Positive Responses from Animal Testers?

I guess it depends on how much you believe them....

The article from UPI is below in its entirety.

Drug and chemical companies say they endorse a Europe-wide initiative intended to eventually end the use of animals in research and safety testing.

Experts from companies including drug giants AstraZeneca, Procter & Gamble, Unilever and cosmetics firm L'Oreal say that soon the safety testing of new drugs and chemical products will use new technologies, including cell cultures and computer models, rather than living animals, The Daily Telegraph in Britain reported.

A report published by a panel of experts from industry, academic institutions and regulatory bodies supports an initiative aimed at finding alternatives to animal research.

"Today we are at a new biological milestone, where we could, with sufficient international and political support, ... produce the means and the technology to test and assess the human and environmental risk of tens of thousands of chemicals per year without using animals," the report says.

Testing a single chemical takes up to five years, involves 800 rodents and costs $3.8 million. Robotic alternatives could test 350 chemicals in less than a week at a fraction of the cost, the report says.

"Endorsement from cross-sector, independent experts provides a tremendous boost to European Union and international efforts to revolutionize the science of safety testing," Troy Seidle, director of research for Humane Society International, said.

"The fact that industry is prepared to come to the table to meet with regulators and say they are prepared to do development, invest resources and change the way we do things shows this is a real possibility that is not just pie in the sky."

Body Shop Not Performing Well for L'Oreal

The Body Shop is causing some headaches for L'Oreal right now.

The Body Shop said that 150 UK jobs are at risk after the French-owned cosmetics retailer announced a restructuring drive.

The company said it was consulting employees about proposals to reduce its global workforce by 275 jobs to make the business more efficient. The retailer is streamlining operations in certain office-based areas, but the reorganisation will not affect store staff.

...The Body Shop recently revealed that like-for-like sales dipped 0.9% to 249.5 million euros (£223 million) in its last quarter.

Parent L'Oreal said the difficult economic climate hit Body Shop sales in Britain, Spain and North America.

I was stunned when Anita Roddick sold the Body Shop to L'Oreal a few years ago. I had read one of her books and had often pointed to her company as an example of a successful marriage between ethics and business. When she sold to L'Oreal, with its questionable history and animal testing, it was a real betrayal of the company's practices and principles (in my opinion.) I know she thought the Body Shop could change L'Oreal, but, come on, how naive can one be...

But it's better than believing she just wanted the money.

French Scientists Grow Human Skin

The ability to grow human skin may lead to a decrease in the use of animal testing. Why substitute an animal when you can use the real thing?

And who do we have to thank for this development? L'Oreal of all companies. We've posted bad stuff about them in the past, but they deserve praise now.

Cosmetics giant L'Oreal showed Sky News their new product called Episkin in an exclusive visit to their laboratory in Lyon, France.

The skin is grown from cells removed from donor skin left over after cosmetic surgery.

Tests have shown it gives more accurate results than animal skin.

The new skin has been cleared for use and will now be available to use in the cosmetic industry.

Dr Estelle Tinois-Tessonneaud, who led the research said: "It was very important because following regulation in 2009 the cosmetic industry will not be allowed to sell a cosmetic with raw materials that have been tested on animals so it was absolutely fundamental that we get this model."

Photo by xylophanes.

L'Oreal's Dark History

I was reading this article about the sale of the Body Shop to L'Oreal in 2006. Why Anita Roddick did this is hard to fathom. L'Oreal stands for so many things she campaigned against. I can only guess that either 1) she could no longer run a successful and profitable cosmetics company on ethical values such as banning animal testing or 2) they drove a truck-load of money to her door. Probably a little bit of A and a little bit of B.

However, if you really want to know the kind of guardian that Anita Roddick left her baby with, read this. It shows up towards the end of the article.

Although L'Oreal bombards the media with its corporate responsibility score cards — and I don't doubt the existence of plans to phase out testing products on animals — the company's dark history has just been exposed in a bestseller in France titled L'Oreal Took my Home, by Monica Waitzfelder.

The book details how L'Oreal, a notoriously anti-Semitic company historically, took over the Waitzfelder home in the German city of Karlsruhe (after the Nazis had engineered the removal of the family) to make it its German headquarters. Waitzfelder has run a life-long battle through the French courts to try to get compensation — the case is now to come before the European Court of Human Rights.

The richest woman in France, Lilliane Bettencourt, who controls L'Oreal, won't give an inch. Long after Swiss banks and Australian insurers have made substantial payouts to Holocaust survivors, Bettencourt is holding out — and that's who you're dealing with when you buy your Body Shop soap these days.

Here's a link to the book at Amazon in the US.

Nasty stuff.

Animal Testing Deception at L'Oreal

Okay, so I buy nail polish and I don't want to keep spending my consumer dollars on products that I know rely on animal testing. So, as a consumer, I started some research on who really does and who doesn't conduct animal testing on its products.

I immediately run into the L'Oreal mess. I visited their website and did a search for "animal." According to a terse one-line statement, "The L'Oréal Group has not conducted animal testing since 1989."

Hmmmm....but, in fact, while L'Oreal does not conduct testing, it includes ingredients that have been tested on animals. Therefore, it is neatly sidestepping the issue with the above statement.

Sneaky!

Here is a good web page by that has a letter from L'Oreal posted which addresses their animal testing policy. NatureWatch from England makes the following good points...

* At first sight L'Oreal's animal testing policy might seem ethical; however, EU legislation requires that all newly developed cosmetic ingredients have to be tested on animals to assess safety, until validated alternatives are available.

* Any development of alternatives to animal testing is welcomed, however over the past twenty years, alternatives have been found and validated for only 4 tests. Tests for which there are presently no alternatives include toxicity tests and skin irritation tests, until alternatives to these tests do become available, these tests continue to use animals.

* In citing European legislation, and the legal requirement for compulsory safety testing of chemical substances, the letter sidesteps the real issue, that by not including new ingredients, the need to test new substances on animals would be eliminated.

So, out with L'Oreal and their products. No nail polish for me from that company!