The recently introduced Humane Cosmetics Act aims to ban animal testing in the U.S. on personal care and cosmetic products.

Testing on animals has been a common practice in the U.S. for decades, employed by major household brands on products that often contain harsh synthetic chemicals (that even if prove “safe” can still pose long term human health risks such as allergic reactions, endocrine disruption, metabolic disorders, and even cancer).

Testing is routinely conducted on animals including rabbits, mice and guinea pigs, but, says Victoria Katrinak, Program Manager, Animal Research Issues, for the Humane Society of the United States, “there is no way to ascertain the number of companies that continue to use animals in safety assessments and the FDA does not regulate the terms ‘cruelty-free’ or ‘not tested on animals’ so companies are able to use these terms for their brand even if their ingredients continue to be tested on animals.”

Katrinak says many companies continue their animal testing procedures “simply because that is the way it has always been done.” Mandatory animal testing on personal care products is required by China, which influences brands outside of the country that export to the booming Asian nation.

Despite its prevalence, the practice of testing on animals continues to lose credibility, says Katrinak.

“Animal tests have scientific limitations because different species can respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals. Consequently, results from animal tests may not be relevant to humans, under- or over-estimating real-world hazards to people,” Katrinak explains. “In addition, results from animal tests can be quite variable and difficult to interpret. Unreliable and ineffective animal tests mean consumer safety cannot be guaranteed. In contrast, non-animal alternatives can combine human cell-based tests and sophisticated computer models to deliver human-relevant results in hours or days, unlike some animal tests that can take months or years.”

With millennials pushing brands to offer more natural products and transparent business practices, there’s been a sea change in the personal care industry, with small-batch producers on the rise, slowly taking market share away from the major household brands.

“Over the last 20 years, cosmetic companies have significantly reduced their use of animals for testing in favor of alternatives, which are more relevant to public health and cost-effective,”  says Katrinak. “Thousands of existing ingredients have already been proven safe for use from which cosmetic companies can create new products without the need for animal testing.”

For new ingredients, Katrinak explains that animal tests are increasingly “being replaced with quicker, cheaper, and more reliable non-animal methods. For example, three dimensional skin models are made from donated human skin (after surgery) and better predict skin irritation in humans than the cruel rabbit test they replace. Proven non-animal methods are also available for eye irritation, skin allergy, and other safety tests.”

The Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced to Congress earlier this week, with support from numerous representatives, including Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.),  Frank LoBiondo (D-N.J.), and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).

If passed, the ban on animal testing would go into effect within one year, and the prohibition on sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics would take effect three years after enactment.

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on EcoSalon

Farewell, Ringling Bros.: I Was Once a (Very Sad) Circus Animal
Why is Animal Testing Still Widely Used in Federally Funded Labs?
Fish Have Friends, Study Finds (So Maybe Go Vegan and Stop Eating Them?)

The post New Legislation Could Finally End Cosmetic Animal Testing in the U.S. appeared first on EcoSalon.

It looks like a lot of companies are still using animals for lab testing. This is despite the fact that many companies in testing industries have said that they aren’t using animal testing. Boo.

Here is a breakdown of the current discussion:

A team of people that work for PETA reported that there was about a 72 percent “increase in the number of animals being used in federally funded labs between 1997 and 2012.” The increase was mostly seen with mice. Here are the numbers reported in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

“The average number of lab animals used in a year rose from 74,619 to 128,846 over those 15 years.”

The study found that the majority of experiments that use mice concern gene modification. The data that was analyzed in the report was retrieved from species inventories found in the Animal Welfare Assurances that are “filed at least once every four years by NIH-funded institutions.”

While the study found that fewer “higher” animals (think cats, dogs, and chimpanzees) were used, other “lower” animals (rats, mice, and fish) are being used at a higher frequency. These “lower” animals still feel stress and pain, too, though. Also: mice, rats, and fish have “complex social and emotional cognitive lives.” To me, that news is heartbreaking.

The NIH disagrees with a portion of the above report, however. According to NBC News, the NIH says that while the numbers that were taken from the Animal Welfare Assurances are accurate, they do not accurately reflect the actual number of animals that are used in research studies. For that reason, the NIH does “not support the rationale and conclusions of the study.” Hmm.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Are you against it? Do you think it’s necessary for scientific endeavors? It’s an incredibly complicated subject – we know – but we’d love to hear your opinions.

