Icky Institutions: Estee Lauder is a let-down

Hi all:

So after posting a few Estee Lauder products on here, having believed for a while now that they were pioneers in the anti-animal testing force, I found out that they, like other big cosmetics giants, are just as bad as their peers. On the Estee Lauder official website it reads:

Animal Testing

The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is committed to the elimination of animal testing. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and bringing to market products that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which our products are sold. 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.
The Estée Lauder Companies fully supports the development and global acceptance of non-animal testing alternatives. To this end, the Company works extensively with the industry at large and the global scientific community to research and fund these alternatives.


For this reason, the Estee Lauder and Estee Lauder owned (see below for full list of Estee Lauder brands) products that were posted on this site will be removed shortly. Please join in expressing your disdain for this behaviour to Estee Lauder by emailing them from their website.

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Estee Lauder brands:
American Beauty
Aramis
AVeda
Bobbi Brown
Bumble and Bumble
Clinique
Coach
Daisy Fuentes
Darphin
Donna Karan
Estee Lauder
Flirt!
Good Skin
Grassroots
Jo Malone
Lab Series
La Mer
Kiton
MAC Cosmetics
Michael Kors
Missoni
Ojon
Origins
Prescriptives
Sean John
Tommy Hilfiger
Tom Ford Beauty

Necessary News: Some updates to Icky Institutions list

Hi all!

I have made some changes to the Icky Institutions list originally posted on this site (the second entry written, posted in October 2009). Unfortunately, I have done further research and discovered that some companies I thought - and have promoted on this site - were cruelty free are not. For example, although Burt's Bees claims not to test on animals, it is actually owned by Clorox, which is well-known for its animal testing habits. So by purchasing Burt's Bees products you are still, ultimately, funding the giant that owns them - and that is one big, cruel giant.

Some other stunners were revealed to me - Estee Lauder and MAC, for example. And people, DON'T be distracted by The Body Shop's once animal-saving message! It has been bought out by L'Oreal and its products are no longer free from animal testing.

Science Diet, a pet food, was bought by Colgate-Palmolive, which tests its products on animals and everyone knows about IAMS and its outrageous animal testing facilities - and these are pet foods!

Of course I am here to blog about cosmetics and fashion, but let me add one more note: I often editorialize on magazine fashion and beauty features in my posts. I tend not to discriminate when it comes to choosing magazines to feature, as most of them are advertising-driven and will almost never ban a product or company from its pages. That being said, I will NEVER EVER support or editorialize or promote or comment on any feature from the pages of VOGUE magazine. Anna Wintour is one of the worst perpetrators of fur promotion in the fashion industry and unfortunately, for some who-knows-what reason, she is respected (or, more likely, feared but still - think of Hitler - the effect is often the same) so people listen to her. I don't. But some do. So for that reason, I won't touch that magazine with a 10-foot pole.

Take a look at the lists and try to remember it's not all doom and gloom - I have also discovered some lines that don't test on animals that I have also added to the Caring Companies list, so please peruse that and see what product lines you can support and use to replace those items you have abandoned knowing the truth behind their creation.

Stay glamorous but most of all, stay guiltless.

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Say NO to Giorgio Armani

Hi all!

In September 2008, it was reported that Giorgio Armani - who had previously pledged to abandon the use of fur in his designs - had returned to using fur.

Adding insult to injury, he had reincorporated the use of fur in his designs by designing fur jackets for babies.

Tomorrow I will be posting InStyle's October picks for its beauty products - one of which was an Armani product which I will not be posting after I found out that little tidbit, which I am sharing with you all as a plea to please make your voice heard.

If you do not feel passionately enough to email Armani (which I have done, and I will post the reply when I get it), then please at least abstain from buying their products. Yes, I love his perfumes too, but not at that cost.

Come on, we can all find a nice-smelling perfume elsewhere, and - if we really must - a faux-fur jacket for a baby.

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Shiseido is another company using the "except when required by law" excuse

Hi all:

I gotta tell you, I'm getting a bit tired of receiving these replies from companies who claim they care very much about animal welfare and animal testing, and avoid it wherever possible, only using it when the law requires.


