Beauty

[millieshops]

Yes, it took a long time, but I think they answered very honestly.

There's no way they can attest to what other companies tell them.

Just like we really can't tell here who is telling the truth or who isn't, but have to trust our instincts, I think they have to do that, too.

I wish could trust what we read and hear, but I've lived too long to think that's ever going to be true.

[HappyDaze]

On 1/14/2015 CAshopper2011 said:

On 1/14/2015 HappyDaze said:

On 1/14/2015 ChynnaBlue said:

To the best of their knowledge may be as truthful as they can get. If they buy something from a supplier who does not test on animals, THAT supplier may not have been as thorough about THEIR suppliers. Sometimes it's very difficult to track all the way back to the very beginning of each ingredient and maybe they can't be 100% of the people who supply their suppliers.

That is kind of what I was thinking- without FULLY researching every single element in the supply chain, they can only say what they believe to be the truth. It is like I don't completely ever really know 100% that a company is cruelty free unless I watch from start to finish all of their ingredients. At some point, I have to trust (or not) the information the give me. Until I hear or find out otherwise, that is all I can go by.

Exactly. It is probably one of the most honest answers I've heard from a company in regards to this question!

I suppose it would have been nice had that stated it that way though. Not just simply "..to the best of our knowledge" and leave it at that, otherwise you can interpret it a few different ways. But I don't think they did it for our benefit, necessarily, but more for legal reasons.

[mousiegirl]

On 1/14/2015 dooBdoo said:

HappyDaze, I've often seen "to the best of our knowledge" used in public statements as a legal method of avoiding something known to be a problem or known to be a lack of solid information. In other words, that sort of phrase means: "I'm answering your question... but I'm not answering your question."

I agree.

[magemay]

I think it's pretty safe to say that animal is costly for a company. There are export fees, import fees, taxes, transportation and testing expenses, and all come with a price tag. It must be a huge money maker for China and Singapore.

I can't really imagine the smaller, even the mid-sized companies being able to handle the costs to test, unless they're owned by larger corporations, or financially capable, independently. It's the big daddy's that concern me; L'oreal, EL, Coty, Dior, etc. who can handle the financial burden and want a presence in a country like China.

Personally, I don't worry too much about the small companies, especially the ones who are based and who's products are made in the US or the UK and other non testing countries, for that matter. I don't worry at all about the small indy companies and animal testing, quality control and that type of thing, sure, but not animal testing.

[YorkieonmyPillow]

There's really no other way they could've answered. They don't have control or supervision of what other people do. So I would be satisfied with that response, personally.

[NAES1]

On 1/14/2015 HappyDaze said:

By the way, I emailed asking the question back in June of 2014 and today, 1/14/15, just now got the response! They apologized for the long delay though but wow! At least they DID respond.

Here is the response:

"We have never tested any of our products on animals and to the best of our knowledge, our suppliers of our ingredients have not done so either.Hope that helps."

My concern is the statement, "...to the best of our knowledge". Couldn't that be taken a variety of different ways?

"...to the best of our knowledge"...........that's not an exact answer. That company SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING about any or ALL of their product(s), especially skin product, eye products, foods, et cetra. Check the website for yourself or write to Quality Control.

Any company having ingredients, to be safe or confident for the consumer, wanting a product to use, not having had an animal being a guinea pig experiment; (skincare- so on and so on) should be PROUD to DISPLAY the "Leaping BUNNY"---- that tells the consumer-> No Testing On Animals<-.

_Naes

[bella-luna]

I have to admit that I don't quite understand why it took so long to respond. So that, coupled with the way the answer was worded - it's a red flag. It's like using the phrase "except required by law"...

[nycgrl]

If the product is sold in China or imported from countries that require animal testing by law, you can be sure that it is tested on animals. Not containing animal byproducts doesn't make a company cruelty free. Sorry, but their answer is non-committal and I personally would not feel comfortable. I do not want to contribute to the possibility of an animal suffering because I wanted a beauty product. That's just the way it is for me. I am becoming more and more conscious of that because the more I read and educate myself on the subject, I am disgusted by the cruelty in the world in which we live.

[WenGirl42]

On 1/14/2015 HappyDaze said:

Okay wait, here is what it says on their facebook page:

"Our products contain NO Sulfates, Parabens, Synthetic Dyes, Harsh Chemicals, Petrochemicals, Phthalates, Mineral oil, PABA, DEA or animal testing."

LOL, well as long as their products contain no animal testing. That clears it right up...

[WenGirl42]

In all seriousness, if making sure the products I buy are not tested on animals were as important to me as I know it is to you, I would not take their email response as sufficient proof to meet my standards. There are reputable companies that unequivocally state no animal-derived ingredients and no testing, and I would stick to them.

(Is it not an American company? That makes me wonder about a possible translation issue. But still, based on the email you received, my concerns would not have been fully addressed.)