. The discussion here is about what one can and cannot call cruelty free.
I would also like to hear your view on why organisations like PETA and BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) still make lists for the consumers to use over cruelty-free (and not cruelty-free) products. Are they in your opinion wasting time by doing this?
billy: Fair enough but I think it is significant that a company who spends years building its cruelty free reputation would just sell out to one who they deem not cruelty free. That means any similar company will likely do the same.
There are lots of reasons why organisations make lists. Mainly, they really believe the listed companies support their cause. They believe supporting these companies will advance their own agenda.
But there are other less noble reasons lists like these are made.
1. Publicity
2. Kick-backs
3. Neopotism
4. Extortion
These things benefit the organizations because they make money off of scared companies. And companies can improve their financial lot by getting a good rating by the organizations. So, paying to get on a list is not unheard of.
So, for the companies and the organizations the lists are not a waste of time. For the consumers, I think they are.
Governments dictate whether animal testing has to be done or not. NO company wants to do animal testing. They do it because the government tells them they have to. If PETA and BUAV would spend more time & money getting the government to change the rules or support scientists who are developing animal testing alternatives perhaps they could really make a change. But then if there was no animal testing these organizations wouldn’t have a reason to exist. Perhaps they don’t really want to abolish all animal testing afterall.
Wow, that is some statement you just made! I know people working in the animal welfare sector, and I know all these people would be more than happy to give up their jobs if all animal cruelty stopped.
Can you please explain more about the 4 noble reasons?
According to the legal encyclopedia “Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act.” Hmm … I seem to remember the “Murder King” PETA campaign :”On June 28, 2001, PETA called off its “Murder King” campaign, which involved provocative ads; celebrity support from Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor; and—with the help of activists—more than 800 protests at Burger King restaurants worldwide. This is only one example in which PETA’s actions fit the definition of extortion. Just because BK didn’t pursue the matter in the courts doesn’t mean that PETA’s actions were legit.
Another animal rights group, ALF, took credit “for the attempted attack against a scientist who uses primates in her research at the University of California at Los Angeles. According to the Los Angeles Times, the device was left outside the wrong house and failed to ignite.” The professor actually QUIT after this incident to ensure the security of his family.
These organizations are not known for looking for rational solutions for the minimization of animal experimentation.
Fair enough billy. I’m certain that most people working in the animal welfare sector are well-meaning and sincere. Some are a bit more militant.
We didn’t list any noble reasons so we can’t explain any more. We listed non-noble reasons that groups and companies make lists like these. We weren’t suggesting this is the case, it’s just a possibility.
Cosmetic scientists don’t want to do animal testing either but governments require it. We will remain critical of companies that try to pretend that they are better than the rest because they’ve built their business on the backs of all the animal-testing companies that came before them.
Thanks for your comments. We will continue to report on developments in this area of the cosmetic industry. There is a lot of money going into alternatives to animal testing. Hopefully, it will pay off and governments who require animal testing will back off.
Thanks for the information Tinni
Has this site its roots in USA?
I know that I am a bit late in the game, but I do in fact agree that it is almost futile attempting to shop for so called “cruelty-free” products. Almost. When faced with a choice of two evils, one would hope that one will do the correct thing and choose the lesser. I believe that most companies are just in it for the profit that they make marketing their product to the consumer, because that is just what it is. Marketing. Even though I feel you are correct in the long run, may I politely request that even though you have your own opinions, however strong and true they may be, please do not push people to the greater of the two evils.
Let’s face it. No matter how many lipsticks, mascaras, blushes, foundations, etc. one uses…you will still be the same person when it all washes away. There is no need for “advanced technology” in the beauty market, because if you want that amount of change you need a plastic surgeon…not a trip to the makeup counter. Which means that there is no need for animal testing for cosmetic purposes.
When there are new medications and medical procedures (yes, even the ones for elective cosmetic surgery), obviously, animal testing (amongst other things) is required and necessary. Animals, should not suffer, at least in my opinion, so that I may have a new lipstick. Cure for cancer, yes. Many humans are suffering for that one as well. Established ingredients are fine for creating cosmetics that do what cosmetics are meant for…ornamentation.
It really is quite contradictory for the same people who are so thoroughly opposed to animal testing to eat meat, dairy, etc. Why should they even bother? Because some effort is better than no effort at all. Because it is better to recycle your plastic products and nothing else than not recycle at all. Because we are human and not perfect. Because all of our tiny efforts make a big difference.
Please do give people permission to give up.
————–
Nicely said.
Left Brain
I agree with you Private, but where have the “”"brains”"” gone? They usually reply quite quick….?
Billy, I replied at the end of ‘private’s’ comments.
They made some great points and I mostly agreed. Doing as little harm as possible is a great philosophy to live by.
So are there any actual free of cruelty companies!?? If there are companies that do not test on animals and use alternatives like humans then why do most companies use the cruel method of animal testing!? ted baker is said to test on humans as an example!
You might want to check John entine’s social audit of the body shop before it got sold to L’oreal to see if being bought by them would really make a difference to Anita Roddick’s “ethical stance”
Just google his name, check his website, and download the social audit report he wrote. Compelling!
Now, of course he is a journalist but he is busting her myth, and for one, I felt quite bad about it, coz I thought she was different, but hey ho! it’s kind of made me wake up from the marketing spiel of most companies, hence why I make my own cosmetics now.
Great website by the way, ….
Have any of you taken a look at the new European Union regulations? Do you really think you know more about this issue than the EU? As of 2004, no finished products could be tested on animals. As of 2009, (I think it goes into effect in March of this year), no cosmetic product can be sold in the EU that was tested on animals anywhere in the world, including new ingredients, where an alternative exists. In 2013, no testing will be allowed, anywhere, by anybody, for any reason, current alternative or not.
This is an abhorrent smokescreen set out by worshipers of commerce and the beauty industry to dupe those who they deem too ignorant to, look into the accusations against the Body Shop on animal testing or, think things through. They need to decieve to defend their position of doing the unthinkable. I’d love to see their reaction if the governing bodies decided that all testing was now to be done on the children and grandchildren of all of the employees of the cosmetics industry. The Body Shop’s claim was that their products were “Not Tested on Animals” because they were not. Their products were not, the direct components were not, and they never bought any products from companies that carried out these practices. Those that had previously been tested on animals back in the early to mid part of the 20th century, offered information that was already known. To not use those products would be the same as telling the medical societies around the world that the medical information obtained by the experimentation done during the Holocaust should be buried forever. No civil, or evolved human being would deny that this was a repulsive occurrance in humanity, but to ignore the information uncovered there, would mean that those people and their families who suffered so much, did so in complete vain. Now that we have the information, it is being used for the greater good, to ignore it would be ludicrous. The Body Shop did not create or use any product that was directly tested on animals. This is simply a poor excuse at manipulation for those who are more interested in profits than responsibility. Do you know exactly what they do to these animals? Look into it for yourself, from a reputable, non-biased in any way, source. Then look into the alternatives. There are very cost effective means of alternate testing, but most companies have always tested on animals, so, why rock the boat? Why fix things? Why do the right thing? That’s just it, in plain terms, they simply don’t care. Thank God it’s not you or your children they are testing on, or are they?
{ 2 trackbacks }