Living Cruelty Free

I read something about how important it is to have a digest for a blog, so I thought I’d do a quick wrap-up of all the stuff I wrote about this month:

I wrote a number of cruelty-free product reviews:

• Method creamy hand soap
• Method foaming hand wash
• Dermalogica samples of the Ultracalming Cleanser and the the Essential Cleansing Solution
• Dermalogica Skin Prep Scrub
• Dermalogica Dermal Clay Cleanser

A few reviews of cruelty-free stores:

• White Rabbit Beauty
• The Cruelty-Free Shop (Australia)

Some lists of cruelty-free products:

• A list of European companies that don’t test on animals compiled from organizations in European countries that follow the humane cosmetics standard
• A list of organic, cruelty-free companies in honor of Blog Action Day (and Ashlie!)

A number of posts on alternatives-to-animal-testing methods:

• The benefits of using non-animal tests
• A brief biography of ECVAM, an organization that validates alternative testing methods for the European Union
• The equivalents to human skin (that can be substituted for live animals) that MatTek Corporation and SkinEthic Laboratories produce
• The non-animal-using tests that the Institute for In Vitro Sciences and In Vitro International perform
• Dr. Bjorn Ekwall’s invention of an alternative to the inhumane LD50 test
• Corrositex — the alternative to the Draize test.

A few posts about cruelty-free farming:

• The rising popularity of cruelty-free eggs
• The new California anti-farm-animal-cruelty ballot initiative

A poll of what the most popular cruelty-free brands are (if you haven’t voted, please do!)

And last but not least, I put up a lovely new photograph in the sidebar.

I was thinking of writing about how I should write up any “sins” I’ve made against buying cruelty-free products, the way Envirowoman does on her blog about living plastic-free, which I think is fun to read, but I haven’t actually bought anything cruel in a long time. I’ve been tempted, yes — I was at the MAC store the other day with a friend of mine, and there was this really lovely shade of lip gloss, but I decided I really shouldn’t support an Estee Lauder owned company, and walked away from it. It’s not like there aren’t tons of cruelty-free lip gloss producing companies out there I should buy from instead — there’s Urban Decay, Hard Candy, Gabriel, Zuzu Luxe, Earth’s Beauty, Gourmet Body Treats, and Face Atelier. To name a few . . .

John H. Draize is another name I cannot read without wincing. John H. Draize invented the “Draize test” — an irritancy test in rabbits. It involves putting a chemical directly into rabbits’ eyes and then inspecting how damaged the eyes become after a few days and up to a week. If a lot of damage occurs, it’s determined that the chemical is irritating. If not much occurs, it’s determined that the chemical is not irritating. It also applies to tests done on rabbits where the rabbit’s skin is cut, and then chemicals are poured on the cut. If the cuts become disgusting, it’s determined that the chemical is probably irritating to human skin.

So, can you see the name John H. Draize without thinking “rabbit abuser and mutilator?” Because I can’t.

Luckily, there is an alternative. One of ICCVAM’s only recommended alternative methods is Corrositex (warning: unpleasant pictures in the link), which is a non-animal test (and is frequently used by companies that produce non-animal-using-test-kits, such as InVitro International, and the Institute for In Vitro Sciences.)

This is a nice gentle cleanser — it seems to clean my face pretty well without leaving my nose oily or feeling stripped. It does feel pretty calming, I think it’s the clay, though it has a peppermint tingle. It has a faint chemical scent. I’ve been using it for a week now, and so far, so good — no breakouts, no dry skin, no oil slicks.

It’s Dermalogica, so it’s not organic or vegan, though it is 100%-animal-testing-free. Supposedly it is “a skin-perfecting formula that provides deep-cleansing to oily, congested skin. Water-soluble Kaolin and Green clays combine with purifying extracts of Sambucus, Ivy, and Lemon to remove excess oils and refine the skin’s texture. Calming Cucumber and healing Sage soothe irritation, while refreshing Menthol revitalizes even the most tired skin. Contains no artificial fragrance or color.” MakeupAlley gives it a 3.7/5.

Dermalogica Dermal Clay Cleanser is available for $31.95 from WhatGreatSkin.com.