First of all, you know my opinion on animal testing by now. Every species has a different biological system - something that proves toxic - or safe - to an animal may have the opposite effect on humans. Put it this way: had we tested chocolate on dogs before releasing it to humans, we may never have got it! Chocolate is toxic to most dogs, causing them to foam at the mouth and vomit ... can you imagine a life without chocolate?


The other pet peeve of this argument that companies put forth is the most obvious one: if law is requiring them to test an ingredient on animals to deem it safe for human use, then that company probably shouldn't be using that ingredient at all. Clearly, there are ways to make products - cosmetic, cleaning, whatever - that render them safe without testing as there are many companies who have committed to selling cruelty-free products. Perhaps companies should consider banning those ingredients from their products, rather than subjecting lab animals to cruel testing procedures.


I've said before that I'm not a shock merchant, so I won't go into any gruesome details, but please understand that animal testing is not how you might imagine. The animals are not well looked after; often they are crammed in filthy cages and subjected to painful tests, after which they are not treated adequately so are either put down or allowed to suffer. If you want details there are plenty online - just google "animal testing".


So for now, enjoy Shiseido's response to the animal testing question; just the latest in a long line of nonsensical responses:


"At Shiseido, we believe that providing customers with safer, more
effective products is an important mission as well as complying with
cosmetics regulations enacted by countries worldwide. At the same time,
we respect the spirit and intent of ensuring animal welfare.

In order to fulfill this mission, Shiseido has not conducted animal
testing unless otherwise determined indispensable, including cases as
required by laws and regulations or in which alternative methods have
not been validated.

Additionally, Shiseido has been actively involved in the development of
alternative methods for  safety testing since 1981 and we publicize the
results of associated research at meetings of Japanese and
international scientific societies and have undertaken concerted
efforts to share those results widely.

Consequently, alternative methods developed by Shiseido are highly
regarded both domestically and abroad. Recognition includes having
received 11 awards since 1991 at annual meetings of the Japanese
Society for Alternatives to Animal Experiments. This is the most ever
awarded to any Japanese company.

Shiseido will continue to actively undertake efforts to develop
alternative test methods, including joint research extending beyond the
framework of a company with the goal of eliminating all animal testing
at the soonest possible opportunity.

We ask for your understanding and support with regard to the Shiseido
Group’s stance on product safety and truly appreciate your continued
patronage.

Sincerely,

Shiseido Consumer Center, Tokyo"

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Necessary News: BIC keeps moratorium on animal testing but refuses to take a stance against it

Hi all:

BIC is committed to providing consumers with the highest quality products.
BIC has been working with experts in product safety testing to evaluate reliable alternatives to animal testing in the development of new products.
By working with product safety experts, BIC can now take advantage of today's technological advances, which include in vitro (non-animal) testing, computer modeling, and historical databases. These methods have achieved the level of reliability needed to uphold BIC's rigorous product safety requirements.
BIC's goal was to thoroughly evaluate its product safety testing and, if possible, to utilize non-animal testing alternatives. In 1997, we completed this evaluation and declared a worldwide moratorium on all animal testing. While this is a significant achievement, it should be noted that animal testing may be necessary in the future if alternatives cannot provide sufficient assurance that a new product is safe for consumer use.
BIC also continues to support legislation that eliminates testing on animals, while providing non-animal testing alternatives that still ensure the safety of consumers.

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Caring Companies vs. Icky Institutions: FITNESS award winners - who is safe?

Hi all:

Browsing through the October issue of FITNESS magazine, I came across a great feature: "Fitness beauty awards 2009's beauty all-stars" ... so, before getting excited and rushing out to buy every product it lists, I've done the research so that I can pass on the beauty winners who deserve their prize: those made by companies that refuse to test on animals.

I will post the winning products next but this post will list the companies included in the winners and what their stance is on animal testing.

YAY means go ahead - no animal testing here!
NAY means the company or its parent company does test on animals.

For further information, I have linked each company name to an actual web page, if available, which states its company's animal testing policy so you can read more information about it and decide if you want to buy in spite of or because of its policy.

