May 1, 2014: Do you buy from companies that tests on animals?

Many companies no longer test on animals and many never have. There are companies are are cruelty-free and even vegan that are owned by parent companies that do test on animals. Some companies test on animals due to selling in China (which seems to be among the very few counties that requires animal testing for cosmetics).


I admit I do, which is why I chose "it's complicated" because I do buy from companies such as Urban Decay and now Caldera which both are listed on PETA's Cruelty-Free site while the parent companies are listed on PETA's site as testing on animals. Many companies no longer test on animals for cosmetics in the US but due to the fact they sell in China are required under Chinese law to test those products on animals. Granted, my opinion is then don't sell in China and if every single company pulled out of China it would force China to change their stand on animal testing but of course that's not going to happen since it's billions of dollars if not trillions that would be lost.

In a perfect world I wouldn't buy - knowingly or unknowingly - from a company that tests on animals but as I look around at the products we buy and use be it household cleaning to personal hygiene and even cosmetics I would say at least 90%, if not more, are from companies or whose parent company are listed on PETA's site as tests on animals.

So what about you?

I agree with everything you said Zadi!  I've recently been making a point to not purchase from companies that test on animals.  One step at a time, right?  Hopefully one day animal testing will be a thing of the past.

To be honest, I just buy makeup I need or that I swatch and it seems of good quality. I'm a spontaneous shopper and I don't take the time to look up information on each brand or product.

So far I'm the only "yes" vote.  I honestly don't know how much good "voting with your dollars" does in this aspect where a small number of companies control the vast majority of what is being produced.  I think using cruelty free cosmetics (and who knows how true that statement even is) is akin to being vegetarian-- you do it for you and your own beliefs, not because you believe your doing so will impact the companies. 

I'm in the it's complicated boat as well and pretty much agree with Zadi's assessment.  For me it is a definite perk if the company does not test on animals and I am very conscious of this when making purchase decisions.  However, I do sometimes buy products that are tested on animals.

I chose 'it's complicated".  I don't buy from companies that test on animals, which includes companies that sell in China.  I ocassional use products from cruelty-free companies whose parent company uses animal testing, if I can't find a comparable product elsewhere.  

There's no excuse for animal suffering in the production of vanity products.

I also voted yes. I have several issues with the "cruelty-free" thing.

My first issue with cosmetics in the US is that they're not FDA regulated and the cosmetic companies themselves are responsible for monitoring the safety of their products. Even if research suggests that a cosmetic product should be recalled, the FDA has no power to force a company to do a recall (or if the company does comply and do a recall, the FDA can't force them to do a comprehensive recall). I don't have any problem with larger companies testing because the liability is just too high - especially since they actually come up with "new" compounds and formulations for products (especially for anti-aging or skincare).

My other issue with "cruelty-free" companies is that this claim is questionable and if a company borders "cosmeceutical" territory, they're basically saying that they're using compounds with potential physiological effects (drugs) that are not tested for safety or efficacy. If they're using active ingredients that have already been proven to be safe, then even though they didn't do the testing some other company did. The other issue is if a company claims to have an active ingredient with physiologic (like anti-aging) properties, then it's irresponsible to not confirm the safety of the product or they're lying about the properties of the ingredient.

Another thing is cost... testing costs money and so it makes sense that this extra cost would be reflected in the product. However, some cruelty-free companies have expensive products and my question is why? They're not doing research into new compounds - they're reformulating old ones (presumably) and that's not as expensive as research into new compounds to use. Are the ingredients they use more expensive? Is demand low so that they can't lower the production cost with quantity? Is it because they're using "better" (presumably "safer") products? How do we know those things are safe without animal testing?

I think the main issue with animal testing is not hiding from the fact that it happens, but to make it more transparent and regulated. I'm sure I have more thoughts on the issue that haven't eloquated themselves.

Yes, I'm in the I don't support animal testing. I don't support products tested on animals. That's why I am heading towards Oasis Beauty’s Products. They don't support cruelty towards animals, and, also, they rescue animals from bad backgrounds and animals that are injured.

@@chibimorph you said a lot of what I wanted to say, put eloquently. Thank you! 

Wow, so far zero votes for "No" 

Interesting, I just don't research at all whether they do or not. 

I don't really think animal testing is as cruel as people worry about. I mean I definitely respect companies that specifically avoid exploiting animals for testing, but... I don't really even know how they test the products on the animals in the first place. Does it harm them? 
I am sounding embarrassingly stupid right now. I hate that, especially considering I'm active in my community to help foster and transport rescue dogs. You would think I would be more careful and knowledgeable about this matter. 

Krystan said:

Wow, so far zero votes for "No" 

Interesting, I just don't research at all whether they do or not. 

I don't really think animal testing is as cruel as people worry about. I mean I definitely respect companies that specifically avoid exploiting animals for testing, but... I don't really even know how they test the products on the animals in the first place. Does it harm them? 

I am sounding embarrassingly stupid right now. I hate that, especially considering I'm active in my community to help foster and transport rescue dogs. You would think I would be more careful and knowledgeable about this matter. 

Click to expand...

Honestly it is sickening. I wouldn't recommend looking up what animal testing entails unless you aren't bothered by graphic images or descriptions.

I don't mean to sound hypocritical...I guess it's just yes, I'm disgusted by the process but I don't think going out of my way to avoid certain cosmetics is going to change anything. 

Here's an article from Scientic American, which I believe is a neutral party.  There are no graphic photos.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmetics-animal-testing/

I think there should be ways to test cosmetic products on animals without it being cruel. The problem is that the whole process is not transparent and we're receiving our information from biased sources (like PETA) and cosmetic companies are not being flexible with how they test (or maybe they are and we're just not hearing about it... again, transparency).

For example, the Draize test mentioned in that Scientific American article. The eye version basically forces rabbits' eyes to stay open while they test - this is cruel, ineffective, and doesn't actually mimic real life conditions. The reality is any cosmetic product would be exposed to blinking, so that doesn't make any sense. If they were looking to see what a product does to eyes, an alternative would be to use eyedrops with the compound in it. A non-animal test (mentioned by some animal rights group) uses a synthetic cornea to determine if products cause eye damage. The problem with using a synthetic cornea (assuming that it accurately models what happens to the in vivo eye) is that it only tests the eye, it doesn't take into account that (water-soluble) products can be absorbed through the mucous membranes to eventually cause damage to the kidneys, liver, and/or other organ systems.

Another thing are skin tests - current methods sound cruel. I don't understand why animals can't be tested the same way humans are given allergy tests (you put the product on a plastic prong and press firmly into the skin) or to give a shallow injection beneath the skin (the way the PPD test for TB is done for humans and people who work in healthcare/social work/places with high human contact get tested once a year).

LD50 is probably unnecessary for cosmetics (it's important for pharmaceuticals, though) - so someone needs to come up with a new standard to ensure that people aren't exposed to inappropriate doses of potentially dangerous compounds.

I wish that the whole animal testing process could be more regulated, transparent, and available for discussion and that the resources could come from less-biased sources. The PETA lists alternative methods to animal testing, but as someone who is in a scientific field, I can tell you that all of those tests don't sound effective at all. Seriously, in vitro tests to determine drug safety is not okay. And computer models to mimic the complexity of larger living organisms is... like, no - we are not at this level of technology yet (just look at any medical journal, our knowledge of biomedicine and genetics is extremely incomplete).

Sorry, end rant.