# Revised Mac animal testing policy? :-((



## katred (Mar 16, 2012)

I know that this isn't a make-or-break issue for many cosmetic fans, but since it's something I take seriously and I know that others here do, I thought I'd share this piece from phyrra.net: 

  	http://www.phyrra.net/2012/03/heartbroken-by-mac.html

  	A few months back, Mac's parent company, Estee Lauder, reversed their long-standing policy of not conducting animal tests in order to speed their growth in the Chinese market. Sadly, it seems that several of the companies they own, including Bobbi Brown, Clinique and now (seemingly) Mac have chosen to follow suit. 

  	I've written to Mac to ask for some clarification on whether or not they have started testing on animals, because the post that Phyrra links to as her source has some factual errors (Mac has used animal-derived ingredients- although ones that could be produced without requiring pain or death- and never claimed to be vegan), so I want to be really sure about what's going on. I haven't heard back from them.

  	I did notice that Bobbi Brown and Estee Lauder have modified their statements about animal testing to indicate that it is done under certain circumstances.

  	Personally, I think I'm pretty fair when it comes to cosmetics companies- the history and structure of the industry means that everyone is using products or ingredients that have likely been tested on animals at one time. All I ask is that the companies that I buy from don't actively continue to test or request that others do so on their behalf, given that there are more effective means available. I'm happy to say that this doesn't limit my options as much as it used to (a lot of companies have dispensed with animal tests as public pressure has grown). 

  	If anyone has more information on this, please feel free to add it. If/ when I hear back from Mac, I'll post the response in full here. Hopefully, it's just one of those bad internet rumours that will be dispelled shortly.


----------



## paparazziboy (Mar 17, 2012)

all i can say is that the company is still cruelty free unless the country by law requires the testing then they have no say so in the matter since it is law. we have got a memo about this. it was not something that the company liked but had to follow because of that countries laws


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 17, 2012)

When a cosmetic company exports to China, it can not claim to be cruelty-free anymore as animal testing is required by law in China.

  	In the recent years, the Chinese market saw a fast expansion of cosmetic lines, as the spending power of consumers rapidly grows. There is a huge demand of (Western) medium to high end cosmetic brands in China and the business potential is huge. It is now up to the individual consumer (in the West) to decide if they agree with this development or if they look into alternative brands.


----------



## katred (Mar 17, 2012)

Thankns Paparazzi Boy and Mac Guy- this is pretty much what I understood to be the case. I hope that some companies will work with the Chinese government to change the legislation that requires animal tests or to allow exemptions for those who have proven the safety of their products in other markets (as I understand is happening now with certain brands). 

  	I realise for companies who want to expand their business and maximize profits, it's a compromise they have to consider very carefully- the Chinese market has massive potential and is a prize for any brand. Like you say, it's an individual choice on the part of consumers.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 17, 2012)

katred said:


> Thankns Paparazzi Boy and Mac Guy- this is pretty much what I understood to be the case. I hope that some companies will work with the Chinese government to change the legislation that requires animal tests or to allow exemptions for those who have proven the safety of their products in other markets (as I understand is happening now with certain brands).
> 
> I realise for companies who want to expand their business and maximize profits, it's a compromise they have to consider very carefully- the Chinese market has massive potential and is a prize for any brand. Like you say, it's an individual choice on the part of consumers.



 	I don't think there will be any changes soon in Chinese legislation, at least not in the near future.


----------



## katred (Mar 17, 2012)

Possibly not. I know that PETA has said that from their discussions with the Chinese government, they seem open to the idea of revising their policy (although it's not something they want to discuss with the cosmetics companies themselves), but no idea what the timeline would be. I know that Avon, which is one of the companies that started testing in order to export to China, is at least working with animal rights organisations (PETA and others who might be less controversial) to try to implement changes.


----------



## deidre (Mar 19, 2012)

Interesting.

  	Thanks for the info!


----------



## katred (Mar 24, 2012)

FYI, for those interested in discussing Mac's change in animal testing status, I started a thread here: 

Revised Mac animal testing policy? :-((

  	The Chinese government (along with a few other countries, but China is the main one) requests skin and eye irritation tests be performed on animals in order for them to be imported into the country, even if other tests have proven that the products are safe in other markets. 

  	@Pinkdollface- Funny, I was just checking that the other day about MUFE. They are still non-testers.


----------



## Eleentje (Mar 24, 2012)

I find it ironic that the country that is flooding the western markets with inferior or even hazardous cheap/counterfeit products (not just cosmetic products, think the baby food that was polluted with melamine) imposes such requirements upon even most well-established western companies. I obviously understand that chinese government doesn't support the black/ counterfeit market, but it's not like they are trying really hard to stop the export of such products.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 24, 2012)

Eleentje said:


> I find it ironic that t*he country that is flooding the western markets with inferior or even hazardous cheap/counterfeit products* (not just cosmetic products, think the baby food that was polluted with melamine) imposes such requirements upon even most well-established western companies. I obviously understand that chinese government doesn't support the black/ counterfeit market, but it's not like they are trying really hard to stop the export of such products.



 	In this case, it's the demand that encourages the production. If no-one would buy these cheap palettes, there wouldn't be a market for it.

  	On a related note, it will be interesting to see what MAC products will be manufactured in China in the near future given that quite a few of the latest LE brushes came from China.


----------



## pemily (Mar 24, 2012)

In all honestly, If more Mac products are manufactured in china the quality control will go out the window.   Through my line of work we often import and the first few batches are always great then they slip..., Results will include; less LE quantities, delays etc.  Most companies that use china/India etc will pass on a price decrease, however as some have stated Mac is pushing into the high end market so that won't happen.... It really is a no win.    The other day I was looking at the collection lists from 2008-current. The collections pre 2010 are still raved about!! These days collections come and go, I am starting to see why some people believe Mac has shifted it's morals and creative levels!  Very sad


----------



## Pinkdollface (Mar 25, 2012)

katred said:


> FYI, for those interested in discussing Mac's change in animal testing status, I started a thread here:
> 
> Revised Mac animal testing policy? :-((
> 
> ...


  	Thanks for the confirmation about MUFE! I really like the Matte Velvet+ foundation and i'm thinking about trying the HD next


----------



## romi79_2008 (Mar 25, 2012)

I just saw on facebook some pictures with animals that were used as tests by L`oreal


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 25, 2012)

romi79_2008 said:


> I just saw on facebook some pictures with animals that were used as tests by L`oreal



 	There are quite a few pictures going around since the announcement that companies will enter the Chinese market.


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 26, 2012)

*Animal testing and it's influence on your purchasing decisions*

The animal testing photos are making me feel really guilty.


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

I can't even look at them. It makes me cry and then my blood pressure will rise too much & then I start to feel worse than I do just thinking about the testing. Why can't companies test on humans, you know, the ones serving time for murder that we have no use for anyhow?! Sorry guys, that is how I feel.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






MichaelaLou said:


> *The animal testing photos are making me feel really guilty.*


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm sorry, but this is equally bad (or worse) than animal testing. The prison industry, especially in the US, is cruel and inhumane, and there is certainly no need to make it worse by imposing testing on prisoners. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, or at least, on a second thought, will reconsider your statement.


