Shared Letters

Join and browse our exclusive open discussion forums and talk about whatever you like.

» The Suggestion Box
» Company Responses
» PFB Feedback Line
» Consumer Podcasts
» Mommy Talk & Daddy Dialogue ™
» Shared Letters


Sign up for PlanetFeedback's "Consumer Café" email newsletter!

Animal Testing at St. Ives?

Posted Wed February 7, 2007 12:00 pm, by Katie D. written to St. Ives

Write a Letter to this Company

On your product bottle, you say that you do not test on animals. But according to the All for Animals website, on the list that lists all the companies that do not test on animals cruelly or at all, you fail to be mentioned on it.

I used to love your products until I found out that what you say on the bottle may not be true. If you would like to have me back as one of your customers, and others, please prove to me that you do not test on animals.


Log In/Create an account | 29 comments
     Add to your del.icio.us  del.icio.us    Digg this story  Digg this  
PlanetFeedback Comments are subject to strict terms and conditions. We reserve the right to deny site membership privileges to any individuals acting inappropriately.
by darvin m. Posted Sat May 5, 2012 @ 6:27 PM

the parent company to st.ive's is unilever and, sadly, they do test on
animals. such is the ignorance of humanity

by Willa C. Posted Sat April 25, 2009 @ 11:51 PM

If am not buying that St.Ives does not test on animals because their
bottles say: This Product Not Tested on Animals. This means that they
can commission other companies to test ingredients for them.

If they want to prove that they are cruelty-free, they need to get the
leaping bunny symbol or state: We Do Not Test On Animals.

by Schitzo Posted Thu November 13, 2008 @ 11:22 AM

I also went to check the lists of companies that test on animals, as
well as those that do not, & i didn't see St. Ives on either list.
Just so ya know


by fragglechyck Posted Mon March 5, 2007 @ 8:00 PM

Thank you for contacting Alberto Culver regarding your questions or
concerns on Animal Testing. We have enclosed a press release on the
topic. We hope that you will find it informative.

Alberto-Culver Makes Permanent, Public
It's Internal Ban on Animal Testing
Melrose Park, IL. (December 10, 2002) - The Alberto-Culver Company
(NYSE: ACVA, ACV) today announced that it was formalizing and making
public an internal company ban, in place for 10 years, that prohibits
all animal testing.

Dr. John Berschied, the company's Vice President of WorldWide Research
& Development, made the announcement.

"This permanent action has been made possible by advancements
supported by the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal
Testing (CAAT), specifically the development of validated alternative
eye and skin tests. We have both supported and worked closely with
CAAT for several years striving toward this goal and we are very
pleased to see that work brought to a successful conclusion," Dr.
Berschied commented.

He said that the internal company policy has been in place for the
past 10 years and that, in fact, the company has done virtually no
animal testing during that period and 95 percent of the products the
company sells have never been tested on animals.

"Our first commitment has always been to the health and safety of our
customers," Dr. Berschied said. "While we have long been committed to
the Three R's philosophy-actively seeking to Refine, Reduce and
Replace the use of animals in testing procedures--until the completion
of this latest round of validation by CAAT, the company was reluctant
to make any public announcement that there were no conditions under
which it might be necessary to test a specific product."

"The new testing procedures are now in place and this policy is
effective immediately," Dr. Berschied concluded.

CAAT director Dr. Alan Goldberg helped the company develop strategies
for testing and identified several non-animal methodologies, which
Alberto-Culver independently validated. A "reconstituted tissue
equivalent" produced by SkinEthic, Inc. of Nice, France proved highly
effective for both skin and eye irritation testing, allowing the
company to assure the safety of the products without the use of

We hope this press release is helpful.


Karen Stewart
Consumer Relations Representative


by RedheadWGlasses Posted Fri February 9, 2007 @ 5:08 PM

I also am opposed to animal tests. I don't want to hear from any
parents about how their kids use vaccines that were tested on animals,
blah blah blah. I've heard it all. I have my opinion. You have
yours. I know that most people will not change their minds and I
wouldn't even dream of attempting it.

But many companies' products are no longer being tested on animals --
they will rely on previous testing of identical ingredients and
similar combinations, and use computer models.

However, for the companies doing redundant and repetitive testing of
luxuries such as cosmetics, hairspray, etc., shame on them.


by vc Posted Fri February 9, 2007 @ 1:54 PM

Those tests are culturally biased towards mammals and amphibians

Reptiles, birds and fish are at a disadvantage from the word go.


Opposable thumbs by RedheadWGlasses Fri February 9, 2007 @ 5:16 PM

by Cubjunkie Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 11:06 PM

Those sites only list companies that send them money to be on their

by S. Brown Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 12:45 PM

Why don't you do a little more investigation before writing a letter
accusing a company of not being truthful. Their bottle says they don't
test on animals and you found one website that doesn't include them on
their list of companies that don't test on animals.