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Face Finds:
Olay - NAY (Procter & Gamble is parent company)
Biore - NAY (Kao Brands is parent company - click on link and search for Kao to see what the update is on Kao's animal testing)
Estee Lauder - NAY
Philosophy - YAY
Wet N Wild - YAY (no specific policy page on website but each product description says it is PETA-approved cruelty free) - please note that for human safety reasons and eco-friendly reasons, I personally recommend purchasing nail polishes that are formaldehyde free. So this is in support of Wet N Wild's other products, rather than its nail varnishes.
Clean & Clear - NAY (Johnson & Johnson is parent company)
Blistex - NAY

Complexion Correctors:
HydroPeptide - YAY (parent company is Azure Cosmeceuticals - click on name to view post with their response)
Michael Marcus - no information could be found on the company's website (www.michaelmarcus.com) and its Contact Us form does not work. Please comment if you know any information about this company's policies.
Boscia - YAY
RoC - NAY (Johnson & Johnson is parent company)
Clarins - YAY
La Roche-Posay - NAY (L'Oreal is parent company)

Best Base:
CoverGirl & Olay - NAY (Procter & Gamble is parent company of both)
Neutrogena - NAY (Johnson & Johnson is parent company)
Shiseido - NAY
Essie - YAY
N.Y.C. - YAY
Maybelline - NAY (L'Oreal is parent company)
Physicians Formula - YAY

Body and Sun Standouts:
Nivea - NAY (Beiesdorf is parent company)
Jergens - NAY (Kao Brands is parent company - click on link and search for Kao to see what the update is on Kao's animal testing)
Banana Boat - NAY (Playtex is parent company)
Sephora - YAY (PLEASE NOTE: This refers to Sephora Brand cosmetics, not all cosmetics sold from Sephora stores)
Aveeno - NAY (Johnson & Johnson is parent company)
Softsoap - NAY (Colgate is parent company)
Murad - YAY
Vaseline - NAY
Schick - NAY (Warner-Lambert is parent company)
C.O. Bigelow - YAY

Hair Helpers:
Pantene Pro-V - NAY (Procter & Gamble is parent company)
Neutrogena - NAY (Johnson & Johnson is parent company)
L'Oreal Paris - NAY (please note that not only does L'Oreal test on animals, but it bought The Body Shop, so The Body Shop - the pioneer of cruelty-free products - is now no longer safe to buy).
Nexxus - YAY
John Frieda - NAY (Kao Brands is parent company - click on link and search for Kao to see what the update is on Kao's animal testing)
Garnier Fructis - NAY (L'Oreal is parent company)

Workout Bag Winners:
Harajaku Lovers (by Gwen Stefani) - no information could be found about this product. Please comment if you know the manufacturer or any other details.
Fekkai - NAY (Procter & Gamble is parent company)
Smashbox Cosmetics - YAY
Degree - NAY (Unilever is parent company)
Ban - NAY (Kao Brands is parent company - click on link and search for Kao to see what the update is on Kao's animal testing)
mark - YAY (Avon is parent company)

For full feature check out www.fitnessmagazine.com. 

Icky Institutions: L'Oreal's response

Hi all:


Below is the response from L'Oreal, who are also responsible for brands such as Biotherm, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Helena Rubinstein, Lancôme, Matrix Essentials, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, Redken, Soft Sheen, Vichy:


"Global Policy Statement on Animal Testing


Reckitt Benckiser will not use animal testing on any of our products, or on any raw materials, unless indicated by national or international regulator authorities Reckitt Benckiser will actively support the development, validation, use and acceptance of alternative methods that reduce, refine or replace the use of animals in safety evaluation.


It will be the policy of Reckitt Benckiser to:


1. Conduct animal testing only where indicated by legislative or regulatory requirements, where no approved or accepted alternative testing procedure exists, or where no established information exists upon which an adequate determination of hazard can be made.


2. Minimise the use of animals in required safety testing to the greatest extent possible while ensuring that a valid study is conducted.


3. Conduct all required animal testing only in expert, qualified contract testing facilities in a humane and responsible manner, complying with the best-accepted standards and all applicable regulatory requirements for animal welfare.


4. Continually evaluate and appropriately use alternative techniques for hazard evaluation which reduce or eliminate the use of animals, and actively support research in this area.


5. Advocate regulatory acceptance of validated alternative hazard evaluation methods which reduce, refine or replace the use of animal models both directly and through trade associations, professional societies and consumer groups.