----------



## xasperadastra (Mar 26, 2012)

Mac-Guy said:


> I'm sorry, but this is equally bad (or worse) than animal testing. The prison industry, especially in the US, is cruel and inhumane, and there is certainly no need to make it worse by imposing testing on prisoners. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, or at least, on a second thought, will reconsider your statement.



 	Well, animals are innocent, some people are really cruel, they kill other people and hurt children... I'm against torture but if I should choose which creature deserve pain I would choose human. Of course it would be a terrible thing and also meaningless.. we have everyting we need to test stuff without alive creatures..


----------



## katred (Mar 26, 2012)

I'll be curious to see how this effects people's decisions whether or not to buy Mac products over here. Unlike a lot of other companies, Mac made their no-testing status a feature of who they were, something that made them a different sort of company along with their sense of environmental responsibility (through things like their recycling program) and their dedication to social causes. I'm disappointed to know that Estee Lauder has made the change, but I'm not entirely surprised. With Mac, I'm disappointed in that I realise they're no longer the company they were when I first "fell" for them. That's not a new thing, of course, it's just that this change really crystallizes it for me. 

  	It reminds me of when The Body Shop were purchased by L'Oreal. They've been able to do far more things and develop far more and better products now that they have that cash behind them, but they've lost most of their original relevance. Nonetheless, others have filled that void and I imagine the same thing will happen in this case.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 26, 2012)

katred said:


> *I'll be curious to see how this effects people's decisions whether or not to buy Mac products over here*. Unlike a lot of other companies, Mac made their no-testing status a feature of who they were, something that made them a different sort of company along with their sense of environmental responsibility (through things like their recycling program) and their dedication to social causes. I'm disappointed to know that Estee Lauder has made the change, but I'm not entirely surprised. With Mac, I'm disappointed in that I realise they're no longer the company they were when I first "fell" for them. That's not a new thing, of course, it's just that this change really crystallizes it for me.
> 
> It reminds me of when The Body Shop were purchased by L'Oreal. They've been able to do far more things and develop far more and better products now that they have that cash behind them, but they've lost most of their original relevance. Nonetheless, others have filled that void and I imagine the same thing will happen in this case.



 	Maybe you can add a poll to this thread to see if animal testing will influence people's purchase decisions. Give at least some different options ranging from "I will never buy MAC again" to "I care, but not enough to prevent me from buying" to "I will reduce purchases to a minimum" to "I don't care" (just to give you some ideas - let me know if you need some help).


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

I agree wholeheartedly with you xasperadastra. Animals can't speak for themselves. When they feel pain we can't understand. I have never understood the need to test on animals when in fact, it's us humans who buy & use the stuff that are being tested on animals. Why not just test on a human? I'm sure it wouldn't be as cruel as it is for an innocent animal because humans can speak and say, hey this isn't feeling right or I'm getting a rash.




Mac-Guy said:


> I'm sorry, but this is equally bad (or worse) than animal testing. The prison industry, especially in the US, is cruel and inhumane, and there is certainly no need to make it worse by imposing testing on prisoners. *I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, or at least, on a second thought, will reconsider your statement.*


----------



## Eleentje (Mar 26, 2012)

I respect your opinion, but what about the people that may be wrongfully accused as murderers? Not only would they be deprived of their freedom for the crimes they didn't commit, but they would be put through all those tests as some kind of "human waste material".  I think that just like with medicines, there should be some kind of volunteer programme, where people get paid high amounts of money for being test subjects, just like with pharmaceutical products.  And I think that companies would then be a bit more careful with their sensitivity tests, since the results will be clearly visible on humans with sensitive skin. So no need to administer ridiculous amounts of the tested ingredient to poor animals, who greatly suffer and sometimes even die in the result just to see if humans *may* be sensitive to it.



OctoberViolet said:


> Mac-Guy, I do understand where you are coming from. My mom is with you. I, however, believe the jail system in the US is quite good to our inmates. They get three square meals a day, exercise room, library, schooling, good medical, get to learn the computer & get to work inside the prison. Some of them even teach within or become lawyers & help their fellow inmates. My brother who suffers from schizophrenia & has never hurt a soul, can't even get a decent job, good medical or even get good schooling to learn the computer. This is because whenever the government needs to cut down on stuff, they take it away from the less fortunate. It's a shame! I'm definitely not saying I believe all prisoners should be used as testers. I was just saying the murders who aren't good in society can be used a the guinea pigs instead of the innocent animals. *I also just want to say, this is my opinion & I do apologize for bringing this up on a public board & I hope I didn't insult anyone's belief contrary to my own*.


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

Agreed! & point taken!


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 26, 2012)

With all my respect, but your conception of the prison system does certainly not reflect reality. In fact, I would compare the environment of incarcerated people with those of animal farms, i.e. extremely tight spaces, minimum health care, and certainly very little educational opportunities. The goal of imprisonment should be rehabilitation rather than focus on punishment.

  	There are more Americans who were in prison or jail than in any other country in the world. For example, one in four black males in their 20s has some sort of prison experience! Yes, (most) people are locked up for good reasons, but if you don't improve the prison conditions and focus on rehabilitation, they will just end up in prison again as they do not know better and the system does not provide enough support. The individual stories how people end up in prison can be touching, and certainly the social environment and upbringing of each individual has a lot to do with it. Just think of a woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who, one day, stands up and attacks her perpetrator. If this person dies, the woman will be incarcerated for murder. So, is it now completely her fault because she picked the wrong man for a relationship? Should we punish her even further by using her  for the testing of cosmetics "because she isn't good for society?"

  	I do not want to lecture you, but rather encourage you to do more research on the prison industry before jumping to quick conclusions. There are many volunteer opportunities/prison initiatives if you want to engage in social activism.

  	I strongly believe that nobody deserves to be used a guinea pig, no matter what they might have done in the past - and certainly not for the benefit of a cosmetic company.

  	I'm stepping of my soap box now, but as a person who believes in social justice and volunteers in social activism and human rights projects, I really had to speak up when someone suggests to use prisoners as guinea pigs for cosmetic testing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  	To come back to topic, if someone feels really strongly about animal testing, the only way to have an influence is to stop buying from companies that test on animals. While this might be hard, it is probably the only way to make a real difference, but of course, it will be a difficult decision.


----------



## ILoveMakeup84 (Mar 26, 2012)

I agree 100% with you Mac-Guy specially on this point: *nobody deserves to be used a guinea pig, no matter what they might have done in the past - and certainly not for the benefit of a cosmetic company.*


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

Understood. I feel the same way about animal testing. They don't deserve this treatment either. Animals deserve far better respect in my opinion.



ILoveMakeup84 said:


> I agree 100% with you Mac-Guy specially on this point: *nobody deserves to be used a guinea pig, no matter what they might have done in the past - and certainly not for the benefit of a cosmetic company.*


----------



## Pinkdollface (Mar 26, 2012)

I was wondering since you also feel so strong about animal testing. What are you going to do with mac?


