Living Cruelty Free

Well, here’s another post about the pet food recall. Are people still worried about that? Or is it just me?

Anyway, I just found this interesting pet food for dogs — it’s called “Vegedog,” and it’s a supplement full of the necessary nutrients dogs need, so if you add it to people-food, you don’t have to feed your dog commercial pet food.

Unfortunately I can’t use it because my dog is still on a special kidney diet, but I thought it might be useful for people who want to take their dogs off of commercial pet food, since commercial pet food is prone to being recalled (and if you feed your dog people-food, it will develop serious nutritional deficiencies — dogs and humans have completely different nutritional requirements, or so my veterinarian tells me).

Vegedog is not on the CCIC-approved-cruelty-free list, or even the PETA-approved-cruelty-free-pet-food-list, but it’s made by a small vegan company, and it’s mostly composed of calcium and vitamins which are not known for their tendency to be tested on animals (as far as I know . . . ), so I think chances are good it’s never been tested on animals. Though I’d appreciate it if Vegepet would sign up for CCIC-cruelty-free certification. It’s definitely vegan — it’s especially aimed at people who want to put their dogs (and cats!) on vegan diets. It does not appear to be organic — but I don’t know if you can even buy organic vitamins/supplements/amino acids — can you? A great thing about it is that, being vegan, it doesn’t involve any non-free-range meat, which I really appreciate. It’s so rare to find free-range anything in pet foods . . .

The Vegepet website states that Vegedog takes the uncertainty out of trying to create a nutritionally balanced vegan meal for your pet. If you use Vegedog’s recipes along with the recommended dosages of Vegedog powder, the resulting dog food will meet the AAFCO’s dietary recommendations (the AAFCO makes the requirements all “reputable” pet food manufacturers meet), and your dog will receive proper nutrition, despite eating a vegan diet. (And not being exposed to poison!) It seems pretty simple, and the recipes can be adjusted to suit dogs who are growing, lactating, need to gain weight, need to lose weight, or need to maintain their weight. Vegedog also contains taurine, even though it is not considered a dietary requirement for dogs (though it is for cats) (though you should still never feed your cat Vegedog — it is not nutritionally sufficient for cats — they will die if put on it, and must instead be put on Vegecat). You can read all about the details of Vegedog here.

I should stress here that I haven’t tried Vegedog, but it looks very interesting to me. Whether or not you’re interested in putting your pet on a vegan or vegetarian diet, Vegedog seems like a great solution (to me, anyways) to keep your pet from ingesting poisoned commercial pet food. I’m certainly no expert, but Vegepet looks like a very ethical company, and there seem to be a lot of testimonials about Vegedog and Vegecat, which, as a pet-owner, I find reassuring.

Here is a sample recipe — there are more recipes as well — they include a soy kibble recipe, a wheat kibble recipe, a lentil recipe, an oat and soy recipe, and a rice and soy recipe, so you can pick the one you prefer. The kibble recipes are actually recipes for real kibble — you bake the kibble mixture in a lasagna pan, slice it up into small squares, and then put them in a pail. Just like storebought kibble . . .

Garbanzo & Soy Vegedog Recipe (Makes 3 days’ worth of food)

Protein 22.3%, Fat 8.3%
5 1/2 cups uncooked garbanzo beans. This makes 14 7/8 cups cooked. Or start with 13 1/8 cups canned garbanzos.
1/4 cup dry textured vegetable protein soy, or 1/3 cup firm tofu
3 Tbs. yeast powder
1 1/2 Tbs. oil
GROWTH:
2 1/2 Tbs. Vegedog™
1 1/3 tsp. salt, or 1/4 cup soy sauce
MAINTENANCE
4 tsp. Vegedog™
1/4 tsp. salt or 1/2 Tbs. soy sauce
Directions: For small dogs it may be necessary to crush the warm beans with a potato masher, or use a food processor to crush the cold beans. Stir in other ingredients. Refrigerate extra portions in small covered containers.

Vegedog (9 oz) (lasts 1 month for a typical 44-lb dog) is available for $8.00 at Vegepet.com.

