Living Cruelty Free

I have finally found my solution to the poisoned pet food problem! The answer is cooking for my dog. This has led me to be able to end my dependence on Hi Tor Neo Diet Pet food, which does not use free range meats, and probably tests on animals.

Dogs have different amino acid requirements than people, so just feeding them the same food as us will make them very, very sick. But I asked my veterinarian for a recipe for a low-phosphorus, low-protein dog food for my dog, and he found one, so I can give it to her and she will receive all the amino acids she needs, and will not develop nutritional deficiencies. (Disclaimer — cats are totally different from dogs amino-acid requirement-wise — they will die if given food that is nutritionally complete for dogs.)

My veterinarian found a recipe for a low-phosphorus, low protein kidney diet dog food in a dog nutrition textbook — yes, there’s a whole section on kidney diets and even a recipe in Small Animal Clinical Nutrition! It’s absolutely perfect. The recipe involves cooked white rice, cooked eggs, white bread, olive oil, salt, a calcium supplement, and a daily multivitamin.

So far, this whole procedure has been amazingly easy. I steam some rice for my dog in the morning, toss in some torn up white bread, add a little olive oil, salt, calcium powder, and multivitamin, crack an egg on top of that, microwave it for two minutes to cook the egg, stir it up, and spoon out a third of it for my dog morning, noon, and evening. It’s really easy, it doesn’t have that disgusting dog food smell I’ve never really cared for, and I enjoy feeding my dog food that actually looks good. Especially if I decide to scramble her the egg instead of microwaving it — that scrambled egg looks a lot better than kibble.

I don’t know if this is a good solution for everybody — it’s more work than opening a bag of kibble, it puts the responsibility for proper dog nutrition on my shoulders instead of some dog food company’s, and it’s a little unsettling to think that I’ll have to take my dog to the hospital several times to make sure the diet is working for her — but for me, personally, I’m really liking it. I love not having that dog food smell in the kitchen, I love not supporting cruel meat-packing plants, I love that I’m supporting organic free-range egg production (of course I buy free range eggs!), I love that I’m feeding my dog a balanced kidney diet, and I actually enjoy cooking for my dog — she’s a very small dog so it’s not much work and she does a little dance of appreciation when I put her plate on the floor. Plus my $19 rice cooker from Target takes all the effort out of cooking rice.

I am not having any trouble getting my dog to switch diets, since she’s always been really fond of rice, bread, and scrambled eggs. She does seem especially excited though by the new food since she thinks she’s getting “people food.”

So overall, I’m very happy to be cooking for my dog. I feel so relieved that I’m not potentially poisoning her with commercial dog food any more — and until the pet food recall has completely died down, I’m definitely sticking with it. I am taking my dog in to be tested for nutritional deficiencies in a month (and then regularly every few months thereafter) to make sure she’s doing okay on the new food — if she’s not, I’ll go back to Hi Tor Neo Diet.

So, if you have a dog with a special diet and are unable to find a cruelty-free pet food for him or her, or you’re really freaked out by the pet food recalls and wish to go to the trouble of cooking for your dog, I highly recommend talking to your veterinarian — maybe your veterinarian can give you a recipe for nutritionally complete dog food for that condition. Bring up Small Animal Clinical Nutriton — it has a whole chapter on cooking for your dog.

L’Occitane makes lovely scented candles. I actually don’t think candles are tested on animals, but I still like to support L’Occitane’s cruelty-free ways, and there are few places with better candles!

I picked up the mini trio of candles a year ago (unfortunately they’ve since been discontinued, though sometimes you can pick them up on Ebay). The trio had a Rose scented candle, an Orange Blossom scented candle (since discontinued), and a Vanilla scented candle (since discontinued). Each candle burns for approximately six hours and uses 100% cotton wicks.

I really liked the Rose candle — as I described in a previous post, L’Occitane rose fragrance is a soft, fresh, delicate rose fragrance — it doesn’t smell harsh the way essential oil of rose does. I will definitely buy a large version of this. I kind of liked the orange blossom candle scent — it smells nice, though nothing compared to actually being in a grove of orange trees, which is what I was hoping for. I also kind of liked the vanilla scent — it smells nice, but again, not really like a fresh vanilla bean. I was not disappointed with any of the candles, but while I will definitely buy the rose candle again, I probably won’t buy the Orange Blossom or the Vanilla candles again in the future. Overall, all three of them smelled so much better than many scented candles I’ve bought — I don’t usually spend this much on candles, but these are definitely worth it!

