The Beauty Brains have discussed animal testing and cosmetics on a few occasions. Here they explained how
all ingredients on cosmetics were at one time animal tested and how companies can claim not to test on animals when they indirectly do. A number of people have expressed skepticism about those claims. Well, according to this story, here is an anti-animal testing group from the UK that gets it right. Director Dr. Dan Lyons from the group, Uncaged, correctly points out that
Consumers are being misled by the beauty companies, who claim they don’t test their products – but they still test the ingredients, or use a third party to do the testing for them
Why some companies think it is ok to mislead people and claim they are better than other companies because they “don’t test on animals” is a mystery to this brain in training.
–Mid Brain
Loading ...
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
I think most posts on this site just go to show how consumers will believe whatever is told to them by involved parties based on prestige, image, paranoia, conspiracy, desire to be beautiful, desire to appear wealthy/in the know/well-connected/well-informed, and so on.
It’s sad, yes, but not really surprising considering how people still rant against mineral oil, rail against preservatives, rage against silicones, yet yearn for the latest and greatest technological advance. We want it both ways, multi-coloured, scented and in pretty bottles with bunny outlines on the bottom. What happened before the bottle isn’t really the issue for a lot of people. And the companies like that!
PS, we have Beauty Brains to wake us up! Yay for telling the truth!
Thanks Beauty Brains for sharing this important information with us. It’s very sad to see that the beauty companies are misleading their consumers.
I still love that super cute bunny!
I have seen disclaimers on products that say the “finished product” is not tested on animals. Does this mean that the “cruelty free” label we have come to depend on is essentially meaningless? Are there any companies out there that are truly cruelty free?
If anyone wants the truth about the Cruelty Free label or the Leaping Bunny Label they can visit the sites about them:
http://www.caringconsumer.com/cfcompany.asp
http://www.leapingbunny.org/indexcus.php
The Leaping Bunny Logo is much stricter and even asks signers to get their suppliers to also sign off that the ingredients they get from them are not being tested on animals.
Sure, there are many things people use for marketing, but you do not have to be so very skeptical.
There are people and companies who find animal testing disgusting and cruel and not needed. As the Leaping Bunny site points out:
“Neither the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission requires animal testing for cosmetics or household products, respectively. There are sufficient existing safety data as well as in vitro alternatives to make animal testing for these products obsolete. While it is true that virtually every ingredient, even water, has been tested on animals in the past, we can help prevent future animal testing.”
There are companies that use ingredients that were once tested on animals and rely on the data from those previous tests. That does not make their commitment to not do future animal testing any less meaningful.
Other companies make products with such simple and benign ingredients that testing on human volunteers is possible. I can personally say that my company has never and will never subject animals to testing.
I think that the large majority of people would be strongly against animal testing if they saw videos of animal testing or they imagined their own pet subjected to the same experiments.
Thanks ESS. Just to clarify, while it’s true the FDA does not require animal testing for cosmetics, they do require that only products proven safe can be sold. The only data they accept is animal testing.
Companies have decided it is worth the slight risk of not using animal tests for products for which only ingredients that were already tested on animals are used.
Any new ingredient would need to be tested on animals. This limits the types of innovation that cosmetic companies can do. But you have to decide, does the world really need better working cosmetic and personal care products?
Again, I feel the need to point out that there are some companies that use simple, safe and benign ingredients that do not require further animal testing.
The animal testing that becomes necessary is when ‘new’ ingredients that are known to be potentially harmful are mixed in comlex chemical concoctions. You ask “Why some companies think it is ok to mislead people and claim they are better than other companies because they “don’t test on animals?”. I think it is more interesting to ask why other companies feel the need to use potentially harmful ingredients in new and novel ways just so they can better market them as “innovative” or a “new discovery” when there are plenty of effective ingredients already available to formulators?
An excellent question with a reasonable (depending on your perspective) answer. The effective ingredients that are already available are available to everyone so innovative, new, different products are nearly impossible to make. What you are left with are formulas that all basically do the same thing and work the same way. You can then only differentiate yourself with a marketing story, but no functional difference.
To push the limits of formulation performance, you need new ingredients. Otherwise, the lipstick, nail polish, shampoo, facial wash you have today will be essentially the same products in 20 years. And 20 years from now, none of the problems people have now will be solved any better.
The only question left is to ask whether this product improvement is worth the cost? On this point, people disagree.
Actually, that is why I enjoy this site. It raises interesting topics and allows for discussion and the opportunity to hear a variety of voices and opinions.