Related on EcoSalon

Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics About to Disappear in the U.S.?

Stop Animal Testing With This Smartphone App

Animal Testing Banned in India’s Cosmetic Products, Household Cleaners Next

Image: Mark Bray

The post Why is Animal Testing Still Widely Used in Federally Funded Labs? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Made your New Year resolutions yet? Don’t forget your beauty kit. Get your routine streamlined and healthy for 2015 with these natural beauty resolutions.

You’ve likely heard of the less is more approach to healthy beauty. As in, using fewer products means fewer ingredients on your skin. So true, but some of us are not so minimal when it comes to beauty. If you fall into this camp, read on for ways to revamp your kit for the healthier in the coming year.

Choose one from the following list and go from there. Or use these as inspo and come up with your own beauty resolutions.

12 Natural Beauty Resolutions for 2015

1. Ditch your mainstream moisturizer

Or any product that sits on your skin all day long (serum, eye cream, makeup). Conventional beauty products contain harmful chemical ingredients. More exposure means these ingredients have more time to soak into skin and body. If you’ve yet to make the switch to healthy products, this is a great place to start. Shop Spirit Beauty Lounge for a wide range of safe products, plus a helpful skin type guide.

2. Cleanse safer

If you are looking for an easy transition to green beauty, this is a fairly easy place to begin. Unlike our favorite moisturizer or beauty treatment, cleansers are fairly universal. Look for products free from Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES). Always stick with products made for your skin type. This goes for body wash too.

3. Take the less ‘poo is more approach

Not only are mainstream hair care products chock full of harmful ingredients, but all of that sudsing up is keeping your locks from looking their best. Commit to skipping a day (or five) in between washings to bring back bounce and shine. Feeling greasy on your off day? Try a dry shampoo to absorb excess oil and add body.

4. Trade in your old scent

We’ve talked before about the hazards of synthetic fragrance, but it is important enough to mention again. You are not doing yourself or those around you any favors by sporting toxic scent. Test drive a natural fragrance and you will soon have your new, healthy, signature scent.

5. A more friendly mani

As you’d imagine, nail polish can be loaded with icky ingredients. There are several brands on the market making safer polishes. And they come in a dizzying array of color options. Grab a few and take your fave with you to your next mani session.

6. Invest in multi-taskers

What’s better than one beauty product that can perform several functions? Add an RMS Beauty Eye Polish to your beauty kit. These work on eyes, cheeks, and lips. I love Solar and Magnetic for winter.

7. Opt for refillables

Purchase beauty products with refillable containers to cut down on waste. Kjaer Weis makes incredibly gorgeous makeup products with compacts so hot you’ll want to display them, not throw away. Worth every cent, inside and out.

8. Recycle tubes, boxes, and bottles

While we’re on the subject of packaging…Most organic beauty companies take care to put their products in packages that can be recycled. Don’t forget to throw yours in the proper bin once you’ve used the last drop.

9. Clean and toss

As you do in the kitchen, be sure you are keeping your beauty kit clean. Wash brushes (I use a bit of foaming face wash, rinse well, and allow to air dry) and purchase new sponges regularly. Don’t forget to throw out old or expired products. Find out how long to keep products around.

10. Slough to smooth

This step is often overlooked, but regular exfoliation is essential in keeping skin healthy and looking its best. A simple DIY sugar and milk mixture does the trick beautifully. Gently massage over face and body while in the shower. Emerge with baby soft skin. This can (and should) be done once or twice weekly, depending on your skin type.

11. Say no to animal testing

By purchasing products whose ingredients have not undergone animal testing you are casting your vote to end the practice. Testing cosmetic ingredients on animals is cruel and unnecessary. Read a brand’s commitment page to make sure their ingredients (not just finished products) have not been tested on animals.

12. Add something new

Who said resolutions can’t be fun? Mix things up a bit. Usually stick to sheer lipgloss? Try a deeper color. Pick up a colored mascara or new eyeshadow hue. Find out what’s hot for the New Year and go for it!