So I will probably buy more L’Occitane candles in the future. It looks like L’Occitane now has an assortment of candles in a number of fragrances: lavender harvest, verbena, lavender amber, honey harvest, green tea, L’Oranger, Rose et Reine Fruity Rose, clementine, chocolate fondant, amber, apple pie, marzipan, sweet cherry, candied fruit, and cinnamon orange. I’m really tempted by the Dessert Candles Set which is a large tin of apple pie, chocolate fondant, rhubarb compote, and marzipan candles, the Home Fragrance Candle Discovery Set with creme caramel, gingerbread, pumpkin chestnut, violet fig, amber, and liquorice wood candles, and the Cherry Blossom Floating Candles, which are pink floating candles in cherry blossom scent. Those look really beautiful.

I did a quick search on L’Occitane candles on MakeupAlley (if you register there you can read lots of great cosmetics reviews). A few L’Occitane candles were reviewed by MakeupAlley members — candied fruit had the highest ranking (4.8/5), then creme caramel, then clementine, then verbena, then green tea (3.0/5). Obviously, all of these reviews reflect numerous people’s highly personal tastes, but I think it’s always useful to see what other people think of these candles.

The L’Occitane Mini Trio of Candles is available on Ebay for $15.50.

Okay, so I just got my first nasty comment on this blog, which I’ve decided not to publish since I’m not interested in unpleasant comments. I’m actually surprised by the venom directed at me in the comment — you know, my support of animal rights doesn’t mean I hate human beings, or individuals like the commenter, in particular. Really. I think you, commenter, are completely entitled to your own opinion, and I’m sorry you feel that way about me. However, if you wish to leave a comment on this blog, please argue your position nicely — I’m not going to publish personal attacks on myself or anyone else (thank you current commenters! You’ve all been so wonderful!). I realize that animal testing has its proponents, and if you have a well-reasoned, referenced argument about why animal testing is necessary, I’ll be glad to publish it.

However, the commenter did make several valid points, which I would be glad to rebut. First, the commenter suggested that Procter & Gamble has spent millions of dollars with research companies, developing new testing methodologies that do not require the use of animals, and that when there is no alternative, P&G does all it can to invasively test animals as humanely as possible. I’m really confused as to why the commenter thought I would be appalled by this. I think this is great! I would love for P&G to do this! But I’m skeptical, because the commenter left no source for this information, and Uncaged.co.uk has a whole website suggesting the opposite. If anyone has information on this, please post it, I’d be thrilled to read about it. I’d be much more convinced if the commenter had given a source for this information (I try to source all my information). Maybe the commenter is the head of animal torture at some P&G company and would care to shed some light on this?

Second, the commenter also suggested that animal testing should take place because people would sue any company that put a detergent product on the market that damaged peoples’ skin, and that the only alternative to human testing of detergents is animal testing. I completely disagree with this. For one thing, most detergent chemicals have been tested in the past on animals — probably by P&G! So if you’re buying a detergent that has not been tested on animals, its individual ingredients have already been tested on animals in the past. So there’s no need to do more animal testing, to my mind, unless it’s a brand new detergent chemical ingredient. The main ingredient in Method Hand Soap is the detergent Sodium Lauryl Sulfate — I plugged that into the PubMed search engine and it produced 11,046 studies about sodium lauryl sulfate. I bet some of those tests involved animal sacrifice.

For another thing — no animal test subject is actually a human being. There are poisons that are toxic to animals but not to humans and vice versa. All animal tests are inconclusive in that way. The only really conclusive studies are done on long-term human subjects. Look at the Vioxx scandal – I’m sure Vioxx was tested at great length on animals, then was given to people, but only began to cause serious problems for people who used it for more than 12 months. There’s no way animal testing could have determined that — not even short-term human testing did.

