2016 UPDATE: After a recent e-mail from the company, I no longer support LORAC nor can I maintain that they’re a cruelty-free company. LORAC isn’t sold in China, but it’s ambiguous whether or not their ingredients are tested on animals. Please read their response below.

LORAC is a 100% cruelty-free independent company. Although they’re not certified by PETA or the Leaping Bunny, their policy, stated in the e-mail below, is not to test on animals under any circumstances. Their suppliers must also sign a statement declaring that no ingredients were tested on animals. LORAC is not sold in mainland China.

Here’s the older correspondence from 2015:

Dear Suzi,

Thank you for contacting LORAC Cosmetics! LORAC does not test our final products on animals and we are not aware of any animal testing performed by any manufacturer with whom LORAC does business. LORAC does not condone the testing of any cosmetic products on animals and asks all suppliers to support this point of view and all suppliers state that they do so. LORAC cannot warrant or certify that all suppliers who say they do not test on animals in fact do not test on animals. Additionally, notwithstanding the statements of suppliers to LORAC, LORAC has no way of knowing what the “suppliers of the suppliers” are doing. Also, LORAC is only distributed in the United States and does not sell in China or any countries that require animal testing. LORAC does not use a third party to test on animals and we are not owned by another company. We hope this helps and please let us know if LORAC can further assist you!


LORAC Customer Care

The second e-mail statement I received:

Dear Suzi,

LORAC cannot warrant or certify that all suppliers who say they do not test on animals in fact do not test on animals. Additionally, notwithstanding the statements of suppliers to LORAC, LORAC has no way of knowing what the “suppliers of the suppliers” are doing.

Carol Shaw is one of the most sensitive people to animal issues that you will ever find. Carol has been asked many times whether or not LORAC could obtain the certifications that you mention, Leaping Bunny and PETA. LORAC’s legal team has looked into the requirements for these certifications.

The organizations that certify products as being cruelty free have their hearts in the right place. The question is whether or not the brands touting the certifications do. Both PETA and Leaping Bunny certifications require that the brand declare that the brand is cruelty free and that all their suppliers are cruelty free—with varying degrees of proof required.

The problem with the certifications is that no one is really “certifying” anything that is verifiable for all substances included in cosmetic products. There are very few, if any, cosmetic brands that are so big that the brand literally controls all aspects of manufacturing from “shovel in the ground to shelf in the store.” As you can imagine, ALL ingredients in all products start out as natural substances on the earth. There is no other possibility. The difficulty comes in knowing what happens to each and every one of these substances between original acquisition/harvesting/mining and the end product you purchase.

Most original substances are refined into purer versions of themselves and/or combined in some fashion with other substances. These substances then become “raw ingredients” which are then further combined and refined into the actual ingredients that you may see listed on the package of the product you buy.

While LORAC is more than happy to certify LORAC’s behavior and obtain similar certifications from LORAC’s suppliers (which in some cases are probably valid and in other cases probably questionable), LORAC has zero control over the suppliers to LORAC’s suppliers.

Therefore, it has been our view that because LORAC cannot be sure of the conduct and activities of all members of the supply chain, LORAC should not, in good conscience, make a certification in which LORAC has little or no confidence, merely to gain sales. As evidenced by your letter, the fact that LORAC does not have these certifications can cost LORAC sales and PR and image. However, certifying that which cannot really be certified or verified is less ethical in our minds.

We can personally assure you that LORAC tolerates no testing or cruelty of any kind to animal or human from any supplier of anything to LORAC. However, in good conscience, LORAC cannot say, on behalf of the many nameless suppliers of raw materials, that this is the case.

LORAC Customer Care

Let’s recap this whole situation, because this is one of the most awkward animal testing policies I’ve read. It’s awkward because it seems unprofessional. I mean, they’re bashing these giant cruelty-free organizations in a pretty condescending way. “They have their hearts in the right place”? LORAC, please.

China/Required By Law

To get it out of the way, LORAC claims they’re not sold in any countries that require animal testing, which has been verified and checks out.

Finished Products

They claim not to test finished products on animals. Two checkmarks.

