The Truth About L'Oreal

Jun 11, 2012

Ayanna P.

Now before I post this, I don't want anyone to think I'm a hypocrite because I freely admit to using L'Oreal products like many of you my have. Mainly because last year, when I started purchasing make up products, I wasn't paying attention to what was going on. That all changed in the new year when I decided to take an active interest in cosmetics. Now that I am more aware and conscious of what I put on my face, as I discover the truth, I'm not going to hide or sugar coat it. Hopefully Beautylish won't take this down because I think we all need to know. I want EVERYONE to be safe and healthy. That's the only reason I'm posting this. It's better for you to know and choose to ignore it than be completely oblivious.

This article is from the site VegetarianBeautyProducts.com:

Beauty product giant, L’Oreal, has made a lot of headlines lately, but not in the most positive way. From the presence of lead in their lipstick, to resuming animal testing to sell new products to the Chinese market, L’oreal has found themselves in hot water with consumers who demand ethical practices and safer products.

L’Oreal is no stranger to controversy. Founder Eugene Schueller, who formulated the first hair dye product in 1907, was a well-known Nazi sympathizer and, to this day, the company is embroiled in a legal battle due to the fact that its German headquarters are situated on land that was confiscated from a Jewish family during World War II. Holocaust survivor, Edith Rosenfelder, whose family was forced to sell their house and land to Nazi officials (and never saw the proceeds), has been in a legal battle to get her family’s land back from L’Oreal for several years. Because legislation has been passed stating that all such transactions were illegal, and thus invalid, the land is tecnhically owed back to the family. L’Oreal, however, has refused to relinquish the land, and the fight has been brought to the European Court of Human Rights.

The controversies have persisted throughout the years. In 2005, the Supreme Court of California found that a former L’Oreal manager was wrongfully terminated after she refused to fire a valued employee due to the employee being dark-skinned. The manager was ordered by L’Oreal executive, Jack Wiswall, to hire a blonde employee in place of the dark-skinned employee. In 2007 L’Oreal faced criticism by the British Advertising Standards Authority (BASA) for false advertising. L’Oreal’s ad claimed that their “Telescopic” mascara would make eyelashes 60% longer, when the mascara formula did nothing to physically lengthen eyelashes. In 2011 L’Oreal once again fell under the microscope of BASA when they banned two ads by L’Oreal subsidiary, Lancome, for airbrushing actress Julia Roberts and model Christy Turlington in both of their ads. BASA again claimed “false advertising” due to the misleading touch-ups.

Then there is the continued animal testing. L’Oreal is among the ranks of Mary Kay and Avon, the companies who have slyly claimed they are against unnecessary animal testing, while really meaning that they just did not have any need to do so at the time. Now that they are aiming to sell new products in China, they have resumed animal testing, but are lamenting that their hands are tied and they have no other options. They’ve also been craftily stating that they haven’t tested “finished products” on animals since 1989, which really means that they still test ingredients on animals, just not the finished product. It is this continued practice of animal testing that led to such a large backlash when L’Oreal purchased noted anti-cruelty beauty product company, The Body Shop. Legions of devoted Body Shop fans were outraged to know that a company known for still testing on animals was the new parent company of a brand whose ethics they so appreciated. To date, L’Oreal owns a range of well-known brand names, including:

Kerastase
Redken
Matrix
PureOlogy
Shu Uemura
Lancome
Yves Saint Laurent
Giorgio Armani
Diesel
Kiehl’s
Ralph Laruen
Stella McCartney
Clarisonic
Garnier
Maybelline
Essie
Skinceuticals
The latest PR disaster to hit L’Oreal is the revelation by the FDA that the cosmetic giant’s lipstick came out on top (in a bad way) of a list of over 400 different lipsticks that contain lead. L’Oreal, and its subsidiary Maybelline, were both found to have five of the 10 most lead-contaminated lipsticks tested. L’Oreal, and the FDA itself, were quick to point out that the amount found in their lipstick was well below what is considered safe limits. The limits to which they are referring are global guidelines for cosmetics, but there are no limits established with the United States. The closest mandate that consumer advocate groups could find was the limitation on how much lead can be found in children’s candy, a measure that the FDA says is apples and oranges compared to lipstick, which is not intentionally consumed.

Still, consumer advocates are quick to point out that that lipstick is constantly consumed since it is applied topically to the mouth. Mark Mitchell, MD, MPH, is the policy advisor for the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice and co-chair of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Assocation. Mitchell contends that, even if the lead-levels in lipstick are low, “Lead builds up in the body over time and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels.”

Those who are working on behalf of the cosmetic companies, such as the Personal Care Products Council, point out that the lead found in lipstick is naturally occurring lead that is found in the minerals used to pigment the makeup. Consumer advocate groups maintain that this is not a sufficient explanation and have been steadily pushing for requirements, on both state and federal levels, that mandate the cap amount of lead allowed in a single cosmetic. All efforts have, so far, been successfully defeated by lobbyists on behalf of the cosmetic industry.

