 Animal testing policies
Regarding animal testing policies on household and personal care products, there are three categories companies fall into.
- Companies which have a fixed cut off date.
- Companies which have a 5 years rolling rule.
- Companies which are directly or indirectly involved in animal testing.
◄ Fixed cut off date ►
Ethical companies adopt a fixed cut off date.
This policy means that the company will not buy or use ingredients that have been tested on animals by itself or its suppliers after a set date.
Both the company and its suppliers must conform to this date. The company must also not be owned by a parent company which tests on animals.
This is the only valid cruelty-free policy as the company will send a clear message to its suppliers that it refuses to engage either directly or indirectly in animal testing.
The company will also discourage current or future animal testing: the older the fixed cut-off date, the more ethical the company.
If a company does not operate on a fixed cut off date but claims it is against animal testing, it still profits from animal testing because it continues to buy ingredients that have been animal tested by a third party.
Some companies, such as Lush, go one step further and only buy from suppliers who neither carry out animal testing for, nor supply ingredients to, any company. This policy increases the pressure on all suppliers to end testing.
◄ 5 years rolling rule ►
The 5 years rolling rule is a policy which indicates that the product does not contain any ingredients that have been tested within the last five years.
As it is not a fixed date, an animal tested ingredient may be excluded one year but included the following year.
For example, let’s take the 5 years 2003-2008.
A new ingredient tested on animals and released into the market in 2003 could not be used in 2008 as it falls into the 5 years rolling rule (2003 to 2008), but it can be used in 2009.
If it is released in 2007, the company will have to wait until 2013 to use it.
This allows these companies to say their products are not tested on animals when in reality they are and their policy is meaningless.
What they cannot buy today, they will buy tomorrow.
This is the case for companies such as Ecover, Oriflame, Christian Dior.
◄ Companies which are directly or indirectly involved in animal testing. ►
This category includes companies who either test themselves or finance an organisation to test their products/ingredients on animals. This is the case of P&G, L’Oreal, Unilever, etc.
The category also includes companies which do not test on animals but are owned by a parent company which tests on animals. For example, the body shop has a fixed cut off date from 1990, but is owned by L’Oreal, which makes their policy useless.
Also included are the companies which claim they are against animal testing, but do not operate a fixed cut off date.
These companies will use cleverly worded statements and misleading claims to try and trick the consumers into buying animal tested products.
A company that tests on animals may claim it no longer uses the Draize test, when in fact a very similar, equally cruel test is being performed under a different name.
Also, some companies are eager to publicize that they have spent large amounts of money into efforts to find alternatives to animal testing. However, non-animal scientific methods already exist and are being used by hundreds of companies to make safe and effective cosmetic household products.
Beware of these claims:
None of our products are tested on animals: Although their finished products have not been tested on animals, the ingredients that go in the products may have been.
We do not carry out animal tests = another company may have done it on their behalf.
We support and invest in the development of alternative methods of testing= plot to distract consumers from the fact that they still test on animals. There are already scientific methods that do not involve animal use.
Contains only natural ingredients = still may have been tested on animals.
Environmentally friendly = doesn’t mean free of animal testing.
Against animal testing: doesn’t talk about the ingredients and suppliers policy.
◄ Conclusion ►
If you want to avoid funding animal testing, stick to companies which have a fixed cut off date rule policy.
Do not support companies that are owned by parent companies which are involved in animal testing as your purchases will fund animal testing.
This is the case of The Body Shop which is owned by L’Oreal, Original Source by PZ Cussons and Tom of Maine by Colgate Palmolive.
Every company that applies a “fixed cut off date” policy reduces the market for ingredients that continue to be tested on animals.
|
◄ Ethical Brands ►
◄ Pending ►
The companies listed below offer products which do not contain any animal ingedients. They claim that they are opposed to animal testing, and that their products are not tested on animals.
We’ve put them on this list because we could not find if they operate on a fixed cut off date policy.
We have sent an email to each one of them asking for a fixed cut date.
If they confirm their fixed cut off date, we will move them to this list : Ethical brands.
If, after two emails, they do not answer or if they confirm they do not operate a fixed cut off date, we will move them to this list: Brands to avoid.
This list will be regularly updated.
 Ecco Bella:
Vegetarian skin care/cosmetics line,founded in 1992.
Website: www.eccobella.com
Thursday Plantation:
Tea Tree company,specialised in personal care products, founded in 1976.
Website: www.thursdayplantation.com
L'Occitane:
Company,specialised in personal care products.
Website: www.loccitane.com
Giovanni Organic Cosmetics:
Company,specialised in personal care products.
Website: www.giovannicosmetics.com
|
[Aliberation website]
Top of page
Contact us
Donate
Home 
Facebook 
Vegaplanet 
Vegan Ireland 
Resources
Gallery 