Ingredients: Water (Aqua), Carthamus Tinctorius (Safflower) Seed Oil, Butylene Glycol, Kaolin, Disodium Cocoamphodipropionate, Glyceryl, Stearate, Titanium Dioxide, Sorbitan Oleate, Extracts of: Melissa Officinalis Leaf, Malva Sylvestris (Mallow), Cucumis Sativa (Cucumber) Fruit, Sambucus Nigra Flower, Arnica Montana Flower, Parietaria Officinalis, Nasturtium Officinale, Arctium Lappa Root, Salvia Officinalis (Sage Leaf), Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Fruit, Hedera Helix (Ivy), Saponaria Officinalis, Montmorillonite, Ascrobyl Palmitate, Tocopherol, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Magnesium Silicate, Cetyl Alcohol, Stearyl Alcohol, Sorbitan Trioleate, Menthol, Citric Acid, Potassium Sorbate, Tetrasodium EDTA, Propylene Glycol, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben.

I read an article about how the pharmacologist J.W. Trevan invented the traditional LD50 (lethal dose 50%) test in 1927. It’s a really inhumane test — poisonous chemicals are fed to laboratory animals until half of them die, then that amount is recorded as the “lethal dose 50%” test. If it takes a lot of the chemical to make the animals die, it’s determined that it’s not a very poisonous substance. If it takes just a few drops, it’s determined that it is a pretty poisonous substance. So anyway, back to J.W. Trevan. Isn’t that a horrible test to be remembered for? I mean, I’m sure he thought of himself as furthering science and saving human beings from suffering from chemical side-effects, and that’s good and all, but I will always think of him as an animal abuser.

Luckily, modern toxicologists view the LD50 test as too unreliable — its results have a precision rate of 60-65%, which many toxicologists feel is not precise enough, so it’s on the way to being phased out (the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency discourage the use of the LD50 test). (Unfortunately, they are instead recommending 3 other alternatives, one of which is animal-using — it’s the “Limit test,” which involves poisoning 10 animals, as far as I can tell.)

Luckily, Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a humane replacement for the LD50 test which has a much better precision rate — 77%! — and uses donated human tissue, rather than live animals. I hope the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, and Environmental Protection Agency start recommending it instead of the Limit test.

I really didn’t care for this skin prep scrub. It did have a nice consistency — not too thick or too thin so it was not difficult to get out of the tube, and the scent was very faint — sort of a trace-of-cornmeal-aroma. However, it had cornmeal particles suspended in a liquid base — it didn’t buff off the top layer of my skin leaving new shiny soft skin the way a good salt/apricot kernel/etc., exfoliator usually does, it just sort of scratched at my skin, leaving it with lots of small dry flaky pieces of dead skin. Really not attractive. I’d recommend using a different exfoliator if you have skin that’s prone to flakiness.

It’s Dermalogica, so it’s not tested on animals, but it is not organic, nor is it vegan. The Dermalogica website describes it as “a skin-polishing scrub exfoliant with natural grains that leaves the skin with a smooth, healthy finish. Finely-granulated Corn Cob Meal gently removes dulling surface debris, allowing for improved absorption of moisturizing treatments. Comforting botanical extracts of Mallow, Ivy and Cucumber plus soothing Aloe Vera help to prevent over-stimulation of the skin. Contains no artificial fragrance or color.”

MakeupAlley gives it a score of 3.9/5 stars.

Dermalogica Skin Prep Scrub (2.5oz) is available for $19.95 from WhatGreatSkin.com.

Ingredients: Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Disodium Cocoamphodipropionate, Glyceryl Stearate, Zea Mays (Corn) Cob Meal, Cetyl Alcohol, Stearyl Alcohol, Cocamide DEA, Plysorbate 20, Tocopheryl Acetate, Extracts of Malva Sylvestris (Mallow), Hedera Helix (Ivy), Cucumis Sativus (Cucumber) Fruit, Sambucus Nigra Flower, Arnica Montana Flower, Parietaria Officinalis, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Magnesium Aluminum Silicate, Titanium Dioxide, Butylene Glycol, Propylene Glycol, Xanthan Gum, Citric Acid, Tetrasodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Chlorphenesin, Benzyl Alcohol, Sodium Benzoate, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Potassium Sorbate.

Have you voted for your favorite cruelty-free brands yet?

I’ve just put a new photograph in the sidebar. I think it is a perfect addition to this site — to me, the hand gently holding a sleeping baby rabbit is a pictorial representation of what it means to not buy cosmetics/household products that have been tested on rabbits. It was taken by the extremely talented Fernando Amutio, who has graciously let me post it here. Mr. Amutio has some incredible works of art on his Flickr website — if you are interested in wonderfully expressive photographs, I highly recommend looking at it!

