Pages

Monday, June 11, 2012

Cosmetics, Skincare & Animal Testing Lies, Exaggerations, & Deceptions...EDIT for January 2014

WELCOME fellow animal lover!

This is kind of a long time coming...but it can be SO hard to find out if Korean cosmetic brands are tested on animals because of the language barrier...
There are several sits dedicated to informing you of American and European brands that test on animals...here are some links...
LEAPING BUNNY free cruelty free guide
BUAV (ENGLAND) BUAV's actual list is online and FREE... Cruelty Free
American Anti-Vivisection Society
Nature Watch (UK)
Uncaged (UK) They require payment for their cruelty free guide and they get it from Nature Watch...
KARA Korea KARA

But Mars, what about PETA?

I am NOT including PETA because I do NOT support their deceptive practices. The woman who runs PETA believes pitbulls should be exterminated from the planet and she supports BSL (bred specific legislation that results in family dogs being snatched from their homes and killed), believes all feral cats should be killed, believes no animals should be owned as pets, uses naked celebrities to draw media attention and the majority of those celebrities will go home and wear fur, or buy $2,000 dogs from breeders...furthermore statistics say that PETA kills more than 95% of the animals they "save". Last time I checked killing wasn't saving.
If you love animals I suggest you donate to LOCAL No-Kill rescues instead of PETA, HSUS, or the ASPCA. All three pick and choose which animals are worthy of life, and their founders and/or CEOs make millions of dollars. Money doesn't go to the animals, it goes to their political agenda. For more information, please check out Nathan Winograd's blog.

Moving along...the tricky part of this is just because a cosmetic company says "against animal testing" or "this company does not test on animals" does not mean they are. They could be paying another company to test on animals for them. Other companies that actually DON'T test themselves are bought out and owned by companies that DO test. for example- Smashbox is owned by Estee Lauder. The Body Shop is owned by L'Oreal. So when you buy these cosmetics, the money goes to...yes, the giant corporations that test on animals.
Companies that were once considered safe are not now- MAC,Clinique, Benefit, Stila
Other companies have expanded to sell in China- and China requires that all cosmetics be tested on animals. , Mary Kay, Avon, Revlon (see the list HERE: )
Companies you shouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, goggles, and a pair of hypoallergenic gloves:
Covergirl (cheap crap), Mabelline(cheap crap), L'Oreal, Lancome, Estee Lauder, Mary Kay, Avon

 

Here are the questions to ask a cosmetic/skincare company:

 Do you test your ingredients and/or finished products on animals?
 If NO, Do you get another company to test for you and do they use animals in their tests?
If NO, are you owned by a parent company, and do they test for you?
 Why do you not have information on animal testing on your website?
 Why don't your products say on them that you do not test on animals?
Common misleading claims you can find on the back of packaging or on websites:
* "Against animal testing"- they are "against it" but it's cheaper than alternative methods and they do it anyways.
* A bunny logo. If it's not either Leaping Bunny or PETA Bunny, it's just a generic bunny logo to trick you into thinking it's cruelty free.
* "None of our products are tested on animals" - the ingredients are tested on animals before they are turned into the "final product".
* "We do not conduct animal testing on our products or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law".-this means they choose to sell to China or to use new ingredients".
* "We never test on animals" - no they don't. They pay someone else to do it. Same thing, less honest.

ALWAYS ALWAYS google the brand name and the phrase "tests on animals" for more accurate info and ALWAYS ALWAYS check the date. If you google the brand and the phrase "doesn't test on animals" you will pull up a ton of old information from when so many companies didn't test, and innacurate info from people who heard that they didn't and repeated that info not knowing it was wrong or outdated. If, for example, you google "MAC not tested on animals/doesn't test, you will find information from the time when their test motto was "tested on models not animals" or something to that effect. That is no longer true. If you google the other way, newer info will reveal the change. You can also put "insert brand" now tests on animals etc. Be careful what you believe. I found several sites claiming that a deodorant brand doesn't test because of their statement "we do not test". They don't. They pay someone else to do it.
The same can be said for Benefit. Bloggers and forum writers rave about them "being against animal testing" but if you go to their site, it ACTUALLY SAYS that they are against it but they do it "when required by law". Which means they do test to sell in China and they are scamming you by hoping you don't know the difference.
SO.
1. Check the date of the info. Many American companies change their views or sell to China or sell out to a bigger company.
2. Google "test on animals" not "not tested" to weed out the old statements and the false statements from people repeating the wrong info.

I contacted Leaping Bunny USA in the past to ask about products and companies and they said they know nothing about companies not listed with them. Unfortunately, there are hardly any well-known and easy to find companies listed with them. :( And of course the PETA list lists companies that are owned by companies that test and also companies like Stila that sell in China. BUt can you really trust an anti-no-kill organization that tells shelters to kill and sends them a vegan cookie basket to keep killing? LINK coming...An organization that promotes vegan Ellen who is spokesperson for one of the testing giants and adopts dogs from rescue for people who have been declined and then gives them to them...

