Brands: Animal Testing or Not?

by Roxanne C.

I personally take a neutral stand on animal testing in general. For example, I do think that it is a positive thing in medical research in areas like finding cures for HIV or cancer. However, in makeup, I am against it because I think that if makeup can be made without being first tested on animals and also show no negative effects on us humans whatsoever, then it is not necessary.

Here is a list of brands that conduct animal testing and brands that do not. It’s just for referential purposes and general knowledge. The entire list is taken from the pixiwoo sisters. I’ve taken the liberty to list them according to alphabetical order.

Brands Definitely Not Testing on Animals


Autograph (Marks & Spencer)

Barry M


Bobbi Brown





Collection 2000




Elizabeth Arden

Estee Lauder



Laura Mercier

Liz Earle


Makeup Forever



N.Y.C. Color







Sleek MakeUP



The Body Shop

Tom Ford

Too Faced

Urban Decay



Brands Probably Testing on Animals




Dolce & Gabbana



Max Factor



I hope this helps. The list of brands that probably utilise animal testing have not confirmed that they are not. Again, the entire list was obtained from the pixiwoo sisters.

Related Posts with Thumbnails


beautyprincess December 30, 2010 - 6:36 pm

I wish no makeup brand tests on animals!

lacedivory December 30, 2010 - 7:24 pm

me too!

amyrleex December 30, 2010 - 7:31 pm

thanks for the list, this will make me more conscious of which brands to support, in terms of makeup buying.. cheerrs! 🙂

lacedivory December 31, 2010 - 5:50 am

amyrleex: glad it was of some help!

Jojo911 January 3, 2011 - 2:03 pm

L'Oréal massively tests on animals. It also OWNS Lancome, Maybelline, CoverGirl, etc. It has recently acquired The Body Shop, so when you buy a "not tested on animals" product, you actually give your money to L'Oreal.
Make Up Forever is very shady about it's animal testing status… although I think they have very nice colours I use this rule: In case of doubt, do not buy.
I think these would be better websites to look at if you really cared about the whole issue of animal cruelty in regards of cosmetics and human vanity:
~Cheers and happy new year!

lacedivory January 3, 2011 - 6:18 pm

Jojo911: thanks for the information! hope u're enjoying 2011 too. =)

Sabrina M January 26, 2011 - 2:51 am

Seriously? You think vivisection for "medical research" is acceptable? You need to educate yourself because your statements regarding "finding cures" is a ridiculous ideology that stems from ignorance . Besides the ethical argument, you need to understand that animal physiology is vastly different from humans. The sole reliance on animal tests in the past have caused serious implications once they were approved for humans. This fact has been widely published and documented.
I don't expect you to investigate into this issue but here is one link that can provide you with informative details regarding this point:
This link provides the alternative and more reliable tests that exist:….
Now back to the ethical argument. Your opposition towards cosmetic research contradicts your reasoning towards medical research. The cruelty involved in that industry is completely unnecessary. Improper housing, lack of veterinary care, *sadistic technicians*… should I send you videos/pictures? Research/pharmaceutical facilities don't want you to know what occurs inside their walls. Many have been charged and/or shut down due to the inhumane treatment inflicted on their test subjects- dogs, cats, sheep, pigs, primates and the list goes on.
Do you know where and how these animals are obtained? One method is known as "pound seizure". Animals that were once considered PETS are sold by shelters to animal research facilities. Many primates (monkeys/apes/chimpanzees…) are caught from their native homes (think jungle) and sent to these research facilities. A large percentage do not survive the methods of transportation. I could continue but I'm sure you comprehend that the means of acquiring these animals is reprehensible.
Now that companies such as MatTek corp. ) exist there are no viable excuses that research facilities can use to justify vivisection.
You are now informed.
Opinions from the ignorant can be pardoned but now that you have been enlightened, there is no excuse for you to maintain the same viewpoint…unless of course, you are a sick, disturbed individual. In that case, I hope someone drills metal bars into your scull so that you remain immobilized in a chair for the rest of your life (primates).
*Animal Liberation*
If you don't live for something
you will die for nothing.

sabrina M January 26, 2011 - 2:58 am

P.s The pixiwoo sisters' list contains many mistakes regarding companies that do not test. Jojo911 has provided superior reference links.

sabrina M January 26, 2011 - 3:16 am

The pixiwoo sisters' list is inaccurate in reference to their "do not test list". Jojo911 has provided links with more reliable sources.
Points to note when companies state that they do not test on animals:
1) Do their suppliers test on animals?
2) Do they test the final product on animals?
3) Do they test on animals during any stage of product development?
4) Do they outsource other companies to test their products on animals?
and most importantly, are they a subsidiary of a company that practices animal testing?
One more link:
In fact, contact me if you need any information regarding this topic.

lacedivory January 26, 2011 - 5:59 am

sabrina M: Thanks a lot for your contribution to this post.
I have my reasons for my viewpoints in various issues in life but they are one but too many for me to engage in a discussion about any particular topic. As everyone knows, philosophy never has an end. This blog is for makeup, skin care and fashion, and it's purely for pleasure and entertainment, for light reading. Thus, I avoid heavy topics like moral ethics, religion and the likes.
I still do stand by my opinion on animal testing. It would be great, of course, if one day the world could be rid of this method of experiments (since you've made it clear with the example of MatTek). But until that day comes, I guess this will not stop happening. Also, while it is important to note that animal testing had resulted in "serious implications" on humans in the past (I take it you mean serious and bad), great positive outcomes on humans have also seen light due to these experiments.
As with everything, there are pros and cons to animal testing. And even if I may agree with some parts of it, I do not engage in it and neither am I asking anyone to do this. Everyone has a right to their own viewpoints on anything and so do I. We've just all got to respect that everyone has this right to believe what they want to. Just because someone's opinion vastly differentiates from anyone else's does not make that person any less a human with the equal right to believe.
You may not agree with everything I think or believe in, but please do respect the fact that they are my own opinions and that I am not trying to impose my thoughts on my readers. I respect your opinion on animal testing even though it's not the same as mine.
And finally, name-calling is just plain childish.
Thank you very much.

Comments are closed.