Shu Umera Tests on Animals!

[Chelle1476]

This is for everyone who's interested in animal testing and products out of the EU. In 2005, the EU passed a bill prohibiting animal testing by 2009. So by this year, all of our favorite products will be available to us animal lovers because the companies are being forced to make the humane change!!! Also, according to Dior's website, they do not test. Just an FYI...

 

[mollyloretta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panda0410 Ugh... PETA again... these people are sensationalists and a lot of their info is hype.... As for testing on animals I TOTALLY agree!!! But we need to be aware that there are MANY companies that play pedantic with "animal testing"... for example there are plenty that dont test their products on animals BUT they DO test their ingredients.... and its prefectly legal for them to say they dont test on animals in that regard. You'd be suprised at which companies do that. Consumers need to be aware that items they are purchasing may well have had the ingredients tested on animals, and at some almost ALL ingredients were tested on animals at one point - regardless of who did it and which companies are currently using them now.

Hooray! Someone else who does research

I recently posted on my blog about animal testing, and regulations on whether or not you can claim your ingredient was, or was not, tested on animals. Realistically, there is none, there's no legal definition to it, thus no regulation. Any company can say they don't test on animals, but it doesn't mean it's true, and it's actually very unlikely as to whether or not their ingredients were tested on animals.

I'm going to copy and paste the following directly from my entry:

I figured I’d get this out of the way now, because that PETA list always bothers me. Many companies are not on the list, because they don’t claim to say that their ingredients were not tested on animals, because for the most part, many companies don’t know. (L’Oreal for example does not test the finished product on animals, but it doesn’t say the ingredients on the way to getting there weren’t because they’re not sure — as written to me by a L’Oreal rep.)


This is straight from the FDA/CFSAN website.


“Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims such as ‘CRUELTY-FREE’ or ‘NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS’ in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms.


Some companies may apply such claims solely to their finished cosmetic products. However, these companies may rely on raw material suppliers or contract laboratories to perform any animal testing necessary to substantiate product or ingredient safety. Other cosmetic companies may rely on combinations of scientific literature, non-animal testing, raw material safety testing, or controlled human-use testing to substantiate their product safety.


Many raw materials, used in cosmetics, were tested on animals years ago when they were first introduced. A cosmetic manufacturer might only use those raw materials and base their “cruelty-free” claims on the fact that the materials or products are not ‘currently’ tested on animals.”


Maybe “no new testing on animals” is a more accurate claim, eh?


For more information on the FDA/CFSAN, please visit their website at U.S. FDA / Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Unfortunately, any company can claim to be cruelty-free; there’s no regulations or law about it because as stated above, there are no legal definitions of these terms.

 

[neotrad]

I wonder how many of the people who are animal lovers and against animal testings do not use make up brushes that are made of animal hair's...

 

[BunnyBunnyBunny]

Omg you have to be kidding!!

 

[BeautyPsycho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neotrad I wonder how many of the people who are animal lovers and against animal testings do not use make up brushes that are made of animal hair's...

Well, as far as I know, MAC ones (for example) are hairs that animals shed and leave behind. They don't actually kill animals to make brushes.

 

[Leven]

Personally, i think if someone cut out makeup brands that tested on animals from their collection, they would be reduced to smearing dirt on their eyes lol Like many have said before, a company can say they dont test on animals, but they still use ingrediants that ARE.
It may seem insensitive, but i dont mind either way.

Especially because this info comes from PETA, an organization i despise (not because they are animal activists, but because one of the leaders actually uses medication that were tested on animals, which makes them also hypocrytical)

I completely respect those of you who chose not to use brands that test on animals, more power to you

 

[User27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leven Especially because this info comes from PETA, an organization i despise (not because they are animal activists, but because one of the leaders actually uses medication that were tested on animals, which makes them also hypocrytical)

Their vice president who has diabetes uses insulin products that have been tested on animals. Many people have brought that up to her and she swears they currently are not testing so this doesn't affect her using the products....before she stated that she needed to remain healthy to keep saving so many animals' lives so she had to overlook this.