Have you voted for your favorite cruelty-free brands yet?

I’m really excited — there’s a petition on right now to put a cruelty-free farming initiative on the ballot next year! It’s too bad the initiative won’t go on the ballot this year, but they do need the signatures right now.

If you care about farm animal conditions, please go out and find a petition, and sign it in favor of putting the initiative on the ballot. I think if you’re an ethical person at any level, this should appeal to you. If you’re a vegan, I hope you’ll support this bill even though it doesn’t do away with farming all together — it still will make farm animals suffer less. If you’re a vegetarian, I hope you’ll support it because you’re obviously already against animal suffering, and it will make any egg dishes you eat more humanely obtained, and if you’re an omnivore, I hope you’ll support it because you can be an ethical/cruelty-minimizing omnivore — if you are supporting killing and then eating animals, but you are only eating animals that were killed, yes, but tortured, no, you’re being a much, much better person. Really. (And if you’re an unethical person who just doesn’t care about animal suffering, what can I say that will convince you? That animal products tastes better when they haven’t lived lives in tiny spaces? Wolfgang Puck, the celebrity chef, thinks so.)

The initiative is run by Californians for Humane Farm, which is campaigning to put the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the November 2008 ballot. It should end keeping pregnant pigs in gestation crates, calves in veal crates, and hens in battery cages. Gestation crates and veal crates do not allow pigs and calves enough room to even turn around, and battery cages have a footprint of less than a sheet of normal-sized paper, which is far too small for a bird the size of a chicken. Dr. Temple Grandin, one of the people I admire most, and a truly amazing designer of humane “livestock systems,” likens putting pigs in gestation crates for the four months they are pregnant to asking a sow to live in an airline seat, and calls for gestation crates to be phased out. The European Union, Florida, and Arizona have already banned gestation crates due to their inherent cruelty. Veal crates are especially inhumane because they take baby calves when they would normally still be nursing away from their mothers, tether the calves in crates too narrow for them to turn around in, and keep them that way for four months before they are killed. The European Union and Arizona have already outlawed veal crates, and Wolfgang Puck refuses to buy veal from producers who crate their calves. Europe is in the process of making battery cages illegal (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have already banned battery cages). Several well-known retailers are now using cage-free eggs only, including Burger King, Hardees, Carl’s Jr., and Ben & Jerry’s. Whole Foods only sells cage-free eggs, and Trader Joes has converted all its private line eggs to cage-free. The Google, AOL, Yahoo, and NIKE employee cafeterias only have cage-free eggs. So jump on the bandwagon! It’s not only fringe lunatics who are supporting this bill. I swear.

The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act is endorsed by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Acres, Animal Cruelty Investigations, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Place, Animal Protection and Rescue League, Animal Welfare Advocacy, Defenders of Wildlife, East Bay Animal Advocates, Marin Humane Society, Peninsula Humane Society, Sacramento SPCA, San Francisco SPCA, SPCA LA, United Poultry Concerns, The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights,
Paula Kislak, DVM, Armaiti May, DVM, Bill Niman, California Cattle Rancher, Wellington Vineyards, The Food Empowerment Project, Bill McKibben, and Julia Butterfly Hill.

So please, sign the petition to stop gestation crates, veal crates, and battery farming (and stop buying products that are raised in inhumane crates!). Unfortunately, the state requires handwritten signatures, so you can’t support the petition by email or signing up online, which really annoys me because I hate doing handwritten things. Interact with people? I’d much prefer to interact with a computer. But I am definitely going to go out and find a petition to sign — the state requires 650,000 handwritten signatures before the initiative can be put on the ballot. I kind of wish they would mention where the petition people will be hanging out waiting for signatures — I can only guess in front of Whole Foods, since that’s where I usually am attacked by the petition-people. But I will definitely go find a petition to sign if it will help prevent farm animal cruelty in California. (This is a unprecedented for me — usually I avoid petition-people like the plague.)

There are 20,000 pregnant pigs in California, 19 million egg-laying hens, and 20,000 calves in California every year (actually I’m guessing on the number of calves — there are 1 million calves killed and sold as veal in this country according to Californians for Humane Farms , if you divide by 52 you get 19,230) — so if you support this ballot, you’ll be removing nearly 19,040,000 living, breathing, feeling creatures from horrendous conditions and lifetimes of misery.