Also, there ARE alternatives to animal testing! It’s cruel and inhumane to continue testing on animals when you can use in vitro methods of testing, where a scientist takes a piece of living flesh, and puts it in a petri dish in a bath of nutrients and performs toxicity tests on it (it’s the same technique used to keep embryos alive — embryos are small pieces of living flesh– that’s why fertility treatment is often referred to as in vitro). It’s cruel and inhumane to use rabbits, ferrets, and rats when this could be done instead. You can read all about in vitro methods and alternatives to animal testing at the marvelous Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing.

In vitro methods were first developed in the 18th century with the invention of the microscope — and they are currently an important method of medical research. For vaccines, for example, scientists isolate a virus from human blood, they replicate and grow more viruses in flesh placed in petri dishes, they isolate those viruses, they attempt to create vaccines from them, and then they grow those viruses and the vaccines in monkey/orangutans and see if the vaccines can kill them. (I personally, hate the fact that they do this to innocent monkeys, but it does save human lives, so I’m not going to protest against it — I just hope that people are devoting research to not using monkeys in the future.) In vitro methods were used in this way to create the polio vaccine in the 1960s.

Present day in vitro methods are much more sophisticated than they were in the 1960s, and have eliminated the need for animal testing in most simple toxicology tests except for reproductive toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, and toxicokinetics (which, commenter, you could have learned if you’d taken the time to read my post on the EU 2013 animal testing ban on cosmetics). This means that acute toxicity (limited exposure toxicity), chronic toxicity (repeated long term exposure toxicity), cytotoxicity (ability to damage cells), mutagenicity, carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), and teratogenicity (ability to cause birth defects) are all testable via in vitro methods — no rabbits need be sacrificed. (Unfortunately, complex toxicity tests, such as ones that examine organ system toxicity, are impossible with in vitro methods — they have to be done using animal subjects. However, I hope that scientists are also devoting research to minimizing the number of animals used in this research.) There is a beautiful article on the CAAT website about alternatives to animal testing in the field of toxicology that I think everyone should read. I’ve posted a few lines from it here.

When I first told my father I had gotten a job with the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, he said, “I don’t believe it.” Not that he didn’t believe I got a job (well, maybe that, too). But my father, an MD/PhD and former dean of a major medical school, didn’t believe there are alternatives to the use of animals for research and testing purposes. Neither cells grown in a test tube nor computer simulations — nor any manner of non-animal methodology — he argued, can predict the complex interactions that occur within an entire living system.

My father’s reaction isn’t unusual, especially among scientists and those who work in biomedical fields. His response isn’t altogether wrong, either. Not all animal research or testing can be replaced by non-animal methods at this time — and some may never be.

I explained to him about the ‘3Rs’ of alternatives: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement is what most people think of when you say “alternatives to animal testing” — the animals are replaced, either by methods that don’t involve animals at all (mannequins, computer simulations, etc.) or by in vitro (literally, ‘in glass’) techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture.

The other two Rs, reduction and refinement, refer to reducing the number of animals to the minimum necessary for the study and to refining the techniques to eliminate or minimize pain and distress. My father allowed as these two certainly were possible, though he grumbled some about referring to them as ‘alternatives.’ He is not alone in that, either.

The word ‘alternatives’ has been the source of both confusion and controversy. Many scientists object to the term, arguing that it suggests that all animal research can be replaced, and prefer “adjunct methods.” Animal activists may reject any animal use altogether and hence reject reduction and refinement as alternative methods. Some in the alternatives field prefer to call it “humane science.”

Furthermore, success has a way of rendering an alternative invisible. For example, not so long ago, pregnancy testing involved killing a rabbit. These days, a woman can buy an over-the-counter kit that tests her urine for a certain hormone. No one thinks of this as an alternative, though clearly an in vitro method has replaced an animal test. This presents something of a double bind: If an alternative method really works and is used regularly, then it’s not an alternative. It’s simply current practice, best practice.

British scientists William Russell and Rex Burch first delineated the concept of the 3Rs (but did not use the word ‘alternatives’) in their classic 1959 book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Russell and Burch’s systematic study of laboratory techniques pointed to what they call the “intimate relationship between humanity and efficiency in experimentation” — i.e., humane science is the best science.

