Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Shu Uemura
June 29th, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Nok et merke jeg trodde at ikke testet, så feil kan man ta! Heldigvis har jeg kun handlet en vippetang fra dette merket, jeg håper de ikke ser nødvendigheten i å teste vippetenger på dyr.
The safety of our consumers is our highest priority at Shu Uemura, a division of L’Oréal USA, Inc. Our products and ingredients undergo extensive screening so that consumers may purchase and use our products with complete confidence.
All the brands of the L’Oréal Group are in full compliance with the requirements for safety in the more than 130 countries in which our products are sold, as well as with FDA regulations and the European Union Cosmetic Directive.
L’Oréal has been committed to the elimination of animal testing for more than 20 years. In 1989, the company ceased animal testing for safety assessment of its finished products.
Within the context of the European Union’s 7th Amendment, safety tests on animals are absolutely necessary and compulsory for some ingredients, bearing in mind the lack of approved alternative methods, to ensure that the products which are marketed are safe, effective and innovative.
We appreciate your interest in Shu Uemura and we hope this information is helpful.
{ 6 Comments }
Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Declaré
June 22nd, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Endelig fikk jeg svar fra dette merket! Etter den fjerde mailen fikk jeg svaret jeg ønsket!
Svar nummer 1:
I am pleased to confirm that we do not conduct any animal tests with our products.
The European legislation has set very strict rules on this point, which we of course follow.
Deretter ble fire nye mail sendt med spørsmål om ingredienser, her er svaret jeg fikk:
With our Declaré products we are not and never did any animal testing.
All new ingredients we purchase to create our cosmetic products have not been tested on animals. When it comes to ingredients which have been approved by authorities twenty or thirty years ago, this exceeds my knowledge.
Samme sak som med Soap & Glory og Decléor!
{ 7 Comments }
Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Neutrogena
June 8th, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Jeg var sikker på at dette merket var trygt, jeg. Så feil kan man ta!
Her er svaret jeg fikk fra dem, jeg har uthevet det som er interessant:
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 their 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 currently 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 currently 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 their testing programs.
* Som om det gjør det noe bedre at det er snakk om mus og rotter!!!
Ikke bra nok Neutrogena!
{ 5 Comments }
Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Soap & Glory
June 2nd, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Jeg kommer til å teste flere produkter fra dette merket fremover, derfor var et dyretestinginnlegg et must!
Her er svaret jeg fikk fra dem: (jeg har uthevet de interessante setningene)
We understand that animal testing is a key concern for a growing number of consumers and at Soap & Glory, we can confidently state that all of our formulations are safety and efficacy tested on people. (Although you might argue about that if you’d seen the condition of some of their feet. YEEEESH. )
At Soap & Glory, we uphold very strict guidelines through our regularly audited manufacturing partners that uphold the ‘no animal testing’ policy. As well, we are fortunate that our biggest retail partner – Boots The Chemists- upholds the very same standards by funding through an organisation called FRAME, which is the FUND for the REPLACEMENT of ANIMALS in MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS) in an effort to eliminate reliance in the industry on animal testing.
That said – and because we feel it necessary to be transparent and to educate EVERYBODY- it’s important for you to know that no retailer or manufacturer can categorically state that ‘none’ of their raw materials or ingredients have –at some time in the past- been tested on animals. The majority of individual raw materials used in cosmetics today have been through some kind of animal testing process. At Soap & Glory, we absolutely do not test our formulations on animals, however we can’t say that each and every ingredient that goes into them has not, at some point historically, been cleared for human use, by animal testing.
Samme som med Decléor med andre ord!
{ 2 Comments }
Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Sonia Kashuk
May 30th, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Som dere kanskje har fått med dere, det kommer noen omtaler fra dette merket om ikke lenge, derfor måtte jeg jo lage et innlegg om Sonia Kashuk og dyretesting!
På nettsiden deres klarte jeg ikke å finne noen kontaktinfo, derfor måtte jeg gå ut ifra info på andre sider.
På alle produktene deres står det “No animal testing”, men jeg måtte være sikker, så jeg sjekket med PETAs lister og de står under merkene som ikke tester på dyr.
Hurra!
{ 2 Comments }
Dyretesting: Yay or Nay for Depend Cosmetic
May 25th, 2010 by Hilde Christina
Neglesaker! Depend har en negleforsterker jeg er superglad i, så jeg krysset fingrene da jeg sendte dem mail.
Svaret jeg fikk var dette:
Vi har ingen ingredienser som er testet på dyr. Også råvarer vi kjøper er også manifestet til en garanti av råvarerådet i Eu at de ikke er testet på dyr.
{ 19 Comments }
Kategorier
Nettbutikker verdt å besøke:
Nettbutikker jeg anbefaler:
