Tested on animals/Sold in China

By far the most-asked question on the blog recently has been 'Why do you say 'Tested on animals/Sold in China'? in your reviews?.

The simple answer is that China 'reserves the right' to test products imported from overseas on animals. The much more complicated question is 'How far do you go?' when deciding if a brand is cruelty-free. 

Separating some facts from fiction: 

Know this. If you are buying a cosmetic/beauty product in the EU it has not been tested on an animal. It is against the law and has been for over 2 years. As of March 11th 2013, cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals in production anywhere in the world, may not be sold in the EU. 

If, however, you are buying some paracetamol/medicine in a chemist, especially on prescription, it is a drug and therefore exempt from the EU law on animal testing. 

Same with washing your clothes with Ariel/Fairy or cleaning your toilet with bleach. All tested.

The USA however, still allows testing on animals for cosmetic purposes. Only three states,  California, New Jersey and New York have passed laws stating that available alternatives to animal tests are to be used for cosmetic testing.

It's a minefield, and one that I have written about before here.

My question remains, how far are you willing to exclude brands/retailers that operate in China? Benefit, for example, make a huge song and dance on their website about the lengths they go to to ensure that their ingredients are clear of animal testing at source, yet they are on sale in China. I'm not singling out Benefit for any particular reason, there are a whole heap of brands that do the same thing including Jurlique - which really surprised me. Most brands are shady when it comes to admitting that they are for sale in China. They sometimes will not list the Chinese market on their 'Locations' page because they know it's a tempestuous issue. REN for example, do not test on animals, do not sell in China, but just sold to Unilever, who make household brands that by their very nature are tested on animals, so do you count them? (I don't, but I know some of you do).

After a couple of comments from eagle-eyed readers on my Dr Brandt post last week - since altered to update the 'Sold in China' section to say 'Yes', I did some research (not on those commenters!) across Instagram and bloglovin' and found that quite a few bloggers/commenters who claim to be against animal testing love shopping in Sephora. 

Sephora are HUGE in China. HUGE. So I ask again, where do YOU draw the line? Enough to stop you shopping in Sephora? 

Come on now. Tell the truth. ;)

If you want to absolutely avoid any cosmetics/skincare tested on animals OR sold in China, you can do two things: Ask the brand directly or check one of the many lists available - my preferred one is Paula's Beautypedia list available here: www.paulaschoice.com/animal-testing - Paula counts selling in China as testing on animals and does not preach. She leaves the decision where it belongs, with you.

The Body Shop up their game. Camomile Cleansing Butter and Oil.

Last weekend I had my usual pre-September clear out and re-organised pretty much everything - including products for testing - which due to the school holidays had taken a back seat. No more! Back with a vengeance. 

These new cleansers from The Body Shop, whilst not perfect - are a step in the right direction.

First up: Camomile Sumptuous Cleansing Butter

This, for regular readers, is a dupe for Clinique TTDO Balm, which in turn is a dupe for something like Emma Hardie Moringa Balm. They all work, but the clues are in the ingredients.

There is no mineral oil in any of them, but there is a 'synthetic wax' in this version from the Body Shop - along with shea butter in an ethylhexyl palmitate* base making it a complete no-no for acne/combination skin. 

You could use it as a first cleanse if you were wearing really heavy makeup if you wanted to - but you would definitely need to go in with something more suitable for your skin as a second cleanse to make sure it was all off.

It should be ok for anyone with dry/really dry or sensitive skin though. 

• takes makeup off effortlessly.
• a little goes a long way
• it says you can apply and then rinse off - I wouldn't dream of using something with this consistency without a facecloth - you're asking for trouble - even if you thoroughly tone afterwards
• works out to £13.33 per 100ml, compared to Clinique £16.80 per 100ml, Emma Hardie £34.00 per 100ml and Eve Lom £55.00 per 100ml.

This is the nice surprise. I used this last night to remove makeup and again this morning to see how it performed on bare skin.

Top performing on both counts. 

• removed mascara like it was a mere swipe of a pencil
• no sticky residue
• has a definite scent but it's not overpowering - and it doesn't (thank GOD) smell like camomile tea
• once again they say rinse off- gag - get a flannel on your skin stat - these are oils - they are literally designed to leave residue - no matter how much they 'emulsify'.
• left skin soft and smooth
• £5.00 per 100ml (!!) compared with Shu Uemura £19.67 per 100ml

Both of these are great value, work well and recommended (used in the way I recommend - obvs).