6. Utilise applicable existing and scientifically valid data when conducting hazard evaluations and risk assessments."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Clorox's response

Hi all:


Below is the response from Clorox, who are responsible for brands such as ArmorAll, Formula 409, Fresh Step, Glad, Liquid Plumber, Pine-Sol, Soft Scrub, S.O.S., Tilex:


"At Clorox, we are committed to providing consumers with products they can trust when used as directed. Before reaching market, our products undergo rigorous safety testing and careful evaluations by highly qualified, skilled scientists. Except where mandated by law, using non-animal 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.

To further demonstrate our commitment not to use live animals, we recently updated our product safety testing policy to require senior management approval of any discretionary animal testing. Rare exceptions to the no animal testing policy, if any, will only be considered when all other efforts have been exhausted to establish a product's safety profile. The updated policy may be found on our Web site at www.TheCloroxCompany.com in the Corporate Social Responsibility section.

For more than 20 years, Clorox has been assessing alternatives to animal testing and working with industry groups and regulators on the issue. We believe that the science today firmly supports the efficacy of alternatives, and are committed to working toward a future where animal testing has no role in product development."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Church & Dwight's response

Hi all:


Below is the response from Church & Dwight, who are responsible for brands such as Aim, Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close-up, Kaboom, Lady's Choice, Mentadent, Nair, Orange Glo International, Oxi Clean, Pearl Drops:


"It is Church and Dwight's policy to comply with all applicable government regulations, and to ensure that our products will not present unacceptable risk of harm either to our employees or our customers through their handling or intended use.  We seek to use only materials already known to be safe, and we avoid animal testing whenever complete and satisfactory information exists to show that our products are safe.  As a result of these policies, animal testing has become a last resort, and Church & Dwight has experienced considerable success avoiding such testing through this practice, especially on our Consumer Products."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Procter & Gamble's response

Hi all:


Below is the response from Procter & Gamble, who are responsible for brands such as Clairol, Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max Factor, Physique, Tide:


"P&G has ended animal testing on all our finished consumer products except when required by law.  We use non-animal alternatives first.  We only use research involving animals when there are no other reasonable options.

In our Healthcare business, we're focused on developing innovative medicines that improve people's lives. Current regulatory standards require animal research while developing these medications. It's our policy to use the minimum number of animals necessary while working toward our goal of the reduction and replacement of animals.  We continue to identify screening techniques that are acceptable to global regulatory groups to take the place of animal tests in the earliest phase of drug discovery.

Through our pet care and nutrition products, we help dogs and cats live longer, healthier lives.  We feed our foods first to dogs and cats to help us develop nutrition that delivers true health benefits to millions of pets worldwide.  We make sure the dogs and cats we work with receive the best care.  We treat them as if they're our own pets.  They are adopted into loving homes or placed in our retirement facility when their help is no longer needed.  At the same time, we're working hard on alternatives to find even better ways of getting these results and eliminating the need for additional research with other animals.

We'd rather use alternative test methods.  Not only is the use of animals avoided, but reliable alternative tests generally cost less and take less time than animal research.  We'd like to be able to eliminate animal research on ingredients in consumer products altogether, and we're making progress.  We've invested over $190 million in alternatives, making us an industry leader.  We've helped develop over 50 alternative methods and have shared our work in over 300 scientific publications.  We're also working with the FDA and respected animal welfare groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States, to work on reforming regulations and validating alternative methods.  To learn more about what we're doing to reach our goal, please visit our website:

http://www.pg.com/science/animal_alt.jhtml

For additional information about alternatives, visit the following websites:

http://www.biorap.org                 (Biological Research for Animals & People)
http://altweb.jhsph.edu/              (Alternatives to Animal Testing site)
http://www.hsus.org/                  (Humane Society of the United States site)
http://www.ampef.org/                 (Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation)

We hope this information is helpful."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind (and we know P&G are one of the worst perpetrators of animal testing in the industry, but let's keep encouraging them to set an industry example, 'kay?),

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Johnson & Johnson's response

Hi all:


Below is the response from Johnson & Johnson, who are responsible for brands such as Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Listerine, Lubriderm, Neutrogena, Rembrandt, ROC:


"The ingredients in our companies' nonprescription skin and hair care products have been proven safe historically, so instead of using laboratory animals to assess the safety of these formulations, the companies perform a number of predictive tests in humans. Any new ingredients, however, would require appropriate safety validation that might include laboratory animals.

