topic Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals in Beauty

According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

ChicagoHeather2 — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:49:42 GMT

Has he even said that this is not true?

Link to PETA cruelty-free database

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

JeanLouiseFinch — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:54:04 GMT

It's pretty common knowledge here on the Beauty Forum. I've never heard PTR himself confirm or deny it.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

SahmIam — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:56:36 GMT

This is known information. He doesn't discuss it here, to my knowledge. Many vendors test on animals/use animal by-products. It's up to the buyer to research it and then choose to purchase or not.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

dulwich — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:57:11 GMT

Thanks for this info - not for me.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

SilleeMee — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:01:20 GMT

Yes, I knew that. But some here may not know it so thanks for posting.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

ChicagoHeather2 — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:46 GMT

"This is known information." So, every single one of the 90 million people who receive QVC's broadcast know this information? The point of the Internet and Forums is to share information and ask questions. If you know all, you needn't participate.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

ALRATIBA — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:14:26 GMT

Animal testing may be awful ... but there are cosmetic companies that use human cells in their products.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

JeanLouiseFinch — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:55:49 GMT

@ALRATIBA wrote:
Animal testing may be awful ... but there are cosmetic companies that use human cells in their products.

You're right. I don't like that either - depending on where the cells originated from.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

JeanLouiseFinch — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:14:56 GMT

@ChicagoHeather2 wrote:
"This is known information." So, every single one of the 90 million people who receive QVC's broadcast know this information? The point of the Internet and Forums is to share information and ask questions. If you know all, you needn't participate.

@ChicagoHeather2 Of course the 90 million people QVC broadcasts to (if that's indeed an accurate number) wouldn't know it, but all of those 90 million aren't participating in the community beauty forum so you aren't reaching them with either. You are not a frequent participant here so I can see how you may have thought you were sharing important new information, but for those who are "regulars", so to speak, they/we know about PTR and animal testing. If you would use the search feature in the forum, you would find many posts on the subject.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

suzyQ3 — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:52:20 GMT

What's wrong with using human cells, especially if it means no animals are hurt? From the businessinsider:

A UK-based laboratory is working to eradicate animal testing in the cosmetics industry by developing alternative methods which are not only cruelty-free but more scientifically advanced than other current tests.

XCellR8 uses scaffolds of cells from human skin donated by plastic surgery patients, which they say are ideally suited to testing cosmetic products.

"For skin irritation testing the cells are isolated from human skin that has been donated by people who have had plastic surgery and they've said that they're quite happy for the tissue to be used for research purposes. So human skins cells are isolated from those skin samples and they're grown in the laboratory," explained XCellR8 founder Dr. Carol Treasure.

Skin cells are the first cells to be exposed to cosmetics and can provide a model for damage to other sites of the body. Many cosmetic ingredients are absorbed into the bloodstream, passing then to the organs, so it is vital any harmful effects are assessed. Treasure said their methods provide a test bed to accurately determine any health implications.

"What you end up with is an artificial piece of skin in the laboratory where if you cut a cross section through it is almost identical to real skin on the body. It even has a skin barrier so you can apply full cosmetic formulations to the surface. And what we do is then incubate those skin models with samples of cosmetic products or ingredients and then we can look at how much damage is being done to the skin over a period of time," Treasure told Reuters.

A number of cosmetic companies have sent their ingredients to XCellR8 to test at their lab in Cheshire, north-west England, including ethical cosmetics company Lush.

Other versions of a human cell-based alternative to the traditional animal tests have been available for some years. But Treasure said the standard methods still use animal components, such as rat liver extract and bovine and horse serum.

"In many cases the culture of human cells still requires the use of animal components such as blood-derived components or liver extract which mean that ultimately animals have still been sacrificed for that work. One of the unique things about XCellR8 is that we've eradicated all of those components and so we have a truly animal free testing laboratory," Treasure told Reuters.

For the industry-standard human skin sensitivity test, XCellR8 has replaced the bovine serum normally used with a human serum, and have shown that the test still works to an equivalent standard for regulatory purposes.

They've also adapted a test that evaluates if an ingredient is genotoxic - destructive to a cell's genetic material - which replaces horse serum and rat liver extract with human serum and human liver extract. This test does not yet have full regulatory approval - a process that takes many years to achieve - but it provides extremely useful data to cosmetic companies and ingredient suppliers, helping them to develop safer products.

