Cruelty Free Make-Up - your thoughts and questions welcome, quotes for blog?

Watch
ahawkes06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Hello,

I write my own cruelty-free beauty blog and wanted to gauge an idea of how many women and men make an effort to buy cruelty free make up?

And on the flip side, how many women were unaware that brands such as L'Oreal, Max Factor, Rimmel, Maybelline, Johnson and Johnson, MAC, Estee Lauder, Dior, Chanel, Clinique and many more are involved in and fund animal testing?

Please state at the end of your reply if you would be happy for me to quote you on my blog!

I'd be interested to hear back from you and if you're interested in visiting the blog it is at:

http://www.crueltyfreebeautyatface.blogspot.co.uk/

Feedback is always welcome! Thank you

Also find us on social media for regular updates:

Twitter: @FACEcrueltyfree

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CrueltyFreeBeautyAtFACE


BELOW IS EXTRA INFORMATION PLEASE READ OR SKIP AS YOU WISH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is great to see people out there are interested, and any issues you have please do raise! However I must reiterate that I have been researching and writing about cruelty free cosmetics for two years now so I'm lucky to have a good knowledge of the laws surrounding cosmetic testing and the ploys that companies use in their phrasing to hide their true animal testing policies. I've also been in correspondence with many major brands over the past two years to gain a definitive answer as to whether or not they animal test. Therefore the list of brands you'll find on my blog have my full support in the knowledge and evidence I have built up over the last two years! All brands featured on my blog have to meet these questions and answer satisfactorily:




· Are your company’s finished products tested on animals?
· Are your products’ ingredients tested on animals?
· Does your company hire a third party to perform these tests on your behalf?
· Does X have a parent company? If so, what is the parent;s company's animal testing policy? Are your profits combined with this parent company or kept within your own brand?
· Does your company sell products in China or any other country which requires or reserves the right to animal test products sold there?


If you're interested in carrying out your own research, these questions are a great place to start when sending out emails!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some frequently raised issues:

I understand that The Body Shop and Urban Decay are owned by L'Oreal and have explained my reasons for continuing to support them on my 'Go Cruelty-Free' page. Although they are owned by L'Oreal they continue to run independently of the company and 0% of their profits fund any animal testing carried out by their parent company. Furthermore, The Body Shop runs passionate and continued campaigns AGAINST animal testing and in the correspondence I've had with both companies they are working hard to influence and introduce cruelty-free measures to their parent company. Whilst it is a shame that L'Oreal continue to test on animals, it is vitally important that campaigns to raise awareness such as those run by The Body Shop are out there to educate people. As long as I am certain 100% of The Body Shop and Urban Decay's profits continue to remain exclusively within their own brand, I will continue to shop with them. Of course it is exclusively up to individuals such as yourself to make their own decisions regarding parent companies.

Sadly, companies that test 'when required by law' do test and fund animal testing. My own personal grounds for buying cruelty free include ensuring the brand does not sell in China, which by law enforces all cosmetic products be tested on animals before being sold in China. Therefore, unfortunately to ensure your beauty products are entirely cruelty free this is a factor that has to be considered and many major companies including all of the ones listed above do sell in China and therefore do test on animals.
0
reply
silentshadows
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
How do you suggest we test cosmetics then? Animal testing is not a good thing by any means, but surely it's better than the alternative of having side effects on humans right?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ahawkes06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by silentshadows)
How do you suggest we test cosmetics then? Animal testing is not a good thing by any means, but surely it's better than the alternative of having side effects on humans right?

Posted from TSR Mobile
There are already alternative and MORE EFFECTIVE methods being utilised, hence why the EU introduced a ban on the sale of animal tested cosmetics in Europe. If the alternatives were not reliable and safe, there's no way this would have been implemented.

The problem is countries such as China where animal testing is still enforced by law, therefore as long as big UK and European companies are selling in China, any money spent on their products is still funding the appalling exploitation of animals. This is unacceptable when the alternative methods are more reliable and cruelty free.


And personally, no, I disagree with your last question entirely. It is not better, there is absolutely no reason why animals should suffer for our vanity?! The alternative is NOT side effects on humans, the alternative is global cruelty-free cosmetics and this isn't an ideological fantasy, this is plausible and possible and already being implemented in Europe. There is no excuses for animal testing. It's the 21st century, we've come a long way in civil rights, in human rights, why should we stop when it comes to animal rights? We should not.
0
reply
silentshadows
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by ahawkes06)
And personally, no, I disagree with your last question entirely. It is not better, there is absolutely no reason why animals should suffer for our vanity?! The alternative is NOT side effects on humans, the alternative is global cruelty-free cosmetics and this isn't an ideological fantasy, this is plausible and possible and already being implemented in Europe. There is no excuses for animal testing. It's the 21st century, we've come a long way in civil rights, in human rights, why should we stop when it comes to animal rights? We should not.
I misinterpreted your last part, I agree in the case of cosmetics as this is simply an item that is not really beneficial nor essential to humans, but are you against animal testing in general (for examples, for various drugs that may have unknown side effects?)

