In 2012, I decided to go cruelty free (CF) with my cosmetics. I eliminated brands that test on animals from my collection, and when my blogging career took off, I stayed true to my word.
Unfortunately, 'cruelty free' is not a regulated term and I only use this term in an over-simplified manner when producing content. When brands use the term, they usually try to convey that their products are free from animal cruelty, but this is not always the case when you look at things deeper than the surface.
As a 'cruelty free' creator, I am focused on harm minimisation. In a nutshell, it's impossible to be cruelty free under capitalism and I acknowledge all privileges involved. The term has many subjective definitions, so what I deem cruelty free may not be cruelty free to another, so to emphasise my definition - no animal testing or direct harm to animals.
I simply don't believe that animal testing is necessary for cosmetics.
.
If you're here reading this, I want to really emphasise that I only apply the term 'cruelty free' to cosmetic products. A cosmetic by definition is a product that is applied topically to the integumentary system (skin and hair) to cleanse, add colour, add fragrance, and improve physical appearance aka 'beautify'. These products include but aren't limited to makeup products (eyeshadow, lipstick, colour cosmetics, nail polish etc), personal hygiene products (soaps, deodorant etc), hair and body products (shampoo, conditioner, styling products, hair colours, body lotions, perfumes, fake tan, etc) and non-medicated skincare products (cleansers, serums, moisturisers etc).
Anything that serves to treat a medical condition or has a biological altering function is considered a drug, and this includes sunscreens (more further down). Animal models are important in medical and pharmaceutical research despite not being infallible, and until there is better technology that allows us to do away with such, we can't escape it.
All major cosmetics brands sold in Australia (and all major markets like the US/UK/EU), regardless of CF status, are demonstrably safe, meaning they would not be allowed to be sold if they caused harm. There is more concern with product safety in DIY than with products made in laboratories by cosmetic chemists and formulators. No cosmetics will kill you or cause harm when used as directed, as some brands like to make you believe. Every single ingredient has a maximum usage rate that is standard across the board, and some ingredients may be classed as drugs in certain territories.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND!
All ingredients that go into cosmetic products are considered GRAS (generally recognised as safe). The 'free-from' claims mean nothing because you don't put sulfates (detergents) into skin creams, and nature-identical synthetically sourced ingredients are indistinguishable at the molecular level. Banned cosmetic ingredients lists are generally focused on ingredients that are no longer used due to being unsafe (mercury, lead, arsenic, formaldehyde etc), or are simply not put in cosmetic products anyway (jet fuel, antifreeze, etc). Water doesn't contain gluten, so you don't need to say that water is 'gluten free'. The only time it is ever appropriate to say something is free-from is if it is a potential allergen/irritant (stuff like fragrances, natural and synthetic, ingredients derived from wheat, eggs, soy, dairy etc) or it provides a specific formulaic function (I'll go for sulfate-free shampoo because it doesn't strip out my hair colour as quickly, not because it's bad for me).
.
In order for me to consider a brand 'cruelty free', it must meet the following criteria.
1. The brand cannot test on animals at any point of production.
The brand must not test any products they produce or market (private label) from the beginning of production (including ingredient suppliers) to finished products, or commission third party animal testing.
All GRAS ingredients do not need to be tested on animals to prove safety because we already have data on them. With stringent quality control measures by suppliers and formulators, animals do not even need to be part of the equation. It's absolutely unnecessary.
The brand does not need any official certification to meet my definition of CF, because it's not always a viable option for the brand, and the PETA program accepts almost anyone who can pay their fee. I don't trust PETA, but it is a good baseline for access. Leaping Bunny (Cruelty Free International) and Choose Cruelty Free (Australia) are probably the leading bodies for those who want to make sure their products are not harming animals, but there's no guarantee that the products are not causing environmental damage or infringing on human rights.
.
2. The brand cannot sell in a territory that requires animal testing on cosmetics as a condition of sale.
Yes, I understand this sounds like xenophobic rubbish, but there are several factors to discuss in this which is a criticism of government, not citizens, and I am privileged that I can freely express this without being persecuted. China isn't the only place though, some states in Brazil have these laws in place too. A lot of countries have not banned animal testing for cosmetics as yet, which is a drawback considering the alternatives available (cultured skin cells, spectrometry, toxicology reports, and human volunteers).
Selling products in physical stores in mainland China means the products have to be registered with the Chinese FDA and are subject to be pulled off the shelves for animal testing at random. This only applies to foreign/imported brands. Why? Because China's government wants to focus on their own capital interests and the laws are in place to discourage foreign consumerism, however, Chinese consumers want to purchase those cosmetic products, and I fully believe they should have access to them.
China has relaxed their laws considerably, but this doesn't mean animal testing has been eliminated; there have been rumours that it's in the works. While pre-market testing has been relaxed for cosmetic products (as defined above), should there be a consumer complaint (allergic reaction), the product can be pulled off the shelf to be safety tested using animals. As established in the previous criterion, this is unnecessary because of the stringent quality control measures taken during manufacturing in their origin countries. An allergy is unfortunate, however, unless it is a problem affecting a large population, then a simple recall and investigation will suffice.
China's process means that if a foreign owned brand agrees to their conditions of sale, they are making a conscious choice to allow animal testing to happen. They should tell their consumers about that agreement in a transparent manner and not mislead them with "we don't test on animals except required by law" bullshit.
There are of course exceptions, such as what NUDESTIX have done, and there's also cross-border eCommerce (i.e. mail order) that is exempt from the law. Locally owned and produced products don't face the same conditions as imported ones, and products manufactured in China for export are too exempt.
.
