Sarah Trotter sheds light on those supposedly animal-friendly products…

Whilst cosmetic animal testing in the UK has been banned since 1998 this certainly doesn’t prevent the sale of  products that have been tested in other countries

Waterproof, volumising, “sexy curves” mascara, an artist’s palate of brush colours to apply: surveying the local cosmetic shelves is, frankly, exhausting. Sexy, chic, “natural” looks are bombarded at us as if cosmetically-induced glamour choice is a fundamental human right, instead of a money-spinner.  

Believe me, I’m not meaning to ridicule make-up per se, where I take issue is when other, very real, rights are trampled on.  A quick query to the assistant shocks: most of the products are tested on animals.  Whilst cosmetic animal testing in the UK has been banned since 1998 this certainly doesn’t prevent the sale of  products that have been tested in other countries. Suddenly the bewildering array of choice narrows; where before the qualitative value between Maxfactor’s “Lash Extension Effect” and 17’s “Lash Defining” mascara confused, an ethical difference emerges beyond the blatant advertising.  

At home, I peruse a number of the seductively-packaged bottles littering our bathroom.  Most appease a national recycle-aware consciousness with the satisfying symbol in place, but to my question of animal-testing the cardboard is ominously silent.  In a household where several pampered pets including two rabbits reign, a revolting sense of hypocrisy seizes me.  That we have indirectly been supporting the testing of mascara on the eyes of nameless rabbits, when Button and Pippin receive every attention is horrible.  

“…in a world of burgeoning choice, shopping for conscience should be a factor…”

Sadly, when you scratch the surface of this issue there is a very murky ethical line.  Some companies supposedly do not test yet are content to buy ingredients tested by other businesses.  The “natural”, originally hippy-ish marketed Herbal Essences, whilst not tested on animals itself, belongs to a parent company that supposedly has.  Anita Roddick’s The Body Shop was pioneering in its ethical trading and anti-animal-testing policies; bought by L’Oréal in 2006, Roddick perceived her company as a “Trojan horse” that could help effect change for L’Oreal from the inside out. However,  Roddick died in 2007 and without her, there is speculation as to how far this merger idealism will work.  All in all, cosmetic animal testing is an infuriatingly foggy issue and this article was not written to be a comprehensive account but to encourage your comments and to hopefully raise awareness in the process. 

 A brief heads up: all Boots own products including their No7, 17 and Natural Collection ranges are not tested on animals; the Co-op also follows a strict ethical trading policy which extends against animal testing. If you’re suspicious of what you’re buying into with some companies, an individual brand that’s stood out is the ethically-aware, Vegan society associate “Original Source” which tantalises with their selection of bath goodies each crammed with a large helping of essential oils.

 Controversial as animal testing remains, especially in relation to medical research, over the issue of aesthetics it is somewhat more clear-cut: in a world of burgeoning choice, shopping for conscience should be a factor.

 Sarah Trotter