Otherwise, as health care products manufacturers, Johnson & Johnson companies have a responsibility to assure the safety of its products for intended use and in the event of accidental misuse. The primary means of providing this assurance continues to be the judicious and ethical use of laboratory animals and in vitro (test tube) tests.

Johnson & Johnson companies use numerous in vitro or "alternative" methods in testing new compounds and new product formulations. In fact, the companies presently use more than 160 different alternative tests in research, and we are spending more than $92 million each year in using and developing non-animal tests. Ultimately, however, testing with a minimum number of animals is necessary to fully assure safety.

The companies use as few animals as possible, mostly mice and rats, and when safety is established, new product formulations are no longer tested. We use tests other than the classical LD-50 -- such as the "limit dose method," which requires one-fourth or fewer laboratory animals. During eye safety tests, our formulations are so mild and gentle that there is no need to restrain animals, and for skin irritation studies we rely heavily on human volunteers or non-traditional tests that require fewer animals.

While there presently is not a single validated alternative test that can fully replace whole animal testing, Johnson & Johnson companies are committed to seeking alternatives through internal efforts as well as by supporting studies at outside research facilities. As alternative forms are validated, please be assured that Johnson & Johnson companies will take the lead in implementing them in its testing programs.

To learn more about our policies, we invite you to see more information on our website:
http://www.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_testing/animal_testing.htm

Again, thank you for your interest in Johnson & Johnson."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Icky Institutions: SC Johnson's response

Hey all:


Below is the response from SC Johnson, a company responsible for brands such as Drano, Edge, Fantastik, Glade, OFF!, Oust, Pledge, Scrubbing Bubbles, Shout, Skintimate, Windex and Ziploc.


"SC Johnson is contributing in many ways toward a time when animal testing for most products can be eliminated.  Until then, our consideration for human health and safety must take precedence over all else.  Thus, if animal testing is the only means available to adequately assure human health and safety, SC Johnson will have no other choice than to conduct such tests.

Until there is a time when animal testing is not required, we subscribe to Russell and Burch's "Three Rs" approach to animal testing:

·  Reduction (Reduction of the number of animals used through better science and experimental design)

Towards that end, SC Johnson's product toxicologists have created extensive databases of historic data in order to utilize previous data to assess similar formulations in lieu of further testing.  In addition, the company's toxicology group has been active in the development, validation and application of alternative testing methods, such as CORROSITEX®, human tissue equivalent models and the bovine corneal assay as replacements for traditional eye and skin irritation tests using whole animals.  These assays have dramatically reduced the number of animals used in testing our products.

·  Refinement (Refinement of testing procedures to minimize animal suffering)

Any new method which reduces the number of animals used, the amount of time the animals are on test or improves exposure conditions are examples of refinement.  SC Johnson has been a contributing member of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, a non-profit foundation dedicated to the advancement of alternative test methods, since their founding in 1997 and SC Johnson has had a seat on their Scientific Advisory Panel since 2000.  The Company has also helped fund the Joseph F. Morgan Foundation in Canada and FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) in the U.K.

·  Replacement  (the ultimate goal of total Replacement of whole animal testing with alternative methods)

Currently, there are no reliable substitutes for many of the standard toxicology studies needed to assure consumer safety.  SC Johnson may find that some animal testing is unavoidable.  However, it will be done only as a last resort.  Our scientists will continue to be conscientious in their selection of contract laboratories, expecting them to adhere to all regulatory for the humane treatment of animals.  The laboratories are also expected to minimize the number of animals used, to employ only certified laboratory personnel and to document their full compliance with all regulatory requirements.

We appreciate your concerns and the opportunity to share our perspective.  I hope that in the future you and your family will once again support our products.  We are truly trying to do the right thing for animals and our consumers."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind (keep setting that example, consumers!),

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Unilever's response

Hi all:

Keeping you updated with the latest information directly from the horses' mouths: below is the response from Unilever, who are responsible for brands such as Axe, Dove, Suave, Sunsilk and Lever Brothers.

"We recognize the concern of organizations such as PETA and individuals such as you, with respect to this very complicated and complex issue.  Globally, Unilever is committed to the elimination of animal testing.  We would like to take this opportunity to outline our initiatives in this area and the significant progress we have made toward meeting this goal.