3. The brand must not use ingredients that directly harm animals.
I'm not a vegan, nor even a vegetarian, so I am not opposed to using some animal derived ingredients, however, the growing demand for vegan products have opened up some ecological and human rights concerns. Generally speaking, vegan products pose the least harm to animals, but it is a complicated ethical wormhole. Vegan is not interchangeable with cruelty free as some brands who still test on animals market vegan products.
For the most part, ingredients shouldn't have to come from the killing or torture of animals. Many animal products are harvested with minimal harm to the animals. Honey, and other bee products can be sourced in such a way where we don't have to harm bees. When we have these kinds of products available, it means we have bees. Sometimes the vegan option isn't the most sustainable, for instance palm oil is plant based, or 'vegan', but has detrimental environmental impact, and bakuchiol comes from an endangered plant. We can only minimise harm by sourcing these things ethically and sustainably. A brand has to make sure they are not taking the cheap copout.
Permitted animal ingredients:
Honey, Beeswax, Propolis, Royal Jelly, Venom - as long as we have these, we have bees. Bee venom is harvested by having bees sting a plate, and it does not harm or kill them.
Lanolin - byproduct of the wool industry. Sheep need to be shaved.
Milks - often used in soaps and body care for their moisturising properties. Niche milks from Sheep, Goat, Camel, and Donkey can be sourced from small farms.
Eggs, Albumen - can be sourced from farms that prioritise animal welfare.
Snail Mucin - commonly used in KBeauty products, it is harvested by purifying secretions left on panels that snails wander across.
Pearl Extract - can be harvested without killing oysters.
Grey area ingredients:
These ingredients are not always animal cruelty free due to where they come from, but may be a less wasteful or more sustainable option.
Collagen - this is a byproduct of the meat and fishing industries, and used in food as a gelling agent, but it can be sourced from algae, however, this is expensive. More transparency is needed from where it is sourced.
Cash Crops - notably quinoa, which has lead to Indigenous groups unable to access food, but also applies to Cacao, Coffee, Shea etc. Must be certified Fair Trade and grown in a sustainable way.
Mica - has been linked to child labour, but synthetic versions exist.
Milk from Cows - depends on the source.
Sheep Placenta - Not a common ingredient and is primarily used in skincare marketed in East Asia. Just a byproduct of birthing live young.
Palm Oil - must be RSPO certified.
Silk - can be sourced after moths have left the cocoon.
Human Hair - used in false lashes and lash extensions, plus hair extensions. Linked to religious cults in India.
Carmine - made from crushed beetle shells. I mean, if we count how many bugs and insects get killed in the production of crops, this shouldn't be such a huge ethical dilemma.
Definitely not permitted:
Animal Fur - used in false lashes and 'natural bristle' makeup brushes. Linked to animal fur trade, animal abuse, and it cannot be harvested ethically, no matter what anyone says. Fur is unnecessary murder.
Animal Extracts - only if the animal has been killed or directly harmed to harvest these ingredients. These can be from meat production, but often includes things like internal organs, tissues (fats included), and secretions. For example, squalane and squalene can be found in sharks, but it can also be sourced from plants (namely olives), however, it is important for brands to distinguish this as sharks have become endangered when hunted for their fins and other byproducts.
There are loads of ingredients out there, but most wouldn't be seen near a cosmetic formula. With advances in biotechnology, a lot of previously animal derived ingredients have been replaced with completely synthetic or naturally derived alternatives from micro-organisms, including animals!
.
4. Other things.
Sunscreens and active ingredients considered drugs.
UV filters in sunscreens are regulated as drugs in most territories, therefore, sunscreens do not come under the cosmetic category, however, should the non-active (cosmetic) based ingredients of the sunscreen product meet the first 3 criteria, there is sufficient means to call the brand cruelty free. This also goes for cosmetic products with ingredients like salicylic acid, azelaic acid, benzoyl peroxide, and some retinoids. These ingredients have been around for decades and are proven to be effective and safe in cosmetic products, but higher concentrations may only be available from the pharmacy or with a doctor's prescription.
Most cosmetics aren't made with super new ingredients, even if trends say otherwise. Most trends recycle the same few things including vitamins, exfoliating acids, and retinoids, but find new molecular arrangements that may have better efficacy or improved formula stability. Most current research in pharmaceutical chemistry (the undergrad program I was in before I left university) is just using existing data to modify current drugs into ones that may have better performance with less side effects.
Personal care products available over the counter such as antiseptic creams, steroid creams, fluoridated toothpaste, sensitive toothpaste, topical numbing agents, some antiperspirants, etc, are not cosmetics. Injectables such as hyaluronic acid fillers and botulinum toxin-A are definitely not cosmetics either! Any products considered drugs are not bound by my definition of CF.
I will support brands owned by non-CF parent companies (including those who are in pharmaceuticals).
With the Big-7 buying up smaller brands, it's almost hard to escape them, but showing that a certain brand under their umbrella performs because they're not selling where animal testing is require by law is a huge step into telling them that consumers prefer one brand over another.
As for pharmaceutical companies, if they can demonstrate that a cosmetic product they market or manufacture meets the above criteria, it will be fine by me.
I will not support brands that do not meet my ethos, regardless of CF status.
And in an appropriate time for those free-from claims, brands should be free from problematic owners, appearance shaming, cultural appropriation, racism, colourism, antisemitism (this is 100% personal), queerphobia (this too), fatphobia (yep), ableism (oh this so much), conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxers, quackery and pseudoscience, deeply unethical MLM/pyramid scheme operations and their army of hunbots, etc. I don't care for any of this bullshit.
Clean Beauty is not a thing.
There are no dirty ingredients. Most of the so-called 'nasties' approved for cosmetic use are safe to use. Greenwashing does not make a product safer, environmentally friendly, or cruelty free.
.
I hope this clears the air about my ethos.
