Update: Apparently I’ve really confused a lot of people with this post — L’Oreal will be going cruelty-free in 2013. It has not gone cruelty-free yet. Do NOT buy L’Oreal products unless they are Body Shop products until 2013.
I’m really out of the loop on this one, but I just learned that apparently L’Oreal is working on going cruelty free in the future. I am soooo excited!
Anyway, I think this is great — L’Oreal is a huge animal testing offender and owns a ton of cosmetics companies. According to Wikipedia, L’Oreal owns these companies: Kerastase, Matrix, Mizani, Redken, Garnier, Maybelline, Softsheen-Carson, Biotherm, The Body Shop (though the Body Shop is CCIC-approved — it was bought by L’Oreal last March — it’s kind of a gray area whether it’s cruelty free or not), Cacharel, Diesel Perfumes, Giorgio Armani Parfums and Cosmetics, Guy Laroche, Helena Rubinstein, Kiehl’s, Lancome, Paloma Picasso, Ralph Lauren, Shu Uemura, Victor et Rolf parfums, Dermablend, La Roche-Posay, SkinCeuticals, Vichy Laboratories, Inneov, Ombrelle.
Not only are there lots of people who use L’Oreal products who will no longer be contributing to animal testing, but I’ll get to try L’Oreal products too! I’ve heard great things about Kiehl’s, but never been able to bring myself to try any Kiehl’s products, what with the visions of tortured rats going through my brain when I look at the Kiehl’s logo, so if L’Oreal goes cruelty free I’ll get to try out Kiehl’s products! Also, Ombrelle is supposed to be a graet UVA-blocking sunscreen, and I think there’s a Ralph Lauren perfume I’d like to try as well. This is so exciting!
So, anyway, this article suggests that L’Oreal will begin replacing its animal testing with tests done on engineered human tissue. It’s the in vitro alternative to animal testing taken to a whole new level! It’s been named the “Episkin model” and its administered by a subsidiary called SkinEthic (what a great company — I shall send them fan mail), and it takes human skin reconstructed on collagen and runs tests on that. This will enable L’Oreal to stop using animals to test skin irritancy of “10,000 substances” not on 100,000 rats/rabbits, but on small pieces of human skin in petri dishes. Not only is this more ethical — to use dead human skin instead of live animal skin — but it’s more statistically valid. Animal skin is NOT a perfect substitute for human skin — human skin is the only perfect substitute for human skin.
The only thing that really bugs me about this is that L’Oreal is obviously just coming up with this elaborate in vitro alternative to animal testing because the EU has mandated that European companies must stop testing on animals as of 2013. However, L’Oreal is implying it’s doing it out of the goodness of its heart.
Wait a second — the whole “L’Oreal invented a great alternative to animal testing” thing really bugs me. First of all, in vitro testing has been around for quite a while, and the people at the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing have been working on in vitro alternatives to animal testing long before L’Oreal got involved. Secondly, as you can see at StopAnimalTests.com, there is an alternative to EpiSkin called EpiDerm, which L’Oreal didn’t invent, which is a similar human skin equivalent (the picture at the top of this post is of EpiDerm).
Interestingly enough, human skin equivalent tests like EpiSkin and EpiDerm have already been validated and accepted in Canada, the EU, and many other western countries, except for the US, where the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the EPA, the FDA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have opposed it.
Here’s a link to information about EpiSkin and EpiDerm — though it has a really scary mutilated rabbit picture next to a description of how animal tests than EpiSkin and EpiDerm replace — I’m really squeamish about that sort of thing so I didn’t read up on how most skin irritancy tests are done on animals, I unfocused my eyes really fast and just read the bottom of the page. StopAnimalTests.com woudl so be my new favorite website if they didn’t have that sort of picture lurking on the site. Or if at least they were links with warnings on them. Yeesh.
Anyway, overall, I’m really glad L’Oreal willl become cruelty-free. I realize this won’t happen for another few years — it takes a while for large companies to change their production processes — it’s likely cruelty-free L’Oreal products will not be rolled out until 2013 — but it’s a really promising step in the right direction.
Categories : against animal testing, alternatives to animal testing, cruelty free
RSS feed for comments on this post
Natasha
June 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Excellent! The sooner they stop testing the better!
