Home | Safe Organic Products  | Index | Ten FREE Cancer Reports | Contact Us

  Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

Organic Business Opportunity | Toxic Ingredients Directory | FREE E-Book on Natural Health

Cruelty Free - NOT Tested on Animals

Cruelty FREE - Exactly what does Cruelty FREE and NOT Tested on Animals Mean?

Nowhere is there more gratuitous use of the English language than when it comes to the hype and lies that so-called animal friendly and cruelty free companies describe their synthetic chemical based cosmetics, toiletries and skin care products with.

The problem is, there are no legal definitions for the terms Cruelty Free and Not Tested On Animals. So once again vested interests are able to have open slather when it comes to describing their concoctions of synthetic chemicals to convince an unsuspecting public their particular brand of chemical soup has not been involved in the useless destruction of hapless animals!

Some companies may apply cruelty free and not tested on animals claims solely to their finished cosmetic products and toiletries they supply. However, these companies if they are producing any products at all with any synthetic chemicals in them DO need to rely on raw material suppliers or contract laboratories to perform any animal testing necessary to substantiate product or ingredient safety. THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT BY THE FDA. If the synthetic ingredients contained in the product haven't been tested on animals, then these words must be displayed on the product prominently.

"WARNING--The safety of this product has not been determined."

Why don't you go and check the synthetic chemicals in your skin care now. If you have products supplied by a company that is claiming to be "Cruelty FREE" and "Not Tested on Animals" and if there are ANY synthetic chemicals in the product at all - then the products are being sold on a lie! That is unless it has the above warning label on it.

It's this gratuitous use of the English language many people find so objectionable when vested interests are marketing their products. If they came clean and said they didn't do the testing but all their synthetic ingredients had been tested on animals by independent scientist then we could make an informed decision as to whether they really were genuine Cruelty FREE products and not tested on animals as they claim.

Most caring people would abhor senseless destruction of animals merely to satisfy an ever eager public fed on hype and lies who are continually seeking youth and beauty in a bottle. Whatever is wrong with using natural organic products which have never been tested on animals? Why do we need to use these dangerous chemicals on our skin and in our toiletries anyway? It's because of the immense profits vested interests are able to make from them! The cosmetic industry sell hope in a bottle and will use whatever means they can to convince the ever ready public that their particular chemical blend is somehow better than their competitors alphabet soup of chemicals. They keep on tacking on words like 'natural' and 'organic' yet they are so far removed from natural and organic it isn't funny. If it wasn't for the tragic fact that this plethora of synthetic chemicals which has already been tested on tens of thousands of test animals and if it wasn't for the fact these "safe" chemicals are entering our body's and wreaking potential havoc on our immune and endocrine systems and destroying our quality of life, there would not be so much concern by aware people. You can read more about the chemically polluted body here. YOU should be concerned TOO!

If you want to be 100% free of chemicals and you want to be 100% certain that the products you buy have NO chemicals in them, 100% certain the products have never been tested on animals and are in the main, genuine CRUELTY FREE products without any parallel in the world, then you need to use CERTIFIED ORGANIC skin care and cosmetics. Although some naturally occurring plant compounds have been tested on animals in the past, in the main, if you choose USDA Certified Organic skin care and cosmetics, the products are made to food grade standards and animal testing has not been carried out in any way shape or form.

However, a word of warning "Safe' - "Natural" and "Organic" aren't necessarily what you think they would mean once the marketing men twist the meaning of these words!

Look for the word CERTIFIED in front of ORGANIC - then look for the International certifying organic logos. These are the major certifying logos to look for. Illegal use of the USDA Organic logo is a minimum $10,000 fine!


If you see these labels then you know the product is 100% FREE of synthetic chemicals and is most likely made from genuine CRUELTY FREE ingredients.

It is simple really - CERTIFIED ORGANIC = NO SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS therefore products which carry the organic logos are far less likely to have had any animal testing carried out on the individual ingredients.

Your Choice... Your Decision

Health-Report Comment:

This blatant abuse by companies using legal loopholes in the descriptions of how their products aren't tested on animals needs to be closed. Let's face it. Would you really like to use products containing all these individual synthetic chemicals that have all been tested years ago, knowing full well that perhaps hundreds of mice, rats, cats, guinea pigs, monkeys and even dogs have been deliberately put through suffering until 50% of them died - then the remaining 50% are destroyed and dissected so the scientists can work out the LD50 rating? You know - the LD50 rating is the ppm (parts per million) of chemical needed to be absorbed by animals until 50% are dead. They do this by rubbing the chemicals into the eyes, into the skin, injecting it directly into the muscle tissue, feeding the animal contaminated food and gassing them! This practice was, and still is, common place in the chemical industry and is done to estimate how much of a particular chemical human bodies could absorb before the body would experience acute poisoning. Thankfully for the animals it isn't so commonplace now, yet this could mean that insufficiently tested new chemicals are being accepted for use on humans.


But don't think just because many companies market "natural" and "organic" products that some of the essential oils such as Tea Tree oil and Thyme etc haven't been tested on animals too. They may well have been tested too! In most cases however natural oils whether distilled or cold pressed are not in isolation, as a single synthetic chemical is, and the possibility of acute or long-term poisoning is relatively slight. Like it or not regulatory bodies tend to insist on tests being done on natural essential oils even more so than synthetic chemical derivatives. (Perhaps this has something to do with the lobbying power of the chemical industry.)


