# Preservatives, are there any that aren't animal tested?



## TessC (Mar 8, 2009)

I've been making small batches of a chamomile-lemon lotion for myself, my mom, and my stepmom, and to this point haven't been worrying about preservatives since they were just for the three of us. I explained the extremely short shelf life to them and told them to keep an eye out for anything odd with it, and that was fine.

Now, though, a few friends want to try it, and one lady wants a little batch scented with lavender, ylang ylang and tangerine EOs. If I'm going to be giving lotion away to a handful of people, I need to find a preservative to use, so I was looking at the descriptions of Germaben this morning. I thought I was all set, then one of the people who asked for lotion emailed me and said that she'd Googled Germaben and found that it's tested on animals, and was sort of flipped out. 

I've been looking for a 100% definitive answer about Germaben since then, and can't find one. Some products with Germaben in the ingredients are listed as being 100% free of animal testing, yet I can also find products with Germall in the ingredients making the same claim. The end products aren't animal-tested, great, but one of the ingredients is. The whole thing is making my brain hurt, lol.

Bleah, it's not something I would have ever thought of, but now I'm trying to find a preservative that's not tested on animals at all to keep everyone happy.

 I've done a lot of Googling, but the search results are pretty mixed and not always helpful, so I thought I'd ask here, does anyone know a source for such a preservative?


----------



## carebear (Mar 8, 2009)

Ah, animal testing.  Yea it's bandied about that products are "cruelty free" but in reality almost none are because whether the final product is tested on animals or not it's very likely that the ingredients are.  Pretty much every "synthetic" ingredient and many of those "derived from nature" have been animal tested to determine their safety for people - maybe not lately but almost surely in the history of the development of the ingredient and very very almost definitely in getting it approved for use in cosmetics.  So if the ingredient was tested to get it approved then later generations of the ingredient as well as anything containing those products...


So don't buy into the "no animal testing" fallacy you see on labels - unless you are buying a block of shea, or perhaps an unscented soap (non-detergent soap that is) then it's almost certain to contain ingredients that were animal tested no matter what the label claims (or even what the producer believes).

Oh, and if you are making an unpreserved lotion, telling people to "look for anything odd" isn't enough.  Germs don't always announce themselves.  If it's not preserved it needs to be kept for up to maybe 5 days, in the fridge, be in new (not re-used) packaging, and never have dirty fingers dipped into it.  I personally wouldn't take the risk of hurting someone.


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 2, 2011)

I found this post kind of late I guess, but I'm wondering the same thing. I have never introduced any water-based ingredients into my products yet but I am thinking I might start with a few new things. But I am totally unwilling to do this if I can't find a preservative that is guaranteed not to have been tested on animals. This is very important to me ethically, and in terms of my products which I market as vegan and cruelty free. I don't want to put something in my products that I think may have been tested on animals at some point, because that's like lying to my customers. If there really is nothing out there, then I just won't make things that call for preservatives. I am really interested in whether anyone can actually offer the name of any specific brand of preservative that does not test on animals. I guess I could contact other vegan companies and ask them where they get their preservatives, but that's a bit weird. I thought I'd try here first. The OP's question hasn't really been answered.


----------



## Healinya (Jan 2, 2011)

Then you will be disappointed, because every single product you can imagine HAS been tested on an animal... Next time you see the word 'noncomedogenic' - think 'rabbit ear tested' 

It IS lying, you are right... but it's not the only lie out there... there are a lot of false illusions that are waiting to be uncovered.

(eta: not to nit-pick, but we ALL drive our cars on roads that test animals' intelligence to cross safely every day, but noone notices... we all visit doctors... they did dissect animals to 'test' before cutting a human open.... Have you ever taken medication... oh I could go on forever on a topic that never gets settled... I wish it were different, but it is what it is)


----------



## pixybratt (Jan 2, 2011)

This is one of those weird subjects. People say they don't want animal testing in their  products but at the same time want everything 100% safe.

As much as it offends every part of my being we need some of this animal testing to keep some things safer.


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 3, 2011)

(eta: not to nit-pick, but we ALL drive our cars on roads that test animals' intelligence to cross safely every day, but noone notices... we all visit doctors... they did dissect animals to 'test' before cutting a human open.... Have you ever taken medication... oh I could go on forever on a topic that never gets settled... I wish it were different, but it is what it is)[/quote]