Related at EcoSalon

5 New Year’s Resolutions for Travel in 2015

10 New Year’s Resolutions All About Food

The Humane Cosmetics Act Now Has Support from 138 Cruelty-Free Companies

Image by Haugh Photography at Flickr.com.

The post 12 Natural Beauty Resolutions for the New Year appeared first on EcoSalon.

Animal testing is torture. It’s hard to believe that many household and personal care products are still tested on animals. Some are even tested on household pets that we hold so near and dear.

Nearly 65,000 dogs, most of whom are beagles are subjected to torture at the hands of U.S. laboratories each year. They’re kept in tiny, cold cages where many of them never see the light of day. Research can involve electrical shocks, radiation, burns, surgeries or mutilations. Animal testing is real; a cruelty that still goes on regularly. But a new smartphone app is making boycotting products that cause animal cruelty that much easier.

Few of us would choose to support companies that tested on animals. It’s just that not all products are clearly labeled. But with the Cruelty-Cutter app you can scan the barcode of a product in a store instead of having to check online. Australian model and animal activist Catherine McNeil has become the new face of Cruelty-Cutter. The app was developed by the Beagle Freedom Project.

Scan a product and then share the results with friends on social media. Stay up-to-date on animal welfare issues by joining the app’s Cruelty-Free community. Stand up to animal testing with knowledge and refuse to support companies that still participate is this disgusting practice.

Don’t be fooled by companies that were once cruelty-free. The world of multinational companies means you could be sending your money to animal testers without even knowing it. According to Cruelty-Cutter:

The Body Shop which was once considered a forerunner in working against animal testing is now owned by L’oreal, an experimenter on animals. Likewise, the popular Tom’s of Maine product line is now owned by Colgate-Palmolive. The list continues with Johnson and Johnson which owns Aveeno, Clorox owns Burt’s Bees and Estee Lauder owns Aveda, Origins and MAC Cosmetics. These once cruelty-free brands have become a source of considerable profit for these larger companies.

Download the Cruelty-Cutter app.

Related on EcoSalon

Animal Testing Banned in India’s Cosmetic Products, Household Products Next 

Is Animal Testing About to Disappear in the U.S.?

Animal Cruelty Out of Style: West Hollywood Bans the Sale of Fur

Image: Franklin Heijnen

The post Stop Animal Testing With This Smartphone App appeared first on EcoSalon.

At one point in the not-so-distant future, it’s bound to happen that all cosmetic companies see the light and support the Humane Cosmetics Act. Because, let’s face it, rabbits don’t ever need to wear lipstick (Jessica Rabbit aside).

The Humane Cosmetics Act is moving us closer to a cruelty-free America. Introduced by Representative Jim Moran (D-VA), the bill would ban all animal testing in the U.S. for cosmetic products. Similar acts exist throughout the EU, Norway, India and Israel.

More than 130 companies have signed on in support of the bill, with five more companies just adding their support–Sappo Hill Soapworks, It’s a 10 Hair care, Whip Hand Cosmetics, Darla Makeup, Malin+Goetz–bringing the total now to 138 companies who want to end animal testing.

“Safe, innovative cosmetic products can be created without harming animals. The Humane Society of the United States is delighted to see 138 cosmetics industry members have now endorsed this bill,”said Leah Gomez, project manager at The Humane Society of the United States. “Through our Be Cruelty-Free USA campaign, we continue to urge members and stakeholders of the cosmetics industry to support this legislation that would bring the U.S. in line with a growing worldwide momentum away from animal testing for cosmetics.”

California recently passed Senate Joint Resolution 22 (the Cruelty Free Cosmetics Resolution), which is putting the pressure on Congress to come up with a reasonable deadline on prohibiting animal testing.