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

Pinkdollface, I honestly don't know.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And it's not just MAC. There are other companies I need to check out as well. Sometimes they are on the animal testing list & sometimes their not. I am feeling guilty. How about you?




Pinkdollface said:


> *I was wondering since you also feel so strong about animal testing. What are you going to do with mac?*


----------



## ILoveMakeup84 (Mar 26, 2012)

Yes I agree with that also. Its a really difficult position we are in you know?


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)




----------



## Pinkdollface (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah me too. I don't know if i can trust any brand right now. But they are trying to make a worldwide law that forbids any testing on animals for cosmetics. So i guess it doesn't matter as much what we do, because people are taking care of it.


----------



## MACcrazy (Mar 26, 2012)

UGH! I'm more mad about how china is forcing animal testing rather then MAC for now doing it (tho I'm still annoyed) It's understandable that MAC would want to go to china but I don't think that it should be required by law to test on animals!


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

This!!!! I sooooooo agree with you MACcrazy!!!!!!




MACcrazy said:


> *UGH! I'm more mad about how china is forcing animal testing rather then MAC for now doing it (tho I'm still annoyed) It's understandable that MAC would want to go to china but I don't think that it should be required by law to test on animals!*


----------



## MACcrazy (Mar 26, 2012)

if countries wouldn't require animal testing, then everyone would be happy and companies that wish to expand can do so without having to go back on their values and making us, the consumers, angry and hurt.


----------



## Babylard (Mar 26, 2012)

I am also against forcing people to be guinea pigs. It should always be voluntary and people have the right to know all the risks, etc. If prisoners didn't have rights, then whats stopping people from forcing women to have no rights? You don't know why these people have gotten there in the first place. Ask yourself, what does it take for you to have to kill someone and put yourself in that situation. You'd have to be very desparate and these people may come from poverty and broken homes. My cousin told me a story about a friend she had. I warn you that this is graphic/horrifying and to skip past if you do not want to hear it. This friend had been on psychological medications for a long time and is "fucked in the head" her words, not mine. This friend and her brother was living with the father who was very abusive. Eventually, the brother snapped and murdered the father, cut him up and dumped it somewhere. Of course, this brother was found to be a murderer. but with other psychological issues and needed help. Maybe he took the fall for his sister, maybe they couldn't see a life for themselves if this person continued to exist, I don't know. If a man attacked me, I wouldn't hesistate to defend myself. Rather him be dead than me right? Doesn't make me a bad person, but just the circumstances that life puts you in. I think everyone deserves basic rights (health care, housing, nutrition, decision making and control over their own body - including rights to abortions etc).

  	Decades ago (1960's), humans were used as science experiments and that has ceased today because it was cruel and ihumane. They tested on mental patients and intentionally induced vitamin deficiencies to see what would happen. Several people died this way. We learned a lot from those studies, but it doesn't make it justified. If prisoners lost their rights, whats stopping mental patients, elderly, etc from losing their rights too? It's dangerous and can lead to so many other things. Its a complex matter, but I see that it would act as a doorway to other populations losing their rights in the same manner because they're gonna die anyway, don't know whats going on anyway, etc...

  	I respect all your opinions and this is how I feel. You have to consider the impact on society.


----------



## Babylard (Mar 26, 2012)

Yes. Damn you China, they are just so freaken extreme. Is facebook still banned there?! =___=



MACcrazy said:


> UGH! I'm more mad about how china is forcing animal testing rather then MAC for now doing it (tho I'm still annoyed) It's understandable that MAC would want to go to china but I don't think that it should be required by law to test on animals!


----------



## MACcrazy (Mar 26, 2012)

I think so. It seems crazy, but at the same time makes me stop and realize how luck I am to live in a place where everyone has freedoms that, while we don't appreciate it enough, we use each and every day. We at least we can be thankful that we can make the choice whether to buy animal cruelty free products or not!


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 26, 2012)

Pinkdollface said:


> Yeah me too. I don't know if i can trust any brand right now. But they are trying to make a worldwide* law that forbids any testing on animals for cosmetics.* *So i guess it doesn't matter as much what we do, because people are taking care of it.*



 	This will not happen any time soon. The biggest power still has the consumer: if one feels strongly about animal testing, don't buy [_insert animal testing brand here_]. The upcoming MAC collections will be a good test to see how much people care about the recent developments.


----------



## xasperadastra (Mar 26, 2012)

I guess the point was to test on really bad people .. not prisoners because we know that not only bad people goes to prison.. and of course is a surreal option, nobody wants such cruelty but, in a certain way in a nation such mine where nobody gets punished a cosmetic test on phedophiles or rapers maybe would stop such shame... it's only a though I'm not telling they really should 

  	(But let's talk about make up which is a better topic ^^
  	I misunderstood the Beautyscene article.. Lip set with lipstick nail polish and lipglass are not part of Hey Sailor, right?) Edit* this was in the early buzz thread previously


----------



## pemily (Mar 26, 2012)

I would rather see testing on a person who has commuted crimes against children, rather than animals.  Pure and simple....


----------



## pemily (Mar 26, 2012)

I would rather see testing on a person who has commuted crimes against children, rather than animals.  Pure and simple....


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 26, 2012)

So is anybody not buying from the current collections because of animal testing?


----------



## OctoberViolet (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm going to still buy. I've had my heart set on these Spring collections for some time now & I really really want them. I'm going to be struck down by lightning
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, but as long as I have my purple lippies, cremesheens and blushes I will be happy.




Mac-Guy said:


> So is anybody not buying from the current collections because of animal testing?


----------



## MACcrazy (Mar 26, 2012)

Mac-Guy said:


> So is anybody not buying from the current collections because of animal testing?



 	I will be buying from these collections but I think I'm going to also start branching off a little bit, not just because of that but also because I haven't really tried any brands besides mac because I always go crazy with their collections but I really wanna spread out a little bit!


----------



## pemily (Mar 26, 2012)

I'm going to keep hounding Mac about it.  If I don't get an answer I am satisfied with then I will re asses.  I'm not one to lie so I will openly admit  that I am still shopping new collections and will replace what I need (which disgusts me) but I will tell as many people as I can about it!


----------



## erika_3 (Mar 26, 2012)

Eleentje said:


> I respect your opinion, but what about the people that may be wrongfully accused as murderers? Not only would they be deprived of their freedom for the crimes they didn't commit, but they would be put through all those tests as some kind of "human waste material".  I think that just like with medicines, there should be some kind of volunteer programme, where people get paid high amounts of money for being test subjects, just like with pharmaceutical products.  And I think that companies would then be a bit more careful with their sensitivity tests, since the results will be clearly visible on humans with sensitive skin. So no need to administer ridiculous amounts of the tested ingredient to poor animals, who greatly suffer and sometimes even die in the result just to see if humans *may* be sensitive to it.


 I agree 110% with everything you said


----------



## romi79_2008 (Mar 27, 2012)

Is there  a list with all the companies that test on animals or I should better ask for the ones that don`t for a shorter and easier to remember list?


