topic Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List in Beauty

Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

Crisso — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:29:22 GMT

<h3 style="margin: 0px 0px 35px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: proxima_nova_rgregular, sans-serif, sans-serif; font-size: 1.875em; font-weight: 400; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; color: #fc0c62;"> Animal Testing Report Card</h3>

The brands below are grouped in one of the following categories: Brands That Do NOT Test on Animals, Brands That DO Test on Animals, and Brands Whose Animal Testing Status is Unknown*. We use the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) website (www.navs.org) as our main resource for the lists below. If the brand (or its parent company) cannot be found via resources from NAVS, then we default to the status provided by the brand and/or its parent company along with our own independent research to determine, to the best of our abilities, the animal-testing status of the brand.

IMPORTANT NOTE 1: 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, we consider said brand 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.

IMPORTANT NOTE 2: The lists below may differ from those from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). We feel strongly that NAVS takes a more balanced approach to the issue of animal testing, but agree that it would be best if these two groups harmonized their lists.

IMPORTANT NOTE 3: If an individual brand doesn't test on animals, but their their parent company does test on animals, we do not penalize the individual brand. We judge each company individually regardless of the status of their parent company and leave the final choice up to you in terms of where you prefer to draw the line.

<h6 style="margin: 60px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-size: 1em; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 400; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; text-transform: uppercase; color: #fc0c62;"> BRANDS THAT DO NOT TEST ON ANIMALS</h6>

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

scotnovel — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:29:38 GMT

It is true that China still requires testing on animals for imported cosmetics. However, the info under point 1 regarding companies that have a website in China may not be entirely true anymore due to a change made in 2014 for cosmetics manufactured in China.

As of June 2014, cosmetics companies that manufacture in China will have the option to market their products without first testing them on animals. China has implemented a new rule that will end, for some companies, the country’s long-standing requirement that cosmetics must be tested on animals to be sold there. Companies can now make their own decisions about how products will be proved to be safe.

I don't agree with testing on animals, but also want to make sure that I do my own research before just accepting something like the info provided by the OP. While I imagine that most of it is accurate, I still like to check.

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

HappyDaze — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:23:47 GMT

yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

And Scotnovel is right- some companies, like Isomers, can sell to China but have provided documentation to China showing safety without animal tests and therefore do not need to do animal testing. It is a more expensive process for companies, hence the reason so many don't choose this option (much cheaper for them to test on animals, unfortunately).

Too many people are making blanket statements about if they sell in China they MUST be testing on animals and that is just not accurate information. I wish people would be better informed about these types of things. It is a shame to penalize potentially good companies or the reverse, supporting companies that continue to test, because you are misinformed (if you are interested in truly cruelty free companies).

Not referring to you, Crisso, when I use the term "you" in my statements, just a general "you".

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

Crisso — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:34:26 GMT

A few posters wrote that they could not find the list on Beautypedia's new website, so I replicated it here rather than doing multiple posts on those threads.

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

bebe777 — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:24:51 GMT

@HappyDaze wrote:
yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

And Scotnovel is right- some companies, like Isomers, can sell to China but have provided documentation to China showing safety without animal tests and therefore do not need to do animal testing. It is a more expensive process for companies, hence the reason so many don't choose this option (much cheaper for them to test on animals, unfortunately).

Too many people are making blanket statements about if they sell in China they MUST be testing on animals and that is just not accurate information. I wish people would be better informed about these types of things. It is a shame to penalize potentially good companies or the reverse, supporting companies that continue to test, because you are misinformed (if you are interested in truly cruelty free companies).

Not referring to you, Crisso, when I use the term "you" in my statements, just a general "you".

@HappyDaze, after reading the information you shared, I decided to look through the listings for more information about companies which do animal testing.

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant when you said this:

yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

I hope you and your family are having a wenderful Christmas holiday!!!

