Animal Testing

I've seen some videos of "Gurus" hauling loads of crap that was tested on animals, L'Oreal, Cover Girl, Maybelline and I recently found out that these DO test on animals so I am trying my best to use the ones NOT tested on animals, like Urban Decay (thank God), Smashbox, 2 Faced, Revlon/Almay.

I would think if you were a "Guru" you would want to educated your viewers on the BEST possible products to use. But they just don't seem to think or actually don't have the ability to "think" that some of the things they buy hurt animals, and some actually have animal fat in them as an ingredient. Europe has practically banned any animal testing, since it was proven useless and found that deeming a product safe for humans could be done without killing animals.

The gurus who say "I like it because it doesn't test on animals.. blah blah" seem uneducated and just say that to sound like they are educated and a "caring" person.

Also, note if a product on the back says "Final product not test on animals" that still means ingredients of the product WERE tested on animals.

What do you think? Should Gurus be more aware of actual ingredients and a company's moral grounds before advertising it for free and sometimes at a price? Do you use products that are tested on animals? How do you feel about this?
PS: For all you MAC lovers, they don't test on animals.

animals don't wear cosmetics! S T O P using animals.

Yes, they should be aware and steer users away from animal tested items!!

"Should Gurus be more aware of actual ingredients and a company's moral grounds before advertising it for free and sometimes at a price?"

just like most of the population doesnt care how the animals are treated on factory farms, they dont care how make up companies treat animals either. easier to ignore it then to actually have thoughts and feelings about it.

and most of the make up brands are owned by the same few companies. just because the brand revlon (and ect) doesnt test on animals, doesnt mean that the other brands the company owns doesnt test. your money is still going to a company that tests on animals, but you just bought one of their brands that doesnt.

like boca bugars are vegetarian and vegan, but the company that owns them also owns hilshire farms lunch meat. in one ad they are going "look it's vegan!" and the other brand's ad has the slogan "go meat!". even though you bought nice vegan patties, all the money goes to the company that also sells all these meat products..

why is a guru to care about animal testing when in the next video they have a haul with leather shoes and in the next video a follow me around vlog while i eat meat at a resturant. less than 10% of the population is vegetarian.. makes sense why most gurus also dont care about animal testing..

im vegetarian im not saying all of this to disagree with you, i wish no company tested on animals. i just think your values in a makeup brand are not going to always be the same as everyone elses.

preteen girls are the best to get all passionate about stopping the testing on animals. if blair started a boycott of animal tested products all those girls would follow and i really, really, believe that animal testing would stop! the companies would listen. i think a boycott would be fun, a campain to stop buying animal tested products would be exciting. those young girls would love to get involved. something to fight for, something to feel passionate about, something to do! mac doesnt test on animals. nyx doesnt, nor revlon or physicians formula. lots still do like cover girl and maybeline. go to the peta site to see which do and dont allow animal cruelty. http:// www. peta.org/living/beauty-and-personal-care/companies/default.aspx also remember, that the companies on the peta site have to meet peta requirement which are pretty strick. i think nars is on the list for animal cruelty, but the nars website says they dont do animal cruelty. also, there is a difference between animal cruelty and animal testing. coastal scents, for example, uses dog hair in their eye lashes, but they dont test products on animals. just and fyi for those considering this topic. so interesting!

There are plenty of alternative ways to test and with a multitude of documented findings in regard to ingredients already in data bases, the continuation of vivisection is archaic and reprehensible. How many chimp's eyes need be burned with acids, how many times can a rabbit be cut with a razor to test sharpness? It just enrages me and makes me sick!!! It's heartening that companies have come a long way in developing alternatives for animal testing.

It's like hunting for meat, I'm not a vegetarian but if I had to kill and prepare my own meat - well, I'd for sure be eating a lot more grains and vegetables. Same with the cosmetics testing, if I had to perform these heinous experiments - I would NOT and go bare faced!

according to peta, rimmel tests on animals and rimmel is from london. so, mabye only continental europe doesnt allow animal testing, or maybe its a mistake that europe doesnt allow animal testing.

europe has banned it and i read that other companies when selling in europe have to follow their laws and regulations on it.
it is true that rimmel does test on animals, however they could sending their testing to another country and then just ship it out, basically outsourcing it, or london may not be included.