XCellR8 was one of the first winners of the Lush Prize - an annual £250,000 (approx. 365,000 USD) prize fund awarding those making significant contributions to removing animals from testing.

Dr Katy Taylor, Director of Science at Cruelty Free International, said the ongoing research at XCellR8 could make animal testing in the cosmetic industry completely redundant.

"XCellR8 are pioneers in providing humane testing solutions. They are leading the way in ensuring more and more new test methods that are completely cruelty free are available to ethical companies," said Taylor.

The European Union banned animal-tested ingredients for the cosmetics industry in 2013. However, animal testing is legal in more than 80 percent of the world, including the United States. But China is the only country that has mandatory laws requiring cosmetic products be tested on animals before they come to market, according to animal protection campaigner Cruelty Free International.

Regulations require all cosmetics to go through a lengthy approval process that includes animal testing, reducing the variety of products available for sale.

XCellR8 is now working to convince governments around the world that their research delivers a viable human-based approach to cosmetic testing. According to Treasure, their methods provide a much more scientific approach than the current animal tests.

"Our goal now is to increase the applicability of these tests around the world and to work alongside governments and industry to help them to understand that these tests provide a scientific advancement; that they are actually better at predicting human safety compared with traditional animal tests," she said.

As far as the scary news about fetal tissue being used, the internet is full of fear-mongering sites that promote scary headlines to their followers but no actual facts. I looked at them all, even endured reading some of the comments posted.

Scopes.com has an excellent analysis of the issue that would never resonate with the crowd on those websites.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

Drythe — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 22:19:05 GMT

I have never heard PTR make a claim of being Cruelty Free.

However, from what I can tell by doing a little research there are companies who DO say they are cruelty free, who display the Bunny, who don't show up on PETA, or on other cruelty free lists, such as Leaping Bunny. I have checked them by their product name, by their name, and by their company name - not there.

Don't know why.

I posted a list of "questionables" here once looking for suggestions, and was scorched, won't do that again.

If you have questions, you might check lists for your own edification.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

SahmIam — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 23:25:36 GMT

@ChicagoHeather2 wrote:
"This is known information." So, every single one of the 90 million people who receive QVC's broadcast know this information? The point of the Internet and Forums is to share information and ask questions. If you know all, you needn't participate.

Actually, on THESE boards, it HAS been discussed quite a bit; that's how I and other posters knew.

Now, please take your rudeness elsewhere.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

ms traditional — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:31:15 GMT

if you go to the PTR website they address the question.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

HappyDaze — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:01:18 GMT

@Drythe wrote:

I have never heard PTR make a claim of being Cruelty Free.

However, from what I can tell by doing a little research there are companies who DO say they are cruelty free, who display the Bunny, who don't show up on PETA, or on other cruelty free lists, such as Leaping Bunny. I have checked them by their product name, by their name, and by their company name - not there.

Don't know why.

I posted a list of "questionables" here once looking for suggestions, and was scorched, won't do that again.

If you have questions, you might check lists for your own edification.

PTR used to be cruelty free, @Drythe. He had to remove the cruelty free emblem on his packaging a few years back when he decided to sell to China and was going to start testing on animals. I have an email from their company confirming this.

It kind of made me ill how much PTR bragged about all his products "flying off the shelves in China" a bit after he started selling in China- he was so proud...and I was so disappointed. But for many, it is all about the Benjamins.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

Drythe — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:15:37 GMT

@HappyDaze wrote:
@Drythe wrote:

I have never heard PTR make a claim of being Cruelty Free.

However, from what I can tell by doing a little research there are companies who DO say they are cruelty free, who display the Bunny, who don't show up on PETA, or on other cruelty free lists, such as Leaping Bunny. I have checked them by their product name, by their name, and by their company name - not there.

Don't know why.

I posted a list of "questionables" here once looking for suggestions, and was scorched, won't do that again.

If you have questions, you might check lists for your own edification.
PTR used to be cruelty free, @Drythe. He had to remove the cruelty free emblem on his packaging a few years back when he decided to sell to China and was going to start testing on animals. I have an email from their company confirming this.