Here’s the current list of companies supporting the Humane Cosmetics Act. We hope the list gets a lot longer very soon:

1. 100% Pure
2. 3 P Organics
3. 4 Elements Bath Products
4. ACURE
5. Afterglow Cosmetics
6. Alaska Glacial Mud Co.
7. Alder New York
8. Andalou Naturals
9. Aroma Naturals
10. Aspen Clean
11. Athar’a
12. Aubrey Organics
13. Auromère
14. B True Beauty
15. BALM Baby
16. Batty’s Bath
17. Beauty Without Cruelty
18. Bebeani, Inc. for Skinflow
19. Bee Naturals
20. Bella Mari
21. BelláPierre
22. belle & bianca, Inc.
23. Bello Moi, Inc.
24. Belly Buttons & Babies
25. Better Botanicals
26. Biao Skincare
27. Black Sheep Lacquer
28. Blissoma Holistic Skincare & Apothecary
29. BodyHonee
30. Booda Organics
31. Botanicals for Hope
32. Bum Boosa Bamboo Products
33. By Valenti Organics
34. California North
35. Chantecaille
36. CherlynTM Skincare
37. Clean George
38. Coastal Classic Creations
39. Concrete Minerals
40. Crazy Rumors
41. 
Dancing Dingo
42. Darla Makeup
43. Davids
44. demes
45. DeVita Natural Skin Care Systems
46. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps
47. Dr. Desai Soap
48. Earth Pure Organics
49. Earthly Body
50. Elixery
51. Emerald Essentials
52. Everyday Minerals
53. Exfoliating Minerals
54. FACE atelier
55. FACEFACTS
56. FAR Botanicals
57. FíOR Mineral Cosmetics
58. Galiano Island Soap Works
59. Gloss & Toss
60. Golden Path Alchemy LLC
61. Gourmet Body Treats
62. Herbal Choice Mari
63. Hot Tot Haircare
64. Indie Lee & Co.
65. Infinite Aloe
66. Integrity Botanicals
67. Intelligent Nutrients
68. Isis Essentials
69. It’s a 10 Haircare
70. Jack Black
71. Juice Beauty
72. Just the Goods
73. Kahina Giving Beauty
74. Kaunis
75. Keeki Pure and Simple
76. Kelly-Nehemiah Cosmetics
77. Kokokahn
78. L’uvalla Certified Organic
79. Lakon Herbals
80. Lotus Garden Botanicals
81. LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics
82. MALIN+GOETZ
83. Max Green Alchemy
84. Mi-Me Handmade Bath & Body Products
85. Mind Your Beeswax (Beecause Organics)
86. MIYU Beauty Corp.
87. Modern Minerals
88. Moroccanoil
89. Naturopathica Holistic Health
90. NuCèlle Inc.
91. Nurture My Body
92. O&N Collective
93. OSEA
94. Overstock. Com
95. Parissa
96. Patrick Smith Natural Health
97. Paul Mitchell
98. Pittstown Soapworks
99. Polish Cosmetics
100. Pristine Beauty
101. Priti NYC
102. Purple Prairie Botanicals
103. ReNew Botanicals
104. Rosemira Organics
105. Saavy Naturals
106. Salon Naturals
107. Sappo Hill Soapworks
108. Schmidt’s Deodorant
109. SeabuckWonders
110. Seventh Generation
111. Slice
Soap Cauldron
112. Soapwalla Kitchen
113. SoapyLayne
114. Solay Wellness
115. Sound Earth
116. Spa Organica
117. Spirit Free
118. Stark Skincare
119. SULA NYC
120. Suntegrity Skincare
121. Swipes Inc.
122. Tallulah Jane
123. Tata Harper
124. The Body Shop
125. The Vintage Soap Factory
126. Taylor House
127. Truth
128. Tsi~La Organics
129. US Organic Group Corp.
130. Vargas Cosmetics (Tilth Beauty)
131. Velvet & Sweet Pea’s Purrfumery
132. Veria Naturals
133. Vermont Soap
134. Warm Earth Cosmetics
135. Whip Hand Cosmetics
136. Waxelene
137. ZENMED
138. Zosimos Botanicals

The form at this link easily allows the public to contact their representatives to ask them to co-sponsor the Humane Cosmetics Act: www.humanesociety.org/humanecosmeticsact.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Dr. Bronner’s Soaps Does a Little Magic for Animals

Celebrate Fair Trade Month with Ethically Made Beauty Products: A to Z

Animal Rescues Get Celebrity Love: 7 Musicians Who Really Love Animals

image: star guitar

The post The Humane Cosmetics Act Now Has Support from 138 Cruelty-Free U.S. Companies [Complete List] appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Humane Cosmetics Act, a bill that would make it unlawful in the U.S. to conduct animal testing for cosmetic purposes is gaining momentum.