Ingredients and Suppliers

This is the ambiguous part. On one hand, they claim that all their suppliers provide signed written statements of no animal testing.

On the other hand, they claim that this doesn’t always constitute proof, and that some of the statements are “questionable”.


Okay. First of all, if they’re so opposed to animal testing, they wouldn’t do business with suppliers whose proof of no animal testing is “questionable”.

Second of all, a written confirmation is all that’s required from your suppliers in order to be certified by the Leaping Bunny (as far as suppliers go).

From the Leaping Bunny‘s site:


Written confirmation by a Supplier, obtained once a year, that the Supplier has not been involved with Animal Testing for specified Ingredients. These documents form the Company’s Supplier Monitoring System.

Which brings me to…

Official Certification

In the second e-mail, LORAC is claiming that they don’t want to be certified because certification is essentially bullcrap. This is because, according to them, ingredients go through a long journey down the supply chain before they reach LORAC.

Basically, the reason as to why they won’t seek certification is that they’re unable to prove that the “suppliers of suppliers” are cruelty-free.

Except I don’t think this is the real problem. I think that LORAC can’t confirm that their suppliers are cruelty-free. Re-read the following part:

LORAC cannot warrant or certify that all suppliers who say they do not test on animals in fact do not test on animals.

While LORAC is more than happy to certify LORAC’s behavior and obtain similar certifications from LORAC’s suppliers (which in some cases are probably valid and in other cases probably questionable), LORAC has zero control over the suppliers to LORAC’s suppliers.

They’re telling us they’re “more than happy” to “certify” that LORAC or their suppliers don’t test on animals, but they won’t actually get certified.

More than that, they’re claiming that they won’t get certified because of “ethical” or moral reasons. They also claim that they would rather “lose sales” by not getting certified because it’s the right and ethical thing to do. The thing is, there’s not a single business in the world that deliberately wants to lose sales over something if they can avoid it. This is why most brands who don’t test on animals will gladly claim so, and answer any questions. If a brand is cruelty-free, they’ll announce it to their customers loud and clear, because they know it’s a selling point.

What I’m saying is that LORAC knows they might not fall under the “cruelty-free” label, which would explain why they’re being so cautious.

Cruelty-Free Or Not?

Based on this, LORAC isn’t a cruelty-free company as far as I’m concerned. Which is odd because they do claim that their suppliers provide written statements of no animal testing. That’s why I initially accepted LORAC as being a cruelty-free brand. Right now though, LORAC is in a grey area to me.

Do you agree with this? Are you happy with these statements from LORAC, or would you require more proof?

View Comments (30)
  • I find their practices meet my needs of Animal Free testing. I do understand that most ingredients go thru many “hands” prior to arrivng at Lorac. To me Carol Shaw is ethical. I dont find the language confusing at all. Her point is further made by yours that “Yhe only propf beeded by Leaping Bunny is a letter fron suppliers, which as she stares xan be “just a lie” by suppliers. To assert that Lorac is 100% compliant she feels she would need to be able to verify compliance at evey level or harvest ther own ingredints themselves. Which they can not do. And I’m sorry but she’s right. A letter stating compliance is a minor ask for someone that stands to lose a lot of money if Lorac walks away from buying from tjem. So why aren’t suppliers forced to be verified. Its all hu-ey … if you ask me. Thanks for the insight though. ✝️Miracles & Blessings To You ✝️

  • I agree with you. This is such a strange email. It seems to me that they’re unwilling to part with the “questionable” suppliers they have and are instead trying to make themselves feel better by claiming that certification is a sham anyway…

  • That’s not how I read it. I think they are being as honest as possible.
    I consider Oreo’s to be vegan, but they contain sugar, which means there is a possibility that it was processed with bone char. If Oreo’s were to ask Domino sugar, “is this vegan” and they stated, “yeah totally, we only sell you guys the boneless kind, everyone else gets the stuff with the bones.” Oreo couldn’t know they were telling the truth, they could only hope. I think Lorac fears getting certified, and then a supplier get busted lying, so they would technically be liars as well.