-- bebe

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

HappyDaze — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:46:25 GMT

@bebe777 wrote:
@HappyDaze wrote:
yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

And Scotnovel is right- some companies, like Isomers, can sell to China but have provided documentation to China showing safety without animal tests and therefore do not need to do animal testing. It is a more expensive process for companies, hence the reason so many don't choose this option (much cheaper for them to test on animals, unfortunately).

Too many people are making blanket statements about if they sell in China they MUST be testing on animals and that is just not accurate information. I wish people would be better informed about these types of things. It is a shame to penalize potentially good companies or the reverse, supporting companies that continue to test, because you are misinformed (if you are interested in truly cruelty free companies).

Not referring to you, Crisso, when I use the term "you" in my statements, just a general "you".

@HappyDaze, after reading the information you shared, I decided to look through the listings for more information about companies which do animal testing.

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant when you said this:

yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

I hope you and your family are having a wenderful Christmas holiday!!!

-- bebe

Merry Christmas, bebe! I am a bit bummed as we were suppose to go to my parents for Christmas but the weather along the route is too bad and we have to drive (dogs) so we weren't prepared with anything here Christmas-wise since we didn't think we'd be here. Oh well, we are making the best of it anyway. Hope you are having a relaxing, peaceful Christmas.

So what I meant about that statement is that many companies claim they are cruely free because they don't test yet the big parent company that owns them DOES test on animals. These parent companies, of course, share the information from the animal testing with all their companies they own.The benefit to them is two-fold- the smaller company can claim cruelty free while the parent company profits from the sales. So you may think you are going cruelty free when, say, buying Urban Decay, but L'oreal owns them so you are still lining the pockets of companies that still test on animals, i.e. you are still supporting companies that test on animals. It is a sneaky loop hole that the big offenders of animal testing hope consumers don't every get wise to or, at the very least, hope consumers still think it is okay to buy from the company that claims "cruelty free" even though they are still lining the pockets of animal-testing companies. The latter of the two is what many consumers ARE doing so I suppose those parent companies are winning. HTH!

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

suzyQ3 — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:50:58 GMT

@bebe777 wrote:
@HappyDaze wrote:
yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

And Scotnovel is right- some companies, like Isomers, can sell to China but have provided documentation to China showing safety without animal tests and therefore do not need to do animal testing. It is a more expensive process for companies, hence the reason so many don't choose this option (much cheaper for them to test on animals, unfortunately).

Too many people are making blanket statements about if they sell in China they MUST be testing on animals and that is just not accurate information. I wish people would be better informed about these types of things. It is a shame to penalize potentially good companies or the reverse, supporting companies that continue to test, because you are misinformed (if you are interested in truly cruelty free companies).

Not referring to you, Crisso, when I use the term "you" in my statements, just a general "you".

@HappyDaze, after reading the information you shared, I decided to look through the listings for more information about companies which do animal testing.

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant when you said this:

yeah but her list doesn't include those that are owned by parent companies that test so I don't rely on her list.

I hope you and your family are having a wenderful Christmas holiday!!!

-- bebe

@bebe777, if I may be so presumtious to step in here: From Beautypedia:

If an individual brand doesn't test on animals, but their parent company does test on animals, we do not penalize the individual brand. We judge each company individually regardless of the status of their parent company and leave the final choice up to you in terms of where you prefer to draw the line.

Re: Beautypedia Animal Testing Report - Full List

Drythe — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 19:58:47 GMT

I could chime in, there is the issue of vertical v/s horizontal "purity, or NON-animal testing".

Horizontal purity = there is no testing done at all within MY company.

Vertical purity = there is no testing done at all within MY, nor do any of the companies from which I purchase ingredients test on animals.

WAY too many people IMO skate by with the horizontal clean hands, but use ingredients in their products that are tested on animals by the company from which they are purchased.

Drives me crazy!

@HappyDaze I'm sorry to hear that your day didn't turn out as you planned. I know it sounds schmaltzy, but sometimes things happen for a reason, we just don't always know what it is.

Family and friends are here, music, TV, talking, board games. I have to sneak away to my office once in a while as I like a few moments of quiet.