I think this is really bad because its cruelty to animals. but on the other hand it can help to cure us.
I have to say that Beauty Brains seem to be misinterpreting my quote and the article from where it comes (see htwww.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Products-Markets/Consumers-misled-over-animal-testing-says-UK-charity)
Not all cosmetic companies that make non-animal tested claims are being economical with the truth. Those that adhere to an independently-verified ‘fixed cut off date’ policy, as alluded to by ESS above, are no longer perpetuating or promoting animal testign for cosmetics.
My criticism was targetted at the likes of P&G, Avon etc. who make the false and/or meaningless claim that they don’t test their products on animals when they continue to animal test ingredients or they continue to purchase ingredients recently tested on animals.
Finally, regarding the statement made by beautybrains: “The only question left is to ask whether this product improvement is worth the cost [subjecting animals to toxicity tests]? On this point, people disagree.”
Well, I’m sure pedophiles disagree with the rest of us that their pleasure isn’t worth the suffering and abuse endured by children. That doesn’t mean that their beliefs are valid and defensible, and the same goes for people who think that abusing animals is OK for new cosmetics.
Thanks for the comments Dr Lyons.
Not all people share your belief about the importance of animals. People murder animals and then eat them all the time. Certainly, you have heartlessly (or inadvertently) killed numerous insects. And have you no concern about murdering plants? They are living creatures too. Where do you draw the line about which living thing is important and which isn’t? Reasonable people draw the line at different points.
Comparing people who test products on animals to pedophiles is nonsense and a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion, non sequitur) unbecoming of an educated person.
You have a perfectly valid position which I don’t disagree with. (stop testing on animals for cosmetics).
But I think the cut-off date is BS. It’s not right if a cosmetic company tries to build their fortune off the backs of the companies that were required to animal test products. And the moment that one of these “ethical” companies get big enough, they’ll sell out to the “unethical” companies in a heartbeat. (e.g. The Body Shop).
beautybrains, your comments seem deliberately designed to miss/distort the point. it’s a shame you won’t engage in a constructive, intelligent dialogue.
I suspect that you don’t have any background in or much interest in ethics. But let me explain: people do indeed have different understandings and constructions of the moral status of animals, but most, in UK and Europe at least, believe that animals have at least some moral value and therefore sacrificing their interests and welfare for trivial purposes – such as cosmetics.
I may have inadvertently killed insects, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make responsible and moral decisions about the impact of our actions when we have the opportunity to exercise free will. You are saying that because perfection is unattainable than we should bother trying to make any difference at all.
If you take the trouble to read and comprehend my comment, then you will see that I wasn’t directly comparing pedophiles to those who test on animals for cosmetics. Rather, I was using them as an obvious exemplar of why just because some people hold an opinion doesn’t mean it is valid, which is the implication of one of your previous comments. That is not an ‘appeal to emotion’ or a non-sequitur, it is, on the contrary an example of analytical ethics which aims for logical coherence and empirical accuracy.
The non-sequitur was in your original comment. You need to explain why a person’s opinion is valid, not just assume that it is valid because it exists. The logical consequence of your relativist position is that there are no moral differences between people’s opinions and related actions, no matter how repugnant.
I note from your dismissal of the FCOD policy that you prioritise the investment returns and competitiveness of animal testing companies over the deliberate infliction of pain, suffering and death on animals. Again, an interesting indication of your priorities.
Your comments don’t seem to make sense which is why your site does look more like a corporate PR exercise on behalf of animal testing cosmetics companies instead of independent, objective debate. If you really are scientists then you’ll be familiar with the ethical requirement to be open and acknowledge affiliations and financial relationships.
you will have guessed that I missed out ‘is morally wrong’ from the 2nd para of above post
Nicely put Dr Lyons. I am a regular visitor to this site but you have opened my eyes to something more sinister…I won’t be visiting again!
Dr Lyons, the thing that prevents us from having a “constructive, intelligent dialogue” is nothing that I’ve written, rather it is your inability to evaluate the subject from a rational standpoint. IMO, you are not interested in any point of view that is different from yours. You approach the subject purely from an emotional standpoint which is not conducive to dialogue.
You waste words with ad hominems about my background, insinuations about my unstated aims and the creation of straw man arguments which are wholly inaccurate characterizations of my positions. I have no unstated aims, just an opinion about animal testing.