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

romi79_2008 said:


> Is there  a list with all the companies that test on animals or I should better ask for the ones that don`t for a shorter and easier to remember list?



 	Go to the PETA website, where you can browse companies. It looks like they are currently updating the list as MAC was still listed under  "Companies That Don't Test on Animals" until last week - now it's not listed under that category anymore (though it is still not listed under "Companies That Do Test on Animals" - I suspect it will pop up there fairly soon).


----------



## pemily (Mar 27, 2012)

So does it mean that people who do continue to buy from Mac don't care about animal testing... I think not! It's a really grey area at the moment


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

pemily said:


> It's a really grey area at the moment




  	No judgement, but if one buys from a company that sells in China, then one supports (directly and indirectly) animal testing. This doesn't mean that one does not care about animal testing, but it means that one does not care enough.


----------



## Naynadine (Mar 27, 2012)

There is a petition that you can sign. I'm not sure if these type of things really can make an impact, but I thought it might be interesting.

Animals Petition: Boycott Estee Lauder companies, Avon and Mary Kay for Animal Testing! | Change.org


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Naynadine said:


> There is a petition that you can sign. I'm not sure if these type of things really can make an impact, but I thought it might be interesting.
> 
> Animals Petition: Boycott Estee Lauder companies, Avon and Mary Kay for Animal Testing! | Change.org



 	The link doesn't open for me.


----------



## Naynadine (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac-Guy said:


> The link doesn't open for me.



 	Hmm, it works for me.Sometimes it just takes a little longer to load.


  	Does this work? Animals Petition: Boycott Estee Lauder companies, Avon and Mary Kay for Animal Testing! | Change.org


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It's still not working for me. I'll try a bit later.


----------



## Naynadine (Mar 27, 2012)

You should be able to find it on www.change.org if you search for it, I think.


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 27, 2012)

Mac-Guy said:


> No judgement, but if one buys from a company that sells in China, then one supports (directly and indirectly) animal testing. This doesn't mean that one does not care about animal testing, but it means that one does not care enough.


  Agree.   I find it bizarre when people compare an animals life to a human life but that's just me. Testing on prisoners will never happen, thats a huge violation of human rights. I work with pedophiles, rapists etc a lot but I still couldn't stomach forcing tests on people.   I agree with animal testing for medical purposes, but for cosmetics it ,makes me uneasy and feeling guilty. I hate the idea of inflicting pain on something so we can have pretty colours to put on our faces. But I'll still buy, I guess Im a hypocrite.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

MichaelaLou said:


> I agree with animal testing for medical purposes, but for cosmetics it ,makes me uneasy and feeling guilty. I hate the idea of inflicting pain on something so we can have pretty colours to put on our faces. But I'll still buy, I guess Im a hypocrite.



 	The regulation for research involving prisoners is fairly strictly, and rightly so, as they are a vulnerable population that needs protection (as ironic this may sound). Thanks goodness for human rights organization and state/international law and regulations.


----------



## pemily (Mar 27, 2012)

I definately care enough.... I am planning a trip to Hong Kong this year.... Idea was to spend literally $1000's there on cosmetics as I can save HUGE compared to MAC prices in Aus, which is basically my whole focus for the year now. Not only will I not shop for a single cosmetic there, I simply am not going.... pick another destination, dont care if the makeup is twice the price.
  	at this stage we have not been given enough information from Mac regarding the products that are being sold in the US/Aus are tested on animals...... Mac need to put out a statement not just ignore people...



  	let me ask a question............. Does anyone feel they do not care enough as they continue to purchase?


----------



## romi79_2008 (Mar 28, 2012)

Question will al the products be tested on animals or only the future ones? there is the permanent range that is cruelty free so far right?


----------



## pemily (Mar 28, 2012)

romi79_2008 said:


> Question will al the products be tested on animals or only the future ones? there is the permanent range that is cruelty free so far right?


  From what we have heard from other source... They will have to test on animals as that is the Chinese law so if they plan on selling the permanent range, which they will it has to be young.


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 28, 2012)

Hi,

  	Not yet. I use many Bio beauty products ( So Bio Etic for example ), I pay attention to this. But as far as make-up is concerned most companies do test on animals. There is NO need to do it.
  	NVEY ECO is an eco-friendly brand that does not test, luxury products can be Bio as well ( price for an eyeshadow single here : around 18 € ). CHANTECAILLE doesn't use tests but prices are high ( around 80 € for a quad in France and only available in Paris ). E.L.F is eco friendly too, some Urban Decay products too, Two Faced and M.A.C for only some products.
  	I do use M.A.C Vegan products ( not all ), Two faced too, but I also use Chanel, Dior, Nars, Benefit, Lancôme..
  	China is known for cruelty against animals, most countries have blood on their hands.... Animal testing is not necessary, it must be abolished.


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 28, 2012)

Sorry, must be BANNED
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





and all countries must abide by the law ( I do hope the law will me reinforced in France, testing on animals is prohibited here so far I know ).


----------



## pemily (Mar 28, 2012)

I agree with the banning!!


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 28, 2012)

pemily said:


> I definately care enough.... I am planning a trip to Hong Kong this year.... Idea was to spend literally $1000's there on cosmetics as I can save HUGE compared to MAC prices in Aus, which is basically my whole focus for the year now. Not only will I not shop for a single cosmetic there, I simply am not going.... pick another destination, dont care if the makeup is twice the price. at this stage we have not been given enough information from Mac regarding the products that are being sold in the US/Aus are tested on animals...... Mac need to put out a statement not just ignore people...    let me ask a question............. Does anyone feel they do not care enough as they continue to purchase?


  I think Mac guys point was buying from Mac will still be supporting a company which tests on animals regardless of which country. There will be people who care to the point they refuse blank to purchase anything from Mac, I guess you can care but I'd assume the boycotters care more.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 28, 2012)

MichaelaLou said:


> *I think Mac guys point was buying from Mac will still be supporting a company which tests on animals regardless of which country. *There will be people who care to the point they refuse blank to purchase anything from Mac, I guess you can care but I'd assume the boycotters care more.



 	Thanks, Michaela, for articulating my thoughts more clearly.


----------



## pemily (Mar 28, 2012)

I totally agree in terms of the fact that I am now supporting a company that tests on animals, hence funding it NO DOUBT.
  	However I do not think any one individual can say that the people who refuse to buy care more...

  	we all know what happens when you assume.....


----------



## lovechild (Mar 28, 2012)

*MAC Cosmetics does NOT test on animals*, just because the partner company Estee Lauder does. 

	I work at MAC, and there has been information about this topic. If you are still unsure go to your nearest MAC store or counter and get in person verification.


----------



## pemily (Mar 29, 2012)

lovechild said:


> *MAC Cosmetics does NOT test on animals*, just because the partner company Estee Lauder does.
> 
> I work at MAC, and there has been information about this topic. If you are still unsure go to your nearest MAC store or counter and get in person verification.


  Alot of us have emailed Mac and they are not responding?


