Last Updated: May 24, 2016

Does Smashbox test on animals? (2016 Policy)

mashbox-animal-testing

Smashbox does test on animals where required by law. This means that Smashbox can’t be considered a cruelty-free company.

We’ve been hearing from many of you about questions you may have regarding animal testing, so we just wanted to quickly let you know that nothing has changed at Smashbox. Our founders launched with a commitment to end animal testing, and that commitment remains. We totally hear your concerns and assure you that our principles are the same today as they were when we first launched.

Here’s the animal testing policy from Smashbox’s parent company, Estee Lauder:

We don’t test on animals, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law.

You can find all the facts about the Estée Lauder Companies’ commitment to help eliminate animal testing here.

China Update

Smashbox have changed their FAQ in regards to animal testing. I have contacted Smashbox and they pulled their products out of the Chinese market.

This change will not affect my personal position about Smashbox’s status, and I do not consider this brand to be cruelty-free. The reasons why a brand would stop selling in China are many. It doesn’t mean that Smashbox took a stance against animal testing, especially considering that over 90% of Estee Lauder brands (Smashbox’s parent company) are still being sold in China. Perhaps the withdrawl was nothing more than a financial decision.

Whatever the reason, a brand should not be rewarded and deemed cruelty-free after having already made the decision to sell in China, knowing full well that this decision also means contributing to animal suffering.

I included a screenshot of their old policy, as well as one of their updated policy below.

July 4th 2014

smashbox-animal-testing-policy-change

May 24th 2016

smashbox-animal-testing-policy-updated

It’s important to mention that although they pulled out of the Chinese market, their policy is still to test on animals when required by law. There was no change in their animal testing policy, but only in their distribution. This means that Smashbox can choose to re-enter the Chinese market at any point without violating their animal testing policy.

PETA Certifiaction

smashbox-peta

Unfortunately not everyone will share this opinion, and although I do respect everyone’s opinions, I don’t understand how PETA can claim that Smashbox is a cruelty-free company. Smashbox has been selling cosmetics in China for years prior to pulling out. This means that their products have been tested on animals in the recent past.

If your personal definition of cruelty-free cosmetics means no animal testing in China, then I can’t recommend supporting Smashbox.

That being said, keep in mind that Smashbox isn’t a part of the Leaping Bunny’s list, which is a more reliable cruelty-free organization. Click here to learn more about the differences between PETA and the Leaping Bunny.

  • Kimberly Jones

    Their products say Made in China so I’m confused.

    • http://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/ Suzi

      Made in China does NOT mean tested on animals. Sold in China potentially does!

  • sarah.elizabeth.dean

    This probably sounds foolish, but why would the law require animal testing?

    • http://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/ Suzi | Cruelty-Free Kitty

      My guess would be to provide some sense of comfort that the products are “safe”. Regardless of the reasons, it really shouldn’t exist!

  • http://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/ Suzi | Cruelty-Free Kitty

    Sorry I missed your comment Maggie, but yes, that’s exactly what I understand from their policy!

  • Brittany

    So if they don’t test on animals in the US, and don’t sell in China, why are they not considered cruelty-free? I’m just confused.

  • http://www.hellokaily.com www.hellokaily.com

    Just a note, many larger brands require the smaller brands they purchase
    to use their same testing policy even if they aren’t being tested on
    animals or being sold in countries that require testing. We can
    speculate as to why they pulled out of China or why they have a policy
    that says “except where required by law” even if they aren’t being sold
    in countries that require it by law… but at the end of the day we
    don’t know. What we do know is that they are not currently being sold
    in countries where testing is required and therefore are technically
    cruelty free. I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to the day when we don’t have to sit here speculating though cause everything is CF!!! Thank you, btw, for all your hard work in maintaining this blog and your opinions :) They always help me develop my own thoughts and opinions.

    • http://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/ Suzi | Cruelty-Free Kitty

      Hey Kaily! Definitely right. I’ve also come to the conclusion that a “required by law” policy can’t make a brand cruelty-free even if they don’t sell in China.

    • K. M. C.

      Thanks for sharing that info on using the same testing policy… and it is so true that it would be great if we didn’t have to speculate… or go hunting out which individual company sold what to where and when, then weighing whether you think using their products even if they are cruelty free is worth the time if you have to go out hunting down this information every 6months.

  • Michelle

    Peta’s CF list is legit. If a company used to sell in China, but they stopped, why boycott them? They’re doing the right thing. I think you’re harming animals by trying to discredit PETA, who’s policy is to end all animal suffering and staff members who devote their professional and personal lives to be activists for animals.

    • K. M. C.

      How is she harming animals? That’s a very extreme accusation to say of someone who has devoted her life to raising awareness on animal testing. You yourself are doing the same thing you are accusing her of doing. Thing how hurtful that would feel to someone who loves animals so much! Since you obviously care about animal rights, you must love them too. Would you appreciate it if someone who disagreed with your personal decision decided to start saying you yourself harmed animals?

      Suzi has many times explained her reasoning for double-checking PETA’s list, as well as explaining how their certification works, to people who may not know. She also explains which loopholes companies use to be certified by PETA and still test on animals (which by the way, is not a fault of PETA’s but of the companies themselves that are using legal loopholes to get around PETA) . More to the point posting a picture of something on PETA’s site is certainly not by any means ‘boycotting’ them. At the very most she is questioning their decision, as visible in the ???WTF , a question. (If she were coming from a malicious place the WTF would definitely not just be three letters, if you know what I mean!)

      You say PETA’s list is ‘legit’ and yet you end there on saying why you think so, and instead decide to bash the person who’s website you are using, which leads me to believe you were researching Smashbox specifically as that is what would have linked you to this page instead of one of the more main CrueltyFreeKitty pages. Simply because you dislike the decision her about Smashbox does not make it okay for you to go ahead saying the author of the article is herself “Harming Animals”. Be brave enough to be informed and make your own choice without needing everyone to agree with it. No is forcing you to use or not use Smashbox, but there is not need to go insulting people who might not make the same decision as you. We can all make different choices on which companies we approve of, and still get along without hate. Nobody will agree with anyone 100% of the time, that’s just not how people are, but we can disagree without making accusations of each other.

  • Lynn

    So, does this mean that, if another brand were to pull out of China, say.. MAC for example. Would you consider them to not be cruelty free? Isn’t the point of going cruelty free to help change and guide companies who do animal testing into stopping animal testing? So even if they no longer test on animals they still are not acceptable? I don’t really get that. I think that’s backwards, because it’s kind of like saying a person has done wrong, but never did any good. Only focusing on the mistakes, when people can change and become better people. It’s a little narrow.

    • dperalta918

      I totally agree with you.