Ingredients: Dicalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Ascophyllum Nodosum, Taurine, Zinc oxide, Ferrous Sulfate, Vitamin E (dl-alphatocopheryl acetate), Choline Chloride, Sodium Selenite, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), Vitamin A-Acetate

I just read this great article at the National Anti-Vivisection Society website. It’s by Dr. Ray Greek, MD, and it’s called “Mainstream Science Magazine Acknowledges Animal Model Failures.” It discusses how some recent articles in The Scientist highlight the failure of animal models in biomedical research. I think this is fantastic — most scientific magazines tend to gloss over the fact that animals are not perfect subsitutes for humans, and therefore, animal-testing is not the ultimate answer to medical questions.

So apparently three articles in the latest issue of The Scientist discuss how some medications given to animals (living, breathing, friendly animals) affected the animals differently than they ended up affecting people. Dr. Greek suggests that this is a major breakthrough because The Scientist is a very popular magazine that is known for being pro-vivisection. He goes on to say that while unfortunately these articles don’t show a complete reversal of mainstream science’s pro-vivisection stance, at least they show some criticism of the use of animals to predict how things will affect humans. So it’s a good beginning!

Interestingly enough, Dr. Greek mentions that one of the articles erroneously stated that only 26 million animals are used in inhumane experiments each year in the U.S. and Europe — Dr. Greek claims that the number of animals used in inhumane animal research is closer to 500 million in the U.S. alone (according to a 2000 US Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service report). Isn’t that appalling? I should write an entirely new post devoted to that very fact. He also mentions the Americans for Medical Advancement (AFMA), which is an organization that exposes the lost opportunities for cures and life-threatening results of animal-modeled biomedical research. I am so going to add that to my list of anti-animal testing organizations.

Thank you Dr. Greek! It’s wonderful to read an anti-vivisection article written by a doctor. Modern medicine was basically established on and has become very successful because of inhumane animal testing (to be fair, animal testing has also lengthened peoples’ lives and lessened a great deal of human suffering), so I’m always impressed when I see a medical professional actively criticizing animal testing and looking beyond it to find more humane (and better!) ways to find cures for disease. But after all, who is better suited to do so than someone who understands the medical industrial complex?

Anyway, here is the article in full (though if you’d like to lean more about Dr. Greek, he also has a webpage at NAVS.org):

Mainstream Science Magazine Acknowledges Animal Model Failures
Friday, July 13, 2007
By: Ray Greek MD

Three articles in the July 2007 issue of The Scientist discuss the failure of animal models in biomedical research.

In the July 2007 issue of The Scientist three articles appeared that discussed the failure of animal models in biomedical research: “The trouble with animal models”; “Why sex matters in mouse models”; and “Trials and error”. The articles discussed examples of where the animal models predicted one thing but human experience revealed another in areas such as stroke research.

This is an important breakthrough as it is one of the only examples of the research industry itself acknowledging such failures. The Scientist is a very pro-vivisection magazine and is widely read by the scientific community. While I would not say these three articles represented a reversal of their position, at least they printed something critical about the use of animals to predict human response.

Even so, the articles were definitely pro-vivisection as they went to great lengths to justify the use of animals despite the obvious failures of the animal models cited.

On a separate note, the articles showed a great deal of bias in quoting the RDS, a vested interest group in the UK representing animal experimenters, as claiming only 26 million animals are used each year in the US and Europe. This claim is nothing short of incredible.

In 2000 the Library of Congress published a report with the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service estimating the number of rats, mice, and birds used annually in the US to be around 500 million.

In the August 2004 issue of Scientific American, a former editor of Scientific American, Madhusree Mukerjee, estimated that more than 100 million transgenic mice were used in American labs alone each year.

The exact number of animals used annually in labs is unknown and likely to remain so since the real numbers would astonish most Americans. But 26 million is off by at least an order of magnitude. Nothing short of purposeful deceit on the part of the animal experimentation industry can explain such a claim.

But all in all the articles were a step forward. NAVS and AFMA have been saying for decades that because of our understanding of evolutionary biology, recent advances in a field of physics known as chaos and complexity, and knowledge gained from the field of genetics (for example the Human Genome Project), we now understand why even identical twins react differently to drugs and disease. Drug testing in animals has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be unreliable. If men cannot predict drug response for women and identical twins do not suffer from the same diseases it is nothing short of insanity to expect a totally different species to react like humans to diseases like AIDS, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and others.