I'm a big animal lover, but I won't lie, I have plenty of makeup products/brands that do test on animals. Sadly, it's hard to find a lot of products or even brands that are organic, cruelty free, and so forth. I do try to purchase from the "natural/organic" sections at Target and CVS but I think what matters is that we try to make a difference. I think we have to accept that not everyone will care about animals like others do. Some people don't care about animals being tortured/killed to give us food, or being put into horrible environments/pain because of cosmetic testing. This is something I had to learn the hard way, after being a part of many protest groups, the PETA club at my University, and many other online communities. Because we can't change everyone's mind, and we can't allow every "guru" to stop buying these brands, we have to be the change we want to see (as cheesy as that sounds). I feel good about myself because I have a dog, and I completely love her. I also volunteer at an animal shelter during the summers. I try to donate every 2-4 months to PETA, or towards organizations that care about the well-being of animals. I really don't mind when gurus let us know "I like this product because it's not tested on animals" because some people are really hardcore about that, and would appreciate knowing which products are tested and which are not. I really don't care much about all these "gurus" anymore, for all I know Youtube is going down the shithole (the beauty community at least) and soon enough all of them will be talking/walking commercials.

write a couple of pre-made letters maybe and start sending them to companies and brands, and also start sending messages to blair, because I do think she has a compassion for animals, i do think she is a good person deep down, and she is the person, after Michelle, that would be the best influence on youtube's beauty community

Pre-written is a great idea. I do this all the time with sites such as AnimalRescue DOT com (guys please go visit daily and click the big purple button to feed shelter animals for free.)

Change has to start small and if teens are raised with the idea that animal testing is barbaric and antiquated when there are better research techniques - the better off we'll all be.

"I mean, if you have to use innocent animals to test on, at least use the ones who are in a shelter and who are going to be put down anyway."


Do you know how many pets are at shelters waiting for owners and family members to find them again? That's right LoLaJude, good catch. To know only love and family ties to end up burned repeatedly, cut a thousand times and made to eat acid and have it placed into your eyes until death... I just can't go on with this note right now.

YES! wrote:"I mean, if you have to use innocent animals to test on, at least use the ones who are in a shelter and who are going to be put down anyway."


Do you know how many pets are at shelters waiting for owners and family members to find them again? That's right LoLaJude, good catch. To know only love and family ties to end up burned repeatedly, cut a thousand times and made to eat acid and have it placed into your eyes until death... I just can't go on with this note right now.

That was a quote from a teen who did a video about animal testing on Youtube, I stumbled upon it while researching.

Lilac wrote:Let's do it then

I suggest we write two or three, post them in here, and leave some spaces for people to fill with their name (even a fake one it doesnt matter). Also we could make a list of companies and brands that do animal testing, and their respective emails, do people would just have to do "copy" and "paste" all the emails on the bcc gap.

The letters should say, in my opinion, something like "I am boycotting your company because you practice animal testing which is barbarian and not necessary since there are alternatives to it, bla bla bla" or something like that.

We could also encourage people to leave messages and comments on blairs youtube page/videos etc, so she would see this greaat amount of people asking the same thing.


It would be great if after we are finished with the letters and email list someone placed a sticky on the forum so people would notice more.


I think we should do it , and make it the more practical/easy as we can.



Let's make it for animals, and show people that we, at guru gossip, actually are compassionate and care about the "environment" and do something, not just hate

L'Oreal is one of the major companies who is doing this. They have had petitions all across the world and it hasn't changed their mind.
L'Oreal is a parent company to Cover Girl, Maybelline, and a bunch of others, the list goes on and on.
Like the person who has corrected me before L'oreal is even resisting Europe and their laws in waiting.

Can someone link up a valid source that states these animals are actually harmed by wearing LIPGLOSS or something like that. I know that's a very simple example but my point is do the animals being tested actually die due to long term or short term effects of the product being used on them. A lot of pet owners like some who own chiwauwas get their dog's toe nails painted at the doggy day spa... If we are saying there should be no animal testing or products used on animals... Can we have a verification how far you are willing to take this?

I believe in research done on animals that stay within the guidelines provided protecting animal rights and avoids causing them harm, I'd rather that than be a scapegoat for a product that claims to do something by mere hearsay and then have to find out the hardway.

*shrugs*
that's my two cents. I think we really have to understand the reasons behind these procedures first before we go ahead crying wolf.

http://pixiwoo.blogspot.com/2010/09/whats-deal-with-loreal-and-animal.html
Questions to L'Oreal by Pixiwoo and L'Oreal's answer. I didn't know Pixiwoo had a stance on this, but I found this by searching about L'Oreal and testing.

Article by the American Anti-Vivisection Society
http://www.aavs.org/testingTypesBlinded.html

It looks like L'Oreal, when a new ingredient is created, contracts that ingredient and it most likely was tested on animals, so they're not testing themselves, perse via the "finished product", but invariably they are associated with it because of a legislation cop-out.

"EU legislation requires that newly developed ingredients are tested on animals, where no alternatives exist. L'Oréal continues to use newly developed ingredients in their products." Taken from a L'Oreal anti testing petition website.

bitchsmh wrote:Can someone link up a valid source that states these animals are actually harmed by wearing LIPGLOSS or something like that. I know that's a very simple example but my point is do the animals being tested actually die due to long term or short term effects of the product being used on them. A lot of pet owners like some who own chiwauwas get their dog's toe nails painted at the doggy day spa... If we are saying there should be no animal testing or products used on animals... Can we have a verification how far you are willing to take this?

I believe in research done on animals that stay within the guidelines provided protecting animal rights and avoids causing them harm, I'd rather that than be a scapegoat for a product that claims to do something by mere hearsay and then have to find out the hardway.

*shrugs*
that's my two cents. I think we really have to understand the reasons behind these procedures first before we go ahead crying wolf.

No, it's not like they just put nail polish on their nails and lip gloss on them. Lancome puts mascara on Rabits/Bunny eyes. Animals get their skin cut off and they dump the product on the flesh to see the effect. When I was uncertain of Neutrogena's testing standars they wrote me a e-mail, "the chemicals we put into their eyes are so mild they don't even need to be restrained anymore". Like are you kidding me?

I am sorry, you are allowed to have your "2 cents", but let's be more educated before speaking. Ok.

This is an interesting read!

WASHINGTON—Technology allowing cosmetic makers to test for allergic reactions to their products without controversial animal trials is in the works and could be in use by next year.

The technology developed by Hurel Corp., with funding from cosmetics maker L'Oreal, is designed to replace tests on mice and guinea pigs used to predict skin reactions from drugs and cosmetics. The device uses laboratory-grown human skin cells to simulate the body's allergic response to foreign chemicals. Preliminary experiments show promise, but rigorous tests are still needed to determine the technology's accuracy.

The standard method for testing allergic reactions involves applying chemicals to the ears of mice, which are later killed and dissected for study.

North Brunswick, N.J.-based Hurel said Thursday it hopes to eliminate the need for such tests, in an announcement with cosmetics giant L'Oreal, which provided funding for the test.

The product from Hurel consists of a glass chip with human skin cells and chemicals that simulate the body's immune system. When a foreign substance is dropped onto the chip, the cells and chemicals interact to mimic the human body's natural allergic response.

While the product is still in development, Hurel officials say a working prototype should be available by the second half of next year. In addition to cosmetics, the technology could be used to test household cleaners and pesticides.

Hurel Chief Executive Robert Freedman said it is too early to estimate the price or sales figures for the chip, but he pegs the market for a non-animal allergy test at $2 billion a year.

Like other companies in the cosmetics industry, L'Oreal is racing to develop alternatives for testing wrinkle creams and lipstick to comply with European Union laws. Regulators there have ordered companies to phase out animal skin testing by 2013.

L'Oreal has decreased its use of animal testing over the years, but still relies on the technique to test certain new chemicals.

"I give L'Oreal credit for being willing to explore these types of opportunities," said Dr. Charles Sandusky, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "This is the first thing I've ever seen where the immune system is being mimicked without using an animal component."

A spokeswoman for L'Oreal said the company has invested heavily in non-animal testing over 25 years, but declined to specify how much went into developing the Hurel chip.

Hurel will be free to license the technology to other companies once it has been proven effective, she said.

Sandusky, a former toxicologist at the Environmental Protection Agency, estimates Hurel's technology, if successfully applied, could eliminate the need for tens of thousands of test animals each year.

For that reason, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to grant the company an innovation award Thursday for "animal-friendly achievement in commerce." PETA's science policy adviser Dr. Kate Willett said the group has been following Hurel's research efforts.

Hurel was founded in 2005 and has one other product under development: a liver toxicity test. Given that regulators generally won't approve an experimental drug if there are signs it harms the liver, a liver toxicity test could be a boon to drugmakers who test their medicines in animals before submitting them to regulators.

Animal testing can be slow, and many researchers question how well an animal's response to a chemical predicts human reactions.

By eliminating the time, money and potential inaccuracies associated with animal testing, Chief Executive Robert Freedman estimates Hurel's test could shave $100 million off the roughly $1 billion cost of developing a new drug.

LoLaJude wrote:

bitchsmh wrote:Can someone link up a valid source that states these animals are actually harmed by wearing LIPGLOSS or something like that. I know that's a very simple example but my point is do the animals being tested actually die due to long term or short term effects of the product being used on them. A lot of pet owners like some who own chiwauwas get their dog's toe nails painted at the doggy day spa... If we are saying there should be no animal testing or products used on animals... Can we have a verification how far you are willing to take this?

I believe in research done on animals that stay within the guidelines provided protecting animal rights and avoids causing them harm, I'd rather that than be a scapegoat for a product that claims to do something by mere hearsay and then have to find out the hardway.

*shrugs*
that's my two cents. I think we really have to understand the reasons behind these procedures first before we go ahead crying wolf.

No, it's not like they just put nail polish on their nails and lip gloss on them. Lancome puts mascara on Rabits/Bunny eyes. Animals get their skin cut off and they dump the product on the flesh to see the effect. When I was uncertain of Neutrogena's testing standars they wrote me a e-mail, "the chemicals we put into their eyes are so mild they don't even need to be restrained anymore". Like are you kidding me?

I am sorry, you are allowed to have your "2 cents", but let's be more educated before speaking. Ok.

Be more educated before speaking?
You do know I was sharing my opinion right? along with asking for some sources?
Hm, if you think I am speaking without any education on the subject, do you think these companies who test on animals -more specifically, their chemists- have no education?
Have you ever heard of the national health and medical research council?
Do you have any idea that there is a protocol on animal testing? Or would you rather humans be tested instead? There is a reason why animals are used instead of humans. While I am not sticking up for their behavior I think it is important to use logic before you speak Especially if you have no background on research, chemistry etc. And just using the product doesn't count.

MakeMyBidet wrote:This is an interesting read!

WASHINGTON—Technology allowing cosmetic makers to test for allergic reactions to their products without controversial animal trials is in the works and could be in use by next year.

The technology developed by Hurel Corp., with funding from cosmetics maker L'Oreal, is designed to replace tests on mice and guinea pigs used to predict skin reactions from drugs and cosmetics. The device uses laboratory-grown human skin cells to simulate the body's allergic response to foreign chemicals. Preliminary experiments show promise, but rigorous tests are still needed to determine the technology's accuracy.

The standard method for testing allergic reactions involves applying chemicals to the ears of mice, which are later killed and dissected for study.

North Brunswick, N.J.-based Hurel said Thursday it hopes to eliminate the need for such tests, in an announcement with cosmetics giant L'Oreal, which provided funding for the test.

The product from Hurel consists of a glass chip with human skin cells and chemicals that simulate the body's immune system. When a foreign substance is dropped onto the chip, the cells and chemicals interact to mimic the human body's natural allergic response.

While the product is still in development, Hurel officials say a working prototype should be available by the second half of next year. In addition to cosmetics, the technology could be used to test household cleaners and pesticides.

Hurel Chief Executive Robert Freedman said it is too early to estimate the price or sales figures for the chip, but he pegs the market for a non-animal allergy test at $2 billion a year.

Like other companies in the cosmetics industry, L'Oreal is racing to develop alternatives for testing wrinkle creams and lipstick to comply with European Union laws. Regulators there have ordered companies to phase out animal skin testing by 2013.

L'Oreal has decreased its use of animal testing over the years, but still relies on the technique to test certain new chemicals.

"I give L'Oreal credit for being willing to explore these types of opportunities," said Dr. Charles Sandusky, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "This is the first thing I've ever seen where the immune system is being mimicked without using an animal component."

A spokeswoman for L'Oreal said the company has invested heavily in non-animal testing over 25 years, but declined to specify how much went into developing the Hurel chip.

Hurel will be free to license the technology to other companies once it has been proven effective, she said.

Sandusky, a former toxicologist at the Environmental Protection Agency, estimates Hurel's technology, if successfully applied, could eliminate the need for tens of thousands of test animals each year.

For that reason, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to grant the company an innovation award Thursday for "animal-friendly achievement in commerce." PETA's science policy adviser Dr. Kate Willett said the group has been following Hurel's research efforts.

Hurel was founded in 2005 and has one other product under development: a liver toxicity test. Given that regulators generally won't approve an experimental drug if there are signs it harms the liver, a liver toxicity test could be a boon to drugmakers who test their medicines in animals before submitting them to regulators.

