L’Oréal is the cosmetic/skin care company that I am a brand ambassador for —along with many others. Over the four or five years that I have worked with L’Oréal, I have been impressed with their company leaders and their work ethics. I have received several very negative comments from blog readers on the subject of animal testing. I have decided to post the reply I received from L’Oréal in response to my queries concerning these comments:
L’Oréal fully supports the aim to eliminate animal testing. We are aware of consumer thinking on this issue, and our actions to find alternative methods, demonstrate our commitment to sustainable development and respect for the planet.
L’Oréal has not used laboratory animals for the testing of its finished cosmetic products for 20 years. (This includes all products developed for the different brands within the L’Oréal group). For many years, the Group has made significant efforts to review its product safety testing methods to ensure that it continues to innovate while respecting its commitment to finding alternative solutions to animal testing.
International regulations require that raw materials are tested for safety purposes before being used.
Thanks to 100 years of knowledge in the field of cosmetic ingredients, 30 years of research into alternative testing methods, and to a huge investment in its ability to develop human skin and cornea models, (Episkin and SkinEthic), L’Oréal is today in a position to meet the 11 March 2009 ban introduced by the 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive. This ban prohibits testing on animals and the marketing of products for which local or single exposure tests on animals for which local or single exposure tests on animals have been used after March 11, 2009. For other more complex tests, the deadline has been extended to 2013.
L’Oréal is a leader in the field of research into alternative methods : it is actively contributing to develop replacement alternatives and is involved in cutting edge research both in Europe, the US, China and Japan. As an example Episkin, which was developed by L’Oréal, is now validated as a replacement alternative to animal testing for skin irritation.
To address the issue of the full replacement of animal testing for the remaining tests covered by the 2013 deadline, such as systemic toxicity tests, L’Oréal is working closely with members of the cosmetics industry, as well as across different industry sectors and with the European Commission, as well as in the context of a European partnership (EPAA). The European Commission intends to take stock of progress made in research in this area in 2011.”
chad
Just curious – kinda dumb about the whole process of animal testing, besides knowing I dislike it – what animals do they test on if they don’t use lab animals. I know the organic farm business is big now on using free range animals or animals that get to have a life outside of producing food for humans. Does this apply to animals who are used for testing too? Perhaps, I missed their fine print.
Hard to work for a total PC company it seems these days. Apple just admitted to using child labor. Guess an A for effort only goes so far. Other irony on my mind involves the film business. Avatar is bringing in billions for Fox. A company that constantly attempts to disprove global warming and environmental issues is making billions on a film with a pro-environmental message.
On another note, I am happy you are so public about your “hair cut”. There are many famous people who advertise beauty products that leave the impression that the product is all you need.
Jane
Plastic surgery affects the shape. Proper skin care affects the skin quality. L’Oreal does it for me.xx
Gloria
Hi Jane. Just popped in to say hello. I seen you tweet at Twitter. Hope you have a good month and I do use Loreal. Thanks. Take care.
Jamie
Hi Jane,
Love your work. Are L’Oreal still having you as an ambassador after you having work done?
Peter G
So L’Oreal supports the aim to quit animal testing, is aware of consumer thinking on the issue, has made significant efforts, is actively contributing to develop replacement alternatives, involved in cutting edge research, working closely with members of the cosmetics industry and also working closely with the European commission which intends to take stock of progress made in 2011.
This is a very slick letter, as it doesn’t contain a single concrete and quantifiable statement that L’Oreal could ever be accused of having breached even if they continue using animal testing for the next 10,000 years.
Written by a lawyer or legal department, I presume.
June deJeune
I’m with Peter G. Unfortunately, L’Oreal (and most other ‘mainstream’ cosmetics companies, absolutely test on animals (Peter’s right, they may not test on their finished product, but they can test on animals every step of the way) – the cosmetics industry is actually highly unregulated. Not only are animals being injured, scarred, burned, and tortured for the sake of our vanity, but the chemicals that go into these products are not healthy for human beings either (cosmetic dyes and chemicals are not simply ‘cosmetic’ – they go directly into the bloodstream). Try to seek out Third-Party Certified Organic products whenever you can. They aren’t tested on animals, and they are perfectly safe for your skin. L’Oreal makes nice product, if you don’t mind knowing that animals are used all along the way for testing, and don’t mind that the stuff is kinda icky for our bodies to ingest.
premji jairam babaria
Hi Jane,
It is nice to see you active in various areas. Perhaps C influence is working through you for upliftment of human consciousness.
Matthew DeCoster
Jane,
Thanks for sharing this information.
I am curious when we’ll be able to see your
latest ads for L’Oreal?