When you say “just because some people hold an opinion doesn’t mean it is valid”, you imply that the position that animal testing isn’t wrong is not a valid opinion. While I don’t believe in animal testing for cosmetics, I don’t see it as black and white as you. Good, moral people can disagree on this subject. Of course, one with an inability to think rationally about the subject wouldn’t be able to understand this reasonable disagreement.
You ignore the fact that I agree that animal testing for cosmetics should be stopped.
Where you and I disagree is with the approach of stopping the practice. You attack companies that are following the requirements of our government (we’re from the US) while supporting other companies that are merely leaches, building their fortunes off the back of all the companies that came before them. They let someone else do their “dirty work”.
You want to stop animal testing, do it through the government.
The same companies you attack are the ones who are investing money to develop alternatives to animal testing. They don’t want to do animal testing either. Nobody wants to do it.
I use Liz Earle products and have done so for years. I have visited her shop on the Isle of Wight and visit her web site often.
Liz never tests on animals and uses pure organic plants.
Please, all read what liz has to say about her products. I can testify she speaks the truth. My skin has never felt better and i enjoy using her products all the more knowing that none of the ingredients have been near an animal.
Actions speak louder than words and if we all stopped buying any suspect products, the manufacturers would either have to stop trading, or stop testing on animals.
This is aimed at Beauty Brains where do you draw the line on compassion? may I point out to you that the world we live in could be a nicer place for all of us and our children if we were a little bit more compassionate and not selfish towards others. Animal testing is one of the many unecessary things that occurs in this world for needless gain. If ‘we’ the human race turn our back on everything, what will the future be like for us?
I am disgusted that you aim these comments at Dan when he works hard for a non profit organisation trying to make a difference because he cares. If everyone of us did something like that for a good cause then maybe the world wouldn’t be as bad as it is now. Look at how they strip fur off animals whilst they are still alive? is this right? taking a baseball bat to seal pups is that right? using live dogs as shark bait is that right? in my oppinion you are crossing the line by not being a compassionate human being and should re-evaluate what you are doing with your life. If you can honestly say that you are making a difference then I take my hat off to you but making comments like you have doesn’t show that you are (making a positive one anyway)
I am glad I contacted Dr. Lyons, it is time for BB to stop disseminating distorted info for the benefit of their unmamed corporate sponsors (P&G,perhaps?)From uncaged website:
Please unite with fellow activists for our thirteenth Global Boycott P&G Day on Saturday 16th May 2009 to expose the callous animal testing practices of the world’s largest consumer goods corporation, and makers of Herbal Essences. With your help, we can give millions of consumers the information they need to vote with their purses and help save innocent animals from deadly poisoning tests. If we want to protect animals, it’s vital to empower consumers to pressure companies like P&G directly.
Left brain says:
‘When you say “just because some people hold an opinion doesn’t mean it is valid”, you imply that the position that animal testing isn’t wrong is not a valid opinion.’
Actually, the point I was making was, to repeat: ‘You need to explain why a person’s opinion is valid, not just assume that it is valid because it exists.’
Yes, good moral people can disagree on most issues, though surely there are some issues where disagreement is beyond the pale and not reasonable (i.e. pedophiles, racists and other bigots). I would classify animal testing for cosmetics as one of those issues.
Everything you have said just reinforces my analysis. If this site was open about who is involved, funding sources etc. then that would remove any suspicion and insinuation.
Your claim that you are against animal testing for cosmetics is welcome but I sense it isn’t genuine, which is disappointing. I think you have a hidden condition in your ‘opposition’ to animal testing – you’re against it as long as it doesn’t affect the commercial interests of cosmetic companies that wish to use new-to-the-world ingredients.
We understand that governments, in practice, require animal testing data for the marketing of new chemicals. The companies we criticise are those who make the autonomous choice to develop new chemical ingredients and therefore are the immediate cause of this category of animal testing. These could stop animal testing tomorrow if they decided to stick with the thousands of substances already in use.
Yes, changes in government policy would also help. But many of the experts that advise governments on testing regulations are from industry itself, so a strict industry/government separation is untenable. Further, the companies have the power to stop animal testing but they care more about maximising profits from new improved skin cream than sparing animals from lethal toxicity tests.
And that is not an ethical valid position, in my opinion.
The fact remains that this thread is based on a (wilful?) misinterpretation of my comments to the journalist on cosmeticdesign.com and we still haven’t had an explanation or apology for that.
I agree with Keeley. Thanks Dan for all your hard work in trying to make the world a better place to live in.
