Changes to the Safe List

I have received some information about developments in the world of cruelty-free products, thank you to those commenters.

Brands Removed:





In the cases of Rimmel and Stila, the wording of the statements include “when required by law” or some variation on that sentiment. Christine from Phyrra tweeted Stila to discover the change (see here), indicating they might use third-party testing. Please note: they still display a cruelty-free badge on their site. Rimmel now has a new policy as well, listed on their site. Though their site does not acknowledge that they sell in China, the “when required by law” implies that they do (see here). Both companies do not show up on either PETA’s do or don’t test list.

Other brands have been removed because they were identified as unsafe by PETA


Status of Parent Company Changed

NYX has been purchased by L’Oreal, but is still supported by PETA so is remaining on the list with the necessary denotation.

Tarte has been purchased by Kose, a Japanese conglomerate that also sells in China, but is still supported by PETA. Tarte itself does not seem to be expanding out of the US and Canada, so the individual brand’s status should not change.


Brands Added

Joan Collins Beauty

Pink’s Boutique



I was informed that Laura Mercier tests on animals. However, when I looked into it I could find no indication that this was the case. The FAQ on the site  (as of 13th September 2014) is about as unambiguous as you can get (see here). Their site does not list China among its international locations. does not carry their products, even though the American Sephora does. Paula’s Choice lists them under their “Don’t Test” list (see here). The PETA does not list them on either list, but I believe they never listed them so it’s not as if the brand has been removed from the list. Gurwitch’s (owner of Laura Mercier) other brand, ReVive, has identical results. Perhaps the evidence is out there, but I am not finding it. If someone has up-to-date proof just pop me a comment 🙂


4 thoughts on “Changes to the Safe List

  1. It is sad that Stila and Rimmel are no longer cruelty free. I really liked Stila’s products. 😦 Do you happen to know if Chapstick is cruelty free? PETA lists them as a company that tests on animals, but on the Chapstick website, they say they don’t test on animals and only use volunteers. They did not say if they sell in countries that test. Maybe it is because of their parent company? Cruelty free cosmetics are so difficult to navigate sometimes! Great post!

  2. Hi there. New to your blog and finding it very helpful.
    Just want to ask – Why are companies that are owned by L’oreal still considered cruelty free? Does their profit in L’oreal’s pocket and therefore towards the funding of actual vivisection not count? I ask because i’m disappointed about The Body Shop.
    Also if a company states they don’t test on animals, nor request others to, nor use tested ingredients, yet sell to China, who then perform their own tests, why are they not considered cruelty free? In my mind their hands are cleaner than those who sold their cruelty free businesses to the cruelty rife L’oreal.

    I find it all very confusing and would really appreciate your thoughts.
    Thank you.

    • Ok so you have brought up some very important issues that are the basis of debates in the cruelty-free world. I would like to say that all the arguments I present are my personal opinions, and I try to format my list to cater to as many different systems of thinking as possible. So when I’m looking at a company whose parent tests, the default assumption is that they test. When looking for exceptions, I consult the PETA and Leaping Bunny lists- if a company does have a testing parent, they are normally listed under the Don’t Test, so if they are not listed or listed under the Do Test I will include them. With the example of the Body Shop, though they are owned by L’Oreal, I know that they strongly advocate against animal testing, so I am comfortable giving them my money. Another thing to consider is sometimes companies may not have a choice in whether their company is bought out. However, I do understand if you don’t want to buy from them, so I have marked these companies with an asterisk so you can avoid them if you want. On the China issue, though the companies might not be paying for tests, by selling to the Chinese market they are knowingly giving the Chinese government license to independently test the products using animal subjects. Again this is up to you to decide where you stand. Hope this helps!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s