Back to the actual Korean brands.

EDIT:JANUARY 2014
If it isn't listed on KARA (http://animalrightskorea.org)... You can google a brand and "animal testing" and I'm not sure where people get their info, but a few blogs and forums have people claiming that companies that do test do not test.
Companies that are often *thought* to be safe but according to KARA are not:
Missha, Skinfood, TonyMoly, Innisfree, Etude House, Laneige
Companies that do not test BUT sell in China: Amore Pacific brands.

Missha- The problem with Missha is that they seem to be very unsure of their policy. They know they are against testing, but that doesn't mean they don't do it. See an actual response an actual beauty blogger received here: CLICK After contacting KARA, they informed me that Missha was unable to comply with all of the requirements to get on the non-test list. Possibly because their ingredients, like Skinfood are tested on animals?
Etude House- The problem with Etude House is that they are owned by a giant cosmestic company that DOES test. They claim via e-mail response that they don't test but don't answer specific questions. They have also said they test only when required by law. Only no one is required by law to test unless they sell to China. So while I own EH products, I will refrain from buying anything else until I know for sure. It also appears that Etude may or may not be sold in China, where testing is mandatory as of 2012.

EDIT: Etude is owned by Amore Pacific who also owns a bunch of other brands. Amore Pacific recently agreed to stop testing but not to pull out of China. I will write a new blog reflecting this and including some brands KARA approved.

Companies that are *unknown*:
Holika Holika (Enprani)

Companies that DO test:
Laneige (AmorePacific)
Lioele

And there you have it...

There are some Cruelty Free Beauty Bloggers (people with souls), but many are mis-informed and even more of them blindly follow PETA.
Here are some good ones...
http://littlemissmetamorph.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-to-animal-testing-and-lies-big.html

Friday, April 1, 2011

REVIEW: Koji Spring Heart Longlasting Eyeliner (Black Glitter) [4.5/5]












TRANSFERRED click me!!



Brand: Koji
Line: Spring Heart (?)
Product Type: Eyeliner pen/crayon
Origin: Japan
Color: Black w/ silver glitter
Tested on Animals: JAVA says Koji is cruelty free as far as testing themselves, but may sell in China?


Review Summary:
Price: $6.50 3/5
Size: pen
Packaging: black pen, silver writing, smudge eraser on back 3/5
Scent: n/a
Color/Shade: Black w/ silver glitter 5/5
Texture: n/a
Ease of 'Use: Easy to draw on, but needs retracing a few times, and tip is very thin!! 3/5
Longevity/Lastability: Not all day, but most of it... 4/5


 I took a trip to Mitsua Marketplace in Chicago suburbs in March. I was disappointed at how small the selection in the beauty section was (the toy selection was worse!) and I haven't ever tried Japanese cosmetics, so I just picked out one of the cutest cheaper items in case I didn't like it -$6.50. Different colors were different prices and I picked the black one with the silver glitter.
I first tried it on my hand, and it's a deep black color with a little bit of silver glitter. Cute.
The best part about this however, is that it is actually long-lasting! After I drew a line on my hand, it stayed there faintly -even after I tried to rub it out- for hours! It's easy to draw on and it stays on.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

REVIEW: Etude House (not completely cruelty free) nail polish -Black Tea Milk (BR301), Strawberry Milk (PK003), Pink Ade (PK10) -2 stars

Brand: Etude House
Product: Nail Polish
Origin: South Korea
Tested on Animals: Parent company AmorePacific ended testing in May 2013 but has yet to pull out of China...



Color: Black Tea Milk -BR301

Strawberry Milk -PK003

Pink Ade -PK010
Size - 7 ml- pretty small :( 2.5/5
Color: All 3 are pretty close to what the bottle color is and not watery. The Strawberry Milk (PK003) is kind of sheer and takes a few coats to show up... 4.5/5
Thickness: solid, not watery 5/5
Lastability- the edges chip just like any other nail polish. Very poor. 1.5/5
Package: Cute with classic pink tulip tops 5/5
The Verdict-  NOT recommended- I really like the variety of pinks that these come in, but they don't stay on and they chip within a day. Quality is very very low.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

REVIEW: Baviphat (not cruelty free) Apple AC Sleeping Pack MINI -does this do ANYTHING? :( 1 Star






Brand: Baviphat
Product Type: Facial Sleeping Pack
Origin: ?
Tested on Animals: unknown status, but sold in China. Yes.


My first Baviphat product...

It comes in a little apple shaped container like Tony Moly & B&C (i think B&C was first to start this packaging with their lip gloss and cream)
Size: ml - mini - it's REALLY tiny! And IMO they could fit more in than they do because it's not even full. 1/5
Packaging: 3/5 -really cute apple shaped container - minus a star because it's been done before...
Color:
It's actually apple colored...Texture: 4/5 Smooth & creamy
Lastability: 1.5/5 It may only last 3 uses if that. It's a mini, but the content is more that of a sample...
Scent: 4/5 Great! Very sweet Apple scent...