As an aside:

I always get comments when I mention TBS - so I thought it was worth mentioning some things that always come up.

I often think The Body shop have set themselves up to disappoint some people by simply being ahead of their time. Anita Roddick was talking about Fair Trade, mineral oil (from the non-sustainable point of view) and animal testing almost from the brand's inception. 

The fact that L'Oreal are now the parent company has put off many who say that the brand can no longer be animal-friendly due to L'Oreal selling in China. I guess it's entirely up to you and your beliefs.

I say this: The Body Shop are still endorsed by Cruelty-Free International - and they know way more about these things than I do - I've seen them at work. They are hardcore. If they are happy, I'm happy.

Body Shop products are available on www.thebodyshop.co.uk

*PR samples - but totally on the 'would purchase' list

*No affiliate links

*ethylhexyl palmitate is derived from palm oil - but everything I can find leads me to believe that TBS uses sustainable, responsibly-sourced palm oil sources. 

Paul Mitchell and Cruelty Free International unite against animal testing.

Starting with $700 in 1980, Paul Mitchell and John Paul DeJoria launched 4 products under the brand name Paul Mitchell. 32 years later they are sold in over 80 countries and have over 100 products in their stable.

From the beginning, they took the decision to test their products on humans, not animals. In 2010, after being on sale for many years in China, the Chinese government changed their policy on imported cosmetic goods, demanding that they be tested on animals before being allowed to retail in their country.

Paul Mitchell's response? The company ceased trading immediately and pulled out of China. In an industry where ethics are dispensed of as quickly as the cheque can be cashed, this for me, deserves to be roundly applauded and shouted from the rooftops.

Paul Mitchell have now joined forces with Cruelty Free International and are the only professional hair care brand to be awarded the Leaping Bunny - the most rigorous international no-animal-testing certification.

'Since Paul Mitchell was founded in 1980, we have been cruelty-free. We do not conduct or condone animal testing on our products, and we will not attempt to market our products in China until alternatives to animal testing methods have been accepted by the government. Paul Mitchell always has been and always will be cruelty-free!' says DeJoria.

To their credit Paul Mitchell have no problem with the Chinese people. They kept their offices in China and are working with the Government and regulators there to bring about change: 

'They're not bad people - they're just doing what they think is right because of what they have been told. We can change their thinking.'

I asked John Paul if he had any advice to other brands thinking of insisting on no animal testing for their brands:

'Do it now and tell your customers you are doing it. Do it immediately! If you believe in something you better walk that walk. We are totally committed. Money is not the issue.'

How refreshing. People putting ethics before the dollar. 

Are you listening beauty world?

Paul Mitchell is available in official stockists nationwide.

Animal Testing, China and pussy footing around.

I received an email from PETA this morning stating the following:

London – Is Revlon paying for tests that poison animals in China? The cosmetics giant has refused to answer this question, despite repeated attempts by PETA US to uncover the truth. Now, Revlon has to contend with PETA US as a stockholder.

The animal rights group has purchased stock in the New York–based company, which will allow PETA US to attend annual meetings and submit resolutions calling for transparency in Revlon's animal testing policies. The company's refusal to state whether it is paying for these deadly tests – which the Chinese government currently requires for almost all cosmetics products marketed in China – means it cannot be endorsed as a non-animal testing company by PETA US or PETA UK.

"Since Revlon won't come clean to consumers, maybe it will answer a shareholder", says PETA UK Associate Director Mimi Bekhechi. "If the company is breaking its 1989 ban on poisoning animals, then PETA US will find out in the boardroom, if necessary, and then shout it from the rooftop."

A pretty bold move for PETA and one which I'm sure will be applauded by their supporters. But honestly? What will it change in reality? Revlon are not about to pull out of China. It was announced today that they are cutting 250 jobs. They need the money.

To be clear, I don't support animal testing and support PETA's cause - always have, I am by no means radical, I just know from working with brands over the last 15 years that it is completely unnecessary in 2012 to test any product on an animal. 

Why make animals suffer when all products can safely be tested on real people? - which at the end of the day is your end consumer. A rat has no need for a red lipstick or anti-ageing cream. This message however, is still to be heard loud and clear in Beijing.

Cosmetic companies though, don't answer to me, or you. They answer to shareholders. And even then it is in a trickle down basis. If PETA owned 51% of Revlon stock they could in all reality, call the shots. But to my knowledge, they don't. Mr Perelman is still the dude at the top.