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 29, 2012)

pemily said:


> I totally agree in terms of the fg act that I am now supporting a company that tests on animals, hence funding it NO DOUBT. However I do not think any one individual can say that the people who refuse to buy care more...  we all know what happens when you assume.....


  I disagree. I think refusing to support something you disagree with shows you care more than people who continue to support it. But we have different opinions


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

No more MAC, or anything from other EL brands for me.


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

The writer of the blog Logical Harmony received a reply from MAC, the animal testing policy has changed.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 29, 2012)

tinywhiteshark said:


> The writer of the blog Logical Harmony received a reply from MAC, the animal testing policy has changed.



 	Thanks for posting this. Here is also a link: http://www.logicalharmony.net/mac-cosmetics-is-no-longer-cruelty-free/#axzz1qWZ7rohY


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 29, 2012)

Sadly, you are misinformed.






lovechild said:


> I work at MAC, and there has been information about this topic. If you are still unsure go to your nearest MAC store or counter and get in person verification.


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

she just posted that smashbox changed the policy as well


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 29, 2012)

Hi,

  	Yes M.A.C does test on animals. But some products are totally Vegan ( some blushes and Russian Red used to be, I got the answer from Vegan persons ). If you want to know if a company is Vegan or partially Vegan, browse the Vegan sites and you will have the answer very quickly. Some brands are 100 % Vegan. German brands for example ( Logona ), Us brands such as NVEY ECO is natural and prices are similar to Nars, we have So Bio Etic make-up in France, natural and safe. I do love style and elegance, I do love make-up too. When a company claims " we do not test on animals " it just means they don't on their finished products that's all in fact.


----------



## katred (Mar 29, 2012)

tinywhiteshark said:


> she just posted that smashbox changed the policy as well



 	Yes, I believe all EL companies exporting to China have changed their policy. I checked on the Bobbi Brown site and they've changed from no testing to "testing only where required by law". Some brands owned by EL are still not tested because they aren't exported to China- like Aveda- so even within the EL group, testing status can vary. Some people choose not to buy certain brands regardless of their testing status, because they are owned by a company that does conduct tests. Others evaluate companies based on their individual record.


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 29, 2012)

Bobbi Brown sent an email saying the same " testing only when required by law ".
  	In France animals are legally seen as " objects " I quote. There is much to be done, so much to change all this.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 29, 2012)

Do we actually know what animals are used for testing? Cats? Rabbits? Any other animals?


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

many companies make it very clear that they do not use ingredients that have been tested on animals prior to making the finished product(urban decay & too faced for example). that would make the brand truly free of animal testing. it doesn't really matter if a product happens to have all vegan ingredients if the company does animal testing.


----------



## shellygrrl (Mar 29, 2012)

But surely _all_ ingredients in cosmetics, regardless of their source, have been tested on an animal at some point? If this is true, then the only sure-fire way to go cruelty-free would be to stop wearing makeup.


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

PCRM says rabbits, guinea pigs, rats and mice are most common in cosmetics testing.


----------



## tinywhiteshark (Mar 29, 2012)

just because they have been animal tested in the past doesn't mean companies have to keep testing on animals


----------



## pemily (Mar 29, 2012)

tinywhiteshark said:


> just because they have been animal tested in the past doesn't mean companies have to keep testing on animals


 
	agreed!!
  	We cant change what happened in the past, that opens a whole new can of worms....


----------



## romi79_2008 (Mar 29, 2012)

Is it possible that the products tested on animals to be sold only in China? since  all the the other products were tested and sold in the rest of the world without needing the testing!


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 30, 2012)

romi79_2008 said:


> Is it possible that the products tested on animals to be sold only in China? since  all the the other products were tested and sold in the rest of the world without needing the testing!


 
  	I'm not sure if I understand your question. Maybe you can rephrase it?

  	If a company tests products, it doesn't matter where they test and where they sell it, as long as these products are available worldwide. Have a look at the Chinese MAC site and you'll know what products are sold. The range is almost identical. http://www.maccosmetics.com.cn/cult_products/index.tmpl?CATEGORY_ID=CAT2146
  	This means that old and new products are (and will be) tested, as long as they are sold in China.


----------



## commandolando (Mar 30, 2012)

MAC may not test on animals but they are owned by a company who does. Just like The Body Shop is "Cruelty free" and yet is owned by L'OREAL! CONTRADICTION MUCH?! I haven't purchased anything from MAC since I found this out. It's been extremely hard but I feel it's for the best. I have higher morals & values than to cause unnecessary harm to a living creature. Has anyone tried Lush cosmetics? I have one of their color supplements and love it!


lovechild said:


> I work at MAC, and there has been information about this topic. If you are still unsure go to your nearest MAC store or counter and get in person verification.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Mar 30, 2012)

They do now as they sell in China, where law requires that cosmetic products are tested on animals.


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 30, 2012)

Hi,

  	I am not sur that LUSH is 100 % Vegan... but it's much better than other companies. Everything is tested on animals even food for our pets, so I think we have to change everything from A to Z, which will be very long and difficult. I am not a Vegan, I am just concerned about the issue.


----------



## shellygrrl (Mar 30, 2012)

Dominique33 said:


> Everything is tested on animals even food for our pets, so I think we have to change everything from A to Z, which will be very long and difficult.


  This is why I stopped bothering with avoiding certain companies that supposedly test. It's virtually unavoidable and impossible, IMO. (Elaboration below.)  [quote name="tinywhiteshark"]just because they have been animal tested in the past doesn't mean companies have to keep testing on animals[/quote]  That wasn't my point. My point is that _every ingredient in cosmetics_ has, over the decades or whatnot they've been in existence, likely been tested on an animal. Because of this, IMO, it's virtually impossible to avoid it, even if you restrict yourself to companies with a no-testing policy (be it solely with a final product or if they claim not to source ingredients from manufacturers who engage in the practice), so the only surefire way to go cruelty-free in this regard would be to stop wearing makeup altogether. I never said or implied that companies should continue to test; in fact, I believe there's virtually no need for it now.  (That said, I am for animal testing within the medical field until/unless a better alternative comes around.)


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 30, 2012)

I am against animal testing within the medical field as well. Or if there are some tests, they must be crueltry free too and non invasive. Animal testing does not improve anything. There are maybe 30 000 conditions and diseases that are human ones. I know because I am bipolar. But I am ready to ban ALL animal tests even if I suffer from my bipolar disorder
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. Alternatives do exist but scientists just dont' care, I care. Ok I am not willing to give up make-up for it gives me some happiness in my life, but I think I will use cruelty free make-up as much as possible, I use Bio deo, bio shower gel, bio rosewater and soap, well I'll keep acting that way.


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 31, 2012)

Dominique33 said:


> I am against animal testing within the medical field as well. Or if there are some tests, they must be crueltry free too and non invasive. Animal testing does not improve anything. There are maybe 30 000 conditions and diseases that are human ones. I know because I am bipolar. But I am ready to ban ALL animal tests even if I suffer from my bipolar disorder
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  I'm not trying to play devils advocate but animal testing has improved things. I'm not saying its right, but it has. The only valid alternative for drugs would be human trials, which for a lot of medicines aren't allowed unless its been trialed on animals first. I don't think currently for medical purposes there's a way to get around it within the law.


