RSSSITES TO KNOW : LIVING CRUELTY FREE
May 12, 2008
Here is the blog of a woman named Emily. She is doing what so many of us would do in a perfect world. She has made the commitment to only buy from companies that truly do not employ animals at any stage of testing their product. The first anniversary of her endeavor to buy only CCIC-approved 100% cruelty-free products has just passed.
CCIC
From their website,
The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics’ (CCIC) Leaping Bunny Program administers a cruelty-free standard and the internationally recognized Leaping Bunny Logo for companies producing cosmetic, personal care, and household products. The Leaping Bunny Program provides the best assurance that no new animal testing is used in any phase of product development by the company, its laboratories, or suppliers.
Do visit this site and download the free shopping guide and read the lists of who does and doesn’t test (and which companies own which brands; fascinating).
Temperate approach
Emily’s About page is excellent. There’s no raging and no blame. She discusses her personal reasons for doing this and how difficult it has been, but also how worthwhile.
Along with the wealth of information and insight she provides, I appreciate that she takes a moderate position. It works better in the real world, or at least with me, than being militant. Aggressive activists do play a vital role to bring the attention of the rest of us to the problem, but it’s not my style. The line between fact and personal agenda is too blurred. I feel no differently on this issue as a woman and a consumer than I do as a veterinarian.
Emily said:
I think I’ve also come to believe that cruelty-freeism is a spectrum. You can pick where you want to be on that spectrum. You can never be completely cruelty-free — it’s about finding the place that’s right for you. Don’t give up on being cruelty-free because you can’t promise to be cruelty-free 100% of the time.
Updated information
We’ve seen the pictures. We know about the types of testing that exists. Most of us aren’t sure how strict the regulations are, but we all regret that animal testing happens at all. I do not in any way wish to reduce the importance of the problem. It is huge.
However, it takes enormous time to research this issue. Like so much information in cosmetics marketing, it’s kept a little concealed and the language is layered with loopholes and half-truths. I am always a little confused by the status of which companies do not test on animals when the parent company does, a situation I believe true of Clinique and L’Oreal.
Living Cruelty Free showcases the beauty of blogs – to bring together in one accessible place opinions and knowledge on topics you care about, from people you can trust and think of as friends. You’ll find fair, no-gushing reviews on beauty and skin care products, sunscreens, deodorants, household cleaners, fragrance and pet foods, as well as discussion about the companies that bring them to you.
Emily brings you changes in company policies and exposure the products you might not know about, or never think of, like this razor.
Corporate influence
Sure, I can vote with my dollars and that helps, but I don’t think it helps a lot. Supporting the voices that the industry is watching, like Emily’s, has more impact because it connects your voice to the company directly, through your Comments.
Do read the first comment on the About page , with part of her response below. From June/07, from the Manta site :
While L’Oreal is, in many ways, an impressive company, it owns a number of cosmetics companies that test on animals […names 26 (--bold) companies].
Many people don’t care about animal suffering for the sake of cosmetics, but for those who do, L’Oreal products are very unappealing. Luckily, L’Oreal is looking into ending its use of animal testing (I suspect because the EU has mandated that European companies must stop testing on animals by 2013). L’Oreal intends to switch over to using “skin equivalents,” which are where a scientist takes a petri dish, puts a layer of collagen down on it, then a layer of human skin on top of that, and then runs numerous toxicology tests on it. This is a much more humane way to run toxicology tests than on live rabbits, rats, or mice.
Overall, I think it’s a great thing that L’Oreal will become cruelty-free, but I think it’s important to remember that as of today and for the next few years, L’Oreal causes and will continue to cause a lot of suffering to numerous animals.
In the Year in Review list of articles , you’ll be impressed with the range of topics, like humane farming and the changes needed in veterinary schools. The cosmetics company updates are eye-openers , like the news that L’Oreal is going cruelty-free . Read the article before you decide how great they are.
She pulls no punches, which I love, like in the article Burt’s Bees Sucks . Look at the letter Emily wrote and their response. Having had a similar experience with a call to Olay where I asked outright if they test on animals and was told, categorically not ever, I empathize with her mistrust of the whole organization. I read today that Burt’s Bees has gone cruelty-free though the parent company has not.
You will find links to lists of companies that do/don’t test on animals. I was impressed with this article on what cruelty free really means, the loopholes companies use to avoid consumer understanding and the standards that the CCIC maintains to include or exclude certain companies.
Other sites
There are very good lists of Companies That Do and Don’t Test, like this one at Caring Consumer . These are excellent because you see the parent company, but the subsidiaries are identified as well. This is an important site to know because you can download the lists of companies that do/don’t test as either Word or .pdf files. I just keep the Word file on my computer and check it when I want to buy something.
Nothing changes till we do.
If I’m going to put my money where my mouth is, I want to begin now. I bought J/A/S/O/N/ Shower Gel in Rosewater. It was about $10 for a liter, no different from the usual $5 for 500ml or so from the other companies. It’s right there at the Superstore along with many Kiss My Face products. It’s just fine and I feel better every time I look at it.