Have you voted for your favorite cruelty-free brands yet? Please vote here.

So after I read up on how ICCVAM, the U.S. agency that is supposed to validate alternative-to-animal-testing methods, has only validated one alternative testing method in the 10 years of its existence, but that ICCVAM’s European counterpart, ECVAM, has validated twenty, I thought I’d see what tests ECVAM has validated.ECVAM does a lot of stuff to promote the evolution of use of new alternative-to-animal-testing methods — it has to develop tests, have them formally validated through interlaboratory studies, have them independently assessed, and then have them eventually accepted by regulating agencies. Right now it has 21 different tests that have been validated, and 10 different tests that have regulatory acceptance.

Scientifically Validated Methods:

• Artificial skin models (EpiSkin, EpiDerm) for skin irritation testing. ESAC statement. (I wrote about SkinEthic labs, which produces EpiSkin and EpiDerm, here.)
• Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay (rLLNA) for skin sensitization. ESAC statement.
• Statement on the conclusion of the ICCVAM retrospective study on Organotypic in vitro assays as screening tests to identify potential ocular corrosives and severe eye irritants. ESAC statement.
• Micronucleus Test as an alternative to the in vitro chromosome aberration assay for genotoxicity testing. ESAC Statement.
• SkinEthic Human Skin Model for Skin Corrosivity Testing. ESAC Statement.
• Five in vitro pyrogen tests. ESAC Statement.
• Testing strategy to reduce the use of fish in acute aquatic toxicity testing. ESAC Statement. (Fewer fish being purposefully exposed to toxins!)
• The colony forming unit-granulocyte/macrophage (CFU-GM) assay for predicting acute neutropenia in humans. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.
• ELISA test for batch potency testing of erysipelas vaccines. ESAC Statement.
• Embryonic stem cell test for embryotoxicity. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.
• Micromass embryotoxicity assay. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.
• Whole rat embryo embryotoxicity assay. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement. (Fewer rat embryos being purposefully exposed to toxins!)
• Corrositex assay for skin corrosivity. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement. (In Vitro International, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences have kits for these.)
  
• ELISA test for batch potency testing of tetanus vaccines for human use. ESAC Statement.
• Toxin binding inhibition (ToBI) test for batch potency testing of tetanus vaccines for human use. ESAC Statement.
• Local lymph node assay for skin sensitization (LLNA). ESAC Statement.
• 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) phototoxicity test. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.
• In vitro production of monoclonal antibodies. ESAC Statement.
• EpiSkin skin corrosivity test. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.
• Rat transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) skin corrosivity test. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement. (Fewer electrocuted rats!)
  
• EpiDerm skin corrosivity test. INVITTOX Protocol, ESAC Statement.

Regulatory Acceptance:

• EpiSkin skin corrosivity test. 67/548/EEC, OECD.
• 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. 67/548/EEC, OECD.
• EpiDerm skin corrosivity test. 67/548/EEC, OECD.
• Rat TER skin corrosivity test. 67/548/EEC, OECD.
• In vitro tests for percutaneous absorption. OECD.
• Deletion of the acute oral toxicity test, Lethal Dose (LD50). 67/548/EEC, OECD.
• Local lymph node assay for skin sensitization (LLNA). OECD, U.S. EPA OPPTS.
• ELISA test for batch potency testing of eyrsipelas vaccines. EDQM/European Pharmacopoeia.
• Toxin binding inhibition (ToBI) test for batch potency testing of tetanus vaccines for human use. EDQM/European Pharmacopoeia

Isn’t this wonderful? Just think of the thousands of European laboratory rats/rabbits/etc that aren’t tortured and sacrificed for toxicological purposes because of all these validated methods. Those tests are awful — check out StopAnimalTests.com. I wish they had an estimate of how many lives they’ve saved. 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?

Have you voted for your favorite cruelty-free brands yet? Please vote here.

I ordered some Dermalogica stuff (not vegan, not organic, but 100%-cruelty-free) from WhatGreatSkin.com a while ago and it came with two free (!) samples of face wash products which I’ve just gotten around to trying — one is Dermalogica Ultracalming Cleanser, and the other is Dermalogica Essential Cleansing Solution.