NAVS and AFMA have been criticized by those with a vested interest in animal experimentation for saying some of the exact things The Scientist said in these articles. In our books, beginning in 2000 and on the AFMA website, we have laid out reasons, both theoretical and empirical, why the animal model does not and indeed cannot predict human response, is a waste of taxpayer money, and is misleading in general. Our criticisms are now being acknowledged.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

The Scientist ignored the arguments from evolutionary biology and so forth, which would have completely destroyed all supposed scientific underpinnings for using animals in research. But at least they admitted to some of the flaws inherent with the use of the animal model.

This is a start.

I’ve written about my love of Method products before — well, here’s one more product I really like. It’s the All-Purpose spray, and it’s fantastic. I originally had it in lavender, but I just ran out and had to buy a replacement, so now I’m trying the grapefruit scent. I really like it — Method changed the bottle so now it has a cool squarish base — are there any other cleaning companies that have cool modern designs? Not that I have found . . .

Anyway, I liked the lavender scent, and I really like the grapefruit scent. It smells clean and citrusy but not lemon- or orange-y the way most cleaners are. It’s unusual! It leaves no streaks, dries quickly, and makes my counters all shiny. I suppose I should use it for other purposes, but all I ever really use it for is counter tops.

Supposedly it is made with naturally-derived surfactants that absorb dirt rather than chemically degrade it, and it is biodegradable so it will not eventually introduce super-toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes, and oceans. It’s made of corn and coconut derived surfactants, soda ash, potassium hydrate, biodegradable surfactant, fragrance oil blend, color, purified water, and because the formula is nontoxic, nonhazardous, and safe, it is not necessary to rinse a surface after using All-Purpose-Spray on it.

As far as I can tell, Method products are not organic (though they are biodegradable!), but I think they are now vegan. Anyway, their FAQ states that they use no animal byproducts. But after the tallow incident I certainly would not want to vouch for that . . .

Method All-Purpose Spray (28oz) is available for $4.00 from the Method Online Store or your local Target.

Ingredients: Naturally Derived Surfactant, Soil emulsifier, Grease cutter, Performance Builder, Oil fragrance.

You may well ask, why not just buy any product that says something about how it doesn’t test on animals on the label when you’re in the drugstore if you’re concerned about animal testing? Basically, because a lot of products in stores that are marked “final product not tested on animals” or “Company X does not test on animals” actually have been tested on animals. Those two phrases are lies by implication — those companies have tested the individual ingredients (but not the final product) on animals, or they have outsourced the animal testing to a different company. So you can only be sure a product is cruelty free if it states that the final bottle of shampoo you are holding in your hands and the initial ingredients that went into it have not been tested on animals. Or if it is on a list created by an anti-animal-testing organization.

The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics is the organization whose information I use to decide whether a company does or does not test on animals. There are a number of really fantastic animal rights groups that come up with their own lists of animal-testing-free companies, but I’ve picked the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics because it has high standards, it’s a coalition of eight animal-rights groups, it has a great shopping guide, it promotes an international cruelty free logo, it does not charge companies any money to be on its cruelty-free list, the list is available for free to anyone, and I’ve been using it for a while so I’m loyal to it. (It’s not the perfect cruelty-free organization by any means — I sent off for the CCIC free pocket shopping guide and it took about six months before it arrived in my mailbox, and while it’s a lovely pocket shopping guide that I do carry around with me everywhere I go, it’s mostly filled with products that are only available online.)

There are undoubtedly many animal rights groups out there with higher or lower standards than the CCIC’s, and it’s up to every individual to pick the group with the standard that best fulfills his or her own personal judgment of what is or is not animal-testing-free. For me, for right now, I’ve picked the CCIC’s standard, because I think it’s a good standard. The CCIC requires companies to promise that they do not test on animals during any stage of product development, and that their ingredient suppliers make the same pledge. Other less stringent cruelty-free standards might require companies to promise that they do not themselves perform or subcontract any animal testing on ingredients or finished products. To my mind, this would allow those companies to get around the rules by buying ingredients that other companies have already tested on animals (It’s important to remember that most companies don’t make their own ingredients – they buy oils/chemicals/etc from suppliers or laboratories that already extracted or synthesized the ingredients.) (By cruelty-free the CCIC means products that have not been tested on laboratory animals. These products may have animal ingredients in them. If you’re concerned about that, you should cross-reference these with a vegan society’s list of vegan products — the Vegan Action List of truly vegan products seems like a good one.)