We dishonor ourselves by closing our eyes to what we know is taking place. We are better than this. It might take a little more time, and maybe even a little more money. I think most women would gladly support this cause with both time and money if reliable information were easy to find and utilize. Rants and pages of scientific data are difficult to distill to change our purchasing habits, much as we might want to.
You don’t ever have to be perfect. Whether you buy from the companies that are CCIC – listed or only from those that do not test the finished product, at least have an awareness that a living creature is paying a heavy price for us all to have longer eyelashes.
Comments
5 Responses to “SITES TO KNOW : LIVING CRUELTY FREE”
Got something to say? I hope so.
Get daily makeup and colour updates. Join the 12 Blueprints Fan Club on Facebook! A Click on the box will take you there.
-
A Greener Tea
Web Maintenence by Rick Beckman
I visited this web site and I have to say, I did not stay there long. While I applaud Emily’s efforts and support her cause, I read one one blog entry that made question anyting else she has to say.
My eye was immediately drawn to a title referring to veterinarians as merchants of death. I, like Christine, am a vet. The premise of this particular blog entry of Emily’s is that veterinarians are cruel people and that we we love to mutilate animals because some vet schools use sacrificial surgeries as a learning tool. I was dismayed by both her lack of research and information on the subject as well as her narrowminded blanket statement about all veterinarians. In Canada, at the time of my training, only 1 of 4 vet schools used sacrificial surgeries. The rest of us learned surgical skills though spay/neuter programs with local shelters and real, client-owned pets requiring life saving surgeries. And as far as I know, many of the American schools taught surgery with the same type of programs. Although I am not defending sacrificial surgeries, the veterinarians who were taught using these methods certainly did not go to vet school with the hopes of “mutilating animals” as Emily suggests. These students did not have a choice in the matter as we cannot freely choose which vet school to attend nor which classes to frequent.
I fully support Emily’s cause for cruelty free products and even agree with her thought that sacrificial surgery is needless. But her comments on veterinarian students make her lose any credibility she may have had. She better hope she never needs a vet to help her beloved pets. In the meantime, I will support her cause elsewhere.
Hi, Daniele,
Thank you so much for your very honest comment.
I read those articles too. I was perplexed about where the information came from. I was in veterinary school 18 years ago, and even back then, protocols and procedures were not as described in the Merchants of Death article. Like you, the surgeries we learned were spays and neuters with Shelter pets on their way to new homes.
And be assured that the use of pain medication was more thorough and generous than is often found in private practice. To the person who commented to Emily’s article that pain medication does not exist to eradicate certain types of pain…are you sure? do you know? do you see it a lot? could you tell if you saw it working vs not working? I have seen cats having undergone lengthy invasive procedures to repair limbs or remove foreign bodies, in their cages resting peacefully, eating, and interacting with their surroundings happily with the use of appropriate pain medication. This is what veterinarians do for pets, as you know, Daniele.
We practiced casting procedures on anesthetized animals, but the limbs were certainly not broken beforehand. It’s a long time ago for me, but dissecting organs of living animals?? I have no idea if that takes place in other veterinary schools but it certainly did not in ours. Vivisection?? Not in a thousand years would anyone have participated in such a thing.
The one sacrificial procedure that took place was 1 anesthetic-induced death. The professors and students were deeply disturbed during the procedure. I suspect that’s been phased out entirely, because the use of live animals for learning purposes has become more restricted, not less.
Your final comments illustrate the reality of the profession. Veterinarians enter private practice with the expectation that they will be able to handle all manner of medicine and surgery. The fact is that many (most) students have performed a small number of surgeries (all spay or neuters) and anesthesias. In practice, we’re often given a sick animal that needs a surgery we’ve never even practiced and no source of help. The intensive supervised training found in the human medical field does not exist for many vets. So if your dog swallowed a ball or your cat has a tumor that needs removing, do you object to having a doctor who has never seen it done take on the job?
I agree with Emily that change is needed in how vets are trained. We are expected by the public to be able to perform the same procedures as pet owners have done to themselves (for a heck of a lot less money), without the training. It’s just not realistic. Surgery and anesthesia cannot be learned by video or simulation. As many students as possible, learning from 1 animal, with abundant pre and post operative care is a humane compromise, IMHO.
Who has a better solution? Vets could be trained like human surgeons and anesthetists. But do people mind if it suddenly costs $800 or more to have their dog neutered? More dogs would be euthanized at humane societies than are now.
It’s not perfect. Public education, as always, is key. I believe that the present veterinary school education cuts back live animal use as far as possible given all the constraints Daniele and I mention.
Dear Christine,
I checked out Emilly’s Cruelty Free site looking for sunscreen for my kids. It is really hard to know what companies test and which don’t. I was really happy to find this site since it has comprehensive lists of lots of products.
I was also happy to see that the site links you to right to the place you can buy it so you don’t have to go searching all around.
As for the vet issue which was commented on earlier, I’m sorry but I don’t know anything about the topic.
Hi, Sabrina,
Thank you for your comment. I agree that Emily’s site is very easy to navigate and the links and lists provided are very complete. I think she does a great job of making this complex issue into an attainable goal for all of us.