Our position is, and has historically been, that we do not test any finished products on animals except where required by government regulation.  In such cases, as part of our ongoing commitment to eliminate animal testing, we encourage the local authorities to change these regulations.  In addition, we do not use animal testing when there is an accepted alternative test or existing information available to evaluate the health impact and safety of our products.  In further pursuit of this goal, Unilever has committed a significant amount of time, effort and funding to developing acceptable, non-animal alternatives:

- Unilever currently spends approximately $4 million per year globally to develop novel risk assessment approaches to assure safety without animal testing, such as the development of biological and computer-based modeling techniques. We believe these technologies will help replace animal testing altogether.

- One of the major barriers to eliminating animal testing is the very deliberate pace at which government authorities approve such alternatives. In 2005, Unilever helped launch the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA).  The aim of this initiative by the European Commission and industry is to increase and coordinate efforts to significantly accelerate the rate at which alternatives are agreed to, validated and put into practice.  The organization communicates regularly with a mirror group that includes animal welfare organizations.  Its goal is to ensure that every opportunity is taken to refine, reduce and replace the use of animals.

- In the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, we continue to support the passage of legislation that promotes the elimination of animal testing through the development and acceptance of alternative methods.

As soon as non-animal alternatives are validated and accepted by government authorities, they are accepted by us along with the many companies and organizations with whom we collaborate.

We appreciate that you contacted us about this issue and we thank you for your comments."

You don't have to be cruel to be kind (someone needs to tell Unilever that),

GiGi

Icky Institutions: Companies' responses to the question: "Do you still test on animals?"

Hi all:

I sent out a number of emails to representatives from the companies currently on my "Companies that test on animals list" which I blogged here. I had to take into account that although these companies were corroborated by multiple online sources, things change fast in the corporate world, so I wanted to give each company a chance to respond.

A number have responded - quickly, to their merit - and I will shortly be posting those in posts separated by company.

As a note, please feel free to still use that original blog post as a guideline when shopping. What I am doing is linking each company's name to the blog post where I have posted their response. That way, when you are curious about a specific company you can read the words directly from their mouths and decide what you will. Some people refuse to have anything to do with companies that test on animals - even if it is "required by law" because there is no other alternative.

Many, myself included, believe that this is false. Animals have a totally different biological system than humans, so often animal testing is of little use anyway. But others appreciate that companies are trying their best not to unnecessarily test on animals. Many of the responses I got were from companies that stated they avoided testing unless absolutely necessary. For me, this says that they still do when they deem "necessary", which is enough to put me off, but, as I said, it's up to each of you to make your own decisions. I just want to ensure I provide you with the information to make those decisions as best you can!

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

Necessary News: DON'T buy Jason Wu, an Icky Institution!

Hi all:

See the below link for a story in from back in January where Jason Wu (the designer behind Michelle Obama's inauguration gown) announced he was going to create a "significant fur collection". Avoid buying his fashions to show your disdain for this decision.

Again, please note that I know I promised you as little negativity as possible on this blog, but I also really want to keep you updated on what's going on. So please use your consumer power for good!

Show Jason Wu that you don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

P.S. Michelle Obama has declared that she does not use fur.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/01/26/celebrity-fashion-designer-jason-wu-plans-significant-fur-collection/

Icky Institutions: The cruel companies

Hi all:

I've put together one of my few 'negative' posts - a list of companies to particularly watch out for.

Please note that many of these companies are responsible for a number of other brands - and in a few cases, you may recognize the brands more than the company name (for example Church & Dwight is responsible for Brillo, Nair, Arm & Hammer, Oxi Clean and other products).

If the company is listed, its brands will be listed in brackets to help you recognize it. However, you may also see some of the brands listed separately (i.e. Arm & Hammer is listed as its own listing as well as included in brackets after Church & Dwight). This is because although the company tests on animals, not every brand it owns does. If the brand is listed on its own, that means that that brand does test on animals. Some people choose not to buy from the company at all to send a message. Hopefully that makes sense!

You don't have to be cruel to be kind,

GiGi

PS Please click on the name of the company if it is linked. This link will take you to a blog post with the company's response to my email asking about their current policy on testing on animals. These posts will allow you to hear from the companies themselves what they are doing about animal testing, thus allowing you to make a more informed decision about supporting and purchasing their products.

