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.
Excellent! The sooner they stop testing the better!
Comment by Natasha — June 6, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I’m so glad you’re happy about this! Me too
Comment by Emily — June 6, 2007 @ 10:34 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.
Comment by J Bolmarcich — June 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
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!
Comment by Emily — July 1, 2007 @ 12:10 am
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!
Comment by Wendy Koenigsmann — October 30, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
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!
Comment by Emily — October 31, 2007 @ 1:17 am
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
Comment by Wendy Schorn — November 16, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
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.
Comment by Emily — November 17, 2007 @ 1:17 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!
Comment by Natasha — May 8, 2008 @ 7:01 am
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?
Comment by Emily — May 8, 2008 @ 2:24 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!
Comment by Annie — May 8, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Glad to be of help!
Comment by Emily — May 9, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
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!
Comment by Natasha — May 10, 2008 @ 7:16 am
[…] 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 […]
Pingback by SITES TO KNOW : LIVING CRUELTY FREE : A Greener Tea — May 12, 2008 @ 2:30 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
Comment by Gem — August 22, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
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
Comment by kristen — September 13, 2008 @ 11:03 am
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!
Comment by Emily — September 17, 2008 @ 6:49 pm