With no current regulations, the labeling of cruelty-free on products brings about the debate of whether or not brands should have the power in determining what makes their product cruelty-free. The biggest discrepancy comes with the question of what makes a product “cruelty-free”. Supporters of animal rights argue that whether it be the ingredients or the final product, any testing on animals, throughout the entire supplying and manufacturing process, takes away the right of a brand to label their product as cruelty free. The majority of brands have an opposed view with the alternate idea that if the finished product is not tested on animals, their product should be granted the cruelty-free label. As a result of these two opposing views, and …show more content…
In creating labeling laws, specifically branding products with “cruelty-free”, the amount of animal cruelty throughout the world will significantly decrease because brands will be eager to use the label, making them adopt non-cruel ways. Brands would wish to use such label because of the profit they could gain from the extensive amount of people that solely use official cruelty-free products. As reported by PETA, an animal rights advocate company, as of 2016 there were 2,016 brands who were cruelty-free, including no animal by-products. Among these brands includes some of the most successful companies, such as Urban Decay, bringing in upward of 350 million dollars. Many of these corporations state that becoming cruelty-free will cost more, but the facts show otherwise. Although the initial transition from cruelty to cruelty-free may cost a lot, in the long run, the number of customers and sales gained will bridge the gap, bringing in a great amount of profit. In turn, the theory that a government definition of cruelty-free will decrease profits of brands is invalid due to the number of customers capable to gain, and the evidence of successful cruelty-free brands currently
One objection Norcross states in his essay is that “perhaps most consumers are unaware of the treatment of animals, before they appear in neatly wrapped packages on supermarket s...
There has been some controversy regarding L’Oréal Canada and their use of animal testing in their cosmetic products. For certifications regarding safety, we currently possess 86% of manufacturing facilities that are either OHSAS 18001 or VPP certified. (L’Oréal Canada, 2014) Safety is a priority for us at L’Oréal Canada to ensure that our products are safe for our consumers so that they can enjoy the beauty of our cosmetic products. Health Canada has stated that science has not advanced to the point where they feel comfortable banning animal testing in the cosmetic industry, but that animal testing is not required for cosmetic products. (Bendall, 2011) However, the European Union has recently passed a Cosmetics Directive in 2009, which bans the use of animal testing in the cosmetic industry. The Cosmetics Directive bans the testing of finished products, ingredients within a product and the marketing of a product that has been tested on animals. (European Commission, 2014) As a result of these changes in Europe, it is important for L’Oréal Canada to consider alternative methods to animal testing for business to continue with countries in Europe, and so that consumers will feel more positive about purchasing our products due to them being cruelty-free.
Over the past couple of years many companies of these cosmetic products released that they are against animal testing including LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, The Body Shop, and many others. There are still companies that still do test with animals; over 250 on PETA’s website. A large percent of these are well-known companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Estee Lauder, Procter & Gamble, L’Oreal, and others that may surprise the consumer. The majority of these companies are producing the same products yet using different animal testing results. This causes the number of test subjects to be substantially larger than what is needed. The number of tests being conducted could be reduced if these companies either become anti animal testing or share results with other companies. This idea might seem like a long-shot since sharing information with their competitors seems ridiculous. If you take a step back from looking at each individual company, you’ll see that they are all conducting similar tests with similar products. Sharing results of these tests with other companies potentially selling similar products, with the same ingredients, will result in a large drop in animal testing (Search for Cruelty-Free
Food labels like Cage Free and Vegetarian Fed lead consumers into the dangerous trap of thinking they are buying better products from happier animals when the opposite is true. The term Cage
“Cruelty Free Companies—Choose to Be Cruelty-Free”. < <a href="http://www.allforanimals.com">http://www.allforanimals.com > 2000. “ANIMAL TESTING”. May 12, 1999 [last update]. < <a href="http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html">http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html > 1996.
“Companies That do Test on Animals //A-Z” Caring Consumer// search for cruelty free companies and products. Web. 05 May 2010.
