Against ANIMAL TESTING

Hey, folks:

If you're as disgusted as I am by animal testing of cosmetics and home products, this information may be useful to you.

Sadly, L'Oreal, which does test on animals, just bought Urban Decay, which has always been against animal testing & uses mostly vegan ingredients. But L'Oreal owns a lot of other companies you might not expect it to, also, like The Body Shop. (Also Lancome, Kiehl's, YSL, Ralph Lauren, Viktor & Rolf, Armani, Lauren, & Cacharel.)

Procter & Gamble, which also insists on testing on animals, also has bought up quite a few brands you might not know about. (Includes Dolce & Gabbana, Old Spice, Bruno Banani, Escada, Hugo Boss, and Gucci!)

Here are the complete lists of both:

List of L'Oreal brands: http://www.loreal.com/_en/_ww/brands-l-oreal.aspx

Procter & Gamble brands: http://www.pg.com/en_US/brands/index.shtml

Kiehl's really surprised me, but I guess their original philosophy got tossed out the window when they were swallowed up by L'Oreal.

Kiehl's surprises me as well. What a shame.

The only "plus" to this is I guess it will help me buy less perfume. (I do buy used bottles on eBay pretty often and will continue to do so with these brands. If I buy a half-bottle of Lancome from eBay, the company is not getting any money.)

Absolutely.

That this goes on. Social media is a great tool to bring awareness (especially if there is access to factual photos of the procedures being done).

Cruella,

An experienced perfume fan said that Chanel's N°5 only abandoned the real civet in the late 1990's. You know, the secretion from a civet's gland near his hind parts. I think we don't want to imagine how it is "harvested". I'm sure that the civet does not like it!

So, in the new formulation synthetic civet is used. I would say that this is a good reason to come to terms with N°5 and give it another chance.

Those against animal testing may want to sign this petition (link below) to end the suffering imposed on the captive civet. Over 36,000 signatures so far.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/285/726/488/

It's worth signing. Civets shouldn't suffer for a stupid fad like civet coffee.

Depressing indeed Cruella, especially living in Australia at the moment and working, as I do, in the environmental conservation industry. I happened to see the civet petition when I was signing a few others - the ones to stop our new federal govt mining/logging/dumping dredge/building coal ports and mines in two world heritage areas: the Great Barrier Reef and Tasmanian Tarkine Wilderness (amongst other abominations).

And here is the Leaping Bunny site: http://www.leapingbunny.org/indexcus.php

and if you really want to know who does test on animals go to PETA:

http://features.peta.org/cruelty-free-company-search/index.aspx

Btw, Clinique and Estee Lauder do test on animals. You have to read the fine print.

I am and will always be against testing on animals. I did not know tha Shu Uemura is under l'Oreal umbrella. Good to know.

One thing regarding animal testing: whilst a company might not test their finished products on animals, and have the right to claim this, it is probable that they use ingredients that have, at some time in the past, been tested on animals by other parties.
This is quite likely with ingredients that have a long history of usage in cosmetics, skincare or pharmaceutical products and whose safety and efficacy has been well established in past studies.
Also if the company's site claims they do not test on animals but the brand has a China website or is sold by a cosmetics site selling to citizens of mainland China, the brand should be considered as one that tests on animals. The Chinese government requires animal testing on all imported cosmetics. So, a brand that retails there (whether online or in an actual store) must agree to this testing even though they may not test on animals themselves or endorse this practice in any other country (source: Paula Begouin's Beautypedia).
I guess it's up to us to decide what practices we can accept and then choose accordingly.

Another ethical dilemmna is the use of certain plant ingredients, with popularity leading to unsustainable over-harvesting and illegal trade.
I know most of us are exasperated by industry regulations and restrictions (mostly regarding natural or traditional ingredients and their potential allergenic qualities) but it's worthwhile considering the legality of harvest and the sustainability of supply for some natural raw materials and also their sources. Inevitably, ecosystems are damaged and these plants become rare or endangered in their natural habitat.
Agarwood is one plant that has suffered from the dubious honour of becoming fashionable so I'm glad to be happy with the synthetic versions.
Mysore Sandalwood (Santalum album) has been harvested almost to extinction and some of the vacuum has now been replaced by Australian Sandalwood (Santalum spicatum). Both these tree species are hemi-parasites (requiring the roots of host plants to supply water and nutrients) and they are extremely slow growing and difficult to grow in plantations. It can take up to 40 years for a tree to be ready for harvest, whence the whole plant is dug up and destroyed.
Illegal trade in Australian Sandalwood (worth about $15,000 a tonne!) is now rife, with 170 tonnes of illegally harvested, non-plantation wood seized in 2012 alone.It is estimated that it will take wild populations up to 50 years to recover. Most plantations are too young to yield commercial quantities of oil yet tonnes of it appear on the market each year claiming to be "ethically harvested".

Sorry for the rant. My job involves protecting threatened Australian flora so the issues of commercial exploitation v sustainability are close to my heart. The news article below gives some good stats on the trade.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-30/illegal-sandalwood-trade-in-wa/4342570

The question is: how do you know what's sustainable when you buy your perfume and should the consumer, who is driving the popularity of certain materials used in fragrance, be held accountable for a poorly regulated industry?
It now takes me hours to do my shopping because I have to weigh up the politics of every purchase - local, imported, local company using poorly paid overseas labour, local company owned by big conglomerate, locally produced but damaging local ecology with agricultural practices, food miles, value for money, brand ethics, etc etc.

