Britty says…I’m very interested in makeup and I’m a chemistry major so naturally, I’m interested in being a cosmetic chemist but I’m absolutely NOT okay with animal testing. I’m not a vegan but I am a vegetarian and a STRONG supporter of animal rights. I realize this may be a little hypocritical since I USE products that I’m assuming have been tested on animals but I want nothing to do with the actual testing. I don’t want to be the one to test on animals, or be around people testing on animals or even have to pass a room where I know animal testing is going on inside. I also don’t want to meet people whose job it is to test on animals. I realize that some brands don’t test on animals but what are the chances of working for one of those brands? Do I have any other options? Or should I just choose a different career? Thanks!
The Right Brain responds:
The companies that the Beauty Brains have worked for haven’t done animal testing in years, and they’re fairly typical of the industry at large. These days very few cosmetic brands actually test on animals. Don’t believe us? Alchemist (one of our Forum members) has had similar career experience: “Until recently I worked for a big international manufacturer (in regulatory affairs), in my 11 years there I never saw any animal testing done on cosmetic products, and company policy was that it was not done.”
Also, you have to understand that even when cosmetic companies DO test on animals, they don’t do the testing themselves. They outsource it to companies that specialize in that kind of work. (You certainly don’t want to work for one of THOSE companies.) So, the chances of you running into an animal tester in the hallway is slim to none.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
I understand (and share) objections about testing on animals, but I don’t understand why it would be considered wrong to use products that are currently made from ingredients that were once tested on animals long ago.
Since the testing happened in the past, there is nothing that can be done to help any of the animals that were sacrificed for that testing, and the knowledge gained is/was very useful. Not using it would be ‘wasteful’ of their sacrifices. Also, that same knowledge could probably be developed nowadays with other non- animal lab tests, and in many cases has been revalidated with new non animal tests.
Could someone explain this objection to me in a nutshell? I don’t mean to be inflamitory, I just would like to know why others do feel this way. Thanki you.
It’s about a cycle. The problem is when you use products from brands who ‘don’t test’ their products, you are feeding the testing cycle. They could use products that were tested long time ago but in some years with the same argument they could use products that are being tested now. Actually nowadays cosmetics are somehow more or less but in some way dependant from animal testing, it’s kind of “constitutive” of the system of cosmetics as a whole because animal testing if justified at some extent (for example by the FDA); if you use a cosmetics you are supporting the system by itself, and the system implies animal testing. Even when the brand you are using don’t test, when using things that were tested they are revalidating animal testing as a method for safety, let’s say, the animal testing status. The problem is accepting, this way, the legitimacy of animal testing, even when not supported ‘directly’, even when you directly are, actually, against it. For example, you are supporting it in some way because “the knowledge gained is/was very useful.”, the problem is that, in some way, as it was useful, animal testing have SOME legitimacy. A person who thinks this way would say ‘animal testing was not and is not useful’, is doesn’t matter if you are justifying the present or the past, it’s not acceptable in any way. Using cosmetics that were alredy tested is justifying past testing with the exact argument you used. Even more: if they were useful them, why not use animal testing now when useful? Resume: it’s about the status given to animal testing, whether in the past or the present, with the understanding that is never acceptable, no matter what the gains were or are. You have to think it is kind of an “a priori” thing (regarding animals ‘dignity’) instead of thinking it in an “utilitarianism” way, let’s say. The option is creating a non-dependant of animal testing cosmetic system, not using things tested then or now as a proof of the fact that animal testing is not needed.
It may be true that most companies don’t do animal testing in America, but it should be noted that most mainstream cosmetics companies test on animals in Asia to comply with Chinese laws that require animal testing on any cosmetics sold in China. Thus the highly publicized reversals on the animal testing policies of such companies as Estee Lauder, MAC, Urban Decay, and most recently NYX, it seems. Additionally, many companies sidestep animal testing by having third parties test products on animals or by buying ingredients from suppliers who test on animals.
In China the requirements are different for products that are imported verses manufactured locally.
For imported products companies must submit samples of the finished products to the SFDA as part of the registration process. These are then sent to the authorised testing laboratory for the required tests. Technically the companies above weren’t conducting any testing but were almost certainly aware it was going on.
Products manufactured within China don’t have the same requirement.
What you say about China may be true but contradicts almost everything else I’ve read on the subject. Paula’s Choice for example explained to me that they pulled out of China because they did not want to engage on animal testing. I’ve read all over the internet that companies like NYX and Urban Decay engage in third party testing because they must demonstrate that testing has been done before selling their products in China. This despite many of NYX’s products having been manufactured in China. On top of that, megabrands such as Maybelline, L’Oreal, Proctor & Gamble, Shiseido, and even Revlon are known to engage in extensive animal testing. Even brands like Bath and Body Works advertise that finished products are not tested on animals despite that they buy ingredients that are tested on animals. My point is that animal testing is far more pervasive than this post seems to want people to believe. You don’t have to take my or Leaping Bunny’s word for it either. All you have to do is read the companies’ own words.
I kinda think that if you are using ANY commercial cosmetic then you hae to be okay with animal testing because even if that product isn’t tested on animals now, most of those ingredients have been tested on animals in the past (the far distant past but still). If Britty truly is that adverse to animal testing then this is something to bear in mind. CaliPop and HS have both stated the 2 main arguments wrt to this topic. The majority of people I discuss this with, even those as vehemently against animal testing as Britty is, tend to make these moral allowances so they can carry on using their favourite moisturiser etc.
I am truly curious what products and make-dos those who stand by their beliefs.
I think that you will find that most people who avoid animal testing are simply satisfied knowing they aren’t giving money to a company actively engaged in animal testing. Many companies have cruelty free policies that don’t allow ingredients that were tested on animals past a certain date. I’m pretty sure to be Leaping Bunny certified a company just has to pledge that they aren’t directly or indirectly funding animal testing and they won’t do so in the future. The cases where there is a grey area here are pretty few and far between. There are many cruelty free makeup and personal care brands. Mainstream makeup brands generally believed to abstain from testing on animals include Milani, Wet N Wild, ELF, Physicians Formula, Tarte, Stila, Too Faced, Hourglass, and Illamasqua. Add to that the abundance of natural products brands on the market and you’ll find that avoiding animal testing doesn’t exactly mean you have to go through life with bad skin and homemade lipstick. For me the only grey area is whether to support companies like Nars or The Body Shop which claim to be cruelty free but are owned by companies that conduct animal testing. When making any choice to live in accordance with one’s principles one has to draw a line as to what is feasible. For me it means I won’t buy from Urban Decay, but I’ve never gone out of my way to buy cruelty free contact lens solution. As with in anything in life, people do the best they can.