Interesting to see the number of "only test on animals where required" caveats, which would really be expected for international sales. The really interesting aspect is when the parent company statement uses the caveat, and the division does not ... knowing both have international sales, would use at least some of the same suppliers, and should have the same requirements. Then again the goal was marketing. Some creative writing went into these replies.
L’Oréal has not used animals to test its finished products since 1989, except in the case where national legislation requires it. This is the case in certain countries where L’Oréal operates and in those locations regulations require testing using animals before substances can be registered for commercial use
The Body Shop has always believed passionately that animals should not be used for cosmetic testing. We have never tested our products on animals. Similarly, we insist that all our suppliers have not tested their ingredients on animals for cosmetic purposes. We comply with the strict requirements of the Humane Cosmetics Standard created by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Our policy and standards in this area were praised by the BUAV in 2008. In the same year we won the RSPCA Good Business Award for a second time, for our commitment to animal welfare (Do not sell in the same countries as their parent company?)
P&G will only conduct research involving animals in the development and evaluation of our products as a last resort, when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. In those situations where such research is necessary (e.g., when required by law),
we will ensure the humane treatment of all animals and will meet or exceed all legal requirements regarding animal welfare.
We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law
. We evaluate our finished products in clinical tests on volunteer panels
Avon will conduct animal testing when required by law, at the request of government health or medical authorities
, and only after having first attempted to persuade the requesting authority to accept non-animal test data.
No animal testing of any kind is undertaken or commissioned by Boots or its subsidiary businesses. We recognise that until satisfactory replacements are available, some animal tests will be carried out by others to meet regulatory requirements and protect public health. These safety tests sometimes involve ingredients used in products manufactured and sold by subsidiary businesses.
We would like to see an end to all animal tests and we give financial and technical support to the development and introduction of alternative forms of safety testing
Using nonanimal product safety evaluations is the norm at Clorox and animal testing is the exception — the vast majority of our products reach the market without testing on animals
… We do not conduct or cause third-parties to conduct any animal testing on products, raw materials or components of finished products unless required by federal or local regulators
… We will not license our name or the name of any of our brands to formulations of products that have been tested on animals… We will not acquire or purchase product formulations or other products for use in our consumer products that have been tested on animals (except when such testing was done to meet the requirements of federal, state, local or other applicable regulations
We have always been against animal testing. Recently, the global regulatory climate has become more stringent and cosmetic companies are being asked to further validate the human and environmental safety of their ingredients and products. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety. Given these increased requirements for ensuring the safety of cosmetic ingredients, animal testing may be legally necessary under certain circumstances when no non-animal alternative is available or acceptable to governmental/health authorities
. Be assured that we will make every effort to avoid having ingredients tested on animals, and will take all practical and available steps to see that existing or non-animal test data is used instead. However, if ultimately this is required in order for the company to sell its products, we will, of course, comply with the law
The Elizabeth Arden Company shares your concern about the use of animals in safety testing and is committed to eliminating the need. Contrary to what you may have read or been told, we do not sponsor or perform any animal studies on our product formulations
. This has been our policy since 1988. To avoid the use of tests on animals, our product development work involves materials with well-established safety records and the use of extensive ingredient databases. Our product safety testing also includes the use of non-animal studies, computer modeling and studies with human volunteers
. As a result, we can take great pride in our product safety record. Further, our ultimate goal is to eliminate the necessity for animal testing
through our active support of our industry's sharing of scientific data and sponsorship of research programs to develop and validate non-animal alternatives for product testing.
If all alternative methods to animal testing were completed to confirm the safety of cosmetic ingredients, no animal testing would be required. However, at the current scientific level, not all alternative methods have been established or authorized, and in order to guarantee customer safety and security, there are now cases in which safety tests involving animal testing are necessary according to either the law or product safety assurances
We can confirm that we test no product or raw materials on animals. To the best of our knowledge this is also the position of all of our industrial suppliers