Deciphering Elizabeth Arden's Animal Testing Policy
|Click image to enlarge:|
Here’s some perspective on Elizabeth Arden’s animal testing policy:
Policy: Elizabeth Arden, Inc. shares your concern about the use of animals in safety testing and is committed to eliminating the need for animal testing.
Perspective: Elizabeth Arden isn’t being up-front with consumers. Despite the growing number of cosmetics companies that have stopped using animals to test their products, Arden continues to pay for outdated methods that cause animal suffering in other countries. In doing this, it chooses profit over compassion. To show its commitment to eliminating animal testing it should avoid selling its products in countries that mandate animal testing or at the very least actively and visibly work with those countries to remove animal testing requirements.
Policy: We are equally committed to the health and safety of consumers.
Perspective: By conducting animal testing, Elizabeth Arden fails to protect its consumers. When researchers took a retrospective look at 150 human clinical trials of inflammatory diseases (including asthma, commonly triggered by fragrances) they found 100 percent of drugs developed using mice failed. Another study found that adult women who were exposed to common scented products, including fragrances (one of Arden’s biggest sectors), had an increased risk of compromised health. Animals are not useful predictors of diseases or toxicity. The National Academy of Sciences agrees that many animal-based tests are not human-relevant.
Policy: …creating products that comply with the laws of all countries where our products are sold. We do not perform any animal tests on our product formulations or ingredients, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except in the rare instances where required by law.
Perspective: The United States government does not require animal tests to assess the toxicity of most cosmetics and personal care products, but many companies still perform these tests. Often, companies sell their products in countries that have mandatory animal testing programs such as China and Brazil, and Elizabeth Arden sells products in both those countries, which means Arden tests on animals. A company cannot claim to avoid animal testing, and conduct it only “rarely” if they pay for it in another country as part of a regulatory requirement.
Policy: Our product safety testing includes the use of non-animal studies and clinical tests on volunteers.
Perspective: We applaud Elizabeth Arden for using nonanimal studies and clinical tests to assess the safety of their products. However, they also sell products in China and other countries that require cosmetics companies test their products and ingredients on animals before they go to market. This means Arden pays for animal tests.
Policy: Our ultimate goal is to eliminate the necessity for animal testing globally.
Perspective: Elizabeth Arden has refused to even meet with the Physicians Committee to discuss ways in which it could help reduce animal tests globally. It has not joined the Institute for In Vitro Sciences Industry Council for the Advancement of Regulatory Acceptance of Alternatives (IIVS ICARAA), an organization that assists international regulatory agencies in the adoption of nonanimal methods of testing consumer products. The council is composed of many well-known brands, including several Fortune 500 companies. If Arden is truly serious about developing nonanimal alternatives to traditional test methods joining IIVS ICARAA, or supporting IIVS’ education and outreach efforts directly, would be the natural course of action.
Policy: We work closely with our industry and the scientific community around the world to actively support our industry's sharing of scientific data and to support and fund research programs to develop and validate non-animal alternatives for product testing.
Perspective: Elizabeth Arden scientists are neither present at scientific meetings or conferences nor published in peer-reviewed journals where advancements in alternative methods are discussed. Arden has a responsibility to visibly and actively work towards regulatory acceptance of nonanimal methods, rather than rely on, and hide behind, trade groups. There is simply no evidence that Arden is making any efforts to move away from conducting or paying for animal tests, to the detriment of the health and regard of its customers.