----------



## baghdad81 (Mar 31, 2012)

MichaelaLou said:


> I'm not trying to play devils advocate but animal testing has improved things. I'm not saying its right, but it has. The only valid alternative for drugs would be human trials, which for a lot of medicines aren't allowed unless its been trialed on animals first. I don't think currently for medical purposes there's a way to get around it within the law.


  As a scientist, I know there is no way around animal testing unless we have human volunteers volunteering their eggs to be genetically mutated so we can see how humans would be affected (i.e. produce children with genetic defects)! From a medical standpoint, we would not have any drugs or any treatments from diabetes to cancer had it not been for animal testing. I agree with your point wholeheartedly.  I also agree with a point made earlier that all ingredients at one point were tested on animals, hence, we know why we can't use red dye on our eyes etc...Imagine if they didn't then you would get all these people with burnt eyelids because companies adhered to standards of no-animal testing.  While I am against non-necessary animal testing, until we can come up with better models of predicting outcomes of a certain chemical, drug, etc...on humans, animals (being about 99.9% similar in genetic content to humans, esp. mice) are essential for advancement of research.


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 31, 2012)

Hi,

  	That may be but I am against cruelty. You mentioned cancer ? Ok but so far I know 50 % of cancers are of generally good evolution and 50 % are lethal. Regardless of animal testing as cancer has been growing for years now. Thyroïd is not so aggressive as pancreatic tumors, we all know that. New medication is available for many conditions but is animal testing really useful ? Yes if scientists don't want to kill people when testing a new medication - it's sometimes the case -  so animal testing has become an habit, both seen as necessary and ethical. I strongly disagree with that, I know bipolar disorder shares around 200 commun genes with schizophrenia, maybe more but bipolar disorder seems to be a 100 % human condition, there is no model for schizophrenia in animals, so we must find alternatives to animal testing, ethical and voluntary based solutions. It's far from being simple, I totally agree but we must change our ways and habits, in 20 minutes Earth hour starts here, I must go !
  	Best,


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 31, 2012)

Dominique33 said:


> Hi,  That may be but I am against cruelty. You mentioned cancer ? Ok but so far I know 50 % of cancers are of generally good evolution and 50 % are lethal. Regardless of animal testing as cancer has been growing for years now. Thyroïd is not so aggressive as pancreatic tumors, we all know that. New medication is available for many conditions but is animal testing really useful ? Yes if scientists don't want to kill people when testing a new medication - it's sometimes the case -  so animal testing has become an habit, both seen as necessary and ethical. I strongly disagree with that, I know bipolar disorder shares around 200 commun genes with schizophrenia, maybe more but bipolar disorder seems to be a 100 % human condition, there is no model for schizophrenia in animals, so we must find alternatives to animal testing, ethical and voluntary based solutions. It's far from being simple, I totally agree but we must change our ways and habits, in 20 minutes Earth hour starts here, I must go ! Best,


  Yes but you have to remember typically with psychiatric medications they're testing them to see side effects as well as improvements. As for schizophrenia, there are models to replicate both negative and positive symptoms. Im against cruelty too, but I would rather have the treatments and medical advances which at this present time can only be achieved through testing l


----------



## Dominique33 (Mar 31, 2012)

Lithium carbonate has been used for 50 years, probably more and it's typically the best mood medication ever ( except contraindication and kidney failure ), others are not so effective generally speaking, of course there are many other drugs available. As far as schizophrenia scientists were able to create negative and positive symptoms with mice, and that's all.... For the time being brain disorders remain a mystery. You are going to wait for a while because bipolar disorder and schizophrenia or depression have a long history ! Platon himself was probably bipolar... I do feel better with lithium, I hope many people do too, if Baudelaire or Lord Byron had not been bipolar poets, they would never have written anything I fear. So it's a cruel disease but cruelty against animals is much more terrible I think.
  	Best, the 1 hour without any light was hard too but Earth deserved it, I didn't miss it and I feel happy I could do it !


----------



## MichaelaLou (Mar 31, 2012)

Dominique33 said:


> Lithium carbonate has been used for 50 years, probably more and it's typically the best mood medication ever ( except contraindication and kidney failure ), others are not so effective generally speaking, of course there are many other drugs available. As far as schizophrenia scientists were able to create negative and positive symptoms with mice, and that's all.... For the time being brain disorders remain a mystery. You are going to wait for a while because bipolar disorder and schizophrenia or depression have a long history ! Platon himself was probably bipolar... I do feel better with lithium, I hope many people do too, if Baudelaire or Lord Byron had not been bipolar poets, they would never have written anything I fear. So it's a cruel disease but cruelty against animals is much more terrible I think.
> Best, the 1 hour without any light was hard too but Earth deserved it, I didn't miss it and I feel happy I could do it !


  Many of my patients respond extremely well to other mood stabilisers.  I'm sorry but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make lol, I must be daft. Wait for what? Medications are always advancing and being developed from the aid of animal testing, including psychiatrics. The atypical antipsychotics, more are being introduced. different forms of dementia meds too  . Mental illness isn't really a mystery though, generally the science is understood. I'm a psych nurse, so I don't know the ins and outs but doctors attempt to explain it to me a lot lol.


----------



## Dominique33 (Apr 1, 2012)

Hi,

  	I think you are on the good side, and I am on the wrong side lol.
  	Well, the most important point is that we share the same passion for beauty products and make-up, in a way we are addicts lol !
  	Best,


----------



## SNJx (Apr 6, 2012)

I can see why mac wants to get itself out their in the Chinese market. I worked an event at a well known UK jewellers a few weeks ago and the focus was the chinese market and how businesses over their are really taking off due to an increase of disposable income to the professionals over there. Mac just wants a piece of this action. However, I do not agreewith animal testing and IMO it is disgusting. But I am ashamed to say I currently don't know how this will effect how I purchase from mac; mac draws you in with it's collections and it knows this. I hope in the futureChina will re-evaluate its current legislation and opt for testing laws similar to that of other countries.


----------



## Hay Mich (Apr 12, 2012)

Does anyone know what MAC's Canadian address is?  I want to write them a letter about this.  They've just lost me as a customer.  I can't support a company that tests on animals.


----------



## dhoakohime (May 3, 2012)

I just saw this and i will deff stopping any further buying from MAC as disgusted as i am after finding this despite how much i LOVE their products (i was planning a haul day tomorrow with a friend....i guess i'll get instead a perfume..). I am totally against any kind of animal testing, but even more if it stands for something as trivial as make up is. I am against animal testing for medic purposes as  well as other methods have been developed involving human cells that have proven WAY more accurate (in fact no so called doctor would use a product that states has only been tested on animals as it is know to not be accurate)..the problem is that it is way more xpensive...but still viable..the problem is how this society is built and where the money is invested...certanly not in education, health care and scientific research....and we find ourselves in XXI century melting the eyes of a rabbit to see if this mascara is safe or not...if you have to try it on an animal i'd love to see what kind of sht you are pouring in the mix..."lets see how much of this sht the eye can hold without being irritated or melted..."