I used to volunteer through summers on their Street Team recruiting people at Vans Warped Tours and even my college campus. I loved the sticker package they sent me to plaster my schools' bulletin boards for club activities.....almost got me and 2 of my friends kicked out of school because you had to have permission to post anything there. Yay! my psychology teacher at the time saw us stickering and reported us to Campus Safety which led to a meeting with the Dean of the school. My friends and I pretty much got a raw deal from their security after that so we've bumped heads here and there for being a little loud on campus.

Guess I agree with panda on this one, that company is equal to nil because the tactics they pull to get followers is horrendous. "Save #99" lured me in because of the repeated videos they showed of monkeys being tested on for cosmetic companies. That whole group is full of fanatics or vegans being told they're doing right by forcing materials and pamphlets down peoples' throats. When they break a story, look at another source as well because they will embelish the truth to lure new people to the street team or get their e-mail to sign various petitions. Thank you panda because that "organization" wasted 2 years of my time and almost jeopardized me attending CCBC.

 

[ChrisMakeupMan]

This is the inconvenient truth about cosmetics. Unfortunately this still goes on, everyone here hit the nail on the head. There is no regulations for this, and most companies outsource their ingredients from companies that do test on animals. The final product may not be tested, but i am sure at least 2 of the ingredients have been.

If you check the Cosmeticsdatabase.com they list products with harmful ingredients that have caused certain reactions in animals. which only stand to reason that these ingredients have been tested on animals.
And these ingredients are in almost all cosmetics.

So it is very hard to actually find a line that truly does not test and or use ingredients that don't.

I actually respect Shu more for being up front about it and not hiding it or sneaking through loopholes like most other lines. Do I think animal testing is right? course not.. Like others have said steps are being taken to ban it. But for now it is just a truth of this business and has been going on for decades.

 

[killinspree]

Im not strictly against animal testing because I don't see anyone suggesting any alternatives. I love my cat as much as the next person but i don't want to see homeless people being tested on either or worse developing foetus'. I'm not ok with animal testing but I can't see any other alternative so for the time being with me, i have to settle with an uncomfortable uneasiness.
I'm sooo glad mac brushes are cruelty-free. I hope more companies follow in their lead.

 

[GLAMORandGORE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casadalinnis Their vice president who has diabetes uses insulin products that have been tested on animals. Many people have brought that up to her and she swears they currently are not testing so this doesn't affect her using the products....before she stated that she needed to remain healthy to keep saving so many animals' lives so she had to overlook this. I used to volunteer through summers on their Street Team recruiting people at Vans Warped Tours and even my college campus. I loved the sticker package they sent me to plaster my schools' bulletin boards for club activities.....almost got me and 2 of my friends kicked out of school because you had to have permission to post anything there. Yay! my psychology teacher at the time saw us stickering and reported us to Campus Safety which led to a meeting with the Dean of the school. My friends and I pretty much got a raw deal from their security after that so we've bumped heads here and there for being a little loud on campus. Guess I agree with panda on this one, that company is equal to nil because the tactics they pull to get followers is horrendous. "Save #99" lured me in because of the repeated videos they showed of monkeys being tested on for cosmetic companies. That whole group is full of fanatics or vegans being told they're doing right by forcing materials and pamphlets down peoples' throats. When they break a story, look at another source as well because they will embelish the truth to lure new people to the street team or get their e-mail to sign various petitions. Thank you panda because that "organization" wasted 2 years of my time and almost jeopardized me attending CCBC.

their tactics obviously work then.
it's been said numerous times that the reason they use such tactics is to get peoples attention-becuase tapping someone on the back offering information doesn't work anymore. a veggie/vegan isn't going to stop being veggie/vegan because PETAs tactics are wrong, because they already know it's moraly wrong. while i disagree with SO MANY of their ads, i understand their use of these ads. it's just to get peoples attention.