Effect: 0/5 ...o_o...nothing...i finally remembered to put it on at night and the next morning...nothing!

That's a score of...13.5 out of 30.
Overall: pass on this and try something else...

Thursday, December 30, 2010

REVIEW: Etude House (not completely cruelty free) Peach Water Gloss (Strawberry Milk) 3 stars

Brand: Etude House
Parent Company: AmorePacific
Line: ?
Make-up Type: Lip Gloss (sponge applicator)
Origin:  South Korea
Tested on Animals: Parent company AmorePacific committed to ending testing in MAy 2013, but has yet to pull out of China.





Summary: The packaging is gorgeous, the color is gorgeous, but it's a little too sheer and has not so great coverage and lastability. The purpose of water gloss is to absorb into the lips and feel weightless and moisturized. This didn't happen...Great idea, not so great product quality.

Price: $7.99
Size: standard
Packaging: Comes with little box - the gloss tube is pretty and has the flower/tulip logo cover.
Scent/taste: neutral
Color: #2 Strawberry Milk
Texture: a little sticky
Ease of Use: a little messy and it's very sheer and wears off easily
Effect: pretty color, but several coats need to be added, and still it vanishes quickly...
Verdict.....Would not buy again...



REVIEW: Etude House(not completely cruelty free) Magic Bubble Peeling (foam) -2 stars

Brand: Etude House
Line: (Magic Bubble)
Product Type: Peeling (foam)
Origin: South Korea
Tested on Animals: Sold in China



I ordered this because it was a decent price on Etude USA and I want to try all the Asian peeling products... I didn't like the Moistful one very much at all...

Note:
(The standard peeling gel (Laneige, SkinFood, Missha) is applied to dry skin and rubbed in.)
This is actually a foam in a tin-like bottle with a spray foam nozzle. Like shaving cream...

Summary:
I wasn't expecting much from a metal/tin tube, especially when it came out looking exactly like shaving cream. However, unlike the Moistful Peeling "Wash", there was a little peeling and there was moisture afterwards.  Magic Bubble line -the packaging design is kind of bland and i didn't notice it immediately...You rub it on your face, rub it in until it starts peeling (very minimal amount no matter how long you do it), and then rinse. Actual peeling effect is grey, which is kind of gross...This is NOT going to take off very much dead skin at all, and I question if it takes anything off?

On to the review...

Size: ml -
Packaging: 3/5 Purple un-traditional tin-like bottle with a nozzle. Art features a fairy/pixie. Not very eye-catching and more feminine than cute or girly. Etude always has a new theme gimmick line.
Color: white foam
Texture: 3.5/5 Smooth yet foamy, sticky when rubbed into skin...
Lastability: UNKNOWN. Since it's a tin, you can't tell how full it is, but a lot comes out when sprayed...
Scent: 4/5
Ease of Use: 5/5 Spray and use.
Effect: 3.5/5 Somewhat smooth skin after-wards. Somewhat moisturized. What I would have expected from the failure of Moistful...
The Verdict: I'm done with foam or spray or alternative peeling products. Only gel from here on out.
There was a tiny bit of peeling, but not enough to make it worth it.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

REVIEW: Etude House (not completely cruelty free) *Moistful* Peeling Wash (fail w/ the peeling)3 stars


Brand: Etude House
(Line: Moistful)
Product Type: Peeling "WASH"
Origin: South Korea

I ordered this because it was a decent price on Etude USA @ $12.99 and I wanted to try the Moistful line (I also got the mist, 8.99) because of the name and the pretty pink bubble designs...
Also because the Sherbet line isn't available to the US

Summary: It's pretty, it's pink, it has a nice scent...
Here's the problem. It says "Peeling Wash", not peeling gel, and I think it shouldn't really even have "peeling" in the name because it's false advertising.
The standard peeling gel (Laneige, SkinFood, Missha) is applied to dry skin and rubbed in. That's where it "peels".
(There is debate on whether it's actual skin or the product granules itself FYI)
This impostor peeler has very VERY minimal actual peeling. It's also thicker and instead of just wiping your face with a washcloth, you actually have to rinse this off. Then my face felt slightly sticky. Not "Moistful" as advertised.


On to the review...

Size: ml -pretty small compared to Laneige
Packaging: 5/5 Pretty...The Moistful line is pale pink (the color of this text) with bubbles. This comes in a traditional squeeze tube.
Color: A strange clear gel
Texture: 4/5 Cool and smooth, but very thick
Lastability: 3/5 When you squeeze it, a ton comes out and it's not that big of a tube...
Scent: 4/5 Clean perfume scent, a little over-powering

Effect: 2/5  Hardly any peeling, but afterwards skin does feel moisturized.
Overall: 3/5 I didn't notice any difference from a regular facial wash, and it left behind a slightly sticky feeling. I wouldn't get it again!