HR 4148, as the bill is  formally known, was introduced by by Congressman Jim Moran, (D-VA). It is endorsed by The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund as well as leading personal care brands including Aubrey Organics, LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, Jack Black and Biao skincare. And the bill now has backing by a Republican sponsor, too: Michael Grimm (R-NY).

If passed, the bill would “enhance worldwide momentum in ensuring animals are not harmed in the process of creating or manufacturing cosmetics,” the Humane Society said in a statement. Not only would it make it unlawful to test any cosmetics or ingredients on animals, but it would also prohibit the sale and distribution of cosmetics “if the final product or any component was developed or manufactured using animal testing.”

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS, said in a statement: “Americans deserve to have access to safe and humane products, and there is no compelling need for animal testing for cosmetics. We thank Congressman Moran for his leadership on this legislation, which will align the U.S. with the global trend moving away from animal testing of cosmetics. We have powerful and reliable alternatives available and it’s time to embrace those new technologies and stop harming animals for unnecessary reasons.”

Ricky Gervais, on behalf of The Humane Society of the United States’ Be Cruelty-Free USA campaign, is also urging the United States to end cosmetics animal testing, “I’m delighted to help The HSUS’ Be Cruelty-Free USA campaign to end the cruel and outdated practice of testing cosmetics on living animals. Rabbits and rodents forced to endure toxic cosmetics testing in U.S. laboratories, have no-one to speak up for them but us. So I urge all Americans to be their voice, support the Humane Cosmetics Act and make the U.S. the next cruelty-free cosmetics zone,” he said in a statement.

The EU, Israel and India have bans on animal testing for cosmetic purposes, and São Paulo, Brazil, recently signed into a law a bill that will prohibit animal testing for cosmetics. The country is also close to voting on a nationwide ban on animal testing. China, known for animal testing, has also recently announced that it will remove any “mandatory” animal testing rules for domestically produced cosmetics.

While the number of beauty brands that create quality products without the use of animal testing is rising, there are still thousands of cosmetic ingredients that are tested on animals. “Animal toxicity tests, which have never been validated by a regulatory body, represent an outdated science of techniques that are not adequate to predict human safety,” according to the Humane Society. “The future of safety testing relies on advanced technologies, including computational and human cell or artificial tissue based models, which are already in use,” notes the Humane Society. “These methods are based on human biology and are more predictive of human reactions than animal tests.” In fact, it’s a pretty good guarantee that if a beauty product has undergone animal testing, it’s probably not the healthiest for your skin or body anyway. It’s certainly no good for the animals.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Animal Cruelty Goes Out of Style: West Hollywood Bans the Sale of Fur

Dr. Bronner’s Soaps Does a Little Magic for Animals

Animal Testing Banned in India’s Cosmetic Products, Household Cleaners NextA

Image: ed needs a bicycle

The post Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics About to Disappear in the U.S.? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Animal testing on cosmetic products is so old school, cruel and dare we say, stupid? Especially if you live in India.

India made animal rights headlines recently after it declared dolphins “nonhuman persons” and banned all dolphin shows in the massive country. It was a major victory for marine mammals and animal rights advocates. But the largely vegetarian country wasn’t done with its support for animals yet, as it also recently announced a ban on the sale of any cosmetic products where animal testing was involved.

The decision came after an extensive campaign launched by PETA India (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The campaign included appeals from some of the nation’s highest profile politicians and retailers including LUSH and the Body Shop.

“The end to cruel and unreliable cosmetics tests on animals in India is a victory for animals and science—and the ban’s compliance with international standards will improve trade avenues for our country,” says PETA India’s science policy adviser, Dr Chaitanya Koduri, who holds a seat on India’s Cosmetics Sectional Committee.

And the animal rights group isn’t stopping there, either. “PETA India looks forward to working with the government on the next step: a ban on testing household cleaners and similar products in India,” says Koduri.

The news comes just months after the European Union made a similar announcement, banning all personal care and cosmetic products that include any ingredients tested on animals in its 27 member countries.