The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) is based upon these principles. CAAT works to promote the creation, development, validation, and application of the 3Rs of alternatives in biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. From the outset, the Center has operated three major programs: research grants, workshops/symposia, and information.

CAAT was founded in 1981 with a grant from the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, with the idea that the Center would work to develop in vitro and other innovative non-whole animal methods for product safety testing. CAAT’s research grant program serves to provide critical seed money for scientists interested in developing alternative methods. To date, the Center has funded some 300 grants for a total of about $6 million. Through this program. CAAT has helped establish the basic scientific knowledge leading to a variety of in vitro methods for evaluating the safety of commercial and therapeutic products.

Over the intervening 20-plus years, the safety testing of personal care products has changed dramatically. Many companies no longer test on animals at all, and those that do use far fewer animals and more humane methods. This is by no means due entirely to CAAT, but the Center clearly helped lead the way.

In addition to providing funding for new research, CAAT has an unparalleled record for bringing together and achieving consensus among diverse groups with often divergent interests regarding the use of animals in research and testing. For more than 20 years, the Center has been organizing symposia and workshops on the 3Rs of alternatives, bringing together academic and industrial scientists, animal welfare organizations, and the government regulatory community for discussions of common ground.

CAAT’s symposium series was so successful that it evolved into the World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. CAAT proposed and served as host for the first World Congress, held in Baltimore in 1993. The World Congresses have continued, meeting in Utrecht, The Netherlands in 1996; Bologna, Italy in 1999; and New Orleans in 2002. The 5th World Congress will convene in Berlin, Germany in August 2005.

CAAT workshops and symposia have helped give rise to significant policy changes. For example, prompted by AAVS’s campaign to end the use of mice in producing monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), CAAT hosted a workshop addressing this matter in 1997. In response to both these efforts, the National Institutes of Health issued a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter directing researchers to use in vitro methods for MAb production instead of the ascites method, which involves growing tumors in mice.

In 1999, CAAT introduced TestSmart, a new approach to risk assessment. TestSmart involves bringing together the key stakeholders — representatives of the regulatory community, industry, academic scientists, and advocacy groups (animal, environmental, etc,) — to identify ways to reduce animal tests and to improve test methods. The goal is to provide an approach to collecting regulatory data that is more humane, more predictive, and more cost-efficient.

TestSmart-HPV, the first of the TestSmart programs, demonstrated just how effective this approach can be. In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Chemical Manufacturers Association agreed to conduct hazard evaluation studies on 2,800 “high production volume” (HPV) chemicals to determine their effects on people and the environment. Because very little publicly available data could be found on these chemicals, the EPA was anticipating that at least a million laboratory animals would be needed for toxicity tests.

CAAT responded by organizing a workshop and then a larger, public meeting to examine, in detail, the tests proposed for the HPV program, as well as alternative approaches. Afterwards, the EPA adopted major recommendations made by participants — the acceptance of data from genetic toxicity studies using non-animal methods (previously, the EPA had insisted on animal data), as well as modified test protocols that resulted in an 80 percent reduction in animal use.

This year, CAAT launched a new program of scientific meetings to identify alternatives to the use of animals in Developmental Neurotoxicity (DNT) testing. DNT is a major issue in children’s health. The developing human nervous system is susceptible to many toxicants, and chemical exposure during development may cause lasting neurological damage. Testing compounds for DNT is, therefore, an important societal and scientific goal. However, current methods for DNT testing arc complex and expensive in terms of scientific resources, time, and animal use. There currently are no tests that enable high volumes of chemicals to be tested quickly and without the use of animals, yet there are tens of thousands of chemicals that need to be tested. The TestSmart DNT program will examine potential alternatives to the use of animals and how to overcome the barriers to validating and regulating alternatives in DNT testing.

The first TestSmart DNT open registration meeting is planned for March 13-15, 2006. Please see the TestSmart DNT site for details.

CAAT’s third major program is aimed at disseminating information about alternative methods to a broad range of audiences. Although we offer a wide range of information in a variety of forms and media, undoubtedly the heart of the program is Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing web site.