Instead of threatening them to no longer buy their products, why not
just write a nice letter asking them to verify their claims.


by Courtney C Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 11:04 AM

I failed to be listed on People's top 50 most beautiful people, but
you better bet your arse I am! Top 10 even! Seriously though, just
becuase they're not on one specific list doesn;t mean they don't
belong on it. It would be nearly impossible to list every single
ANYTHING. Someone is always bound to be left off.


bwahahaahahah!!!! by friendofjimmyk Fri February 9, 2007 @ 9:53 AM

by Adorable Erik Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 9:45 AM

You think that's bad, I heard about this one guy who was headed to St.
Ives who ran into this guy with seven wives, with each wife carrying
seven sacks, and in each sack was seven cats, and each cat had seven
kits. How cruel is that, carrying multiple cats and kits around in
sacks? Boy, the nerve of some people.


See by snurli Thu February 8, 2007 @ 10:00 AM

Only 1 by Harleycat Thu February 8, 2007 @ 10:10 AM

This is your brain by Naive Amanda Thu February 8, 2007 @ 10:56 AM

Any questions? by Starlight22203 Thu February 8, 2007 @ 11:32 AM

by Casmly Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 9:40 AM

I definitely agree with the other posters. You have jumped to
conclusions too quickly. If this is an issue that means so much to
you, you might try simply asking the company if they test on animals.
Or, you could email the person running the site you pulled up. Ask
them if they've made a mistake or if they have proof that St. Ives
tests on animals. If St. Ives doesn't test on animals and they say so
on their products, I don't see any need for them to further "prove" to
you that they don't. What exactly would you have them send to you as
proof? Pictures of empty cages? LOL!


by tea_granny Posted Thu February 8, 2007 @ 7:17 AM

This is obviously something that is very important to you.
I just think you are misinformed and have jumped to a conclusion.

Websites are not infallible. They are created by humans, and as such,
errors do occur. They are only as accurate as the person putting the
information up there for public use.
It's possible that it was simply an error of omission, but that does
not mean the company does, for a fact, test on animals.

I agree that you should look for a site that lists companies who DO
test on animals, as that will tend to be a little more accurate. False
information there can result in libel suits.


100% agreed n/t by Naive Amanda Thu February 8, 2007 @ 10:28 AM

by Gino Posted Wed February 7, 2007 @ 10:48 PM

It's too easy to jump to conclusions with information on the internet.
Sometimes the site isn't updated regularly, sometimes they mistakenly
overlook companies that should be included etc. etc.
The facts may be that all products are tested on animals, if you
really think of it.Companies cull information from many sources (sites
like this one included) and find out how their products are received
by the public.
Companies often do double blind studies on people who sign consent
forms. They may get the product or a placebo, then give their opinions
and the company may change their formulae based on what they find.
People are animals too!


by Jeffrey Posted Wed February 7, 2007 @ 1:29 PM


You may be the victim of a logical fallacy. Just because a company
isn't on the "doesn't test on animals" list doesn't mean that they do.
There are MANY companies out there that don't test on animals that
aren't on the list. Are YOU on the list? No. Does that mean that
YOU put your products on animals? According to your logic, yes.

If St. Ives says that they don't test on animals, then I'd believe
them. Sure, they might be lying. But unless someone has proof that
they do, give them the benefit of the doubt.


You should be aware that, at some point, one or more of the
ingredients that are in these products was likely tested on animals.

Animals were also likely used to plow fields and do other things to
grow the plants. Somewhere along the line, an animal was mistreated,
I'm sure.

It's nearly impossible to live a live where you don't use anything
that was involved in the cruelty on animals. The best you can do is
try to minimize this, as you're trying to do by buying "cruelty-fee"


I have always wondered by LadyMac Thu February 8, 2007 @ 7:24 AM

I've kinda wondered the same thing... by Jeffrey Thu February 8, 2007 @ 9:35 AM

I can't believe I'm defending this... by JuliePie Thu February 8, 2007 @ 9:57 AM

Testing by Harleycat Thu February 8, 2007 @ 10:18 AM

by tickytack Posted Wed February 7, 2007 @ 12:31 PM

Riggghhhttt... the fact that they are not included on a website that
lists products that do not test means they test?

Why don't you check a website that lists which companies DO test on

This is the dumbest complaint I have ever read (and I am a huge
supporter of not testing on animals).


tickytack by calm Thu February 8, 2007 @ 3:31 PM

Caring consumers. by tickytack Fri February 9, 2007 @ 8:06 AM

My first paragraph was sarcastic. n/t by calm Fri February 9, 2007 @ 9:57 AM

Home | Shared Letters | Ratings | Login | Communities | Categories | RSS | Contact Us | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | FAQ
Copyright 2017 © All Rights Reserved PlanetFeedback.com | Web by Cicada