While the debate continues to rage as to how much lead, if any, is safe, two things are very clear: 1) L’Oreal has proven to be a company who is shrouded in too much controversy for comfort, and, 2) when it comes to piece of mind with purchasing beauty products, the smaller, organic and cruelty-free beauty product companies still reign supreme.

Jun 11, 2012

Mindy N.

Very interesting, thank you for sharing!

Jun 11, 2012

Alli M.

Thank you

Jun 11, 2012

Ashley D.

I never use L'Oreal anymore after I found out they animal test... I can't give them money knowing they are doing something so cruel to animals that is totally unnecessary.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Mindy, Alli, no problem!

Ashley, ditto! Once I started researching, I haven't purchased any more of their products. Unfortunately, I'd purchased quite a few Maybelline and L'Oreal products before hand.

Anyway, it's better that I found out when I did so that I could make more informed purchases in the future.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Mercedes,

Ikr? I own quite a few Maybelline products "/

Jun 12, 2012

mallory w.

Thank you for taking the time to research this info, I don't support L'Oreal because of the animal testing I was unaware of all the companies they owned though, and no one should take your post down it was well written and very factual. Thank you again!

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Mallory, you are so welcome. And yes, I would not have posted if these were false accusations. But this is just one of many articles I have found about L'Oreal. This is sadly the truth!

Mercedes, exactly. They're just shady all around the way that they do business. With something like cosmetics, something that goes on your skin, you would think companies have to be more transparent about the dangers the ingredients cause.

You guys can find out more about that on the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics site, here http://safecosmetics.org/

Jun 12, 2012

Alyssa B.

I stopped using L'Oreal and it's subsidiaries a few years ago when I discovered they tested on animals. Did not know about the lead... how horrible!
Read my recent post regarding Urban Decay and Estee Lauder switching back to animal testing here:
http://www.izntlifesojuicy.com/2012/06/major-companies-have-been-removed-from.html

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Oh no, just got into Urban Decay and I know Estee Lauder owns MAC whose products I buy a lot of. Thank you for sharing, going to check it out now!

Jun 12, 2012

Shelly T.

On the lead thing? You really don't need to worry about that.

http://personalcaretruth.com/2012/02/logic-lead-lipstick-and-legislation/
http://personalcaretruth.com/2012/02/lead-astray-by-the-campaign-for-scaring-consumers/
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/lipstick.asp
http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/lead-in-lipstick/
http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/how-to-kill-yourself-with-lipstick/

Also: The CFSC are, for all practical purposes, nothing more than professional BSers and scaremongers who don't have the science to back up their claims. IMNSHO, they just want people like us to stop buying makeup and line their pockets instead so they can get their feet in the door in DC. They're the child organization of the Environmental Working Group (or, as I've seen them called, the Endlessly Wrong Group)... which also specializes in scaremongering.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/113-environmental-working-group
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2011/12/you-dont-need-a-market-shift-to-buy-safe-cosmetics/
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2011/08/4501-ewg-the-endlessly-wrong-group/
http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/06/straight-from-the-horses-mouth/ (CFSC-related; listen to the MP3 on the page, from 2010... a *founding member* of CFSC straight up *admits* they "don't have the science" to back up their claims!)

I say, don't believe everything they tell you. Personally, I prefer sites like Personal Care Truth and The Beauty Brains, along with cosmeticsinfo.org (you can look up virtually any ingredient in cosmetics).

http://personalcaretruth.com/about/
http://thebeautybrains.com/whoare/

As for the animal testing thing, let's remember that EVERY ingredient in cosmetics has been tested on an animal at some point over the last several decades. I'm not a fan of animal testing for cosmetics myself (the medical field is a different matter). However, I'm not sure that boycotting brands because they test on animals is really going to do much good; IMO, that would mean giving up ALL makeup, skincare, and hair care (see my first sentence in this paragraph for my reasoning). Not to mention boycotts, by and large, don't work; for every person that doesn't buy a certain brand's item, there will be loads more to take their place. L'Oreal et al aren't going to hurt because a bunch of people on a beauty website refuse to buy their products.

Some alternative food for thought.

Jun 12, 2012

Angela C.

Yes, everything was tested on animals at some point. The issue is, why are some companies continuing to test on animals now that more accurate testing methods are available? Simply put, it's cheaper to use animals. So a consumer can, without giving up all beauty products forever, choose to only use products made by companies that have discontinued the practice of animal testing: one could make the argument that because they are employing more ethical and more expensive methods, these companies are more deserving of a shopper's dollar.

Jun 12, 2012

Ashley D.