Dermalogica Ultracalming Cleanser for face and eyes is

“A gentle cleansing gel-cream that shields against external environmental assaults with Dermalogica’s exclusive Anti-Ozonate Complex. Protects and soothes skin sensitized by pollution, temperature extremes, irritating cosmetic products, harsh detergents, chemical exposure, stress, poor diet or hormonal factors. Also contains Lavender, Echinacea, and Raspberry extracts for their anti-inflammatory, calming and healing properties. This cleanser is effective enough to remove eye makeup, and can be either rinsed off or gently removed with cotton. Leaves no irritating residue and is formulated for even the most hypersensitive skin that cannot tolerate water. Contains no artificial fragrance or color. Professional recommendation advised. Directions: apply to the face and throat, gently massaging with fingertips in light, upward strokes. Rinse with warm water or tissue off.”

On MakeupAlley.com it scores a average of 4.0/5, from 125 reviewers — many people compared it to Cetaphil, a few complained that it did not remove all of their makeup.

I tried this out and it seemed very nice — it left my face feeling cleaner than most gel-based cleansers, but not as stripped as the bar soap I currently use (302 face and body bar — it’s not cruelty-free, but I’m trying to wait until it runs out to replace it with a cruelty-free alternative), and it removed all the oil from my nose (that’s important!). It was a thin white gel, nonlathering, it washed off very quickly (which is nice). It had a very faint chemical smell. I only used it once, so I don’t know if it would eventually be too drying or not strong enough if I used it every day, and while it seemed nice I am still working my way through that bar of 302 face soap I bought a year ago, so I don’t think I’ll be rushing out to buy it, especially since most Dermalogica products are astronomically priced (but nice! and cruelty-free!).

Ingredients: Water (Aqua), Cetearyl Alcohol, Extracts of: Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender), Cucumis Sativus (Cucumber) Fruit, Echinacea Purpurea, Rubus Idaeus (Raspberry) Fruit, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon), Fumaria Officinalis; Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein, Butylene Glycol, Fumaric Acid, Panthenol, Disodium Lauryl Sulfosuccinate, Cocamidopropyl PF-Dimonium Chloride Phosphate, Sodium Cetearyl Sulfate, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Aminomethyl Propanol, Tetradsodium EDTA, Methylparaben, Propylparaben.

Dermalogica Essential Cleansing Solution, on the other hand, is intended for drier or prematurely-aging skin. It is

“A milky cleanser for drier skin conditions to gently lift impurities and remove make-up. Water-soluble, this soothing emulsion rinses off easily, leaving the skin refreshingly clean, soft and supple. Contains no artificial fragrance or color. Professional recommendation advised.”

On MakeupAlley it had an average rating of 3.8/5 from 29 reviewers — most people who like it seem to have very dry skin, and one person compares it to Cetaphil.

So, I tried this stuff, just once, as well, and it similarly did not lather, which was nice — it’s kind of creamy, it washes off fairly quickly. It seemed nice and gentle too me — a little too gentle since my nose was still oily after I washed it off. I think I prefer the ultracalming cleanser. Though it’s hard to say since I haven’t used either more than once. The smell was nice (though slightly chemical-smelling, which I don’t usually like, but I didn’t mind this one) — and very, very faint, which I like.

Ingredients: Water (Aqua), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Butylene Glycol, Carthamus Tinctorius (Safflower) Seed Oil, PEG-8, Polysorbate 60, Cetyl Alcohol, Extracts of: Citrus Aurantium Amara (Bitter Orange) Flower, Humulus Lupulus (Hops), Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary) Leaf, Equisetum Arvense, Pinus Sylvestris Cone, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Fruit, Sorbitan Stearate, Ricinoleth-40, Beeswax (Cera Alba), Ceresin, Benzyl Alcohol, Salicylic Acid, Benzoic Acid, Benzethonium Chloride, Dehydroacetic Acid, Ethylhexyl Hydroxystearate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Aminomethyl Propanol, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Propylene Glycol, Dimethicone, Carbomer, Disodium EDTA, Benzophenone-4.

Dermalogica Ultracalming Cleanser is available for $21.75 (8oz) from WhatGreatSkin.com.

Dermalogica Essential Cleansing Solution is available for $21.75 (8oz) from WhatGreatSkin.com.

I’m kind of curious to see what the most popular cruelty-free brands are. So I’ve compiled a poll, and I hope you will be kind enough to put in your favorite brands — you can enter up to 10 different ones. I’m sorry it’s a really long poll because there are about 200 100%-cruelty-free brands out there.

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.