Also, I am very impressed with the CCIC’s leaping bunny logo — I think it’s a great idea. Someday I hope that more companies will buy the leaping bunny logo, so I can just turn over any bottle in a store and see if it’s cruelty-free or not and not have to go look up every company on a list. I also like the fact that it’s an international logo — the CCIC is itself a coalition of seven anti-animal-testing organizations, and it has partnered with anti-animal-testing groups in Europe, Canada, and Britain to also use the same standard and the same logo. The companies that endorse the CCIC’s Humane Cosmetics Standard are: Vier Pfoten (Austria), GAIA (Belgium), Animal Alliance of Canada, Föreningen til Dyrenes Beskyttelse i Danmark, Animalia (Finland), EFAP (Greece), Irish Anti Vivisection Society, Lega Anti-Vivisezione (Italy), Een DIER Een VRIEND (the Netherlands) , Asociación para la Defensa de los Derechos del Animal (Spain), Förbundet djurens rätt (Sweden), British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Three international organizations also endorse the CCIC’s Humane Cosmetics Standard: the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

The CCIC has an eleven-year-long history. According to its website, the CCIC formed in 1996 in response to the fact that “cruelty free shopping had become so popular as to become confusing, sometimes misleading and ultimately frustrating. Companies had begun designing their own bunny logos, abiding by their own definition of “cruelty free” or “animal friendly” without the participation of animal protection groups.” So, “in response, eight national animal protection groups banded together to form the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). The CCIC promotes a single comprehensive standard and an internationally recognized “leaping bunny” logo.” It is “working with companies to help make shopping for animal-friendly products easier and more trustworthy.”

The CCIC is made up of eight animal-welfare-activist member groups. They are:

American Anti-Vivisection Society
American Humane Association
Beauty Without Cruelty, USA: (212) 989-8073
Doris Day Animal League
The Humane Society of the United States
New England Anti-Vivisection Society

International Partners
Animal Alliance of Canada
European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

So, until the government mandates that all companies that wish to mark their products as animal-testing-free must make sure that the ingredients and the finished product are free of animal testing, I will continue to use the CCIC’s standard.

Well, here I am at my new site — I’m very pleased to have my own domain. I’m so glad Wordpress makes it so easy to move! Thanks everyone who managed to make it over here (I’m still not sure I like the new site design — I may change it in the next few weeks. I miss my old site design, but apparently it’s no longer available for download from Wordpress themes. It’s too bad . . . )

I had a wonderful week and a half on the coast — Mendocino is one of the most beautiful places around. I highly recommend it as a vacation destination. It’s where the parts of Murder She Wrote that were supposed to be set in Maine were filmed. And the Mendocino Hotel is especially nice (not that I stayed there — it was far too expensive for me! but lovely). But now I’m back, relaxed, a little tanner and much, much more freckled (but no sunburn! Alba Botanica facial sunscreen worked beautifully) and ready to write a lot about anti-animal-testing endeavors.

Just a quick note before I run out the door — I’m going to drive up the coast with some friends and enjoy the gorgeous weather. We’re going to drink iced coffee and read novels at outdoor cafes for a whole week and a half!

I don’t think we’ll have any internet access, so I will not be updating this blog for a while — but I’ll be back writing about anti-animal-testing occurrences as well as reviewing cruelty-free products at the end of July. I have a bunch of ideas for new posts — the CCIC website, more Method products, cruelty free pet products, etc. I’ll probably also devote a whole post to describing how well Alba Botanica sunscreens work in sunny cafes on the northern California coast. Will I get a sunburn? Or not?

I finally found an animal-testing-free pet food! I was perusing the CCIC’s cruelty-free shopping guide, looking for pet ear wash, which I’m almost out of, and I clicked on the “animal care” category and I found a list of cruelty-free companies that make pet products: Anna Marie’s Aromatherapy & Massage, Aroma Crystal Therapy, Ashambri Skincare, Austin Rose, Bonicca Natural Body Care, Dr. Goodpet, HALO, Purely for Pets, KSA Jojoba, Organix-South, Inc. (TheraNeem), Pro-Tec Pet Health, and Spring Rain Botanicals).