  	Deff against it..i will turn instead to small companies that almost home make their products : graftobian or kett for foundations, MUFE, Inglot, glamourdoll eyes, sugarpill, etc for eyeshadows and i have yet to find nice lipsticks to substitute the mac ones...that is going to b a real pain, but oh well...in the end i know i am doing the right thing and despite the temptations i will certanly feel better, because i have seen too many pics, too many vids of how animals are tortured for the seek of testing and i just cant handle it...


----------



## Mac-Guy (May 11, 2012)

Katred, did you ever hear back from MAC?


----------



## FadBurger (May 14, 2012)

What sucks is that clearly MAC was doing fine because we weren't all burning our faces off when we are using their products, etc. The problem is that the Chinese govt. needs everything tested before being sold in their country even if the things are clearly fine, which is the problem. I think, like some people mentioned above, animal testing can be very important but for things that are obviously unnecessary it needs to be stopped. Also we know that they have developed/are developing ways to test cosmetics that create the same reactions as on live animals but in a lab, it's just cheaper and more widespread to do it to animals, which is something I have an issue with...there is an alternative. I also believe that they need to create good conditions for animal testing, so in the least the animals don't have to have unnecessary discomfort if it must be done.


----------



## jetjet (May 14, 2012)

Here's L'Occitane's (Au website's) position

  	It really helped me understand WTF is going on re:China.  I think I'll still buy from them because at least they're trying to explain the situation and do something about it.  They're also letting customers make up their own mind, rather than hiding behind "unless required by law".


----------



## jetjet (May 28, 2012)

Some positive news... http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2012/05/07/china-to-approve-first-non-animal-cosmetics-test.aspx


----------



## emily6 (May 30, 2012)

This may be of interest:

  	Its a vegan blog, which comments on *cruelty free* products ( this meaning that the products were not tested by any company at any point during production and do not contain any ingredients that were tested by any company.)
​  	http://www.logicalharmony.net/an-update-on-all-estee-lauder-brands-and-animal-testing/#more-10027


----------



## Naynadine (Jun 6, 2012)

Not MAC, but I thought this might be of interest. Urban Decay is now selling in China too.

Urban Decay expanding into China


----------



## katred (Jun 6, 2012)

Naynadine said:


> Not MAC, but I thought this might be of interest. Urban Decay is now selling in China too.  Urban Decay expanding into China


  Was just coming to post this. I respect them for being more up front about it than Mac, but it's just further evidence that these companies' principles are in place only up to the point where they interfere with expanding their profits. Sad tidings, but I guess the size of the market outweighs any losses they'll suffer here as a result. Honestly, this whole rush to get rid of cruelty-free policies is depressing for me, as it felt like things had been moving in the right direction for the last 15 years or so.


----------



## Naynadine (Jun 6, 2012)

katred said:


> Was just coming to post this.* I respect them for being more up front about it than Mac,* but it's just further evidence that these companies' principles are in place only up to the point where they interfere with expanding their profits. Sad tidings, but I guess the size of the market outweighs any losses they'll suffer here as a result. Honestly, this whole rush to get rid of cruelty-free policies is depressing for me, as it felt like things had been moving in the right direction for the last 15 years or so.


  	I agree. But somehow I am more disappointed in UD than I was in MAC for starting to sell in China, because UD was pretty much the last company I would have expected to make this move. Cruelty Free is the first thing that pops up in my mind whenever I hear Urban Decay. It surely is sad to see that they'rer getting rid of what made them stand out and what was such a huge part of their image.
  	If it was just about expanding to other markets I'm sure there would have been alternatives, it didn't have to be China, I think. UD is not availbale here in Germany, but a lot of people love their products and buy them from overseas. Why don't they make their products available here and in other European countries first? And I doubt they can 'make a change from within' like they say in their statement. But of course I would love to be proven wrong.
  	I'm not as attached to UD as I am to MAC, so I think I won't buy their products anymore. I just sold my Naked Palette and 24/7 liners anyway, the only thing I'm still using is the Primer Potion, and I think I will be able to find a replacement for that.


----------



## Mabelle (Jun 6, 2012)

I just read the statement release by UD and while i am sad, and disappointed (and INFURIATED with these ridiculous Chinese laws that take pleasure in inflicting pain on animals!), i see what they are saying about No one listening if your not even in the game. They need to get the citizens riled up about animal cruelty, in order for the government to ever listen, and they can't do that if they are not in China.
	What I also understood is that it is the Chinese government themselves doing the testing, not UD. I don't know if this is the case with all companies, or just case specific. Regardless, it's disgusting.

  	Also, i would like to clarify two things; Vegan and "Cruelty Free" are not the same thing. Vegan means not only was the product not tested on animals, no ingredients were, and no ingredients come from an animal or an animal by product ex; beeswax, lanolin or carmine (and even the UD products with the vegan logo on them, some contain carmine soooooo)
	Cruelty free has no set definition. Generally we assume it means not tested on animals, but even THAT is a hazy area. Example; Body shop claims to be cruelty free, but it's parent company comes from a long line of testing. Lets say another company doesn't test, but they buy ingredients from companies that do. OR in this case UD doesn't test and has "Vegan" products, but now submits their products for testing out east. The point is YOU need to find out what "Cruelty Free" means to you. E-mail the companies and see if it fits your definition. 

  	Another thing is MAC themselves have, in the past, claimed not to test. That may be the case. But the fact is EL, their parent company did test. There for, great, you bought from what was a formerly cruelty free brand, but you are lining the pockets of animal abusers. The money goes back to the Parent company, and gets redistributed. 


  	And just to chime in on the past topic, I am all for testing on people. In my area, we have just arrested a necrophiliac/cannibal/murderer , and he should be a prime candidate. There are enough people that commit the most horrendous violent crimes, and no I don't believe everyone can be fixed. I believe If you brutally rape and murder an 8 year old girl, you should be submitted for a lifetime of testing to make your contribution to society. I don't give a damn about your rights.


----------



## jetjet (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm so dissapointed in Urban Decay....and rather annoyed at the time i wasted on their website planning my next haul since I won't buy MAC

  	To be honest, I'm not sure what to do, the brands that dont test on animals seem really hard to buy (I don't like buying makeup online if I can avoid it)


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 7, 2012)

NVEY ECO doesn't test at all : natural luxury make-up, it looks pretty !


----------



## rockin (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't think any company can claim that their products/ingredients have never been tested on animals.  Virtually every ingredient has at some time in the past been tested in this way, not necessarily by the company making the claim, but by some company or other.


----------



## Mac-Guy (Jun 7, 2012)

Quote: 		 			Originally Posted by *Pinkdollface* 



			 				I'm also not really attached to the brand. I only have the naked palette and the BOS3. I like TFSI over UDPP so another vote for TFSI here!

 			 				I really hope somebody can change the mind of chinese people. It's so sad about the way animals are treated there. I have been there once and in one of the warehouses i've seen that they sold a ton of leather and fur. It was so scary to see.