Animal testing can be slow, and many researchers question how well an animal's response to a chemical predicts human reactions.

By eliminating the time, money and potential inaccuracies associated with animal testing, Chief Executive Robert Freedman estimates Hurel's test could shave $100 million off the roughly $1 billion cost of developing a new drug.

thanks a lot for this, along with the other two links... definitely going through them

YW, bitchsmh!

I was curious about all of this, too, and started digging more into the logistics of it, and it's not just as cut and dry as "you test" or you "don't test".

PETA offered this company(Hurel), that L'Oreal almost exclusively funded, an award for their research to help ALL companies not have to lean on animal testing in regards to new substances or ingredients in the future.

"HUREL WINS PETA AWARD FOR ADVANCING NON-ANIMAL TESTING Use of Scientifically Superior Human Cell–Based Methods Nets Company a Proggy"

Also, from what I've read, L'Oreal will be stopping animal testing within the year, or from their initial announcement earlier this year.

In order to fight for a cause, you need to know all of the facts and share those facts with people who come and are unaware of them. I wasn't aware of the facts and being the curious person I am, I read up on it.

Again, L'Oreal doesn't test themselves, but will contract new ingredients into their final product that may have been, which could've been because of protocol and legislation.

@lolajude
You weren't correct saying they take the skin off to test for irritation. They shave a section of two sections of fur off, exposing the skin and use one side for control and one side for the experiments.

Speaking of animal rights, though; has anyone seen The Cove? OMG I so wanna smack those mother effin Tai Pei Dolphin Killers!

Razor companies do cut rabbits - unfortunately I've seen pictures that won't leave me. Google it - I can't post those as I would have to see them again.

What Kinds of Tests Are Performed on Animals?
Eye Irritancy Testing (Draize)
This test forces chemicals into the eyes of fully conscious, restrained rabbits. Anesthetics are not required to be used. The extreme pain often causes them to struggle so severely that they break their own backs, dying in agony.

Skin Irritancy Testing
This test places corrosive chemicals onto the shaved/raw skin of rabbits and guinea pigs. The caustic nature of these substances causes severe injuries to the animals. Gaping wounds and bleeding are common.

Oral Toxicity Testing (LD50)
This test force-feeds chemicals to fully conscious animals for 14-28 days till death. In 1983, David Rall, Director of the National Toxicity Program, called this test “an anachronism” and said, “I do not think this test provides much useful information about the health hazards to humans.”


///////////

Rabbits for Testing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of animals are tortured and killed each year in laboratories. Animals used for vivisection (the practice of experimenting on animals) include rabbits, mice, rats, monkeys, dogs, cats, birds, frogs, sheep and cattle. Most animal tests are conducted by
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States: they are the worlds largest funder of animal experiments.

The military: tests include radiation experiments, studies on the effects of chemical warfare and wound experiments
Private institutions and companies: many household products and cosmetics are still squirted into the animals' eyes, pumped into their stomachs, rubbed onto their skins or forced to inhale.

Agricultural companies: experiment are performed on cattle, sheep, chickens, pigs and turkeys to try to get them to produce more milk, wool, eggs or meat.

Many animal experiments are not only horrible for the animals, but also very unreliable. There are enormous physiological variations among rabbits, dogs, pigs and humans for instance. In 1989 a study was done to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride. During a period of two years, daily doses of fluoride were given to about 520 rats and 520 mice. Not a single mouse was adversely affected by the fluoride, but the rats experienced health problems like cancer of the mouth and bone. This study shows how test data cannot be accurately extrapolated from one species to another.

Drugs like thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. More than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 were withdrawn from the market or relabeled because of the serious side effects they had on humans. They had all been tested on animals.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) reports that sophisticated non-animal research methods are more accurate, less expensive and less time-consuming than traditional animal-based research methods.

If you would like more information, you can visit the following links:

Stop Animal Tests by PETA.

Animal Experimentation Issues by PCRM

You're getting into the extremist view that any animal testing for anything is ethically wrong, and that is where I have to part with you and your views. I like PETA and I don't like PETA because of the shock value they use to scare people.

Interesting that article includes that pigs are physiologically very different, when there is solid research for potentially using pig hearts for human transplants.

We are on the subject of L'Oreal and skin irritancy tests, we're not talking about Gillette and a razor test you saw online. I never said cutting doesn't happen. It happens, but not in skin irritancy testing.

A lot of that information is out-dated, the latest one cited was 1989, and only one study on fluoride.