This is where discussion ceases and preaching begins…
“Yes, good moral people can disagree on most issues, though surely there are some issues where disagreement is beyond the pale and not reasonable (i.e. pedophiles, racists and other bigots). I would classify animal testing for cosmetics as one of those issues.”
While you would classify animal testing for cosmetics this way, other good, moral people don’t. This may not fit in with your moral code, but morality is relative and each person has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Laws against murder, pedophila, racism, etc. are reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people see those things as immoral. It is not so clear cut with a subject like animal testing.
There are plenty of people who think eating animals is immoral, but they are the minority of our population. It’s doubtful there will be laws against that anytime soon.
You have an amazing ability to create straw man arguments. Your categorization of our stance on animal testing is completely false. I’m against animal testing because I think cosmetics are mostly a frivolous indulgence and not a thing that warrants killing animals. At the moment, the chemicals that have already been tested on animals provide enough options for cosmetic chemists to formulate.
The difference between us is that I can understand how people wouldn’t come to the same conclusion as me. For them, new ingredient development does warrant more animal testing to ensure products are safe. I don’t agree but I’m not going to project my morality on them. Better is to spend time and resources supporting the development of alternative test methods for current animal testing.
I also don’t understand how you think your comments were misinterpreted by MidBrain. The quote was taken directly from the article. That’s what you said isn’t it?
I also don’t understand how you think your comments were misinterpreted by MidBrain. The quote was taken directly from the article. That’s what you said isn’t it?
That’s a no brainer
Here is the complete article BB should have included from .cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Products-Markets/Consumers-misled-over-animal-testing-says-UK-charity
Consumers would boycott beauty products if they were aware that their ingredients had been tested on animals, according to a UK-based animal welfare group Uncaged.
The group carried out a survey, asking over 2000 adults in the UK their opinions on animal testing in beauty products.
Consumers won’t buy products tested on animals
Over two thirds of British women would stop buying a particular beauty product or range if they knew it had been tested on animals, the survey suggested.
In addition, the women also believed that cosmetics products and toiletries tested on animals should be banned, according to the group.
Currently under European law the testing of finished products on animals is banned but animal testing may be used for some ingredients until 2013.
However, the UK charity argues that consumers are unaware that in some cases ingredients are still tested on animals.
Consumers misled by the industry
“Consumers are being misled by the beauty companies, who claim they don’t test their products – but they still test the ingredients, or use a third party to do the testing for them,” said Uncaged campaigns director Dr Dan Lyons.
According to Lyons, the charity wants to shed light on the dealings of the beauty industry so consumers can make an informed choice.
In addition, he highlights the increasing power of the consumer and claims beauty companies are sitting on a ticking time bomb of consumer boycotts and falling sales.
“Ethical shopping rose by 9 per cent last year as consumers realised how much power they have to change the way companies behave. If the British public knew about the animal testing of these products, sales would drop overnight,” he said.
The charity has been active in the past against the beauty industry mobilising boycotts and demonstrations in the UK and internationally.
Earlier this year the group was behind the twelfth boycott P&G day claiming that the US-based personal care is engaged in unnecessary animal testing.
According to the group there were over 100 actions in more than 30 different countries involved in this year’s event.
Some more facts:
HERBAL ESSENCES’ FALSE ALIBI REVEALED
Firstly, thank you to everyone who has shown their opposition to Herbal Essences’ cruel animal testing. Since the New Year we’ve been doing some research and planning to help the boycott campaign continue to grow throughout 2009. The success of the campaign so far bodes well.
One of the most revealing aspects of Herbal Essences’ behaviour is their lack of openness and honesty about their animal testing. They know that most people are disgusted by gratuitous cruelty to animals. But instead of changing their ways, Herbal Essences try to mislead consumers. We’ve now uncovered a glaring example of their deceit.
We launched the campaign last July when we revealed that Herbal Essences have poisoned and killed over a thousand mothers and their baby animals to re-test a chemical already in use by humans for decades (butylparaben). With a damaged reputation and collapsing sales, Herbal Essences tried to play the blame game and claimed that they did the test at the request of European regulators.
However, Uncaged can now reveal that this is just more deceptive spin from Herbal Essences’ increasingly desperate PR department. We lodged a freedom of information request with the European Commission (EC) for any evidence of a request to Herbal Essences or any other cosmetics company for more test data on butylparaben. The earliest document disclosed was from 2005. But the animal test was written up and published in 2004!