I actually don't own a car and don't want to, but hitting an animal by accident and killing it instantly is *not* the same is breeding mutated animals, torturing them with unnecessary experiments, and killing them if the experiments don't. Animal testing is nowhere close to necessary or even accurate -- it's cheaper than the alternatives, that's all. Yes, I have disected cats and goats that have died of natural causes in school, but I would not have done it had they been killed or were they alive. I don't like to take medications and prefer natural remedies when possible, and I stay very informed about where my medicine comes from and boycot the companies I know to test on animals. Testing on animals in the medical field to save lives (like testing new treatments for cancer and AIDS) is way different than testing on animals for cosmetics, which is the reason I started making my own cosmetics and only buy from a couple of very select brands. I know you say "that's the way it is", but I really don't settle for that in my life. I never use anything that has exploited animals. It's very possible for day-to-day stuff as long as you're informed. I was just wondering if it was possible in preserving cosmetics. If not, I won't do it. I'm really sorry if I sound snippy, but it's an extremely important issue to me and it's not something I can dismiss as "the way it is". I'd really like to provide alternatives if I can, because a lot of people feel the way I do and work really hard to find ethical products. I never buy anything without making sure that none of the ingredients come from animals, and I never buy anything that I know that has been tested on animals. So I'm going to keep looking into this.

Anyway, 

I have been reading about a preservative called Naturagard Ultra and I'm considering it. Since I haven't worked with preservatives before, I was looking for feedback on whether or not this seems like a good one to use in lotions and body sprays, since I am just learning and have no comparison to draw. Here is all the info I found:

Description
Naturagard Ultra™ a Natural Preservative
Previously marketed as Geogard Ultra. In order to avoid infringement of Lonza's Trademark Registration we have been asked to relabel this product.
INCI: Gluconolactone (and) Sodium Benzoate
ECOCERT certified
Green Code 3
Naturagard Ultra, is new product that meets the growing demand for alternative self preserving cosmetic preservatives. With growing concerns over traditional preservatives such as parabens, Naturagard Ultra provides a single solution to companies seeking alternatives to traditional preservatives. Naturagard Ultra’s global regulatory acceptance, broad-spectrum activity and multi-functionality means it can be utilized in a wide variety of cosmetic products like shampoos, lotions and skin creams. Unlike traditional cosmetic preservatives, Naturagard Ultra can be used in cosmetic products that are marketed in major markets around the world: Europe, Japan, North America and South America.

Naturagard Ultra helps prevent product spoilage by utilizing less aggressive: “Hurdle Technology.” Instead of a harsh, aggressive approach with bacteria and fungi, Naturagard Ultra primarily functions by creating a more hostile environment within the formulation for microbes to overcome. Potentiators within Geogard® Ultra help create such hurdles, increasing the self-preserving environment of formulations.
Naturagard Ultra also provides greater utility with its multifunctional action. Naturagard Ultra not only provides effective protection against product spoilage, but it can also increase the skin moisturizing capacity of the formulation.

Naturagard Ultra is accepted by ECOCERT as a preservative in certified organic cosmetics.
This is a natural preservative that is a combination of a naturally occuring food additive glucono delta lactone, derived from corn, and a food grade preservative sodium benzoate, the sodium salt of benzoic acid along with a trace amount of calcium gluconate as a processing agent. This preservative is excellent for challenging formulations that tend to separate after time and are affected by chemical reactions.Because it is provided in powder form it will not jeopardize stability like most of the other natural or alternative preservatives. 
Attributes

    * broad spectrum preservation
    * globally approved (at 2.0% usage in formulation, only 0.495% sodium benzoate)
    * compatible with all surfactants
    * may be added before cooling for ease of use
    * offered in powder form which will not challenge most emulsions
    * will not change texture and viscosity
    * GRAS (generally regarded as safe) composition
    * Proven moisturizing effects
    * GMO Free
 *  * Not tested on animals at any point*
    * Effective over a wide pH range of 3 to 7
    * Fine white odorless powder

Directions for Use
Naturagard Ultra should be added to water phase with heat or can be added at cool-down.
Though most successful trials were done at use levels between 1.0% and 1.5% it may be safely used at levels up to 2%. All formulations will vary and must be tested to accurately determine microbial efficacy.

Contraindications

    * not for use in products which contain ascorbic acid due to chemical reaction
    * not for use in products which contain food colors due to chemical reaction


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 3, 2011)

pixybratt said:
			
		

> This is one of those weird subjects. People say they don't want animal testing in their  products but at the same time want everything 100% safe.
> 
> As much as it offends every part of my being we need some of this animal testing to keep some things safer.



Actually that isn't the case, even though it's beneficial to a lot of companies if we believe this, and they work hard to make sure most people do believe this. Of course products need to be tested, but they don't need to be tested on animals. No company is required by any law to test on animals, and there are a lot of other options available. There are companies like Episkin that create models that are very specific to human tissue, including artificial human eyes, and proven mimic the responses of human tissue exactly. I's a lot safer because it's more accurate, but not many companies use this technology because it's more expensive. And even when animals are blinded or killed by the products, they are still sold to us. It's really for nothing, and it's tragic.


----------



## soapbuddy (Jan 3, 2011)

Naturagard Ultra has a pH shift problem. It shifts downward, possibly making products irritating.