I clicked on each of those links, and while most of those companies offer pet shampoo as their one pet product, Halo pet products has all sorts of stuff for pets! I’m especially happy about the dog, cat, and bird food. Unfortunately Halo does not appear to offer specialty diets, or even senior pet foods, so I will not be purchasing any Halo dog food any time soon, since my dog is currently quite old and on a special kidney diet, so if I run out, she goes on a senior diet (and until I get over the pet food recall, I’m still cooking human food for her from a kidney-diet recipe my veterinarian gave me). But if your dog or cat is younger and healthy, give Halo pet foods a chance!

Unfortunately, Halo does not appear to use free-range meats, or organic ingredients. However, Halo states that its pet foods are “all natural” and “made with only the freshest human-grade quality ingredients,” contain USDA-approved lamb and vegetables, and use “no chemicals, artificial flavors, preservatives, by-products, or fillers,” and that sounds good to me. None of Halo’s pet products have been affected by the pet food recall.

Spot’s Stew for Dogs is available for $11.47 (6 cans of 7.5oz each) from Halo Pets Online Store, in “Original” or “Lamb” flavor.

Spot’s Stew for Cats is available for $13.74 (6 cans of 7.5oz each) from Halo Pets Online Store, in “Original” or “Chicken & Clams” flavor.

Halo also makes a number of dog and cat treats, as well as ear wash, eye wash, shampoo, and flea dip.

Spot’s Stew for Dogs Ingredients: Lamb, Water, Carrots, Green Beans, Beef Liver, Squash, Zucchini, Celery, Peas, Mustard Greens, Dicalcium Phosphate, Kelp, Barley Flour, Flax Seed Meal, Oats, Barley, Sea Minerals, Pumpkin, Sweet Potato.

Apparently Coca Cola is going cruelty free. This is excellent news for me — I’d never even thought about Coca Cola performing inhumane tests on animals, and I’m appalled at all the money I’ve spent on Diet Coke over the past few months. Years. Decades. Yuck. All my money going to a company that funds billions of dollars of independent inhumane laboratory animal experimentation (caveat: the article I linked to goes into some unpleasant details).

Coca-cola is only the last on the list of large companies PETA has been badgering in hopes of getting them to stop animal testing (Go PETA! Yay!). The list of newly cruelty-free companies is: Welch’s, Ocean Spray, POM, and Pepsi. (Oh the horror. I’ve bought drinks from all of those companies.)

Apparently, while Coca-Cola has never technically performed any animal testing on its products, it has been handing out grants to research institutions to perform invasive and deadly animal tests using Coca-cola for years. I am so disgusted — why would Coca-Cola do that for a soda product that has a huge market share, whose name is synonymous with the words “soft drink” (to quote Dave Barry), and whose main ingredient is sugar? Forgive me, not even sugar — isn’t Coca-Cola all corn-syrup-based now? Sheesh. I may give up Coca-Cola yet.

Luckily, Coca-Cola’s senior vice-president and chief innovation and technology officer, Danny Strickland, has now confirmed as of May 22, 2007, that “Coca-Cola does not conduct animal tests and does not directly fund animal tests on its beverages . . . We are sending letters to our partners and research organizations who may conduct safety evaluations on . . . ingredients insisting they use alternatives to animal testing, when such testing is both available and accepted by governments. We encourage the use of alternative testing methods whenever and wherever possible and financially support research to develop these alternative methods.” Yay! I’d like to see Danny Strickland issuing a press release about what companies exactly Coca-cola is giving money to to use alternative testing methods — SkinEthic? MatTek? Probably not since those are mostly skin-equivalent alternative testing companies.

So, I’m very glad that Coca-Cola has made this commitment not to fund tests on animals and to ask ingredients suppliers to use alternatives to animals testing, and I think that when a company as big and powerful as Coca-Cola stops animal testing, it sends a great message to other companies. However, I hope that someday Coca-cola will join all the CCIC-approved cruelty-free list, so that I won’t still be suspicious that it’s funding animal experimentation in some indepedent laboratory, or that its “asking” ingredient suppliers to stop animal testing is actually stopping its ingredients suppliers from testing on animals, or outsourcing its animal testing. So many companies do that.