So I wonder: Where do you draw the line? I regularly see on twitter and other blogs the fury that comes with knowing that a brand tests on animals or plans to sell to China. 

Avon, L'Oreal and Estee Lauder all sell in China - and that means the Estee Lauder Group - not just the original house. 

So has it stopped you buying Tom Ford? Will it stop you buying Aerin? MAC?

Has it stopped you buying Mitchum deodorant (same group as Revlon)? Chanel? Caudalie? YSL? Garnier? Christian Dior?

Wal-Mart has been in China for years. Wal-Mart own Asda. Do you shop at Asda?

If Stella McCartney (from one of the possibly most widely known and respected vegan families) clothes are sold in China - are her fragrances sold in her stores? I don't know. I'm just showing how easy it is to take it further and further.

Urban Decay? Gave in to pressure from their fans and PETA? Or made a very quick turnaround in light of the fact that they sold their company within the same month and the controversy would have affected the price? Call me cynical...

Avon is China's no.2 brand (L'Oreal predictably No.1) - they had 6000 stores (they have outlets rather than door-to-door) in China 8 years ago. 8 years ago! Avon own Liz Earle. How long before the inevitable happens?

Proctor & Gamble have been in China for nearly 25 years. Do you use Fairy washing up liquid? Use Pampers on your baby? Gillette on your legs? Head and Shoulders? Aussie? Frederic Fekkai???? 

All I know is this: China is going nowhere and neither are shareholders and corporate money.

• China has 100 million urban (beauty buying) women. 100 MILLION. And that's less than a quarter of the estimated total of women living on the mainland.
• China is the largest internet beauty market in the world with sales of over $8 billion last year. That's the tip of the iceberg. 
• The Chinese online beauty market did nine times more last year than the USA online market.

I am not trying to justify anything or anyone - I have merely been wondering recently how far we genuinely, if we are being really honest, care enough to change our ways? And how often we knowingly turn a blind eye while giving a beautifully-applied-Chanel lip service to the opposite effect in public?

Thoughts?


Some source and  further info if you're interested... 

Parabens and Animal Testing - a quick word...

After a few comments this week on Twitter about parabens and a post from the lovely Sarah on London Beauty Review about animal testing - (more of that here)  I just wanted to highlight a couple of things very briefly from my own experience...

Parabens
Regardless of where you lie in the paraben debate - do you/don't you - if you are in the 'don't want them in my products at all' group - you need to look further back than the original inci list on your product.

A product listed as paraben-free means that there are no parabens in that particular product.  It does not mean that the source ingredients in that product were not preserved in parabens. In other words, companies can say that their product is paraben-free - but the source ingredients that make up that product may have been swimming in them for months, even years.  If you are unsure, ask questions - and don't ask the counter staff/shop staff - ask Head Office.
If you want something that is absolutely paraben-free you may need to do more than look on the box - and if you want to be absolutely sure - you need to go certified organic . Not 'natural' - ORGANIC.  There are a lot of brands out there calling themselves natural - (a product only has to have 6% of something (anything) natural in it to call itself natural) - very few walk the walk and talk the talk.
One of the few that do is The Organic Pharmacy.  Margo and Francesco Marrone are two of the most passionate people I have met in the industry.  They also get rid of any cliched ideas you may have about organic = dowdy, dull, frumpy and boring. There are no grey areas in The Organic Pharmacy.  It's either in - or it's out.  If you are concerned about what is in the products that we routinely put on our skin - check out TOP -  for more info on their philosophy and background  - visit their website - here.  And if you haven't yet tried any of their products - start with the Carrot Butter Cleanser - phenomenal.


Animal Testing
At the other end of the paraben scale is Liz Earle.  Liz Earle Cosmetics actively and openly use parabens - and defend them in their literature (although they are noticeably missing from all of their newest products released - make of that what you will).

Where there are no grey areas with Liz Earle is in animal testing.  So much so that a few years ago the EU revised the law on all self tanning products because they were concerned about the effects of inhalation in tanning booths.  The new EU testing regime for self tans involved testing on animals. Liz Earle refused to let their (very good) Self Tan be tested on animals and so discontinued it rather than go against one of their fundamental principles.
The customers were not happy - but LEC were unrelenting. They still do not carry a self tan in their range.  More on LEC and their philosophies here.

If you use any form of self tan - odds are it has been tested on animals - maybe not by the company - but by their source manufacturer.

Forewarned is forearmed.