This is a common thing for companies to say. There is no legal standard for what “cruelty-free” means so “consumers are vulnerable to deceptive marketing,” said Joonghwa Lee, a doctoral candidate at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. “A company may claim their product is cruelty-free, but there still may be some animal testing done somewhere along the manufacturing process. This could lead to consumers being tricked into buying products that they do not support.”
One of the articles I found regarding this topic was titled, “Consumers Misunderstand ‘Cruelty-Free’ Labeled Products.” Well, that is one way to put it. When something is “free” of something, most are going to think that it doesn’t have “it” in it or “it” is not part of said product. Fat-Free milk being an example.
What is actually happening is they are simply LYING to the public to sell product. It sounds better and people want to believe that animals are not being objected to anything harmful, so that is what they tell us. I’ve always been frustrated because I have known this for years and it’s a difficult thing to explain or get people to understand and/or believe. Again, as it seems I always do, I was going against what everyone else was saying. The evidence is out there, companies are getting in trouble for their wording and the laws need to get more clear.
“Cruelty-Free”, “We Do Not Test on Animals” and whatever else you read/hear along those lines are simply not true. How else are companies going to know if ingredients are harmful or toxic? Using humans is not an option.
Skin Care companies can say “cruelty-free” but trust me, they are using ingredients that at one point were definitely tested on animals.
“Cruelty-free” can be used to imply:
-that neither the product nor its ingredients have ever been tested on animals. This is highly unlikely however, as almost all ingredients in use today have been tested on animals somewhere, at some time, by someone – and could be tested again,
-that, while the ingredients have been tested on animals, the final product has not,
-that the manufacturer itself did not conduct animal tests but instead relied on a supplier to test for them – or relied on another company’s previous animal-test results,
-that the testing was done in a foreign country, where laws protecting animals might be weaker than in the U.S.
-that either the ingredients or the product have not been tested on animals within the last five, ten, or twenty years (but perhaps were before, and could be again),
-that neither the ingredients nor the products have been tested on animals after a certification date and will not be tested on animals in the future. (information from MSPCA)