Apparently the next drinks company on PETA’s list is Unilever — maker of Lipton tea and other food products. I hope Unilever also decides to follow along with Coca-cola, Pepsi, Welch’s, Ocean Spray, and POM and stops funding animal testing. So, if you’d like to help PETA, you can write to Michael B. Polk, the Group VP and President, Americas, of Unilever and urge him to end animal tests for their foods, beverages, and ingredients.

Michael B. Polk
Group VP and President, Americas
Unilever PLC
700 Sylvan Ave.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
201-894-4000
1-877-995-4483 (toll-free)
201-871-8257 (fax)
comments@unilever.com
patrick.cescau@unilever.com (Unilever’s group chief executive and director, based in the U.K.)

Or you can be like me and start boycotting Unilever products. The horrifying thing is that Unilever owns a ton of products: Ades, Alsa, Amora, Annapurna, Becel, Ben and Jerry’s, Best Foods, Bertolli, Bifi, Blue Band, Boursin, Bovril, Breyers, Brooke Bond, Bru, Bushells, Calve, Capitan Findus, Conimex, Colman’s, Continental, Country Crock, Doriana, Du Darfst, Elmlea, Findus, Flora, Fudgsicle, Gallo, Heartbrand, Hellmanns, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter, Imperial Margarine, Jif, Kissan, Knorr, Lan-Choo, Lao Cai, Lawry’s, Lipton, Maille, Maizena, Marmite, McCollins, Mrs. Filberts, Paddle pop, Pfanni, Peperami, PG Tips, Phase, Planta, Popsicle, Pot Noodle, Promise, Ragu, Rama, Red Rose Tea, Sana, Saga, Scottish Blend, Skippy, Slim Fast, Sunlight Soap, Stork margarine, Streets, Turun sinappi, Vaqueiro, Wish Bone (according to Wikipedia).

I can give up a lot of those brands, no problem. Most of them I’ve never seen before. But Ben and Jerry’s? That will be a sacrifice. Bertolli, Colman’s, Ragu? Yikes. Jif AND Skippy? What kind of peanut butter will I be able to buy now?

Jason Natural Products — actually Jason is spelled with slash marks in between all the letters like this: J/A/S/O/N plus two extra umlauts over the vowels (because it looks unusual?) — makes a number of cruelty-free cosmetic and body products. According to the Jason Natural Products website , Jason Natural Products has been making “pure and natural” products for the past 48 years for skin, body, hair, and oral health for the whole family. Jason products are environmentally-friendly, and contain the finest food-grade, natural, organic, and nutritional ingredients. Jason products are especially cruelty-free — Jason Natural Products has bought the CCIC leaping bunny logo.

In particular, Jason Glycerine and Rosewater Hand and Body Lotion is oil-free, 70% organic, and is fortified with vitamin B and herbal extracts. It contains no mineral oil, petrolatum or waxes, no animal by-products, no parabens, and it is 100% vegetarian. Along with the CCIC logo, it also has a “recyclable” logo on the back of the tube.

I’ve used the lotion a few times, and I’d say it’s a nice, medium-weight lotion. The oil-free-ness is a little weird, but I’m getting more used to it. The fragrance is not very rosewater-y — the lotion smells strongly like soap. Overall it’s a good lotion. The only reason I’ve taken off a star is that the lotion does not protect against skin cancer.

Jason Glycerine and Rosewater Hand and Body Lotion (8 oz) is available for $7.31 at the Jason Online Store, and many natural grocery and drug stores.

Ingredients: Aqua (Purified Water), Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Extract*, Rosa Damascena (Rosewater) Extract, Calendula Officinalis (Marigold) Flower Extract* and Anthemus Nobilis (Chamomile) Flower Extract*, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe Vera) Leaf Gel*, Vegetable Glycerin, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Tocopheryl Acetate (Vit. E), Dimethicone, Ascorbyl Palmitate (Vit. C), Glyceryl Stearate, Tocopherol (Vit. E), Potassium Carbomer, Panthenol (Vit B5), Tocomin 50% Tocotrienol (Vit. E), Cetyl Alcohol, Retinyl Palmitate (Vit. A), Octinoxate, Benzyl Alcohol, Citrus Grandis (Grapefruit) Seed Extract, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Natural Color, Fragrance Oil Blend. *Certified Organic.