Emily
June 6th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I’m so glad you’re happy about this! Me too
J Bolmarcich
June 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Just wanted to let you know that the photo of the skin tissue that you have is NOT L’Oreal’s EpiSkin product. It is MatTek Corporation’s EpiDerm Full Thickness tissue (www.mattek.com). MatTek’s company name is on the photo caption, too, though it’s misspelled. (Just emailed PETA to correct that!)
Thanks for the post - any attention to animal testing alternatives is most welcome.
Emily
July 1st, 2007 at 12:10 am
Hello,
Thanks so much for the information! I was wondering what “MakTek” was doing at the bottom of that photograph. I think I googled “episkin” and found that picture on StopAnimalTests.com and forgot to check whether it was EpiSkin or EpiDerm. I’ll go correct that.
Anyway — please feel free to post a quick summary of what MatTek does as a further comment to this post — I’m sure many animal rights people would love to hear from someone who really knows how skin equivalent testing works, and what animal-involving tests it replaces. I’d would love to know anyway!
Wendy Koenigsmann
October 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I don’t understand why they cannot stop testing sooner, as other major companies have. I currently use Aveda, Clinique, Estee Lauder, and some Victoria Secret products, but I cannot ever purchase anything from Loreal although in the past (when I did not know much about animal testing) I used to use Lancome (and I feel bad about that now). I often email companies suggesting that they stop animal testing. Some other companies I’d like to see stop animal testing would be Shu Uemera and Anna Sui, although I’m not exactly sure is Sui’s products are tested. It’s too bad so many good products are marred by animal testing; it’s also bad business practise that these companies do not realise they’d gain more customers if they’d stop with the testing.
And . . . hate to sound preachy, but anyone not ignorant of animal testing who continues to use products tested on animals really is a heartless person. Just my two cents!
Emily
October 31st, 2007 at 1:17 am
Hi Wendy — welcome to my blog! I don’t understand why L’Oreal is so unfriendly towards animals. I’d really like it if Shu Uemura and Anna Sui stopped testing — I’ve heard those are both nice product lines. That’s great that you email companies suggesting that they stop animal testing — every voice counts!
Wendy Schorn
November 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Before you use any products from companies owned by L’Oreal I suggest you read “L’Oreal took my house” by
Monica Waitzfelder. I was so indignant when I heard this woman’s story I no longer use any products associated with L”Oreal
Emily
November 17th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Wow — that looks like an absolutely fascinating book. I always knew L’Oreal was evil — that’s very interesting that it is refusing to return property to its rightful owners after World War II the way Swiss banks held onto Nazi gold for so many years.
Natasha
May 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Yeah that book sounds interesting. Not only does L’Oreal hate animals but people too! I can’t stand seeing all their stupid ads with all these talentless and heartless celebs that will do anything for money!
Emily
May 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I can’t stand those celebrity product ads either! For instance, I really doubt Penelope Cruz uses L’Oreal products — I’m sure she uses some much more expensive mascara and hair dye instead. And seeing her in those L’Oreal ads make me think she’s an uncaring person. I’d LOVE to see a celebrity support a CCIC-approved company once in a while. Wouldn’t that be lovely?
Annie
May 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
That’s really great! - I’ve been only using cruelty-free products for the last nine months, but haven’t been able to find any conditioner that works on my hair as well as Garnier Sleek and Shine did. Thanks for letting me know that I can soon start stocking up on my favorite hair products again, now that they’ve gone cruelty free!
Emily
May 9th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Glad to be of help!
Natasha
May 10th, 2008 at 7:16 am
I know! It’s totally ridiculous!These celebs are making millions of dollars so there’s no way they dye their hair with drugstore brands and wear drugstore brand make up. These celebs just care about the millions of dollars they are getting to be in these ads! So selfish! I would love to see celebs support CCIC- aproved companies too!
SITES TO KNOW : LIVING CRUELTY FREE : A Greener Tea
May 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
[...] needed in veterinary schools. The cosmetics company updates are eye-openers , like the news that L’Oreal is going cruelty-free . Read the article before you decide how great they [...]