  • The cruelty-free issue is such a thicket. My feeling is that Lorac, although very awkwardly, is being as honest as possible, very likely moreso than many companies that claim to be cruelty-free. And as stated, PETA and Leaping Bunny do not sound as though they certify very deeply. Thus, I am willing to give Lorac the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that many of the “certified” cruelty-free companies can actually be 100% certain that every ingredient they source is from cruelty-free companies.

  • I have to say I do NOT agree with you. In fact, as I was reading their response I was thinking, “Wow. A company that is actually honest about the fact that some companies lie to get certified. This makes me *more* likely to buy their products. They are doing the best they can to be cruelty-free, but understand that the only company over which they have complete control is their own.

    • But they can choose their suppl8er can they not??? If they know their supplier is testing product then they need to dump them and move on to ones that don’t!

  • I think this email is extremely transparent and responsible. I agree with what the rep was saying. I think it still buy their palettes but nothing else, because I have a rule that I can buy palettes from a cruelty free brand that isn’t vegan but no other products unless the product is vegan. To me, in a world where everything is about money and lying to get that money, being this transparent and honest is respectable.

  • Thanks for your comment, Carla! It would be interesting to know what field you work in. As far as I know, cruelty-free certification isn’t as strict as it should be. With PETA, companies must “solemnly swear that they don’t test on animals”, like you joked. They merely sign a statement. With Leaping Bunny, there are “audits conducted at random” according to them, but they don’t give much info. Is this rule really enforced? Maybe for a small minority of the companies accredited.

    There need to be better standards for cruelty-free certification.

    • I work in forestry certification, which is pretty strict. No system is perfect, but if it is made rigorous enough, it becomes almost impossible for certified companies to circumvent the certification standards. If that’s not the case with cruelty-free certification it is a real shame, and a gap in the system that someone should look into filling.

  • Nope. This is turning a blind eye to what their suppliers may or may not be doing. To call themselves cruelty free is … unfair for companies doing the real work.

      • Yeah, they have a way of knowing what their suppliers are doing. They are in a contractual relationship with them. They make a legal choice to not know, and they depend on consumers to willingly suspend common sense while reading this statement. But they can require in that relationship what goes on as the buyer. They make a choice not to require it. They make a choice not to certify. If those suppliers say no – go to another set of suppliers. We’re not talking about a limited # of suppliers of a certain set of goods. This is the marketplace, for one, and as consumers, if you want legitimate transparency, what you are reading above is not it. Really.

  • Saying they don’t test the *final* product on animals is a cop-out. Not sure why they can’t guarantee their suppliers don’t test considering how many other companies seem to be sure about it. Definitely not interested in supporting this company or considering them cruelty-free.

  • Hi Suzi! Would you be able to explain the difference to me between why Lorac is considered Cruelty-Free and Inglot is not? I’m getting lost in the semantics these companies throw out! I’ve read your statements on each, but wondering if you would clarify further, since both appear to only work with suppliers who agree there has been no animal testing.

  • This made me so happy to find out. on another site they said they weren’t and i had just bought one of their pallets so i was sad to get rid of it but im glad i kept it because i wanted to hold onto it till i found sustainable research about the brand again thank you fo posting this

  • You have to be careful with their wording notice they said “final” products rather than simply products which Implies they do test on some products

    • “Final product” as opposed to the raw materials. Their suppliers state that they don’t test on animals. Their suppliers also provide them with raw materials, which covers both.

      • Sorry this is a comment from 2 years ago.I’m a make-up artist and I don’t know what products to use anymore.I just wanna buy cruel free products but how we can be SURE that the products are actually cruel free???

        • We can’t is vasically what she has said, wothout being very clear about it. If Leaping Bunny only require a letter from suppliers stating they are cruelty free, can’t they simply pie aboit it for profit?? My take On Leaping Bunny has diminished significantly after reading this.

  • Wow. That’s good to know…except for the fact that now I want to try some of their products! 🙂 I was under the impression that they sold in China and never bothered to verify that. Thanks so much!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2014-2019 Cruelty-Free Kitty. Disclaimer. Privacy policy.

Scroll To Top