Gatineau, Prai, Perricone - Parabens and Animal Testing

Which if any of the above companies test or not on animals truthfully? I have checked PETA's list of ethical companies but none of these 3 are listed there, although Perricone and Gatineau state they do not.

Prai donates towards the Humane Society which is great but no mention about animal testing anywhere which is disappointing.

Gatineau states on their literature they do not test on animals but nothing on their labels or on QVC.

Perricone also states their products are not tested on animals but not on their labels or on QVC.

Prai do not state either way but their products do contain parabens.

Gatineau do not state either way but their products do contain parabens.

Perricone states their products do not contain parabens on their web site but their literature with ingredients states that some do contain parabens.

I feel the companies themselves and QVC should make it a bit clearer for consumers. Whilst some people may not be bothered about animal testing or parabens quite a few people are and we should have the information available to make an educated choice about what we purchase.

There is a very strange area concerning PETA and say UK brands. Some appear on one but not the other.

PETA used to support Smashbox until they were bought by Estee Lauder who have moved into China. So Smashbox lost their PETA symbol. Avon which own Liz Earle have also moved into the Chinese market, therefore by their standard Liz Earle be dropped from the list. Yet she still have the bunny logo in the UK.

Gatineau are owned by Revlon and have been for many years now.

Oh and Liz Earle has parabens in her products and sees nothing wrong with their use. They are naturally occurring in foods and in many medicines too. The words are MAY CAUSE CANCER, not they will cause cancer.

Brands will normally mention if they dont test on animals, if they dont i think its a given they more than likely do tbh

Judith Williams mentioned a couple of times that she doesn't test on animals or contain parabens - not that there's anything wrong with them, just scare mongering again.

However, companies stating they don't test their products doesn't mean that the ingredients haven't been tested on them. Lots of companies used the vague term "we do not support animal testing" or "this product has not been tested on animals" - but without a fixed cut off date where they have proved that since a certain date they haven't used any ingredients that have been tested, they do not earn the leaping bunny logo.


I find it so hard to fully support this, especially household products, and I cannot find decent make-up either. More companies need to jump on this bandwagon in my opinion.

From mobile, please excuse any silly errors!!

Btw Elemis state they don't but I have never heard Keeley mention it.

From mobile, please excuse any silly errors!!

pumpkinpie said:

Which if any of the above companies test or not on animals truthfully? I have checked PETA's list of ethical companies but none of these 3 are listed there, although Perricone and Gatineau state they do not.

Prai donates towards the Humane Society which is great but no mention about animal testing anywhere which is disappointing.

Gatineau states on their literature they do not test on animals but nothing on their labels or on QVC.

Perricone also states their products are not tested on animals but not on their labels or on QVC.

Prai do not state either way but their products do contain parabens.

Gatineau do not state either way but their products do contain parabens.

Perricone states their products do not contain parabens on their web site but their literature with ingredients states that some do contain parabens.

I feel the companies themselves and QVC should make it a bit clearer for consumers. Whilst some people may not be bothered about animal testing or parabens quite a few people are and we should have the information available to make an educated choice about what we purchase.

Click to expand...

Hello pumkinpie. WELCOME and hello from me :flower:

Capirossi said:

Btw Elemis state they don't but I have never heard Keeley mention it.

From mobile, please excuse any silly errors!!

Click to expand...

I hope Elemis do not test on animals have just purchased from them to see if they are any good, it is so difficult to get to the truth about who does what and who owns who. I am surprised that Liz Earle sold out that I ever wanted to use her products did not appeal at all, but there is never any mention of that on QVC. If I knew that anything I purchased was owned by something or someone whose ethics I disagree with I would never contemplate purchasing, I think we need to know and not have to research every angle of every company, Liz Earle products should be removed from PETA's list. The parabens issue is worrying though, although it has not been proved they cause cancer the fact it is stated they may cause cancer (as a woman on HRT) is enough to stop me buying any such products.

Why can't companies just be up front and state they do not test on animals, have not used products which have or may have been tested since a certain date and also state whether or not they use parabens without having to find a magnifying glass to read ingredients (if they are provided). Oh I have just answered my own question! they do not tell us these things as it will more than likely affect their sales, silly me

Capirossi said:

Btw Elemis state they don't but I have never heard Keeley mention it.