Allergan, Inc. (Botox, Juvederm, Latisse)

Beiersdorf Inc. (Nivea, Basis, Eucerin, florena, Juvena, la prairie, Labello)

Bic Corporation - currently observing a moratorium on animal testing (click on Bic Corporation to see their statement on the moratorium)

BioForce UK (Salt of the Earth)

Blistex, Inc.

Block Drug Co. (Sensodyne, Polident)

Boots plc

Burberry (promotes fur in its fashions)

Carolina Herrera (promotes fur in its fashions)

Christian Dior SA (Christian Lacroix, Celine)

Church & Dwight (Aim, Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close-up, Kaboom, Lady’s Choice, Mentadent, Nair, Orange Glo International, Oxi Clean, Pearl Drops)

Clorox (ArmorAll, Formula 409, Burt's Bees, Fresh Step, Glad, Liquid Plumber, Pine-Sol, Soft Scrub, S.O.S., Tilex)

Coco Chanel (promotes fur in its fashions)

Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate, Crystal Cosmetic, Science Diet pet food, Irish Spring, Palmolive, SoftSoap, Speed Stick, Ultra Brite)

Consumer Value Stores (CVS pharmacies' generic brand)

Coty Inc. (Adidas, Calgon, Calvin Klein, Davidoff, Chopard, Flame Glow, Isabelle Rossellini, Jennifer Lopez, Jil Sander, Joop, Jovan, Kate Moss, Kenneth Cole, Kylie Minogue, Lancaster, Marc Jacobs, Margaret Astor, Naturistics, Nautica, Pierre Cardin, Quintessence, Rimmel, Sally Hansen, Sarah Jessica Parker, Stetso, The Healing Garden, Tim McGraw, Vanilla Fields, Vivienne Westwood)

Dial Corporation (Dry Idea, Purex, Renuzit, Right Guard)

Donna Karan (promotes fur in its fashions)

Dolce & Gabbana (promotes fur in its fashions)

Elizabeth Arden (Alberta Ferretti, Alfred Sung, Badgley Mischka, Bob Mackie, Britney Spears, Cynthia Rowley, Elizabeth Taylor, Geoffrey Beene, Halston, Hilary Duff, Hummer, Juicy Couture, Liz Claiborne, Lulu Guinness, Mariah Carey)

Estee Lauder (American Beauty, Aveda, Bobbi Brown, Bumble and Bumble, Clinique, Coach, Daisy Fuentes, Darphin, Donna Karan, Jo Malone, Kate Spade, La Mer, MAC, Michael Kors, Missoni, Origins, Prescriptives, Stila, Tommy Hilfiger, Sean John)

Henkel AG (Citre Shine, Purex, Right Guard, Schwarzkopf, Soft Scrub, Soft & Dri)

Johnson & Johnson (Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Listerine, Lubriderm, Neutrogena, Rembrandt, ROC)

Kao Cosmetics Corp. (Ban, Biore, Jergens, John Frieda)

L'Oréal (Biotherm, THE BODY SHOP, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Helena Rubinstein, Kerastase, Kiehl's, Lancôme, Matrix Essentials, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, Redken, Soft Sheen, Vichy, Yves St. Lauren)

Marlene Klein Cosmetics
Mead

Melaleuca
Neoteric Cosmetics Inc. (Alpha Hydrox, B&H, Davinci, Montage Jeunesse)

New Dana Perfumes

Olay

Pantene
Parfums Givenchy SA (Ange ou Demon, Givenchy)

Physique
Playtex Products Inc. (Banana Boat, Wet Ones)

Ponds
Prada (promotes fur in its fashions)

Procter & Gamble Co. (Clairol - Aussie, Daily Defense, Herbal Essences, Infusium 23 - Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max Factor, Physique, Tide)

Reckitt Benckiser (Easy Off, Lysol, Mop & Glo, Old English, Resolve, Spray ‘N’ Wash, Veet, Woolite)

Shiseido Cosmetics (NARS cosmetics) - moving to eradicate testing - email encouragement!

Schering-Plough (Bain de Soleil, Coppertone, Dr. Scholl's)

S.C. Johnson (Drano, Edge, Fantastik, Glade, OFF!, Oust, Pledge, Scrubbing Bubbles, Shout, Skintimate, Windex, Ziploc)

Unilever (Axe, Dove, Lever Bros., Suave, Sunsilk and - surprisingly - Ben & Jerry's ice cream)