I agree Angela. If someone like Shelly is willing to poison themselves and give companies who think it's okay to hurt innocent creatures her money then I am very sad for her. I am also very sad for the animals she is helping to hurt.

Jun 12, 2012

Marilyn C.

I agree with Angela and Ashley.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

@Mercedes EXACTLY. At least this did not fall on deaf ears with you. Smh.

@Shelly, I've seen you point this out on numerous threads. The point is not that every ingredient was at some point tested on animals. That's neither here nor there. The point is, I'm not going to support a company that ACTIVELY DOES IT NOW.

Also, I'm aware of those sites and how to look up the ingredients in beauty products. As I said before, that's not the biggest issue. The point of posting this was not to scare anyone. It was to shed light on the company and their practices.

As far as the CSC goes, I hardly think that's true. But if you think an organization that's trying to keep women healthy is all of what you called them just because they are more dramatic in their approach than YOU feel they should be, then that's your opinion. I've been subscribed to CSC for months and never in any e-mail they sent me were they asking for a donation (they have the donate option on the site but are you really telling me that makes them money-hungry?). So how you figure they want us to line their pockets is beyond me. But thanks for your reply and giving another POV.

Jun 12, 2012

Aferdita N.

To be honest, I am very skeptical of this. I love l'oreal's infallible and true match foundation. I also love many of their lipsticks. The fact that they test on animals does not necessarily mean that they harm them. They could be harming them, or they could not, I really don't know. But then again, L'oreal is far from the ONLY company that tests on animals, so what am I supposed to do? Give up on purchasing make up? Also, I don't know if I trust this, I agree with Shelly when she said this looks like an attempt to scare us as consumers.

I am an extreme skeptic, I hardly trust most sources, mainly because most turn out to be biased and have alterior motives. When we think of propaganda, we tend to think of older times such as back in WW2 with the nazi propaganda. In all reality, I would say propaganda is still alive today, and we are being fed propaganda every day.

However, I will check out the website you linked. I'm wondering if this is a legit source, and if they are objective or if they work for anyone else that wants to scare consumers into not buying L'oreal.

Jun 12, 2012

Aferdita N.

And by the way, if anyone here thinks that testing on animals is the most horrible thing EVER, you should look up how insulin was discovered by testing on dogs. I will honestly say that I produly support medical testing on animals, without it, we'd have almost no medical progress.

Jun 12, 2012

Aferdita N.

Also forgot to say that I do NOT condone mistreatment or torture of poor, defenseless animals. That is just completely unacceptable and barbaric. I have heard of different make up brands testing their make up on animals, but then I have been informed that they also haven't been harmed. I am against animals being harmed for just the fun of it. I love animals, especially dogs and cats. However, I still support the medical testing, but I support this in hopes of the animals being well taken care of and if they are going to be subjects to something abnormal, I really do hope they make it painfree for them. I basically don't want animals to suffer.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Aferdita, I encourage you to do your own research. This article is far from the end all be all. So you do what you need to do. And really, you just made an excellent point with your comment about insulin. Testing on animals may be necessary for medicinal purposes. It is NOT necessary for something like make up. But like I said, this wasn't posted to scare you or shame you into not buying their products. It's a piece of information I decided to share.

Jun 12, 2012

Aferdita N.

Yes, I know. I'm just very skeptical when I'm presented different sources. I will do my own research. I agree that it's not necessary for something like cosmetics. I'd hate to think that they are actually severly harming animals by testing a bunch of different, potentially dangerous products on them. I actually just came home from going out on a jog with my buddy, who's a chihuahua. Watching her for a friend, and I'd hate to think of her being harmed like that.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Terra, I definitely get that. For me personally, its a process. As i said I purchased many L'Oreal products before I made it my business to find out more about companies. So I've just stopped purchasing them and I'm trying to phase them out as I build my make up collection.

Jun 12, 2012

Angela C.

In answer to the question of whether or not animal testing involves harming the animals: http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html

In cases of medical research (especially as with pet animal vaccines) this may be more acceptable to some. However, let's not kid ourselves that animal testing by cosmetics companies involves fluffing some blush onto a bunny's cheeks to see if it causes a rash. Animal testing for cosmetics has already been banned in several countries, so it's clearly not necessary anymore.  

Jun 12, 2012

Katie Louise H.

From what i've read when selling in China isn't it the Chinese government who decide what products are tested and actually does the testing? Not the brand itself? I disagree with Urban Decays decision as i do not for one minute think they are going to change things in China, but i guess we can all be hopeful.

Jun 12, 2012

Angela C.

True, technically it is the Chinese government that requires some of these brands to test on animals. But the companies themselves are CHOOSING to sell in China (they don't have to, and many didn't used to because of such restrictions) and the companies are either doing the testing themselves or outsourcing it and footing the bill. Either way, unclean hands.

Jun 12, 2012

Ayanna P.

Thank you Katie and Angela for bringing up those points!