When I look at purchasing a product and I see cruelty free advertised by the brand, I trust that not only is the product I’m buying cruelty free but also the company doesn’t support or invest in animal testing. I think most consumers would interpret those words printed on a product or associated with a brand to mean that. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I recently discovered that PETA revealed our beloved cosmetic giants including MAC, Revlon, Benefit, Bobbi Brown, Estee Lauder, and L’Oreal may still support and engage in animal testing. It’s incredibly disappointing when I think about this and how much I love MAC makeup.
This is not a comprehensive list of cruelty free makeup brands but some of the companies that are most shocking to see on the list. Since animal testing is banned in so many countries, you are probably wondering how this is possible. It’s possible because there are other countries, such as China, that require animal testing to be carried out by law before a product can be sold in the country. Some companies claiming to offer cruelty free makeup and cosmetic products choose to sell their products in China and agree, comply, and fund animal testing to the extent it is required by Chinese laws.
This was shocking news to me. As a blogger, I constantly comb news sites, Yahoo Beauty, and other sources looking for relevant information, new products, and trends to communicate. As I was engaging in my morning reads recently, I came across this article from Daily.com.uk informing consumers about the loop holes in the animal testing laws and how companies can still state they are cruelty free but engage and fund the testing. After the reading the article, I was left feeling somewhat betrayed and mislead that certain companies aren’t more direct about the practices they engage in and support.
What does this mean to me as a consumer? I have to ask myself the question as to whether the cosmetics I am using must be cruelty free but am I also willing to accept a company who still supports and funding animal testing labs in countries where it is required by law? A business decision must be made by companies to support animal testing in order to sell in China. Obviously, it’s a huge market and since many companies will not sell their products in China, the companies that choose to have an even bigger cut of the market share. However, there are other companies, such as Arbonne, Urban Decay, and Smashbox that aren’t interested in the lost revenue and stand behind the practice of not testing on animals anywhere. Period.
If this is an important topic to you, I would urge you to the read the article I recently read. The link is here for you to review. Do you accept your MAC product not being tested on animals but the company may only be doing so to appease the European, Canadian, or American consumers or comply with local laws? It’s as if they are saying “We are cruelty free where we need to be” versus “We are cruelty free because we want to be”. I’m not sure how I feel about this but my initial reaction is I would rather look to Urban Decay and other companies when I’m looking to buy new products. I’m also more informed now and when I look at a company’s position on animal testing. I know now to evaluate whether or not they still perform testing where required by law or have operations under a different name running in countries where animal testing is required.
I’m very interested in your reaction to this and if this is new information for you.