That is sad news indeed.


No. Regulation is a matter of institutions/regulators, not consumers and they cannot be held accountable. In a democracy, however, on could argue that the consuming voter has got some choice (and hence responsibility) how much of a laissez-faire policy he supports with his vote. Yet, not all consumers do have suffrage and to vote with one's feet seems to be a far more effective approach.

So, is it possible to obtain information and act accordingly?
Yes, in theory. But in reality there is a trade-off and that is time and/or budget. However, there are perfumers who do try to inform consumers, Dominique Dubrana (AbdesSalaam Attar) for example.
"Some customers can object to the use of animal pheromones in perfumery on different grounds, such as vegetarian, vegan and also persons who just want to take a stand against ill treatment of animals. Killing animals for food, fur and perfumes is unacceptable to vegetarians. Using a product of animal origin is unacceptable to vegans, and cruelty to animals is unacceptable to everybody.

Hyraceum and ambergris are just waste products of animals, they expel them without human intervention or captivity.
Castoreum is killed by quotas in order to preserve it's environment from overpopulation, because his natural predators have disappeared.
Civet is kept in captivity and the conditions today are reputed good. The civet farmers keep their animals with as much care as Western milk producers keep their cows. It is a question of survival for them. The process of extracting the civet paste is certainly disagreeable to the animal but not painful or harmful as it has been described. Farming Civets and use of Civet paste has been existing for at least fifteen hundred years, mainly for the traditional pharmaceutical use of these pheromones. Only lately (200 years?) has it been used in perfumes and recently it has been almost completely discarded because of the price of civet paste." Soucre

Together with Roberto Dario, he compiled a list of all the products that can enter in the composition of perfumes. "We called it 'Ethical complete list of ingredients for perfumes'. The ECLIP list is 'ethical' because we consider that it is a moral duty from perfume producers to inform completely and truthfully perfume consumers." Dominique Dubrana

Thank you for that detailed information Mia. It is interesting to note that ambergris is collected as "floating gold" or from shorelines once it makes landfall and is not harvested directly from the Sperm Whale (only about 1% of them actually produce it). It is, however, banned in many countries to support protection of the species and discourage commercial trade in whale products. It's illegal in Australia and the US to possess or trade ambergris - not sure about other countries.

In 2013 there was a story on the news about a guy in the UK who found a big nugget of ambergris washed up on the shore (or rather, his dog found it). He was offered 50,000 euros for it by a perfumer but thought he would decline and keep it as a souvenir. I think I'd be taking the offer!

As far as milk-producing cows and Western farmers: if you've ever been to a dairy farm, ethically, the conditions are not pretty. Calves are taken from their mothers immediately and placed in dark stalls by themselves. They do not see the light of day for many months. They are isolated. They are eventually fed through bars where food is thrown on the ground. They stick their snouts through the bars to reach the grain. At approximately four months they are allowed outside. The mothers, for their milk, are kept in a constant state of false pregnancy for lactation, to produce milk. This is a dairy cow.
Last summer, I was at a photo shoot at a farm that included dairy cows. One other photographer , along with myself, was a vegan. After seeing and having the conditions explained to all of us, the two of us felt compelled to walk out. We could not bear to look at the one-month-old calves isolated in darkness. To drink cow's milk is a decision that one makes perhaps without realizing the conditions of the animal. There are alternatives, such as hemp, soy, and rice milk instead that can be purchased where no animal is used in under such conditions.
It's a matter of one's personal belief system. Although I wonder if one saw these animals how it would affect them. Especially the newborns in the dark for many months and knowing their future fates.

The Greek brand Korres does not test on animals, as far as I know.

I remember a conversation with somebody about animal testing and she had a list of companies that claimed not to use animal tested ingredients:

Ava Luxe
Bond no. 9
The body shop
CB I hate perfume
CTPA (Floris London)
Comme des garcons
Fox Paine (L'artisan & Penhaligon's)
FM Group (Frederic Malle)
Illamasqua
Illuminum
Juliette has a gun
le labo
Lolita Lempicka
LUSH
Pacifica
PUIG (Paco Rabanne, Carolina herrera & Prada)
Noma Terra
Smell Bent
Santa Maria Novella
TokyoMilk

But I already see The Body Shop (which I remember was a little bit of a scandal some time ago) so I'm not sure whether the others are still animal testing free.

Thank you hon.

L'Erbolario doesn't test on animals.

Some brands say whether or not they do animal testing, that's a good start.

But are there any 'animal organisations' that actually check what the companies are doing? I would be interested in specific examples or articles.

Not specifically answering your question Sleuth but here in Oz there is political pressure to ban animal testing on cosmetics, and the importation of such products. The articles state that this has already happened in the EU, Norway, India and a number of other countries. which is something I wasn't aware of.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/greens-call-for-australia-to-follow-eu-ban-on-animal-testing/5326200
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/animal-testing-labor-tries-to-take-cruelty-out-of-cosmetics-20140816-103idl.html

(note: the second article has photos of guines pigs with shaved patches that some may find upsetting)