Support Forums

For a forum which has an Animal section, I really think that we need to be a little more aware of how we may be supporting consumer products which are tested on animals.


More pictures: animal testing programs use dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, and primates.

Global corporations, which own many household brands, are particularly sneaky. Shampoo brands which pretend to be cruelty-free include Garnier, Revlon, The Body Shop (owned by L'Oreal) and Herbal Essences (owned by Procter and Gamble, has been tested on pregnant rats). Babycare products which are tested on animals include Johnson & Johnson and Nestlé.

Even luxury toiletries and cosmetics are tested on animals: Chanel, Christian Dior, Clinique, Estée Lauder, Helena Rubenstein, Givenchy, and Yves Saint Laurent.

Many affordable, cruelty-free soaps and shampoos are now available for guys. Below are other stockists:

I hate Animal testing. Scientists should fudge off if they're gonna do that to pets.

i think animal testing is wrong on cats and dogs other animals its bad but not as bad

I don't want to look at those pictures. I love animals but what can you do.
If there wasn't animal testing a lot of medicine's wouldn't exist.
Don't get me wrong I hate it but there is some good in it.

I didn't even realize this went on...that's sick.

(02-25-2011, 02:31 PM)Untouch Wrote: [ -> ]If there wasn't animal testing a lot of medicine's wouldn't exist.

I agree, animal testing is reasonable for medicines which are intended for healing. It is not right when it is for consumer or cosmetic products. I will edit my post, since it specifically refers to toiletries like soap and shampoo.

(02-25-2011, 05:48 PM)Laugh Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't even realize this went on...that's sick.

I know.. I thought this doesn't happen anymore, but apparently companies sub-contract it to countries where animal testing or animal cruelty is not illegal.

Are those rabbit heads? Like did they cut them off of rabbits?
And animal testing is wrong.

(03-02-2011, 03:12 PM)Melted oreo Wrote: [ -> ]Are those rabbit heads? Like did they cut them off of rabbits?
And animal testing is wrong.

no thats a rabbit restraint if remember correctly.
they were probably putting chemicals in their eyes,poor things.

eve,add the co op supermarket to englands cruelty free products,used to buy BUAV approved stuff like shampoo from the co op;admittedly as it was own brand stuff,most of it wasnt that good but woud prefer to keep the amount of cruelty promoting stuff down as possible.

oh,and another one is to look for food with the blue and white sticker- RSPCA freedom food,as the RSPCA have checked them over,though that in itself is pretty hypocritical as the RSPCA euthanise healthy animals just because they are not babies,they dont go and check out injured/lost pets when they say they will,and had been asked to take in a group of dumped adult rats once by langworthys RSPCA hospital as they were going to be PTS,but had had no space in the ferret cage and dad didnt allow it anyway.

There's another brand that doesn't test on animals, down under naturals it's called, not a big fan myself but my ex swore it was the best.

(03-06-2011, 10:33 AM)Techie© Wrote: [ -> ]no thats a rabbit restraint if remember correctly.
they were probably putting chemicals in their eyes,poor things.

eve,add the co op supermarket to englands cruelty free products,used to buy BUAV approved stuff like shampoo from the co op;admittedly as it was own brand stuff,most of it wasnt that good but woud prefer to keep the amount of cruelty promoting stuff down as possible.

Yes, restraints ease testing for chemical irritants.

I have added the Co-op link to the list, thank you!

(03-06-2011, 10:48 AM)Swat Runs Train Wrote: [ -> ]There's another brand that doesn't test on animals, down under naturals it's called, not a big fan myself but my ex swore it was the best.

I can't find much about its ingredients or stockists, and unfortunately their website isn't working.