 

[Mabelle]

i dont care if it violates human right, murders and rapists should be the test subjects. Imo, you should have no rights once you decided to take a persons life. Why should an innocent little animal be tortured because the market wants bigger and longer lashes?

 

[twuble]

I was just wondering.. Where does it say that Shu Uemura tests on animals?

I just checked on PETA.org, CaringConsumer.com, NAVS.org websites, Paula Begoun, "Don't go to the cosmetics counter w/o me" book and none of them have Shu Uemura listed under "Companies That Do Test on Animals"..

This may be related to the fact that L'Oreal owns them.. L'Oreal states that they have been animal friendly since 1989, but there's still some debate..

Here are a few highlights of other L'Oreal owned companies: Kérastase • Redken • Matrix • Garnier • Maybelline New York • Lancôme • Biotherm • Kiehl's • Shu Uemura • YSL Beauté • Giorgio Armani Parfums and Cosmetics • Ralph Lauren Fragrances • Diesel Fragrances • The Body Shop

All of these companies are missing on the PETA.org website. Probably due to the same association.

 

[Geraldine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mabelle i've never bought from Shu Umera, but has considered it. I thought well of this brand. Now i will not even consider them. Disgusting.

Ditto. i was thinking to buy the lash curler but not anymore.

 

[raspberries]

Oh God. If that is true, I'll never buy Shu again. I can't believe there are still companies out there doing this. I mean I know that a few cheap drugstore brands do them because they're just after the money, but their products are cheap too, so i guess they kinda 'make it up to the customers' (I don't belong to those though >_>), but Shu? They test their stuff on animals AND sell it for a ridiculous price. Does that even make sense? I don't nessecarily have a problem with the price being so high, but ,I'd have expected better from Shu Uemura (if it's true that is).

 

[monlnd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divacei I found this information out on the Peta website. I can't believe it! The eyelash curler is amazing, the eyeshadows are beyond pigmented, but I am currently very disappointed. And to think that they still test on animals. Please discuss-will this make you buy Shu Umera products less? I really like them, but after I found this out I was like . So I don't know. I really hate animal testing and thinks its just a stupid alternative for cheap companies who don't care about the customer and all they care about is money. Because apparently animal testing saves money. But so what? They already have semi-expensive products.

What a shame!!!!

 

[summerblue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeautyPsycho Well, as far as I know, MAC ones (for example) are hairs that animals shed and leave behind. They don't actually kill animals to make brushes.

If this is true, do you know how many animals they would have to keep in cages, bins, etc. to collect (brush out or shave) these hairs to make a gozillian MAC brushes. That would mean that wild animals like squirrels, badgers, mink (other companies make mink (kolinsky) & badger brushes) would have to be kept in unnatural conditions. In NY, only certified wildlife rehabbers can keep wildlife. These brushes come from Japan & (ugh) China. My guess is that the keeping of these animals would be akin to our puppy mills! The only natural hair that is OK in my book is goat hair because they are herding animals & would not have to be incarcerated like other animals. I also have to assume that some of the pony hair comes from animals going to slaughter. If you recall several years ago that outercoats coming to the US from China had dog fur on them. Sometimes I truly think that some of these brushes are made of German Shepard hair -- one of the Chinese's dogs of choice.

I am going to contact Shu Uemura about their animal testing policies next week & I will post back. If they do animal testing (along with Shisiedo) that means that Sephora isn't carrying only products which are cruelty-free since both brands are carried by Sephora.

On Estee Lauder's website they say that they do not test on animals, however, if a new ingredient is developed, then, they have to abide by the FDA testing protocol.

Although, I do not support testing drugs (i.e. insulin, etc.) on animals, I do, however, see a difference between drug testing vs. torturing an animal for the mere vanity of wearing makeup! What kills me is that some of these companies just test simply to get governmental grants or as a business write-off. It's enough to make you sick.