LATEST UPDATE: As of 2017, Smashbox does not sell products in mainland China and does not test on animals where required by law. Smashbox is now cruelty-free.

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.

Leave a Reply

21 Comments on "Does Smashbox test on animals? | 2017 Policy"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Kimberly Jones
Guest

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

Suzi
Guest

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

sarah.elizabeth.dean
Guest

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

Suzi
Guest

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

Suzi
Guest

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

Brittany
Guest

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.

www.hellokaily.com
Guest
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… Read more »
Suzi
Guest

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.
Guest

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
Guest

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.
Guest
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… Read more »
Lynn
Guest
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.… Read more »
dperalta918
Guest

I totally agree with you.

Lara
Guest

There website now says that “We live for lipstick and are serious about primers—but we also really care about animals. That’s why we are cruelty-free. We test our products on human volunteers, not animals.”

Can you please check and update?

Thank you!

Marji T.
Guest
I don’t think we should boycott a company for deciding that they no longer want to sell in china and be more focused in being cruelty free because they once sold in China. If we boycott companies that are changing then what makes more companies want to follow? Most name brand companies are owned by a much larger parent company and by boycotting those that want to change we are not helping our case, we are actually doing more damage. I can now say I’ll support smashbox and I’ll still support too faced because they have not changed their stance… Read more »
Lindsey D
Guest

Smashbox is and will no longer be sold in China. The company his updated their website and store signage to include the cruelty free bunny!

Amber Hackett
Guest

YES! I just saw that. That is great news. I also checked their website, and they seem to be cruelty-free now.

Amber Hackett
Guest

They have updated their website. Suzi, can you look into this?

Suzi
Guest

I’m looking into it. 😉 I haven’t updated this post for 2017 because I’m waiting to hear from Smashbox.

Jenn
Guest

I heard that Stila is “newly cruelty free.” Is it a similar situation to Smashbox? Or are they genuinely CF and should be supported?

Brit
Guest

logicalharmony Has a new spread about Smashbox being Cruelty Free, says they never sold in the mainland only in Hong Kong where it is not required by law to do animal testing.

wpDiscuz