Gem
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Apparently, I have read on a L’Oreal update thingo that they are stopping animal testing in 2009 due to a law in Europe, although I don’t know if that applies to USA as well, but I think it should. Although I know animal testing is BEYOND cruel and evil, L’Oreal has put a lot of money, time, and effort into alternate methods for a while now, so they are a little bit good :S
kristen
September 13th, 2008 at 11:03 am
i am sooo confused about Kiehl’s. Can someone please explain… right here on their site (http://www.kiehls.com/_us/_en/about/index.aspx?TopicCode=About^Our_Products^Animal_Testing)
it says:
“Statement of No Animal Testing
At Kiehl’s, we use the finest ingredients known to us in the formulation of our unique preparations. Kiehl’s does not test - nor have we ever tested - our products on animals. We offer our customers, products of the highest quality which have been tested thoroughly in laboratory environments to ensure maximum safety.”
I really don’t understand. I have used Kiehl’s for a while now believing they are cruelty-free because of their website and labels. Are you basically saying that Kiehl’s can put that on their label because their parent testing is performing all the evils? Please help.
Thanks
Emily
September 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Hi Kristen!
Welcome to the confusing world of cruelty-free label complexity! You’re on the right track but it’s not the fact that Kiehls parent company is evil, it’s that Kiehls is what I would describe as 50%-cruelty-free. Kiehls doesn’t commission animal testing on its products, BUT it does not make sure to buy ingredients that have not been tested on animals. Since most animal testing occurs at the ingredient stage — if you think about it, most companies don’t mine for titanium dioxide or run expeditions to Africa to collect shea butter nuts, they buy minerals and butters from intermediate suppliers, who purify and refine and probably run animal tests on them — so this is a bit of a problem.
So Kiehls, to my mind, is kind of like a faux-organic farmer who buys genetically modified seedlings that have been grown in chemically-laced soil for the past two weeks, plants them in organic soil for a few weeks, and then sells the plants with an erroneous “organic” label. I’d describe those plants as 50%-organic. In the same way, companies like Kiehl’s state that they do not commission tests on animals, but they do NOT make sure the product that ends up in your hands has no ingredients that have ever been tested on animals. Basically, Kiehls is not 100%-cruelty-free, and only products that are listed at leapingbunny.org are really 100%-cruelty-free (in my opinion).
Not that being 50%-cruelty-free is horrible — it’s a HECK of a lot better than a company that actually commissions tests on animals, like L’Oreal does (but not for long, thank goodness!).
I hope that helped! If that was not explanatory enough, please ask more questions!
cindy
September 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hi All!. I don’t trust a lot of the companies out there. Therefore I only use products that are 100% cruelty-free. I only buy products that are pure and 100% against animal testing and does not use third party for testing. I don’t believe in applying chemical compounds on my body, face, in the house.. etc. I also don’t beleive in animal testing. It is cruel and inhumane. I do not buy anything from Proctor and Gamble. I really like Toms for my toothpaste, burts bees, ecologic for my detergent/seventh generation. Hope one day companies will never test on animals!!!! Please buy only from cruelty-free companies, they are better for you and the environment. Chemicals are never good for you. They is mad-made and not natural. God gave us all the natural resource, we should use what he gave us, not what evil men created.
Emily
October 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hi Cindy!
Wow — you really walk the walk! Good for you — no animal testing, no Procter & Gamble, no chemicals — it’s quite impressive.
Soc
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I really doubt that L’Oréal or similar companies suddenly stop animal testing! What about their suppliers? How will L’Oréal and other companies manage their production chain?
Also, I think that behind this announcement is the fact that animal testing and animal testing derived products will be considerably limited inside the EU from January 2009.
Emily
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Hi Soc,
Um, you should read my post more carefully — I completely agree with you that behind that announcement is the fact that animal testing will be considerably limited inside the EU from 2009 on. That’s why L’Oreal’s going cruelty-free, and why I believe it. I certainly wouldn’t take L’Oreal’s word for it without knowing the EU will come after L’Oreal should it not go cruelty-free.
Regards,
Sierra
January 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I work at walgreens in the cosmetic department and Loreal has a new shampoo/conditioner that is completely vegan … no animal testing and no animal by products, so they are definently making some things happen quite quickly.
Emily
January 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hi Sierra!
Welcome to my blog! I’m glad to hear L’Oreal has a new completely vegan shampoo/conditioner! Unfortunately I’d still rank L’Oreal as not 100%-cruelty-free, since it hasn’t signed up with the Leaping Bunny people and it won’t be forced to go 100%-cruelty-free by the European Union until 2013.
