Random. Urban Decay is owned by L'Oreal.

[Gato]

This is an interesting graphic I use all the time.

www.behindthebrands.org/en-us/brands

It's only for food, though. It always makes me sad when I learn that a brand I loved and thought was independent, like Ben and Jerry's, is actually owned by a huge company like Unilever.

[bonquiqui]

They are lying liars

ANIMAL TESTING POLICY
Urban Decay is a cruelty-free brand and is committed to ending animal testing. We do not test our products on animals, nor do we allow others to test on our behalf. Additionally, we require our suppliers to certify that the raw materials used in the manufacture of our products are not tested on animals. Our Brand is certified by both PETA and The Leaping Bunny Program (CCIC) as cruelty-free.


But their parent company tests?  

[Wrath0fKuus]

Yes, frequently cruelty-free brands get bought by larger parent companies in order to stay afloat. It's a matter of, do they stick to their principles entirely and fold, putting people out of work and depriving consumers of a product that is made in socially conscious ways? Or do they suck it up and allow themselves to be bought by a company that will allow them to proceed as before with socially conscious methods, even though a small portion of their profits will go to that parent company? And as a consumer, do you punish companies who make the decision to keep jobs and cruelty-free options for consumers for not being profitable enough before to avoid being bought?

I'm sure you can tell what side I come down on.

[Wrath0fKuus]

What testing? Urban Decay continues not to test.

[papie]

I am with kuus. As long as they still don't test on animals, I can keep buying.

[Wrath0fKuus]

The tiniest, tiniest portion may go to that testing, yes. But you can see that Leaping Bunny apparently agrees with my assessment of the situation (that insisting that companies should fold rather than be bought), as do many people. I'm not going to spend your money for you, but the ire toward companies whose only sin was not being profitable is wildly bizarre.

[mrsericnorthman]

Well I'm fucked. I love UD products.

[Wrath0fKuus]

Oct 2, 2013 13:43:07 GMT -5 @scottydeux said:

Oct 2, 2013 13:42:04 GMT -5 papie said:

I am with kuus. As long as they still don't test on animals, I can keep buying.

Even if they don't test, a portion of their profit goes toward a company that does.  They'll never stop if the consumers don't stop supporting it in any way/shape/form.

This actually isn't true. 

Another part of the reason to continue buying from cruelty-free companies who are owned by a parent company who isn't is that buying from them enables them to track your purchasing.  When you only buy from L'Oreal brands who are cruelty-free, they see that the cruelty-free brands are more profitable than those that aren't.  And if the cruelty-free brands become the only ones that are profitable, then they will discontinue the unprofitable business of animal testing.  They don't just really hate rabbits - they want to make money.

If you don't buy from them, however, then you're simply outside their data set.  Your spending money doesn't count as a vote on their business practices.  They have no real reason to stop testing on animals, because they have no data to suggest that being cruelty-free will boost their profits.

[Wrath0fKuus]

Oct 2, 2013 13:47:54 GMT -5 @scottydeux said:

Oct 2, 2013 13:45:11 GMT -5 Wrath0fKuus said:

The tiniest, tiniest portion may go to that testing, yes. But you can see that Leaping Bunny apparently agrees with my assessment of the situation (that insisting that companies should fold rather than be bought), as do many people. I'm not going to spend your money for you, but the ire toward companies whose only sin was not being profitable is wildly bizarre.

That's true, they do.   The majority of people would prefer ease of purchase over actual effort to avoid animal testing in cosmetics altogether.  Leaping Bunny was misleading for a long time.  They've since listed purple indicators that note 'parent company tests', but the general public tends to see that bunny and not question it.  Because, let's be honest, you see Burt's Bees in a Kroger, not Alba Botanica.  If the consumer doesn't push, it won't happen.  I'm cool with pushing.

This is not the reason people are okay with continuing to buy from Burt's Bees.

[bonquiqui]

@scottydeux tarte doesn't have a parent company correct?  So they are actually completely cruelty free?

[Wrath0fKuus]

Oct 2, 2013 13:54:17 GMT -5 @scottydeux said:

Oct 2, 2013 13:49:36 GMT -5 Wrath0fKuus said:

This actually isn't true. 

Another part of the reason to continue buying from cruelty-free companies who are owned by a parent company who isn't is that buying from them enables them to track your purchasing.  When you only buy from L'Oreal brands who are cruelty-free, they see that the cruelty-free brands are more profitable than those that aren't.  And if the cruelty-free brands become the only ones that are profitable, then they will discontinue the unprofitable business of animal testing.  They don't just really hate rabbits - they want to make money.

If you don't buy from them, however, then you're simply outside their data set.  Your spending money doesn't count as a vote on their business practices.  They have no real reason to stop testing on animals, because they have no data to suggest that being cruelty-free will boost their profits.

Here's the thing that you're missing, Kuus.  That purchase from their subsidiary is not wholly cruelty-free.  They're misleading uninformed consumers and they're making money doing it.  A cruelty-free company doesn't align itself with cruelty in any way, shape, or form.  Profit toward cruelty is redefining the term 'cruelty-free'. 

They don't test on animals, or buy ingredients that have been tested on animals.  You're being pedantic without actually having a point on this one.

[bonquiqui]

Oct 2, 2013 14:13:01 GMT -5 @scottydeux said:

Oct 2, 2013 14:07:08 GMT -5 bonquiqui said:

@scottydeux tarte doesn't have a parent company correct?  So they are actually completely cruelty free?

Yes ma'am.  From what I've read.   That lipsurgence set is so nice!

Yes, I want that, and the holiday blush palette  (heart)

[Wrath0fKuus]

Oct 2, 2013 14:13:31 GMT -5 @scottydeux said:

Oct 2, 2013 14:07:12 GMT -5 Wrath0fKuus said:

They don't test on animals, or buy ingredients that have been tested on animals.  You're being pedantic without actually having a point on this one.

Nope.  You're choosing to ignore my solid point. 

I'm not ignoring it.  They don't test on animals.  They don't get ingredients that are tested on animals.  Their products are manufactured without cruelty to animals.  You're insisting that because at some point they were bought by a parent company who owns other companies who do test on animals, their methods are no longer cruelty-free, which is weird and pedantic.

Look, buy their products or don't, but you don't actually have some sort of morally superior high ground here.

[Wrath0fKuus]

Oct 2, 2013 14:16:08 GMT -5 Loco Coco said:

Scotty, what about Mary Kay? Just wondering. I could google but you seem like a better place to ask.

I am almost certain that Mary Kay is no longer cruelty-free in any sense.

[Dumbledork]

Random rec: We use Shea Moisture, owned by Sundial, and RenPure Originals, owned by RenPure. From my limited research, all are cruelty free and and awesome. Shea Moisture's African Black Soap body wash smells amazing. I think both can now be found at Target, Walgreens, etc.