Altweb serves as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the internet and beyond. Altweb is the only free, universally available clearinghouse of information on the 3Rs of alternatives, and it is intended to serve a wide range of audiences, including: biomedical researchers, industry, the international alternatives community, the international regulatory community, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (lACUCs) and other institutional groups that review animal protocols, the animal welfare community, individuals and groups who work with laboratory animals (technicians, veterinarians, etc.), educators, students, and the general public.

The many resources available on Altweb include: alternatives news, a calendar of relevant meetings, a database on pain management methods and another on humane endpoints, a directory of funding sources for alternatives research (currently being reworked), abstracts for various alternatives-related journals, the full text of Russell and Burch’s book and other important documents, an extensive set of answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs;), links, a special section on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), and much more. The newest resource is a guide to searching for alternatives and a special section about refinement issues is being developed.

Altweb is managed by CAAT but has widespread, broad-based, international support, with a Project Team currently consisting of 25 member organizations representing industry, academia, animal welfare, and government/regulatory organizations in the United States, Europe, and Canada. The site draws as many as 50,000 visitors a month from more than 120 countries.

In addition to Altweb. CAAT also manages two other web sites:

• The Center’s own site, with in-depth information about CAAT’s mission, history, and programs; technical reports and proceedings from meetings and symposia; abstracts of CAAT-funded research; CAAT publications; an online course on “Enhancing Humane Science/Improving Animal Research;” and more.
• A World Congress web site, which offers information about the past World Congresses (including abstracts and proceedings from the 4th Congress), with a link to the site for the upcoming Congress in Berlin.

CAAT is part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and education is an important thread running through all our programs. In fact, education is the key that will make alternatives work over the long haul. In The Netherlands, for example, all biomedical students are required to go through a 3-week intensive program that addresses the proper design of animal experiments, alternative methods, animal welfare issues, and ethical aspects of animal experimentation. The course is designed to make students take a critical attitude toward animal experiments and to help them incorporate the 3Rs into their experimental design.

Currently, there is nothing comparable in the United States. CAAT has made a start, however. In February 2004, the Center launched an online course on Enhancing Humane Science — Improving Animal Research aimed at students, researchers, and laboratory technicians. The lectures include a range of subjects related to humane science, including in vitro and other replacement approaches, as well as such topics as non-invasive imaging; environmental enrichment; measurement, avoidance and relief of pain and distress; impact of stress on quality of data; and humane endpoints. This course is the first of its kind in the United States and is available free of charge here.

If students learn to think in terms of alternatives from the outset, incorporating the 3Rs when they plan experiments, including these concerns in their initial literature search, then it ceases to be some extra burden — it is simply current best practice. The trick is to get these ideas woven into the very fabric of the science they conduct. That is the way to make alternatives work over the long haul. Of course, then they will not be considered ‘alternatives’ any more.

I look forward to the day when my father is right — when there is no such thing as alternatives. Just humane science, the best science.

So please refrain from telling me I want to have rabbits and ferrets sacrificed for my detergent — I don’t mind if you want that, but I would prefer to buy detergents that have already been tested on animals years ago in the past, or that have been tested using in vitro methods instead.

Today is Boycott Procter & Gamble Day (every third Saturday of May). It is part of the campaign that Uncaged.co.uk runs against Procter & Gamble’s animal testing. In some parts of the world there will be demonstrations, stunts, and leaflets at Procter & Gamble facilities, supermarkets, and town centers, as well as supermarket sweeps of Procter & Gamble products, and displays in libraries, colleges, and workplaces. A downloadable leaflet is available.

Since Procter & Gamble are the world’s largest cruel consumer products company — with an annual income of $68 billion — I think it’s great to boycott it. Procter & Gamble admits that it uses guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, ferrets (ferrets? why? wait, I don’t want to know), rats, and mice in the name of “product safety research” and dog and cats in invasive, inhumane pet food testing experiments. Procter & Gamble claims that it only tests on animals as a last resort, but in fact, none of its products, other than its prescription drugs, are required to have animal testing done on them, and a memo was leaked recently that shows that Procter & Gamble has been lobbying behind the scenes to stop the ban on animal testing in the EU that will go into effect in 2013. Furthermore, P&G is investing money into the development of several new types of animal tests. Uncaged.co.uk claims that money is the only language Procter & Gamble understand, and that by boycotting Procter & Gamble, consumers can save thousands of animals who suffer and die every year in cruel and unnecessary tests. I agree completely.