Alokparna Sengupta, Humane Society International (HSI)/India’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign manager, said the campaign is a major victory “for countless animals who will no longer be made to suffer, and it is a proud moment for India as it becomes the first country in South Asia to end cosmetics cruelty.”

Per the ban, any cosmetics that includes animal testing anywhere along the production chain will face legal action according to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Animal Cruelty Act. “[A]ny person or corporate manager or owner is liable for punishment for a term which may extend from 3-10 years and shall also be liable to fine,” reports The Hindu.

PETA now lists more than 1,200 companies around the world—including LUSH and The Body Shop as well as Urban Decay, Paul Mitchell, and Tom’s of Maine—that use only non-animal tests to guarantee their products’ safety and efficacy.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: The Hindu

The post Animal Testing Banned in India’s Cosmetic Products, Household Cleaners Next appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Body Shop’s crusade against animal cruelty and the effect on the corporation that owns it.

Long before ethical products were fashionable, The Body Shop established itself around the world as a pioneer of natural beauty products, fair trade ingredient sourcing, and campaigns against animal testing. Founded by Anita Roddick in Brighton, England, the company was later acquired by L’Oréal, a French corporation partly owned by Nestlé — two global conglomerates whose practices are perceived as questionable at best. The acquisition raised the question: when a major multinational corporation purchases an ethical company, how are its own ethics affected?

When Roddick founded The Body Shop in 1976, it was the first natural beauty products company in the UK. Under a franchise model, it has since expanded to more than 2,500 locations in over 60 countries worldwide. With an emphasis on ethical business, The Body Shop operates under a set of five core values: Support Community Trade, Defend Human Rights, Against Animal Testing, Activate Self-Esteem, and Protect Our Planet.

The Good

Of its core values, The Body Shop has been particularly effective at rallying attention and support around the issue of animal testing. In 1990, the company, under Roddick, launched the first of many Against Animal Testing public awareness campaigns, and in 1996 it presented the European Union with a four-million signature petition calling on the E.U. to stop the sale of animal tested cosmetic products.

The campaigns worked. In 1998, the U.K. banned animal testing on cosmetic products and ingredients, a victory largely attributed to The Body Shop’s publicity and Roddick’s personal activism. The successes continued when the E.U. banned animal testing for finished cosmetics in 2004 and for cosmetic ingredients in 2009.

Today, The Body Shop continues to produce only items that are animal cruelty-free and vegetarian-friendly. Its animal protection principles outline the following commitments:

• Guaranteeing that no products are tested on animals
• Requiring that no raw ingredients are tested for cosmetics purposes
• Selling only vegetarian-friendly products
• Communicating clearly on our policies to customers and suppliers
• Supporting research into alternatives to bring a stop to animal testing

The Bad

When The Body Shop was purchased by L’Oréal for $1.1 billion in 2006, animal welfare activists were outraged. Groups like Naturewatch and Uncaged called for a boycott of The Body Shop, calling Roddick a sell-out and citing animal and human rights scandals surrounding both L’Oréal and Nestlé. The Independent reported that “satisfaction” with The Body Shop fell by almost half in the three weeks following the sale, and the chain’s buzz rating and general impression also suffered significantly.

“This brand has been damaged, perhaps terminally, by linking itself to the world’s ‘least responsible company,’” said Mike Brady, a coordinator of activist group Baby Milk Action, which protested Nestlé practices.

At the time, The Body Shop had made Naturewatch’s list of approved retailers for not using ingredients tested on animals after 1990. L’Oréal, on the other hand, was accused by Naturewatch of not just continuing testing, but also lobbying against the E.U. ban on animal testing for cosmetics. In a 2009 sustainability report, L’Oréal claimed that it hadn’t tested finished cosmetics on animals since 1989 – “except in the case where national legislation requires it,” reported The Ecologist.

Since the acquisition in 2006, The Body Shop has received an ethical rating of 2.5 out of 20 on the Ethical Consumer’s “ethiscore” system, down from 11 pre-acquisition. L’Oréal continues to be on both Naturewatch’s and Uncaged’s active boycott list.

The Questionable

Roddick’s response to the L’Oréal-related consumer outrage was characteristically blunt: “I’m too old, I’m too smart, to give (The Body Shop) away for it to be destroyed.”