We also asked P&G, Herbal Essences’ parent company, for any documents to substantiate their excuses. They refused. Instead, their PR spokeswoman repeated the claim that the test was conducted at the request of the EC’s ‘Scientific Committee on Consumer Products’. But this Committee didn’t even come into existence until autumn 2004, several months after the animal test took place.
This incident is just typical of how, in reality, Herbal Essences treat both animals and the public with utter contempt. It seems both arrogant and short-sighted for Herbal Essences to feed the public bare-faced lies about such an important issue as animal testing. It’s about time Herbal Essences showed some respect and stopped insulting people’s intelligence. Though you have to wonder whether a company so deeply committed to gratuitous cruelty is capable of behaving responsibly and honestly.
That’s why it’s so important that the law forces these companies to be transparent about their animal testing practices. Please click here to lobby your MP to sign Early Day Motion 137 which calls on the Government to publish details of the animal testing behind cosmetics products.
Uncaged Campaigns 09.02.09
BB states:
Laws against murder, pedophila, racism, etc. are reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people see those things as immoral. It is not so clear cut with a subject like animal testing.
These laws are now in effect because a minority of people thought these issues were wrong. The abolitionists and suffragists were reviled in their day because “the majority of people” did not see these issues as immoral, including most scientists.
Tristan states:
These laws are now in effect because a minority of people thought these issues were wrong. The abolitionists and suffragists were reviled in their day because “the majority of people” did not see these issues as immoral, including most scientists.
You’re just making this up. I doubt there was ever a time in human history when the majority of people thought murder, pedophila, or racism were moral.
As far as slavery goes, the majority of people thought this was wrong too (if you count the slaves that were against it). The law was changed because a majority of people agreed it should be. And what is your proof that “most scientists” thought slavery was ok? It sounds like you are just making that up.
And when a majority of the population start to see animal testing for cosmetics as morally reprehensible (which may or may not happen) laws will get changed.
Indeed, as I previously said in a post, I believe in testing.. but not on animals! I’m an animal lover, and all kinds of cruelty should offend us. Would you like something like that to be done to you? Personally, I don’t use lots of make-up just mascara, and lip-gloss..so if the other women protest, that means that they are heartless for sure.
I simply don’t use cosmetics at all anymore, say NO to the beauty industry is the strongest way to prevent things things from happening.
Ok, I lied, I use something for sure. I wash my face with water and use safe things like olive oil for my skin. That sure is not tested on animals, and does not include chemicals that might be bad for my health. Simple as that. I should also mention that my skin looks way more better the less I fuzz about it. I don’t feel the need anymore to use make up because my skin looks so much better nowadays.
We all know how ugly the cosmetics industry is, it is misleading and also takes advantage of women who have a bad self esteem, stop feeding the cosmetics monster! Don’t buy their products, and if you have to, buy only safe CERTIFIED non animals tested products. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Jordan Pintka and I’m doing a research paper on animal testing in class. As a part of the curiculum, I have to interview each side (for animal testing or against). I was wondering if you could take some time to answer a few questions? Below are a few open ended questions, feel free to add any information that I forgot to mention.
When was this organization brought together, who’s the leader?
What are some major reason that brought you all to believe animal testing is wrong?
What is your organizations doing to stop animal testing?
What steps do you think we as a society and the government should take to making animal testing illegal nationwide?
What should we do to replace animal testing?
What do you think will be the results?
cute bunny i like it she or he is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo adorableeeeeeee.
I have read this whole thread and all other threads on animal testing on this website and I just thought I would insert my two cents.
I find it hard to believe that animal testing is the only kind of product testing the FDA accepts. If this is the case, how are so many companies getting away with not testing on animals and not using any ingredients that have (recently) been tested on animals?
I believe that the only reason that animal testing of cosmetics and household products continues is because the vast majority of consumers are clueless about it. After all, only months ago I was blissfully ignorant of animal testing. Naturally, I was appalled when I found out, as I think most people would be. I think it is crucial that consumers are informed about animal testing, which is why I signed the “TESTED ON ANIMALS” petition. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/make-companies-that-test-on-animals-indicate-it-in-their-logos
Would you torture your cat for shinier hair or clearer skin? Probably not, but this is basically what you are inadvertently doing when you condone animal testing. It is just a different cat (or dog, rabbit, hamster, rat, etc.) and someone else is doing the torturing for you.
What a sick sick world we are living in where people justify cruelty and torture for the sake of vanity!