It kind of made me ill how much PTR bragged about all his products "flying off the shelves in China" a bit after he started selling in China- he was so proud...and I was so disappointed. But for many, it is all about the Benjamins.

@HappyDaze

Well, I guess I just proved that I don't know much about PTR! Actually I don't know anything about him, or his products. Didn't know he was ever CF, but it is true I never heard him say he was!

There is a way to get around that China thing and still be CF, it involves a bunch of testing over there, and some kind of certificate. Jurlique had a post about it a few months ago, said it was a lengthy, no doubt expensive, process.

As I mentioned in my paragraph above, there are several products (S) I've come across that show the Leaping Bunny, that I can't find on any web site. Not by product name, owner name, or company name.

I don't know why.

Hope you are well.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

HappyDaze — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:23:30 GMT

@Drythe wrote:
@HappyDaze wrote:
@Drythe wrote:

I have never heard PTR make a claim of being Cruelty Free.

However, from what I can tell by doing a little research there are companies who DO say they are cruelty free, who display the Bunny, who don't show up on PETA, or on other cruelty free lists, such as Leaping Bunny. I have checked them by their product name, by their name, and by their company name - not there.

Don't know why.

I posted a list of "questionables" here once looking for suggestions, and was scorched, won't do that again.

If you have questions, you might check lists for your own edification.
PTR used to be cruelty free, @Drythe. He had to remove the cruelty free emblem on his packaging a few years back when he decided to sell to China and was going to start testing on animals. I have an email from their company confirming this.

It kind of made me ill how much PTR bragged about all his products "flying off the shelves in China" a bit after he started selling in China- he was so proud...and I was so disappointed. But for many, it is all about the Benjamins.

@HappyDaze

Well, I guess I just proved that I don't know much about PTR! Actually I don't know anything about him, or his products. Didn't know he was ever CF, but it is true I never heard him say he was!

There is a way to get around that China thing and still be CF, it involves a bunch of testing over there, and some kind of certificate. Jurlique had a post about it a few months ago, said it was a lengthy, no doubt expensive, process.

As I mentioned in my paragraph above, there are several products (S) I've come across that show the Leaping Bunny, that I can't find on any web site. Not by product name, owner name, or company name.

I don't know why.

Hope you are well.

@Drythe yes, there is an alternative method to animal testing to prove safety to the Chinese Government but it is more expensive so many companies opt for the cheaper alternative- animal testing. So, to me, that is beyond reprehensible because although I don't fault anyone for wanting to sell to China, I DO fault them for choosing the animal testing route in order to save a few $$. It just shows me that they really don't care about animals.

Isomers is another company that sells in China BUT they proved safety to China by the more expensive, alternative route. I commend them for that! I believe Perricone did to but can't remember. Either that or they don't sell to China at all. I can't remember, I just know they are truly cruelty free.

Which products are you referring to? I must have missed that post? Why did you get slammed?

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

sunshine45 — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:28:42 GMT

ms traditional wrote:
if you go to the PTR website they address the question.

Do you test on animals?

Peter Thomas Roth does not test any of our formulas or raw materials on animals but we believe in total transparency and will not claim that for the following reasons.

We cannot be certain that a raw material supplier has not now or at some time in the past tested an ingredient on animals. We do not knowingly purchase ingredients that have been tested on animals and inquire before purchasing ingredients, but some staple ingredients that have been used in products for years may have been tested on animals in the past.

We do sell our products in China and some other countries that still do test on animals; though it is our understanding that China is moving towards stopping this practice. We are not alone in selling to China; nearly every major cosmetic company sells there. Also to be noted, many major beauty retailers conduct business there including QVC and Sephora. Again, you must feel comfortable in your choices but we hope you will consider all information in doing so.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

HappyDaze — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:31:59 GMT

@sunshine45 wrote:
@ms traditional wrote:
if you go to the PTR website they address the question.

Do you test on animals?
Peter Thomas Roth does not test any of our formulas or raw materials on animals but we believe in total transparency and will not claim that for the following reasons.
We cannot be certain that a raw material supplier has not now or at some time in the past tested an ingredient on animals. We do not knowingly purchase ingredients that have been tested on animals and inquire before purchasing ingredients, but some staple ingredients that have been used in products for years may have been tested on animals in the past.