From mobile, please excuse any silly errors!!

Click to expand...

I did a bit of research into this when I was using Elemis, They don't have a fixed cut off date, more a rolling programme, which apparently is a cop out and doesn't qualify them for the bunny symbol. It sounds complicated but I understood that their suppliers had agreed to review their position at the end of the five years rather than guarantee to comply with the cut off date.

QVC used to state long ago any brand they sold did not test on animals.

But AY once said on a live show(not sure if someone phone in?), that going back at some point in time all ingredients had been tested on animals.

The thing is new ingredients and wonder ingredients are always coming out or invented. So beauty brands want them, people are very into this is new and does this or that, so many of them do buy those new ingredients. Just look at the mere hint of a new brand wonder cream everyone rushes to buy it.

Hello Barbs thanks for your welcome. I have received a reply from QVC this morning and this is their statements:

all QVC suppliers do not test their
finished products on animals.

So it is a cop out that the suppliers/companies can use ingredients which ARE tested on animals, it is only the finished pot of cream or whatever which is not.

I think it is very misleading and very sad that we still have to use animals as testing machines for the beauty industry.

So I wonder if the Elemis Gatineau Decleor labels will go to China with Qvc who insist that everything is tested on animals. Should be interesting. Me feels there could be a boycott if they do go.

sunshine said:

So I wonder if the Elemis Gatineau Decleor labels will go to China with Qvc who insist that everything is tested on animals. Should be interesting. Me feels there could be a boycott if they do go.

Click to expand...

The whole beauty industry can get away with anything seemingly as it means they can actually test on animals right up to the item going on the shelf then still state they have not tested on animals.

Another thing which does not seem right is the Sarah Chapman products, they advertise as Sarah Chapman London - when the products arrive they are made in TAIWAN, I hate companies who advertise and promote themselves as UK companies then have their products made elsewhere.:angry:

That's pretty much how i see it too, so I now only buy brands that are buav approved. I've been trying various brands approved buy them, ones I would never have come across otherwise. Lily lolo and bm beauty are good alternatives to bare escentuals if you like mineral makeup' and I'm really glad I,he found sparitual nail varnish.

Once again I will mention Marks and Spencer, all their own brand cosmetics,skincare and household products have the bunny logo.

spartacus said:

That's pretty much how i see it too, so I now only buy brands that are buav approved. I've been trying various brands approved buy them, ones I would never have come across otherwise. Lily lolo and bm beauty are good alternatives to bare escentuals if you like mineral makeup' and I'm really glad I,he found sparitual nail varnish.

Click to expand...

I LOVE LILY LOLO!!:nod: From being a person who used several shades of eyeshadow everyday I now use 1 pot of this for my cheeks & eyes, very reasonable and main ingredient is mica, natural mineral. At £7.29 with no postage for 3g from lookfantastic.com it's great value too.
I agree LE products should now be stripped of their bunny logo since selling out to Avon.
Judith Williams does state in her presentations that no animals have suffered as a result of her products being formulated, nor does she use animal/fish derived collagen. She states that she only uses plant collagen.
The problem as I see it, is that even the most careful anti animal testing suppliers have to invariably rely on products that have been around for eons. They probably can't usually invent a product made up of entirely newly founded ingredients. As such, sadly at one time such components may well have been animal tested :doh: At least if I buy from companies who don't approve of animal testing & don't do it themselves I'm doing my best to support my views that animals shouldn't suffer inhumanely for our purchases.
There's also the view that unless animals were used for testing many basic life saving drugs would not be available today, sad fact of life.

Autumn said:

Brands will normally mention if they dont test on animals, if they dont i think its a given they more than likely do tbh

Click to expand...

This is my assumption, to be on the safe side.

According to Beautypedia Mally products are not tested on animals.

Don't know whether the component ingredients have though.

Interestingly on beautypedia when I last looked some qvc brands are cited as having been tested on animals , so how does that fit with the response from Q? A cop out, effectively meaningless?