Animal cruelty is a major world issue that needs to come to an end. Every day an animal loses its life due to cruel deeds performed by wicked people. Approximately one billion animals are being murdered annually for selfish purposes. There are various forms of animal cruelty, but the most common form of animal cruelty tends to be apparel use. Many brands use genetically-modified animals to
According to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2013) over one hundred million animals suffer and sometimes die from experiments to test chemicals, drugs, foods, and cosmetics (para 3). Although it is good that the companies are concerned that their products do not harm consumers, the law does not require most of these tests animals endure. Furthermore, these tests do not have accurate results, so the animals may suffer but the product is still sold to the people. While products that burnt bunnies’ eyes away are being marketed to consumers, government agencies are using taxpayers’ hard earned money to fund these horrible, pointless experiments.
With the ever-growing population of animal lovers on earth, a more viable, humane solution for food consumption needs to be made, but why make a solution when there has already been one? Meat consumption has been proven time and time again to be unnecessary, but that doesn’t stop the average person from eating a double cheese burger with bacon. Unfortunately, many people are apathetic to what happens to animals in farm factories and continue to support them by buying their products, however, consumers should consider switching to a vegetarian diet because it’s more humane to animals, less farm factories being built can save the planet from deforestation, and with a proper balanced vegetarian diet anyone can maintain a healthy life without the
Imagine living a life without eating anything with an animal product in it. No meat, fish, milk, eggs, honey, not even gelatin. Vegans are people who adapt a lifestyle where they live without any animal based goods; some do this for the health benefits that come with eliminating meats and dairy. Many become vegan as a way to protest and eliminate animal cruelty which is extremely apparent in the meat industry. A vegan diet is based largely on fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and soy. Many people would say this is unhealthy, that a person cannot live like this. Much of this skepticism comes from being misinformed, and under informed about veganism. It is safe to live a vegan lifestyle. On a vegan diet a person can get all the vitamins
Each year, thousands of animals are brutally tortured in laboratories, in the name of cosmetic research. A movement to ban animal testing for cosmetic purposes has been gaining popularity, with many companies hopping on the bandwagon against this research. New alternatives have been developed to eliminate the necessity to test on animals. This is only a small beginning of what is necessary to end these immoral acts. Animal testing in cosmetics is useless and cruel, and can be accomplished by other methods of research to end the suffering of animals.
Simple household items such as lotions, shampoos and cosmetics aren’t very expensive and are within reach for the public, yet the public is not knowledgeable of the fact that the products that they use everyday are put through a series of tests which involve the use of harmless animals. Several large commercial companies do not make products for animals; they decide that using these harmless creatures for the testing of their products, could be cause to be harmful to animals still go forward with these types of procedures on an everyday basis. Although these animals are unable to defend themselves or signs of any form of consent for the near death procedures, these companies find this as a cheap solution for testing their products before placing them on the market. There are many other alternatives to testing animals such as embryonic stem cell research. Animal experimentation is wrong and it can be avoided but companies which are greedy for money chose not to.
...rking has also empowered the traditional activists, like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). PETA is supporting cruelty free companies through their Beauty Without Bunnies Program. When you see their bunny logo, you know the product you are considering is cruelty-free. And, anyone with access to the internet can easily check their website at http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdonttest.pdf to find out if a cosmetic company they are interested in is complying with alternative testing or traditional animal testing. Companies currently producing cruelty-free cosmetics include: Lush Cosmetics, Affordable Mineral Makeup, 2nd love cosmetics, Bare Essentials, etc. And new ones keep on popping up. So, the solution is at hand with alternative testing and insisting that companies continue to develop testing methodologies that don’t involve live animals.
Apart from their inability to interact or their non-existent plans to harm humans, animals, too have feelings and when we inflict mental or physical pain upon them we are hurting them. Better off an herbivore helping the planet than omnivore destroying it. Not to mention, if you think consuming meat is ethical you're sick and inhumane, that is, I might add, no less than a tyrant and no more than a fool and deserve the absolute worst in life, are the harsh words of some vegan extremists. What if I told you veganism is not solving our worldly issues and may unknowingly still be contributing to the problem as a whole. Hear me out vegans, if you purchase vegan food from mainstream food corporations or trademarks you're still part of the problem.
Americans love eating meat, but eating meat isn't necessarily the best food for them. Being vegan helps people in more ways than one. It reduces global climate change, reduces energy consumption, and helps out their health. Although Americans love eating meat and can get a couple of nutrients from it that are not found in plant based foods, being vegan is better for people and their planet.