 	 		I don't think the Chinese government will change their views any time soon. We are probably talking about years and years.

The only thing consumers, we, can really do - if we care about animal testing - is stop buying brands that do animal testing. This is the only logical conclusion that we can draw.

 	 		It does not help much to send this or that brand an email or bombard their facebook page if we continue to buy the products as if there is no tomorrow. There are certainly other brands that do not test on animals, though they will probably not as hip as MAC or UD.

 	 		Just to be clear, I am not pointing fingers at anyone, I am just pointing out the simplest solution that it out there.


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 7, 2012)

The only thing consumers, we, can really do - if we care about animal testing - is stop buying brands that do animal testing

  	Yes in theory that's what we ought to do.  It's a question of duty or/and personal values in fact.


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 7, 2012)

Yes some companies NEVER test on animals. NVEY ECO is one, in France we have DURANCE, TERRE DE COCAGNE or SO BIO ETIC.  YES TO CARROTS etc... does not test, in Germany  many brands do not test, many Vegan brands come from Germany.
  	Natural make-up is not always good but so far I know NVEY ECO is a luxury green brand ( compact foundation around 40 €, blush around 20 € )
  	If we really want to, we can avoid brands that do test, exactly as we can avoid leather handbags by replacing them by hemp handbags.
  	The question is a am I ready to do so ? Maybe if my personal values go beyond my narcissism ( in my case ).


----------



## Elirose (Jun 8, 2012)

Thanks for asking those questions, they're really important and like you, I'll always choose to put my money behind the most ethical ones when it comes to animal testing, so I really want to know who's doing what. I look forward to seeing your reply from Mac and get ready to switch brands if necessary!


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 8, 2012)

Here is a list I recently found on the Internet. I don't know if it's 100 % cruelty-free... But some products are CF and even Vegan. I am disappointed by Urban Decay because they used to be cruelty-free, more than 15 years they respected their values. Some brands go cruelty-free which is really good, but UD ? I do hope they will change their mind in the near future. Making profit, having values ok but betraying values is not acceptable.
  	Thanks for readinf Elirose !


  	Here it is :



  	VERNIS :
  	◦a England
	◦American Apparel
	◦Barry M
	◦Beauty Without Cruelty
	◦Butter London (Some old packaging lists non-vegan ingredients, but the brand is now 100% free of animal ingredients.)
	◦China Glaze
	◦CND/Creative
	◦Color Club
	◦Cult Nails
	◦Deborah Lippmann (All of the polishes are vegan, but some of the hand care products are not.)
	◦ELF
	◦LA Colors Color Craze
	◦LA Girl
	◦Manic Panic
	◦Models Own
	◦NCLA
	◦Nails Inc
	◦Nina Ultra Pro
	◦No Miss
	◦Nubar
	◦Obsessive Compulsive Cosmetics
	◦Orly
	◦Pop Beauty
	◦Priti NYC
  	◦Ruby Kisses
	◦Sante
	◦Scotch Naturals
	◦Sinful Colors
	◦SpaRitual
	◦Spoiled by Wet’n’Wild
	◦Wet’n’Wild
	◦Wet’n’Wild Fantasy Makers
	◦Zoya
  	MARQUES :
  	•Bare Minerals (customer service would not comment when asked about vegan options)
  	•Beautisol (all but one product is vegan, and it’s being re-formulated to be vegan!)
	•Christie Brinkley Skin Care (100% vegan!)
	•E.L.F. Cosmetics (all cosmetics are 100% vegan, most brushes are vegan, the e.l.f. essentials line contains non-vegan brushes.)
	•Earthly Body (100% vegan!)
	•Garden Botanika (has lots of vegan options!)
	•Glam Natural (100% vegan!)
	•Joico (waiting to hear back on if they have vegan options or not)
	•Jordana (has some vegan options – unable to get a list from customer service of vegan options)
	•Kiss My Face (everything except their lip balms are 100% vegan!)
	•Method (100% vegan!)
	•NARS (Has lots of vegan options! It should be noted that they are cruelty free, but their parent company is not.)
	•OPI (Has some vegan options – unable to get a list from customer service of vegan options. It should be noted that they are cruelty free, but their parent company is not.)
	•Victoria’s Secret Beauty (has lots of vegan options!)
	•Vitacare (everything but the gum is vegan, and it’s being reformulated to be vegan!)
	•Wet’n’Wild (has lots of vegan options!)
	•Yes to Carrots (has lots of vegan options!)


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 8, 2012)

" 
  	(Boursier.com) -- Le bureau d'études Berenberg s'est penché sur les fusions-acquisitions dans le secteur des soins personnels, un segment qui devrait encore se montrer actif en la matière, en dépit de l'échec de l'OPA de Coty sur Avon. L'analyste évoque dans son étude tous les grands groupes, dont le français *L'Oréal*. "Le leader mondial du secteur n'a pas beaucoup de raisons de participer à l'activité de fusions-acquisitions. Il dispose du meilleur portefeuille de marques du secteur, de notre point de vue, et est déjà un acteur de poids dans la plupart des spécialités dans lesquelles il opère", selon le spécialiste, qui voit quand même quelques lacunes dans l'édifice, notamment son absence sur le marché des designers en maquillage, dans la vente directe et dans la distribution sur certaines parties de la côte est des États-Unis.
  	Même si son portefeuille est bien garni, Berenberg estime que L'Oréal a de grandes chances de racheter Urban Decay, une marque de maquillage qui a le vent en poupe et qui serait hautement profitable, et compléterait bien le dispositif actuel du groupe français. "C'est exactement la sorte de marque que L'Oréal pourrait rapidement globaliser", selon l'analyste, qui pense que le prix d'acquisition dépasserait 225 millions de dollars, soit le multiple de 2,8 fois le chiffre d'affaires payé par Estée Lauder pour Smashbox en 2010. En attendant, le bureau d'études a relevé de 84 à 95 euros sa valorisation du titre, en maintenant sa recommandation "conserver".

  	It means that l'Oréal could buyUrban Decay... It's highly probable says Berenberg audit society. That would be a very bad news indeed... ( SOURCE : Boursie.com ).


----------



## Naynadine (Jun 8, 2012)

UD have taken down their original statement. (probably because it was a bunch of BS, LOL)


  	Here's a petition you can sign 

Animals Petition: Urban Decay: Refuse Animal Testing in China | Change.org


----------



## Dominique33 (Jun 8, 2012)

Thank you very much Naynadine, signed ! ( I very often go to the " petitionsite " and I didn't see anything about UD yet, it's such a huge website, probably there will be some petitions there )


----------



## jasmineshah (Apr 21, 2013)

katred said:


> I know that this isn't a make-or-break issue for many cosmetic fans, but since it's something I take seriously and I know that others here do, I thought I'd share this piece from phyrra.net:
> 
> http://www.phyrra.net/2012/03/heartbroken-by-mac.html
> 
> ...


  	I was wondering as you said that this doesn't limit your option as much as it used to, which brands produce equally as good (as the more known, expensive brands e.g. mac, bobbi brown etc) cosmetics?
  	Thanks.


----------