Of course the real problem is from the chronic long-term poisoning rather than the short term acute effects. But these guys aren't worried about what happens to you in 30 years time. They are just concerned with the here and now of making truckloads of money from the cosmetic and personal care industry. So be wary about the hype surrounding cosmetics and skin care products.


How do YOU feel about your particular CRUELTY FREE company now?


How many synthetic chemicals did you find in your particular brand of Cruelty Free cosmetics?


Did it have this sentence in a prominent place? - 


"WARNING--The safety of this product has not been determined."


If not and it had chemical names on the label, and I bet it did, then you are using a product which has no doubt had the individual chemicals tested on animals by an Independent Laboratory!


Choose safe and natural genuine Certified Organic products for peace of mind and let's spare as many animals as possible from suffering!


Geoff Goldie


  Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

From the

U. S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Office of Cosmetics and Colors Fact Sheet
March 14, 1995; revised February 24, 2000


Cruelty Free--Not Tested on Animals

Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims such as "CRUELTY-FREE" or "NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS" in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms.

Some companies may apply such claims solely to their finished cosmetic products. However, these companies may rely on raw material suppliers or contract laboratories to perform any animal testing necessary to substantiate product or ingredient safety. Other cosmetic companies may rely on combinations of scientific literature, non-animal testing, raw material safety testing, or controlled human-use testing to substantiate their product safety.

Many raw materials, used in cosmetics, were tested on animals years ago when they were first introduced. A cosmetic manufacturer might only use those raw materials and base their "cruelty-free" claims on the fact that the materials or products are not "currently" tested on animals.

See also: Animal Testing

  Stem Cell Research Breakthrough



Although the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act does not specifically mandate animal testing for cosmetic safety, FDA strongly urges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct whatever tests are appropriate to establish that their cosmetics are safe. In the United States, manufacturers bear a responsibility to ensure their products are safe for consumer use. In fact, cosmetic products that have not been adequately tested for safety must have warning statement on the front label which reads,

"WARNING--The safety of this product has not been determined."

FDA continues to work with other governments and private organizations to develop validated alternatives to animal testing in assessing cosmetic safety and considerable progress has been made in some areas. Nevertheless, until a method has been proven to be reliable and accepted by the scientific community, FDA believes that the use of animals remains necessary to ensure the safety of cosmetic ingredients and products.

The 1992 position paper reprinted below provides additional information.


Position Paper
October 1992

  Stem Cell Research Breakthrough


Current laws administered by FDA--including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act--are intended to ensure product safety and effectiveness, thereby protecting consumer's health. These laws place responsibility on FDA to ensure that human and animal drugs, biologics and medical devices are safe and effective and that food products are safe and wholesome.

Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products is often necessary to establish product safety. FDA supports and adheres to the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing animal testing, including the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Moreover, in all cases where animal testing is used, FDA advocates that research and testing derive the maximum amount of useful scientific information from the minimum number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability.

FDA advocates the use of validated non-whole animal techniques, which may include such screens and adjuncts as in vitro (e.g., tissue culture) methodologies and biochemical assays. As an example, FDA announced in the Federal Register of Feb. 19, 1988, the availability of guidelines for the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) test as an end product endotoxin test for human injectable drugs (including biological products), animal injectable drugs and medical devices. The guidelines inform manufacturers of acceptable methods of validating the LAL test so that it can be used as an alternative to the rabbit pyrogen test. At present many other procedures intended to refine, reduce or replace animal testing are still in the relatively early stages of development. FDA encourages all efforts to develop and implement non-animal models and believes that these procedures will ultimately result in significant reductions and refinements in animal testing.

With respect to cosmetic products, the FD&C Act does not specifically require that cosmetic manufacturers test their products for safety in the context of premarket approval by the Agency. However, FDA, strongly urges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct toxicological or other tests necessary to substantiate the safety of a particular cosmetic product. If the safety of a cosmetic product is not adequately substantiated, the product is considered misbranded and may be subject to regulatory action unless the principal display panel bears the statement,

"Warning--the safety of this product has not been determined."

Much of the attention given to animal testing has focused on the LD50 tests. FDA does not require LD50 test data to establish levels of toxicity, and in 1988, published a policy statement in the Federal Register to clarify this position.

The Draize eye and skin irritancy tests continue to be considered among the most reliable methods currently available for evaluating the safety of a substance introduced into or around the eye or placed on the skin. Non-animal tests, such as in vitro tests, may be useful as screening tools to indicate the relative toxicity or safety of a substance that comes into contact with the eye or skin. However, the responses and results of in vitro tests alone do not necessarily demonstrate the safety of a substance. The effects of a substance on a biochemical reaction or on a specific cell or tissue in culture may differ from its effect on a specific organ system in the animal as a whole.

The precise nature of testing needed to determine the safety or effectiveness of a specific product regulated by FDA depends upon the characteristics and intended use of the product. More specific guidance may be obtained through consultation with FDA scientists on a case-by-case basis.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
October 1992

  Stem Cell Research Breakthrough

Hit Counter