At SC Johnson, we’ve given a lot of thought to ending animal testing. We’re not there yet, but we’re trying. Because our products are used by families globally, we see an important need for toxicological studies that ensure they can be used safely and with minimal impact on the environment. Also, SC Johnson must comply with the stringent legal and regulatory requirements of countries around the world that require, by law, testing for certain products. At the same time, we agree that animal testing should be Reduced; Refined to minimize suffering; and, ultimately, Replaced – which is Russell & Burch’s “three Rs” approach.

Given these beliefs, our first step is that where possible we use ingredients that have already been tested, so that we can avoid additional testing but still know the ingredients’ human health and environmental impact. We’ve amassed extensive databases of historic testing data, to minimize further tests wherever we can.

We’ve also been active in developing, validating and applying alternative testing methods, such as corrosivity assays and human tissue equivalent models, which have dramatically reduced the number of animals used in testing our products. We’re also a contributing member of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, which is dedicated to the advancement of alternative test methods. We continue to look for other ways we can make further progress.

But this issue is bigger than a single company and what we choose to do, because in many cases our choices are affected by legal requirements. For example, mosquito repellents by law must undergo toxicological assessment (which may involve animal testing) in order to be sold in numerous geographies, including the United States and Europe.

While we would all like to avoid animal testing, mosquito repellents play a key part in protecting people from dangerous mosquito borne diseases such as malaria, dengue and West Nile virus. In the United States, these products also repel deer ticks, which can cause potentially deadly Lyme Disease. So it is important that these products continue to be produced and sold, even given the government requirement that they be tested first. And any company selling these products is subject to the same constraints.

In some cases testing also may be important to ensuring that products can be safely used by consumers or that the chemicals in products aren’t going to cause long-term effects on the environment. In fact, efforts like REACH in Europe, as well as the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act in the United States, are pushing for more testing, not less.

For example, some consumer advocacy groups are seeking more stringent testing of products for carcinogenic effects or endocrine disruption, either of which could require animal testing. So companies like SC Johnson are trying to find the right balance. We do believe strongly that products must be safe for consumers today and for the planet for generations to come; the goal is to ensure this with the absolute minimum of animal testing necessary.

We realize that some companies say they “don’t test on animals.” Frankly, we are skeptical, but even if the claim is true, it may mean simply that they aren’t doing anything new. New product innovations – which can for example offer reduced environmental impact – may require testing because of using new chemicals or using them in new ways. A company that isn’t innovating may not have this need, although it will still have to comply with new legal requirements that may entail animal testing.

Other companies that claim they do no animal testing may also simply be obscuring the facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean the ingredients they use haven’t been tested – in fact, it is likely that they have. The vast majority of chemicals used in products will have been tested for toxicity. But some companies skirt this issue because their raw materials were tested by the suppliers they purchase from, or from other suppliers that those suppliers use. So their claims are based solely on whether they themselves tested a particular product formulation…not whether there was testing in the product’s history.

At SC Johnson, we care about honesty and transparency in our claims. So, we won’t make broad, sweeping claims that imply more than is true. Rather, where it makes sense we may label products with clear language that says we didn’t test that product on animals.

The bottom line is that we have to meet government, safety and environmental requirements for our products, but we are working toward ways to do so while continually minimizing animal testing.

We know some people may choose not to buy SC Johnson products given their passion on this topic. But we hope you’ll give us a chance, as we continue to be one of the companies that’s working hard to drive advancements in this area. Please look for our products whose labels say they are not tested on animals … it may not be all that you want, but you can believe that it’s true.

Is S.C. Johnson owned by a parent company that tests on animals?

S.C. Johnson is not owned by a parent company that tests on animals.

In the beauty industry, it’s common for brands to be owned by a larger company. These are called parent companies, and they’re often global corporations such as L’Oreal, Estee Lauder, or Procter & Gamble.

Most of these parent companies are not cruelty-free, since they test on animals to some degree. They might also own several brands that are not cruelty-free.

However, some of the brands owned by these parent companies are cruelty-free and have strict policies against animal testing.

There are pros and cons to supporting cruelty-free brands owned by parent companies that aren’t.

You can either:

• Choose to boycott them since they’re a part of a larger conglomerate that engages in animal testing.
• Choose to support some of them based on the individual ethics of each parent company, or only purchase from them if there are no independent alternatives.
• Choose to support them since they are 100% cruelty-free even though their parent company is not, therefore showing their parent company that consumers are favoring their cruelty-free brands.