This will be the 11th annual Boycott Procter & Gamble Day, and it is hoped to be the largest one yet. Last year 165 separate events took place across the world — reports about it are available here.

So, take a stand against Procter & Gamble — don’t buy any of their products today. None of their non-prescription drug products are life-saving — there is no need for P&G to cause animal suffering. You can find more information about P&G’s animal testing here.

The complete list of Procter & Gamble products is available at www.pg.com. Unfortunately, this list includes most name brand consumer products available at drug store and grocery stores — your best bet is to buy stuff approved of by the CCIC list or from small-time companies that don’t sell any of their products in drug stores. For starters, don’t buy Febreze, Old Spice, Secret, Charmin, Pampers, Luvs, Puffs, Duracell, Camay, Ivory, Noxzema, Olay, Zest, CoverGirl, Max Factor, Cascade, Dawn, Joy, Always, Tampax, Aussie, Head & Shoulders, Herbal Essences, Infusium, Pantene, Clairol, Braun, Fibersure, Metamucil, Pepto-Bismol, Prilosec OTC, Vicks, Bounty, Mr. Clean, Swiffer, Bounc, Cheer, Downy, Tide, Crest, Fixodent, Scope, Oral B, Eukanuba, Iams, Lacoste fragrane, Naomi Campbell fragrance, Puma fragrance, Gillette, Folgers, and Pringles. (Actually, I assume Procter & Gamble does not perform animal tests on Pringles, so go ahead and don’t boycott them.)

I think it’s a great idea to boycott these products for one day — you can see if you can live without them. A lot of times it’s more fun to buy products from small-time companies on the CCIC list — they use higher quality ingredients, you feel like you’re buying from real people, they have a quirky sense of fun that large P&G companies just don’t have. Also, it’s really hard to give up P&G stuff all the time — one day is a really good start. When I first started buying cruelty-free products I had a vague notion that I didn’t want to cause animal suffering but I gave up after a while because it’s just too difficult to stop buying P&G stuff that surrounds me at the grocery store and Long’s — it’s a lot of effort to research every product I buy, and sometimes I could only find weird-zen-hippy (I’m sorry cool hippy product companies! I like a lot of zen-hippy products!) alternatives to my favorite cruel P&G products (ahem — why are so many cruelty-free deodorants crystal and herb based? I’d like a few more that use aluminum and are scentless). But just giving up P&G for one day is not too much trouble, I swear — give it a try.

So, boycott P&G! Prevent needless animal suffering! Think of the ferrets!

Method dryer sheets are the best — they are cruelty free, contain only nontoxic chemicals, are made from biodegradable materials, remove static cling, make clothes softer, and make clothes smell fresher. Also, while they don’t have a cool ultramodern bottle like Method dish soap, the box they come in is understated and has no hideous flower prints all over it.

Method dryer sheets are available for $6.00 (100 sheets) from the Method Online Store or your local Target.

I feel kind of silly writing this review, as I almost never wear makeup other than lip gloss, but I thought I’d try out a face powder with UVA sunblocking abilities (why UVA? Because UVA rays cause skin cancer, and most so-called sunscreens don’t protect you from them). My nose and forehead are a little oily, so it’s nice to have a non-lotion-based sunscreen for those areas. I imagine this sort of powder is really useful for people with really oily skin who can’t ever wear moisturizer — it’s sunscreen in powder form, basically. I’m not really sure how well it works spf-wise compared to lotion-based-sunscreen — Paula from Paula’s Choice only recommends using powder as a sunscreen only if it’s applied very thickly and evenly — but for people who suffer massive breakouts every time they put sunscreen on their face, this is a great alternative. It’s also good for people who wear a lot of makeup — you don’t have to destroy all your artfully applied blush and bronzer with liquid sunblock, you can just powder a little of this on top (or so I have read).