Sigh.
But it’s definitely a start! Do you mean to tell me that the L’Oreal shampoo says something about its being vegan and not tested on animals right on it? That’s wonderful! Definitely a step in the right direction.
Thanks for writing in!
Regards,
Lauren
February 11th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
So in three years, I’ll FINALLY be able to try Lancome! Yippee! Everything else, I don’t really care about :P. All I have is a twenty-year-old Lancome pencil sharpener previously owned by my mother xD.
Emily
February 13th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Only three more years, you’re right! I’ll be right there with you — good for you for not buying Lancome until then! I admire your dedication.
alberta
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
products not tested on animals may still contain animals. perfume = whale intestines and beaver bits. soaps, creams and lotions contain fat from animals. cruelty goes further then testing.
Emily
March 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Hi Alberta!
Yuck, that’s just disgusting . . .
thughes
March 26th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Not sure where you get your info? The Body Shop has been cruelty free since the start of the company in th e70’s (one of the very first cosmetic company’s to do so). The Body Shop’s values are a huge part of the reason that Loreal has examined it’s practices! NOt sure why you think there is “gray” there?
Emily
April 2nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Hello thughes — that’s very interesting that you’ve heard that L’Oreal is examining its practices because it bought the Body Shop. Do you have a source?
Regards,
Emily
Earth Day? Let’s Make it Earth Week! « a chick in Van blogs about stuff
April 19th, 2010 at 7:51 am
[...] though, L’Oreal still does animal testing which in my opinion is not so Eco-Friendly. Apparently the are planning to go cruelty-free in 2013 but as of right now i recommend not supporting [...]
rob
May 5th, 2010 at 3:53 am
hahaha! what good is L’oreal going cruelty free in 2013? the damage is done they have made multi millions from sticking chemicals in animals eyes and over ther bodys! sick sick sick the company should have been closed down they cant change there past. BOYCOTT them always.
Jen Mathews
May 5th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Wonderful news! Would you mind if I posted this on my site with a link back to your site?
Jen Mathews
May 5th, 2010 at 9:10 am
I just realized this is old news - apparently I was not in the loop! Still better late than never!
Emily
May 24th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Hi Rob!
It’s always nice to hear from someone who cares about past animal cruelty. L’Oreal has indeed made multimillions from sticking chemicals in animals’ eyes. I love the fact that you plan to boycott them always — I wish more people I knew in real life would too.
Hi Jen! — Of course! I would love to be featured on MyBeautyBunny. It is such a great resource for people who are interested in cruelty-free cosmetics.
April
May 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I am so glad that L’Oreal will no longer be animal testing. I wish it was sooner than 2013 and I hope other companies will follow suit. However you said The Body Shop is ok. When L’Oreal bought them I stopped shopping there. I feel that by shopping there this is benefiting the parent company.
Emily
May 29th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Hi April!
I disagree with you, but I totally understand! I think it’s wonderful that you care so deeply.
Regards,
Emily
Rachel
July 8th, 2010 at 8:14 am
I agree with April. Thanks to this site and Leaping Bunny, I’ve gone whole hog - no pun intended. If a parent company reaps benefits, it is no-buy for me.
Emily
July 11th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Hi Rachel! Always glad to meet another cruelty-freeist! I fully support your decision to not support L’Oreal in any way.
Cheers,
Emily
Lexi
July 27th, 2010 at 9:44 am
It’s so stupid they won’t stop sooner. Why do we need to wait 3 more years? What good will that do? It’s taken them over 20 years to get to this point as it were. Also, the skin soaks up everything that gets put onto it, so if you can’t eat it, you shouldn’t wear it, so do we really want these chemicals on our skin anyway? I refuse to support L’Oreal or any company involved with them, even after 2013. The FDA has no legal definition on the term “cruelty free” and animal testing can be outsourced, so at this point, the only people I’m trusting is PETA. Revlon’s better anyway.
Emily
August 5th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Hi Lexi! I’m so glad you’re not supporting L’Oreal! Also I agree with you the whole if you can’t eat it you shouldn’t put it on your skin idea sounds awfully logical to me.
40 Responses