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ahawkes06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by silentshadows)
I misinterpreted your last part, I agree in the case of cosmetics as this is simply an item that is not really beneficial nor essential to humans, but are you against animal testing in general (for examples, for various drugs that may have unknown side effects?)

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm against any form of animal testing and there are many companies out there that test drugs and pharmaceuticals in humane ways. The suffering inflicted on animals undergoing experimentation, research and product testing is morally wrong. There is no excuse for the torture of beings that cannot protest, that cannot do anything about it.

I'm not ignorant, I know that in terms of pharmaceutical testing we are technologically still inhibited from phasing out animal testing entirely however I believe more effort should be being made in terms of this. More funding and more research should be looking into humane methods of drugs testing because as I say, with the technology we have today and the medical advancements of the last few decades this is not beyond us. This is something that COULD be done. People, humanity, should not be happy to settle at animal testing 'because it works' IT DOES NOT WORK, 9 times out of ten testing on animals yields no useful results and in laboratories worldwide animals are treated as replaceable, with hundreds being literally disposed of every day having provided us with no significant, reliable or useful findings.

Many people argue that animal testing saves lives, the fact is, it is the drugs that save lives. Drugs that could be developed and tested without the torture that is inflicted on animals, we do have the technology available to achieve this and then implement it - unfortunately the pharmaceutical business is too money driven and lazy to bother with this. Animal testing does not save lives, it disposes of them, hundreds of thousands of lives every day that are not given a second thought.
1
reply
silentshadows
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by ahawkes06)
I'm not ignorant, I know that in terms of pharmaceutical testing we are technologically still inhibited from phasing out animal testing entirely however I believe more effort should be being made in terms of this. More funding and more research should be looking into humane methods of drugs testing because as I say, with the technology we have today and the medical advancements of the last few decades this is not beyond us. This is something that COULD be done. People, humanity, should not be happy to settle at animal testing 'because it works' IT DOES NOT WORK, 9 times out of ten testing on animals yields no useful results and in laboratories worldwide animals are treated as replaceable, with hundreds being literally disposed of every day having provided us with no significant, reliable or useful findings.

Many people argue that animal testing saves lives, the fact is, it is the drugs that save lives. Drugs that could be developed and tested without the torture that is inflicted on animals, we do have the technology available to achieve this and then implement it - unfortunately the pharmaceutical business is too money driven and lazy to bother with this. Animal testing does not save lives, it disposes of them, hundreds of thousands of lives every day that are not given a second thought.
Complete nonsense. Animal testing, although unethical, provides better results than most other forms of testing that there are. Where is your proof and examples for this statement?

What technology are you talking about? Tissue cultures, although practical and significantly more practical are no substitute for actual testing on living organisms. You seem to be preaching for the prevention of animal cruelty without the slightest idea of what actually goes on in the pharmaceutical business.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ahawkes06
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by silentshadows)
Complete nonsense. Animal testing, although unethical, provides better results than most other forms of testing that there are. Where is your proof and examples for this statement?

What technology are you talking about? Tissue cultures, although practical and significantly more practical are no substitute for actual testing on living organisms. You seem to be preaching for the prevention of animal cruelty without the slightest idea of what actually goes on in the pharmaceutical business.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The fact is, that you have said yourself, is that animal testing is unethical. I'm not preaching, I'm stating that more funding and more research should go into developing alternative and effective cruelty free methods of testing instead of continuing to fund the torture of animals worldwide.

Tissue cultures, stem cell research, there is so much potential there that is being ignored because it is too "expensive" for contractors and companies to invest in. Alternatives are out there, we should not settle for animal testing which is why I am against it. Testing on living organisms would not be infinitely better than testing on live tissue HUMAN tissue cultures considering the drugs would be for human use.

I'm not pretending to know the ins and outs of the pharmaceutical business, I'm pointing out the immorality of it. I'm not claiming to have all the answers here, I'm a 19 year old English student I'm not saying I can solve all the problems or answer all the inconsistencies, I can't give you a conclusive plan for an alternative humane pharmaceutical industry that's ridiculous. What I'm saying is that humanity should not be so lazy as to settle for animal testing when it is so morally and ethically wrong, we should be striving to implement better more humane alternatives. We should recognise that what we're doing is inhumane.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (76)
37.44%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (22)
10.84%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (14)
6.9%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (50)
24.63%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (25)
12.32%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (16)
7.88%

Watched Threads

View All