In the cruelty-free community, the majority of conscious consumers purchase from cruelty-free brands even if they’re owned by a parent company that tests on animals. This is our stance at Cruelty-Free Kitty as well. We believe that supporting all cruelty-free brands is the only path towards a cruelty-free and more ethical beauty industry.

It’s also worth noting that subsidiary brands of parent companies are unique corporations by themselves. They act as independent branches and operate independently from the parent company, and can also be sold to other companies including cruelty-free ones.

Another aspect to consider is that many parts of the world only have access to limited brands, so their only cruelty-free options are owned by large corporations. This is a concern we hear about constantly from our international readers. Given this complex landscape, we believe that supporting all cruelty-free brands is ethical as well as practical.

A minority of shoppers choose to boycott brands owned by a parent company that tests on animals.

At Cruelty-Free Kitty, we make it easy for all of our readers to know which brands are owned by a parent company that tests on animals. At the top of each brand page, you’ll see a “parent company” note if that’s the case.

You can also filter our list of cruelty-free brands to only show brands that are not owned by any company that tests on animals.

Finally, for a list of brands owned by a parent company that tests on animals, click here.

Is S.C. Johnson certified cruelty-free by any organizations?

No, S.C. Johnson is not certified by any organizations.

While companies can be fully cruelty-free without being certified, it’s still a good indicator of their ethical practices. Leaping Bunny and PETA are the two organizations giving out cruelty-free certification.

Is S.C. Johnson vegan?

No, S.C. Johnson is not vegan. This means that some of their products may contain animal-derived ingredients. S.C. Johnson might offer some vegan products, however because this company is not cruelty-free, it's recommended to avoid any products they offer even if they are vegan.

Brands can be cruelty-free without being vegan, and claim to be vegan without being cruelty-free. This is because “cruelty-free” refers to the animal testing aspect, while “vegan” refers to the ingredients.

A “vegan” product contains no animal-derived ingredients, such as Beeswax (made by bees), Carmine (a red pigment made from crushed beetles), or Collagen (from mammal or fish skin).

A company is “cruelty-free” at company level, meaning they can’t have cruelty-free products unless the whole company is cruelty-free. However, a company can offer vegan products even if not all of their products are vegan. If all of their products are vegan, then we refer to the brand as “100% vegan”.

We have a list of 100% vegan brands, and you can also filter our official list of cruelty-free brands and choose to show vegan brands only.

Looking for vegan products from cruelty-free brands? Visit our Product Database and make sure you use the vegan filter.

Does S.C. Johnson test on animals?

How do you determine that brands like S.C. Johnson are not cruelty-free?

Most brands don't publicly display their full animal testing policies. We contact brands directly with our questions in order to get their complete policy. If any brand states that they, their suppliers, or any third party test on animals, the brand is listed as "not cruelty-free."

We ask all conscious consumers to be mindful of misleading statements from brands. Companies that test on animals try to minimize their involvement in animal testing, and understandably so—if a brand were to proudly claim to perform cruel tests on animals, their customers would surely reconsider being a loyal fan.

What they do instead is use clever language that shifts the blame away from themselves and makes the public believe that they’re not responsible for the animal testing, or that the animal testing performed on their products is “an exception”.

If a brand is listed as “not cruelty-free” in our database, you can rest assured that their products were tested on animals in recent years.

We monitor every change and constantly post updates. The changes in our database, list of cruelty-free, and brand pages are reflected in real time as soon as we become aware of new information.

Is Cruelty-Free Kitty reliable?

Cruelty-Free Kitty is the largest and most trusted cruelty-free shopping platform.

We vet every single brand added to our database by contacting them directly and ensuring they adhere to our strict criteria we call "The Cruelty-Free 5".

For a brand to be listed as cruelty-free, it must satisfy the following:

1. The brand itself does not test on animals, for either finished products or ingredients.
2. Suppliers do not test on animals for products, raw materials, or ingredients.
3. No third parties test on animals on the brand's behalf.
4. The brand does not test on animals when required by law.
5. The brand does not sell cosmetics in physical stores in mainland China.

At Cruelty-Free Kitty, we have an unwavering commitment to accuracy. The landscape of cosmetics animal testing is constantly evolving globally. Our team is diligent about staying current on changing laws, brand acquisitions, and policy updates that impact cruelty-free status.

To date, we’ve vetted over 1200+ brands and helped millions of conscious shoppers choose products that aren’t tested on animals. Please feel free to contact us with any questions by using our contact form.