beauty brands you'd think are cruelty free- but actually aren't
- Missy
- Jun 14, 2020
- 4 min read
Having started my ‘cruelty free beauty journey’ this year, I’m still regularly amazed and saddened by beauty brands that I discover aren’t cruelty free. In a world of ColourPops and Clionadh Cosmetics, where even small indie brands can formulate vegan and cruelty free, it’s crazy that huge multi-billion companies can’t achieve the same status. Here are some of the brands that I always thought were cruelty free, until I did some proper research and realised that they’re actually not.
Nars
I mention Nars on my blog every so often, usually to drag their latest release, or because they’re a brand I wish I’d tried before I went cruelty free- but they’re so boring that I never did. Oops.
The thing about Nars is it used to be cruelty free, but in 2017 the brand decided to sell in China- meaning that they had to change their stance.
In China, any beauty product that is imported into the country has to be tested before going on the shelves. In an Instagram post at the time, the brand’s hollow morals echo now, almost three years later; “NARS is committed and actively working to advance alternative testing methods. We are proud to support the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS), a globally recognized organization at the forefront of advancing non-animal methods in China and around the world. NARS is hopeful that together, we can work toward a cruelty-free world.” And yet, it’s still happening. Boo to you, Nars.
Rimmel
Rimmel is possibly the biggest shocker on this list. A quintessential drugstore brand here in Ireland and the UK, most makeup-lovers have used their cult Stay Matte setting powder at some point- if it isn’t a staple product. But alas, while Rimmel likes to pretend that it’s high and mighty by not testing on animals, it also sells to China- so they may as well. They claim to be ‘in dialogue with the Chinese authorities, including through our active membership of industry groups, to find alternatives to their use of animal testing’, but there hasn’t been much in way of progress yet, that I can see.
Coty is Rimmel's parent company
L’Oréal
If you’re looking for the big daddy of two-faced brands, L’Oréal is it.
The company, whose parent is just-as-unethical Nestlé, has been in the media spotlight for numerous controversies over the last few decades. Another company that gloats that its products are cruelty free, it also sells in China.
L’Oréal has received numerous warnings from the FDA in America for marketing some of its products as cures for various ailments, putting itself in another box other than a cosmetics brand. Tut.
In 2003, the company lobbied against an EU ban on animal testing, declaring that a ban wouldn’t make much of a difference to animal welfare, and the beauty industry would become rampant with toxic products. Further legislation in 2009 and 2014 has resulted in a complete ban on animal testing in the EU, for both raw materials and finished products.
Wet N' Wild
A controversial one, Wet N’ Wild is another beauty brand that tries to prance about claiming that it’s passionate about cruelty free beauty, while manufacturing and selling in China.
And while manufacturing in China doesn’t require the same compulsory testing, these products are liable for spot checks, which ultimately has the same outcome. The brand faced serious controversy in May 2019 when they neglected to disclose that they started to sell to mainland China, going so far as to delete comments on their Instagram account that called them out. The brand boldly lied to the face of their customers, which is shameful in and of itself, and all that to fold to the pressure of China…. that’s not a brand I want to support.
Benefit
My jaw absolutely dropped to the ground when I discovered that Benefit isn’t cruelty free.
For all the influencer marketing, bubblegum pink and general cutsey vibes, it’s hard to believe that it too hides behind the usual ‘we’re cruelty free!!!!…. but we sell in China’ excuse.
They state that they only test on animals where required by law, ‘the Chinese health authorities order some test on animals: they require companies to make their products available to be tested in state-certified laboratories for registration purposes only, as it is currently their only recognized method to demonstrate product safety.’
Again, this makes it seem that they’re passing the buck onto the Chinese government, when they should be standing up to dated regimes by not selling to them point blank.
Nuxe
I’ve never bought anything from Nuxe, but I always expected them to be a more ethical brand, simply from their marketing. They say that they’re committed to ethical sourcing of their raw ingredients by ‘prioritising crops’ over wild harvesting- which is a clever way of not directly admitting to the latter. The products are vegan, they’re designing rinse-off formulas that are biodegradable, the packaging is eco designed…. basically they’re trying their best, but then they sell to China. It doesn't completely eradicate all the effort that have made, but it does tell me that their bottom line is more of a priority.
I guess the running theme of these brands are that they've bent their morals and ethics in order to sell in China, regardless of the cost to an animal's life. It says a lot about what they, as a brand, ultimately care about. While they proudly state that they're vegan, or investing in eco packaging, or that they don't personally test on animals, they're more than happy to pass the buck onto someone else. It's shoddy, and bad advertising, and I personally don't want to contribute to their success. As always, this is only my opinion, and my cross to bear. What is your opinion on cruelty free brands? Do you avoid buying from brands that test entirely, or are you just less likely to purchase from them?
Comentários