A lot of companies have spf in their face powders, but only some of those are UVA blocking spfs, and only a very few of those are also cruelty free. Earth’s Beauty makes one such — it’s the Earth’s Beauty Mineral Colors Face Powder with SPF. The main sunscreen ingredient in it is zinc oxide, which is a very good UVA-blocker (the five are: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, octocrylene, avobenzone, and mexoryl). Earth’s Beauty Mineral Colors Face Powder with SPF comes in a little shaker jar with .75oz of powder in it, and is meant to be applied with a kabuki brush. It’s available in six colors. According to Natural Solutions, Earth’s beauty face powder is a blend of arrowroot powder and natural iron oxides from pure sources, and it is not nano-micronized, but ultra-fine. (Some people worry about the effects of nano-micronization — nano-micronized particles have not been around very long — they may cause health problems, it’s just too soon to tell. So if you worry about nano-micronization, this face powder will still work for you.)

So, that’s all great in theory, but how well does Earth’s Beauty SPF face powder actually work in practice? I was initially concerned because my forays into face powder have never gone very well. I last tried Burt’s Bees translucent face powder and it highlighted every bit of flaky skin I have, and I had difficulty applying it sheerly. It looked appalling, so I swore off face powder for a while. I’ve also tried some other pressed powders from the drugstore, and they all seemed too heavy for me, and I could never find a matching shade to my skin tone — they were all either too beigey or too pale — I have pale yellow and pink skin tones. So I was a little nervous, but I ordered two Earth’s Beauty samples to test, and they were fantastic. First off, the powder is silky fine, it just melts into my skin and is incredibly sheer. It is so much better than the other powders I’ve tried. There was no flakiness highlighting whatsoever. Unless I layer it on really thickly, I can’t see the powder at all, other than a slight mattifying effect (yay!). Secondly, the colors I picked were actually yellowish/pinkish and really match my skin tone — not too beige, not too white. So I am very happy, and ordered a full jar, and plan to powder my nose with it daily (though I’ll probably still use Alba Botanica SPF Moisturizer for the rest of my face). Of course, if I’m out in the sun for any long period of time, I’ll still reapply Alba Botanica Facial Sunscreen every few hours

Earth’s Beauty Mineral Colors Face Powder with SPF is available at Natural Solutions for $24.95 (it’s also available in 1/8tsp samples for $1.00 apiece).

Ingredients: Organic wildcrafted blend of arrowroot, kaolin, magnesium stearate, zinc stearate, zinc oxide, and iron oxide.

I’ve found two reviews of other cruelty free products in two other (excellent) blogs:

A review of Kirk’s Original Coco Castile Soap

A review of Eco Dent Toothpowder

I really like L’Occitane Verbena Pure Shea Butter. It comes in a shoe polish tin, which is not only a design statement, but actually clever — it can be stacked under piles of other beauty products, it won’t break if knocked off a table, and if you make sure to keep it out of direct sunlight, you can toss it in your handbag and take it anywhere (I have not taken it on an airplane, but I think it would probably be okay — the shea butter is not a liquid, and the tin seems fairly difficult for it to leak out of if melting did occur).

I bought it in the verbena fragrance (it also comes in lavender, and unscented). The verbena is a nice floral lemon scent. The butter itself is extremely rich — it’s not a cream, it’s straight shea butter — and it makes a very good overnight heels-and-elbows cream — it does take about 8 hours to sink in, so it’s definitely not a good daytime cream. I prefer it to other shea butters, which around here tend to become rock-solid — the L’Occitane Shea Butter has a consistency that makes it much easier to apply — similar to regular butter. Unfortunately it’s a little pricey — $18.00 for 2oz.

The MakeupAlley overall rating of L’Occitane Pure Shea Butter is 4/5 stars (reviewed by 187 people) — many of the reviewers give the shea butter five stars, a few of the reviewers seem to like the unscented version as a lip balm, and many of the reviewers feel it’s a little too highly priced.

L’Occitane Verbena Pure Shea Butter is available at the L’Occitane Online Store, Sephora, and any local L’Occitane store for $8.00.

Ingredients: Shea butter.