We do sell our products in China and some other countries that still do test on animals; though it is our understanding that China is moving towards stopping this practice. We are not alone in selling to China; nearly every major cosmetic company sells there. Also to be noted, many major beauty retailers conduct business there including QVC and Sephora. Again, you must feel comfortable in your choices but we hope you will consider all information in doing so.

I remember reading this statement and couldn't believe it-it seems so childish...like "well, they do it tooooooo" nannny nanny boo boo.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

Drythe — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 03:57:42 GMT

@HappyDaze wrote:
@Drythe wrote:
@HappyDaze wrote:
@Drythe wrote:

I have never heard PTR make a claim of being Cruelty Free.

However, from what I can tell by doing a little research there are companies who DO say they are cruelty free, who display the Bunny, who don't show up on PETA, or on other cruelty free lists, such as Leaping Bunny. I have checked them by their product name, by their name, and by their company name - not there.

Don't know why.

I posted a list of "questionables" here once looking for suggestions, and was scorched, won't do that again.

If you have questions, you might check lists for your own edification.
PTR used to be cruelty free, @Drythe. He had to remove the cruelty free emblem on his packaging a few years back when he decided to sell to China and was going to start testing on animals. I have an email from their company confirming this.

It kind of made me ill how much PTR bragged about all his products "flying off the shelves in China" a bit after he started selling in China- he was so proud...and I was so disappointed. But for many, it is all about the Benjamins.

@HappyDaze

Well, I guess I just proved that I don't know much about PTR! Actually I don't know anything about him, or his products. Didn't know he was ever CF, but it is true I never heard him say he was!

There is a way to get around that China thing and still be CF, it involves a bunch of testing over there, and some kind of certificate. Jurlique had a post about it a few months ago, said it was a lengthy, no doubt expensive, process.

As I mentioned in my paragraph above, there are several products (S) I've come across that show the Leaping Bunny, that I can't find on any web site. Not by product name, owner name, or company name.

I don't know why.

Hope you are well.
@Drythe yes, there is an alternative method to animal testing to prove safety to the Chinese Government but it is more expensive so many companies opt for the cheaper alternative- animal testing. So, to me, that is beyond reprehensible because although I don't fault anyone for wanting to sell to China, I DO fault them for choosing the animal testing route in order to save a few $$. It just shows me that they really don't care about animals.

Isomers is another company that sells in China BUT they proved safety to China by the more expensive, alternative route. I commend them for that! I believe Perricone did to but can't remember. Either that or they don't sell to China at all. I can't remember, I just know they are truly cruelty free.

Which products are you referring to? I must have missed that post? Why did you get slammed?

@HappyDaze

Jurlique has taken the more expensive alternate route (involving all the testing and certification) as well. One reason I favor Jurlique and Isomers so much! I highly commend both of them.

The post was removed and I was 'asked' to behave, many were peeved with me. You, my friend must surely 'get' me.

Are you back home? Have you heard from B?

Best wishes.

Re: According to PETA, Peter Thomas Roth tests on animals

HappyDaze — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 04:05:45 GMT

@Drythe wrote:

@HappyDaze

Jurlique has taken the more expensive alternate route (involving all the testing and certification) as well. One reason I favor Jurlique and Isomers so much! I highly commend both of them.

The post was removed and I was 'asked' to behave, many were peeved with me. You, my friend must surely 'get' me.

Are you back home? Have you heard from B?

Best wishes.

Wth @Drythe?? I can't believe that. Ugh sometimes all I can do is smh.

I have not heard from B yet. I am a bit worried. I left a message a few days ago. I better follow up to see if she got it but I've had a heck of a past few days and by the time I get home, it is too late to call her again. I don't like wishing my days away but I am so exhausted it isn't even funny. I hope the rest of the week gets better... And yes, I am home. Will have my last check up appt for the final okay to get back to normal in two weeks. I can't wait. My phone is acting up again. I find it funny that it started getting all screwy as soon as the warranty is up. I mean, basically a week after it is up it. I am so frustrated with it I want to smash it into pieces. My hubby has to go with me to AT&T to have them look at the phone this time so they don't try to pull the wool over my eyes like they try to do with their bs. I really hate technology sometimes, mostly cell phones.