In a 2006 interview with The Guardian, Roddick explained why she decided to sell The Body Shop to a company as controversial as L’Oréal. A big reason was the potential to influence the buying decisions of a large corporation.

I’m just excited that I can be like a trojan horse and go into that huge business and talk about how we can buy ingredients like cocoa butter from Ghana and sesame oil from Nicaraguan farmers and how we can do that in a kindly, joyful way and that is happening … I meet up with L’Oréal a lot as a consultant as part of my mission and vision for the beauty industry. I believe they are honourable and the work they do is honourable.

In that interview, Roddick also referenced L’Oréal’s research on alternatives to animal testing and its work developing exciting new technology in the field. That claim was validated in March of this year, when L’Oréal announced that it is donating $1.2 million to the Environmental Protection Agency to develop chemical testing methods that don’t require the use of animals. The research centers around ToxCast, an EPA toxicity testing system that screens chemicals for adverse health effects. If the system can be used more widely, it could eliminate the need for animal testing not just for cosmetics, but also for disease research.

As with other corporate acquisitions of ethical brands (like Clorox’s purchasing of Burt’s Bees, explored in another Behind the Label) it appears that The Body Shop’s clean image and anti-animal testing stance has had an impact on L’Oréal’s policies as a corporation. What The Body Shop sacrificed in reputation back in 2006, it will hopefully make up for in industry-wide impact. Though Roddick passed away in 2007, her legacy lives on in the new L’Oréal-EPA partnership, and it will hopefully continue to impact practices across the beauty world.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: H&M’s Conscious Collection

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Levi Strauss’ E-Valuate Program

Behind the Label: Burt’s Bees

Behind the Label: Pret a Manger

Read more Behind the Label here.

The post Behind the Label: The Body Shop’s ‘Against Animal Testing’ Campaign appeared first on EcoSalon.

If you have sensitive skin – in other words, you turn pink or red after using anything stronger than water – hypoallergenic products seem to have been sent from the Heavens to tame our angry outer layers. Right? Turns out, not so much. The beauty term has been taken to task for false labeling by health officials, consumer advocates, and environmentalists alike. And that’s just the tip of the hypoallergenic iceberg.

What exactly does it mean to be hypoallergenic? It is supposed to infer that a product is less likely to cause an allergic reaction and that it is gentler on skin. In reality, it means virtually nothing. The decision to call a product hypoallergenic lies solely with its manufacturer. What’s more, the producer is not required to prove any evidence that product causes fewer allergic reactions.

Consumer Reports gets right to the point. There are no standards for a product to be labeled hypoallergenic. According to the consumer advocates, the label has no meaning. It is not verified or even labeled consistently throughout the industry. In fact, medical officials assert that it is nearly impossible to guarantee any beauty product won’t cause an adverse reaction. Hypoallergenic is merely a marketing tool, and the only way to really police your product is to read ingredient labels. Fortunately, the FDA does require ingredient labeling of the beauty industry.

So hypoallergenic apparently means nothing for consumers. However, cruelty-free does. This means that a company does not directly use animal testing in the making of their products. Opinions on animal testing run deep and varied – some would argue that any animal testing is completely unacceptable, while others allow that some testing is necessary to protect human interests.

PETA demands the immediate halt to all animal testing, as well as the consumption of animals. You can read more about their reforms here. The organization also maintains a strict list of products and companies that oppose animal testing. Click here for that specific resource.

Other groups maintain a different approach to ending animal testing. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has proposed minimizing animal testing and cruelty with reforms that, while not entirely eliminating the practice, prevent an abuse of the system. According to EWG, “the real problem is the chemical industry, which conducts repeated animal studies that sacrifice hundreds of thousands of animals as a part of a deliberate strategy to delay government action against specific chemicals.” Further, animals are bred, sold and tested each year with the same chemicals – even though we know what the reactions are. Human safety is not guaranteed by veritable animal-testing mills.

Among other reforms, the EWG proposes making public all the chemical toxicity data generated by the beauty industry. Further, they propose that the industry use animal-based tests judiciously and substitute non-animal tests whenever possible.

Ultimately, while the EWG supports the end to animal testing, it maintains “it is a long way off and we need health and welfare protections for people and animals right now.” You can read more about the EWG’s reforms here.

