Dayspa

APR 2016

DAYSPA is the business resource for spa & wellness professionals! Each issue covers the latest in skin care, spa treatments, wellness services and management strategies.

Issue link: http://dayspamagazine.epubxp.com/i/653508

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 70 of 100

MARKETING SAVVY 68 DAYSPA | APRIL 2016 TESTING, TESTING The trend noted by Pink, Star and many other beauty leaders is more than anecdotal. A 2013 Humane So- ciety International (HSI; hsi.org) poll found that 72% of American women opposed animal testing on cos- metic products. However, only 68% of overall voters had even been aware that animal testing still takes place. Sadly, the HSI estimates that, worldwide, be- tween 100,000 and 200,000 animals undergo harmful if not deadly experiments for cosmetic products each year, despite the fact that scientists now consider other forms of experimentation to be more reliable. The truth is, there are many biological differences between people and animals that call the accuracy of animal testing into question. A product rubbed on a rat or rabbit can produce a completely different reac- tion than it would on a human being. Even the law doesn't expressly encourage the practice. According to the Humane Society of the United States' web- site, humanesociety.org, "The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (regulated by the Food and Drug Administration) prohibits the sale of mislabeled and 'adulterated' cosmetics, but does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate that the cosmetics are safe." The good news is that a growing number of coun- tries are moving away from animal testing. In the past few years, the European Union, India, Norway and New Zealand have abolished animal testing altogether, with South Korea agreeing to phase it out by 2020. Lawmakers and activists in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Argentina and the U.S. have advanced legislation to push for similar reform. However, it's a slow and sometimes frustrating process. Objections to banning animal testing in the U.S. are likely based on economics. Some countries, most no- tably China, require that all imported products are fi rst tested on animals, meaning that any American com- pany that wants to have a presence in those markets cannot fully abandon animal testing at this point. Still, in 2014 China did stop mandating that domestic com- panies must use animal testing. And although restric- tions on foreign-made products have not yet been sim- ilarly loosened, this change is a promising indication that more cruelty-free victories could be forthcoming in China, and potentially have a ripple effect on other parts of the world. DEFINE "CRUEL" Ask several companies what "cruelty-free" means and you're bound to get a range of answers. Some busi- nesses will lay claim to cruelty-free status because they don't test their fi nished products on animals. Others hold themselves to higher standards and ensure that each ingredient that goes into their products hasn't been tested on animals either. One ongoing debate concerns whether it's acceptable to consider ingredi- ents that were approved via animal testing decades ago to be "grandfathered in" as cruelty-free because they are no longer tested on animals. One thing's for certain: it's a complicated matter, which is why the Green Spa Network (GSN) recom- mends that people remain skeptical of a company's self-professed cruelty-free status. To be sure, the GSN urges spa owners to fi nd a third-party certifi er that ver- ifi es cruelty-free business practices to a high standard. Two of the biggest certifi ers in the industry are the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmet- ics' Leaping Bunny program (leapingbunny.org) and PETA's Beauty Without Bunnies program (peta.org). Companies that want to prove their cruelty-free status to consumers can approach these organizations for certifi cation. Packaging on products that meet these standards are permitted to carry the corresponding "bunny" logo to designate it as cruelty-free. Jane Iredale, president and founder of Iredale Min- eral Cosmetics, explains that although her company has always been cruelty-free, it had to drop the "no © GETTY IMAGES

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Dayspa - APR 2016