Do you think beauty products should have to state they have been tested on animals?

Question

i try best i can to buy stuff that isn't tested on animals, it may be necessary in medicine (as long as its humane as possible which it probably isnt) but i think its cruel and disgusting to do it for vanity, especially since we already have enough beauty products in the world. how dare humans think they have the right to use an animals for these reasons? any animal, be it a rat or a monkey or whatever they use. they are not stupid animals and they feel pain and discomfort.

anyway, products that arent tested on animals always state it.

Should stuff that has been have to state so too, as in This product was tested on animals.? Consumers should know and be informed so they can make their choice. It wouldn't harm their sales too much as most people seem not to give a c r a p anyway.

All i see is "dermatologically tested" but this isn't clear, does tthis mean they have been tested on animals?

What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes definitely

Answer 2

definitely! for most beauty products, i think you can assume that if they don't say "not tested on animals" they could very well be tested on animals. however, this is still somewhat ambiguous and i wish it was required for them to state whether or not the products were tested on animals.

i refuse to buy products tested on animals. we have no right to abuse some poor little bunny by sticking eyeliner in its eyes, its disgusting and cruel!

Answer 3

Yes! I think it would expose these cruel compamies for what they really are, and I think they should also be made to put a picture of the poor tortured lab animals on the label. Might sound extreme but the torture is extreme!

I agree with Anna, the co-op are brilliant, as are Beauty without cruelty and Lush.

I also think it should be the same for household products, if one company can make bleach and floor cleaner etc without torturing animals, then so can the others!!

Claims that products are 'dermatologically tested' are confusing and potentially misleading, say researchers. Health Which? findings show that there needs to be an industry-wide definition for what the claim actually means.

Health Which? says the wording found on many cosmetics and toiletries wrongly implies that certain agreed standards have been met. A survey of 1,000 consumers found that people gave several different explanations for the term.

Thirteen per cent of those questioned believed 'dermatologically tested' meant the product was kind to skin, 22 per cent thought it would not cause allergies and 10 per cent thought the product was unlikely to cause skin allergies.

A quarter of those questionned interpreted the claim literally to mean the product had been tested on human skin. But many of those questioned said they did not know what the term meant.

The concern is that the 'tests' may not even replicate how a product is actually used, and the labelling may not explain what the tests were designed to show or whether the product passed the test. The term only implies that the product has reached a certain level of safety or effectiveness.

Each company however has its own procedure for testing a product and deciding what results need to be achieved.

Consumers therefore have no way of comparing claims.

Health Which? contacted 10 cosmetics companies to find out what tests they carried out and what evidence they had to support their claims.

Accantia, Beiersdorf, The Body Shop, Boots, Johnson & Johnson, Level Faberge, L'Oreal and Procter and Gamble submitted general information about their testing procedure. But Health Which? said they did not provide enough information for independent experts to assess the claims.

"The research shows that a 'dermatologically tested' claim on one product may mean something completely different to the same claim on another product," said Sue Freeman acting editor of Which?

"This is confusing and potentially misleading. Without standard definitions, and with companies refusing to supply details of their tests and results, these claims are meaningless, and consumers are left guessing about the benefits implied by such claims" she said.

A "Cruelty-Free" Label Does Not Always Mean a Cruelty Free Company

"Cruelty-free" labels on products are a fairly good indication that that particular product was not tested on a laboratory animal. Even though the rules and guidelines governing which items can sport a "cruelty-free" sticker are fairly lax and unreliable, most companies know that the consumer backlash would be terrific if they lied about their animal testing policies.

However, just because one product bears a label stating that it was not tested on animals, this does not mean that other items in that company’s range weren’t used in experiments on animals. For example, Clairol do not test their Herbal Essences range on animals, but the rest of their cosmetic line is still researched in this way.

And you are right about animal testing in medicine, it is far from humane!

Answer 4

In general if stuff isn't tested on animals it will clearly state so as the company will give itself a broader consumer base that way.

Answer 5

yes they should have to state that. Animal testing is so freaking sick even for medical reasons, I'd give my life to put an end to the constant pain these animals go through. It's so depressing to know it's going on....

Answer 6

Yes there is too much cruelty in this word and the ones that are getting rich off of it brag that they did it all their selves with no help-- (my buns!).Children are starved and beaten if they don't keep up with chocolate cocoa bean carrying lines, and sea turtles are killed along with tuna,swordfish and another so I haven't yet tried swordfish and i refused to buy tuna even in the can, last shopping trip.

Answer 7

dermotologically tested means that it wasn't tested on animals so you're safe there. The reason they don't say it was tested on animals is because there would be outrage if it was as it is supposed to be illegal in England.

i know of at least two companies who don't test on animals (and have vegan and vegetarian ingredients)

Barry m

beauty without cruelty.

also i hate to break to you whilst the body shop don't themselves test on animals the money they make goes to companies who do (this happened when anita sold the body shop to loreal so we have her to thank for this thank you anita!!)

Answer 8

YES! They need to mark it clearly.

Animal testing is never nessacary. Why should animals suffer and die for people at all? Including medically?

Answer 9

I don't know if you have a "Bath & Body Works" where you live, but they dont test anything on animals. Since you seem like the activist type, you should get interested in boycotting companies with sweat shops (american eagle, Nike, walmart)

Answer 10

most definitely

Answer 11

Well of course and by state they need to say straight up how cruel they were testing the stuff on them !

Answer 12

Definitely yes.

People might think twice before buying something if it had "tested on animals" written in big letters - perhaps a picture would help too.

There is no reason to test cosmetics on animals, and although they'd have you believe that this rarely goes on - it does.  Most of the products you see on your shelves are tested on animals.  And if the products themselves are not, the ingredients will have been.

In the UK, the best stuff is co-ops own stuff (toothpaste, shampoo, bath foam etc) for cheap stuff - this is the only supermarket approved by the BUAV.  And Beauty without cruelty too.

Unless it's on a list from a trusted source as being not tested on animals, i won't buy it.

But, sadly I think you're right.  there are an awful lot of selfish women who think that their right to a certain longstay lipgloss is more important than anything else.

Answer 13

I tried letting people know that their cosmetics were being tested on animals buy sticking "This product kills animals" stickers on them, but they were removed.

I just buy cosmetics that say "100% cruelty free".