Image: fl00f

The post Hypoallergenic Beauty Is a Lie: So Why Are We Still Animal Testing? appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s my annual winter visit home in L.A. and we’re braving the dreaded dead heads, again. Yes,  several of my family’s favorite restaurants are decorated – and disgraced – with massive, wild animal trophies on their walls. Trophies, indeed.

Now don’t get me wrong. My people aren’t hunters, just valley folks who like meat. My father’s side came from the meat packing industry in Nebraska. My sister-in-law’s kin founded Hoffy, the packagers of those hot dogs sold at the iconic Pink’s and plugged by singer Pat Boone. My relatives don’t mind seeing deer heads and bear skins tacked on a wall while enjoying a good rare steak. But my daughter does.

“It’s barbaric,” exclaimed 10-year-old, Lauren, with tears in her eyes, when confronted with the stuffed buffaloes, gophers and bucks mounted at Clearman’s Northwoods Inn in Covina.

Dining at the Inn has long been a post-Disneyland stop, starting with my parents when we four kids were little ranch hands. Cherie and Aaron really went in for the burgers, bowls of red cabbage and the mugs of beer, not to mention the buckets of peanuts and ever so folksy tradition of discarding the shells onto the redwood floor. Yes sir, kids, good clean American fun, except for those sad eyes on the stuffed heads with antlers.

The prized kill passes for nostalgic western memorabilia. And it is shocking for a sensitized child to encounter the animal trophies of yore, which emerge as the anti-green in their eyes. It’s especially jarring for Lauren after spending the day at the “happiest place on Earth“, a theme park peopled with woodland critters personified as our pals.

Try to explain to a child why trophies remain on our walls at a time when we shun fur coats and animal testing, a time when global campaigns are waged to protect our defenseless forest friends.

“This restaurant is very old, like from the 60s, and they hung the trophies because it didn’t upset people back then,” I assure my girl,  hoping she will settle down and agree to eat dinner with us. When she was younger I lied to her, telling her the animal heads at the Inn were fake, just like the taxidermy dioramas at the old San Francisco’s Academy of Science, just replicas of real animals. But now, I have to be honest and apologetic and coax her to remain inside the joint and enjoy her meal amid the walls of death. It’s getting more challenging.

I have to admit, I forget about the taxidermy at the Inn until I’m there and Lauren falls apart. I don’t think we will return next year. Really, the salad swimming in mayo and peanut shells on the floor aren’t worth the battle.

And yet, there are more miles to go on this annual trek before I rest.

My brother has made a dinner reservation at the Saddle Peak Lodge to celebrate my mother’s 82nd birthday. The upscale grill in Malibu Canyon is a favorite of the tony celebrities who live in my brother’s exclusive gated community of Hidden Hills, a ranch-filled paradise where multi-million dollar spreads are interspersed with horse trails and dog runs for its animal loving residents. I hear J-Lo just bought a large property there for just herself and the twins. Don’t tell the tabloids!

The problem is the Lodge they all love showcases numerous animal trophies on its walls, as well as exotic game on its overpriced menu. Holy antlers!

This time, I’m protesting. I have put up a stink about returning to the Lodge for yet another celebration; you’d be surprised how much convincing it has taken. Still, it looks like Lauren has won out this time. We will not be back in the Saddle Peak again, bypassing it for a new hip Hollywood spot, BLT Steak on the Sunset Strip with $40 entrees and $10 side dishes of mac and cheese, lobster mashed potatoes and poached green beans. The modern and stark eatery has no dead heads – just large prints and paintings of  various cows and bulls, a sort of homage to the fare you will be enjoying.

Ironic, isn’t it? Those who wouldn’t think of wearing a fox coat to dinner agree to linger over $52 New Zealand Elk Tenderloin amid the corpses. The roaring fire, the delicious wine, the tender elk, all can make you forget. Make you forget, that is, unless you happen to be a 10-year-old child of the eco age.

This is the latest installment in Luanne’s column, Life in the Green Lane.

Main Image: Fury Scaly

Northwoods Inn, Saddle Peak Lodge

The post Trophies Still Roam the Restaurant Range, But I’m Not Game appeared first on EcoSalon.