Matthew
PS. I agree with what you said re: skin care vs.
surgery. My mother just got her first eye lift at 70. She looks great but her skin remains a marvel due to lifelong skin care.
tom
Jane I think you are such a role model for other spokeswomen who insist it’s just the product that results in amazing results. We should respect our bodies and use the product so that we may see results. You’re a legend JANE!!! by the way, when are you ever going to visit me in the uk haha!
lacey
If not human experimentation, then maybe better to have virtual makeup, as in pretend makeup. Here is fun video by Amy Walker on getting ready for a pretend date, where expression is the most important thing, not the actual cream or grease to make one feel pretty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n5roYKCplc&feature=related
I find it fascinating how much beauty is related to expression, and the actor learns to be expressive and it is this freedom to be expressive that makes what is considered beautiful, and the non-expressive is restricted, held back emotion, stifled, and is so not desired. Dull becomes ugly even. Of course, there is reserved beauty, but more often you find that what is considered plain is that which is timid and not freely expressed. Of course Amy is a very expressive and emotional person and I think this is what contributes to the sense of freshness, as in the song she does also here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sj8DskmVJo&feature=channel
And watching this made me think of the young Jane also in how she was rebellious and emotional, and how her whole body would tremble with emotion, as a contradiction within, and this is what fascinated people I think. Now I see the older Jane as more resolved, at least in self-conception, or that certain contradictions are less in evidence perhaps, so calmer, but still so changeable and also very emotional, still needing to engage new experiences with fresh curiosity. And her desire comes from this in a natural way, to play the lead in each moment for someone(s). It is the expression that makes the makeup.
jill w
Thanks for responding to critics Jane, it’s absolutely essential with the misinformation out there. In all areas of society currently and the Emergence underway. New leaked memo says GOP playing on Fear in anti-Obama campaign: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html Need voices like your to counter such propaganda right now. Speak up- it’s what you do BEST. And I love you for it. Please support Elizabeth Warren, the sole voice of reason in Washington right now, in fight for financial reform and *gasp* a woman! (no surprise). Banks Vs. Families she’s not giving up and she’s finally making headway all be her lonesome. XXOO
Carlane Passman Little
I have left several comments, and yet they are never posted.
Do I not pass the test?
Dawn
The geriatric manuals for R.N. nursing school in 1998 emphasized skin integrity achieved by moisturizing, nutrition and staying dry. The manual suggested baby oil for those who could not afford expensive creams. When the oily skin and hair of youth turned to uncomfortably dry I began to sell Avon but quickly discovered a sensitivity to their products. Avon creams are twice as costly as L’Oreal snd have a bad taste. The need to pay back student loans and other debts caused trying the baby oil. It did work best until last November when an employer disciplined me for using it. The employer was a prestigious hospital where I had sought work for thirty years and had finally landed a temp position. Students at the number one high school in the country are sent there for health care. A few of the employees in the department assigned have sensitivity to scents which cause headaches. The department enforces a no scent policy which legally all U.S. businesses must enforce. Use of the baby oil at the desk was said to cause severe headache to a nearby employee. Within a day of being reprimanded I was told not to return to the job due to poor quality and quantity of work. This motivated me to shop for different products and read about and try different routines. Even though I read chapter two of This Moment On Earth in 2007 in which Teresa Heinz Kerry writes about the body of evidence that environmental toxins cause disease, it is difficult to decide which products have phthalates and other toxins. No scent free shampoo, conditioner or hand sanitizer could be found at the Walgreens across from the hospital offended. In an attempt to keep skin hydrated for the work day with a morning application also enabling make up once again, Estee Lauder Hydrationist was tried. This product is also costlier than L’Oreal and has no sunblock. The cream did not work all day if at all for me. After reading your blog I tried L’Oreal Age Perfect with a night application and a day application. The cream has SPF and is heavier so it is the most satisfactory tried so far and works. The scent is nauseating at first and the fragrance probably is toxic and may cause problems to pregnant women and children. Olay now has a scent free day cream. It is easier to select the needed L’Oreal products at discount stores than Olay. Europe has higher standards in regard to chemical toxins than the U.S. so who else knows the specifics and trusts the safety of L’Oreal?
Inexpensive scent free shampoo and conditioner has only been found at Whole Foods which carries other health and beauty products most likely free of toxins. Unscented hand sanitizer was found at a dollar store.
Anyway, thanks again Jane Fonda and the L’Oreal is working the best so far for less money except the scent may violate business laws and endanger children.
Rosemary
You’ve convinced me to try L’Oreal products; specifically, L’Oreal Age Perfect .
On a VERY shallow note.. I just saw JF on Oprah and wonder what the lipstick is that she is wearing. Love the shade and you have my coloring.