Beauty | Animal Rights Protester Agrees To Ten Hours of Torture

[Bonnie@lashout]

good work lush on raising awareness about animal testing right on!, there are also tonnes of small organic brand out there that fight this battle daily but unfortunately do not have the power of social media to spread the message faster.

i do believe that the body shops "skin and body range" is not tested on animal, although if im right their make up is produced by loreal, which DOES test on animals, if im correct although things may have changed since i got that information?:o

 

[Victoria1984]

Surely as industry insiders we should be demanding this change from manufacturers/suppliers? Could Salon geek not start a campaign which we could all sign upto?

 

[rheanna]

Nothing that the Bodyshop sells has been tested on animals ingredients or finished product they are also independently checked and recieved accredited by consumer group choose cruelty free (ccf) all of the suppliers are stringently checked as they have a whole list of checks which include human rights and community trade to be able to trade with the Bodyshop, as you can probably tell I work for the company and am very proud of all their values!

 

[lindseym631]

Nothing that the Bodyshop sells has been tested on animals ingredients or finished product they are also independently checked and recieved accredited by consumer group choose cruelty free (ccf) all of the suppliers are stringently checked as they have a whole list of checks which include human rights and community trade to be able to trade with the Bodyshop, as you can probably tell I work for the company and am very proud of all their values!

This is what annoys me, I have no problem with companies telling us that they do not test products on animals, BUT... saying that they do not use 'ingredients' that have been tested on animals when clearly they do is just false and misleading!

I do not shop in Body Shop but I walk past one in town and in thier window the have products containing Tea Tree. Tea Tree has in FACT been tested on animals, how else would we know 1900mg/kg can kill a rat?!

Fair enough a lot of the animal testing for essential oils was done in the 70's but that's done nothing can be changed about it which is why I feel sorry for the companies that have good values and ethics trying to market and defend their products. Sometimes all they can say is THEY do not test on and I respect that... however, making claims that ingredients have not been tested on animals is irresponsible.

 

[rheanna]

I think to me the difference is that some companies say their products aren't tested on animals and yet they still source and use ingredients that are still to this day being tested on animals so it's totally misleading, as with all other cruelty free companies the Bodyshop have a fixed date policy so in their case dont use ingredients that have tested on animals since dec 1990 ithat

 

[rheanna]

Our tea tree btw is community traded organic (certified) tea tree oil from Kenya so although as you say tea tree oil has been tested on animals ours hasn't!

 

[salj]

But do the body shop and lush not use essential oils, tea tree for example?

A lot of people I've spoken to about animal testing can get quite angry when you ask about the ingredients that go into thier favourite products that companies claim 'not tested on animals'.

One could say they don't need to because the dirty work has been done for them... as far as I know (could be wrong) we know the LD50 for all the common essential oils so when a company uses the oil (or whatever) they can say confidently that THEY have not done any animal testing. So how much weight does that statement actually hold?

To make sure I 100% understand your point, are you saying that because pretty much all ingredients will have been animal tested at one point, does that mean no one can claim they don't animal test??

I don't think so. In the past animal testing was the done thing and ingredients were tested, that can't be helped or changed now but it is not something that needs to continue.

Some companies actively fight against the testing ban or they choose money over ethics and I don't want to give them or any brand they own my money. I won't support anyone that continues to animal test when it is 100% unnecessary.

Companies who don't test their ingredients or finished products on animals, don't pay someone else to do it and who buy from suppliers who don't, I would support.

 

[lindseym631]

To make sure I 100% understand your point, are you saying that because pretty much all ingredients will have been animal tested at one point, does that mean no one can claim they don't animal test??

I don't think so. In the past animal testing was the done thing and ingredients were tested, that can't be helped or changed now but it is not something that needs to continue.

Of course that is not what I have meant, I said:

This is what annoys me, I have no problem with companies telling us that they do not test products on animals, BUT... saying that they do not use 'ingredients' that have been tested on animals when clearly they do is just false and misleading!

Fair enough a lot of the animal testing for essential oils was done in the 70's but that's done nothing can be changed about it which is why I feel sorry for the companies that have good values and ethics trying to market and defend their products. Sometimes all they can say is THEY do not test on and I respect that... however, making claims that ingredients have not been tested on animals is irresponsible.

this was answered by Rheanna's comment:

I think to me the difference is that some companies say their products aren't tested on animals and yet they still source and use ingredients that are still to this day being tested on animals so it's totally misleading, as with all other cruelty free companies the Bodyshop have a fixed date policy so in their case dont use ingredients that have tested on animals since dec 1990 ithat

It would have been totally unreasonable for me to say no one can claim not to have tested on animals... When a company claims not to have used ingredients that have been tested on animals without mentioning any sort of 'fixed date policy' like Rheanna mentioned I find this irresponsible.

I have this opinion because I have spoken to people who have very strong views about animal testing and will go all out to defend any bad word said about their favourite company's ethics (the company in question was found to outsource a lab for testing hence my other comment) and they have taken statements quite literally (as a lot of consumers do) and argued that absolutely no ingredient in any of their product have EVER caused suffering to an animal.

That is why I think companies have to be very careful about how they word themselves. I did not know about Dec 1990 policy but I do now, I think that is a fair policy and a good one! :biggrin:

Lindsey x

 

[salj]

I hadn't seen Rheanna's comment and I thought you probably didn't mean that, which is why I asked if I was reading it right.

That is why I think companies have to be very careful about how they word themselves.

I totally agree with this. Some companies are very shady about their animal policy wording and so I tend to avoid them too.

 

[lindseym631]

Sorry I'm not always 100% clear when it comes to writing my thoughts as they're a bit random at the best of times :$

Definitely a lot of shadies about