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 3, 2011)

soapbuddy said:
			
		

> Naturagard Ultra has a pH shift problem. It shifts downward, possibly making products irritating.



Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it.


----------



## pixybratt (Jan 3, 2011)

alwayssomething said:
			
		

> pixybratt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do understand your point of view as I would hope you would understand mine


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 3, 2011)

pixybratt said:
			
		

> alwayssomething said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I do. I just think it's a very common misconception, and understandably so. I used to say the same thing, but the more research I do on the matter the more my mind has changed.


----------



## carebear (Jan 4, 2011)

> INCI: Gluconolactone (and) Sodium Benzoate



Furthermore, each component was animal tested.  Just the combined product hasn't been.  Which just reeks of bull cookies to me.


----------



## carebear (Jan 4, 2011)

alwayssomething said:
			
		

> Actually that isn't the case, even though it's beneficial to a lot of companies if we believe this, and they work hard to make sure most people do believe this. Of course products need to be tested, but they don't need to be tested on animals. No company is required by any law to test on animals, and there are a lot of other options available. There are companies like Episkin that create models that are very specific to human tissue, including artificial human eyes, and proven mimic the responses of human tissue exactly. I's a lot safer because it's more accurate, but not many companies use this technology because it's more expensive. And even when animals are blinded or killed by the products, they are still sold to us. It's really for nothing, and it's tragic.



Actually, that IS the case for the VAST majority of ingredients.  The overwhelming majority.  There are NOW some alternatives.  But most ingredients were developed and tested quite some time ago, when animal testing was the only way to examine the safety of a product.


----------



## pixybratt (Jan 4, 2011)

alwayssomething said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. I just think it's a very common misconception, and understandably so. I used to say the same thing, but the more research I do on the matter the more my mind has changed.



Please don't take this the wrong way but I sorta feel like you are saying I'm a sheep and can't think for myself, which I'm sure is not the case. What I really am is someone who loves history and reads a lot, and a person who is very ill and understands that some I can now live a little longer because of things done in the past.

while we can not change the past, I'm all for changing the way things are done in the feature and believe all it take is for one person to say "hey that's not right."


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 4, 2011)

pixybratt said:
			
		

> alwayssomething said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm really sorry I made you feel that way. It's not at all my intention. I'm only looking for current alternatives to animal testing in cosmetic preservatives. Medicine is a whole other thing with very different priorities. Cosmetics are trivial in the big picture, and health and safety always comes first. That's why I'm trying to look into new products that were tested in a safer and more sustainable way.


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 4, 2011)

carebear said:
			
		

> alwayssomething said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I know that many ingredients have been tested on animals and still are, but I'm just trying to find out if there is anything new that hasn't been. I'm willing to use raw ingredients that may have been tested by someone at some point, because anyone can test anything anytime they want, even if there are other companies looking into it by different methods. My biggest concern is that I don't want to support a company that still conducts animal testing. I feel this way... I'm not sure if my hardcore vegan customers will feel the same though. I really just don't feel like I can honestly put "vegan" on the label anymore if I use preservatives. Looking into Ecocert has helped because I know they don't grant it to anyone who tests on animals, so right now I'm just looking at Ecocert products. I'm not coming up with a whole lot.


----------



## Healinya (Jan 4, 2011)

You have to call the company and give them the third degree... You have to know how to ask, and you need to gather as much tangible research as possible.. Ask the company what their philosophy is and how their products are created. Call Ecocert, straight to the source that way.. ask for info and pamphelts and anything else you can get out of them... I suspect the will tell you that no animal testing is done in their facility... or maybe they'll say the finished product hasn't been tested... if they do... you should have handy your saved pdf files that indicate the sodium benzoate has been tested on animals in countless studies.. ask them if their were steps used at any point in making gluconolactone that involved animals.. ask them to explain what tests were done... look for any hidden meanings in what they say...

It's a lot harder than just asking a forum their opinion... as you can see, everyone's opinion is different.. 'mutated animals' is not what I think of when I think of animal testing.


----------



## xyxoxy (Jan 4, 2011)

alwayssomething said:
			
		

> ...My biggest concern is that I don't want to support a company that still conducts animal testing.
> ... I really just don't feel like I can honestly put "vegan" on the label anymore if I use preservatives.



I am not a vegan and I have no qualms about using some animal products... silk, beeswax, even lard.

That said I'm with you 200% on boycotting any company who knowingly supports cosmetic testing on animals. I realize that there may be some gray areas about when it might be "necessary"... or not. And I know we can't change what may have happened in the past.  Gray areas aside I think everyone can agree that horrendous and unnecessary business practices still go on... against animals as well as people. But unless consumers do their research and insist on alternatives and force the issue with our checkbooks, little will change.

I don't know enough to say who is right on some of those gray areas but I support your choice to do SOMETHING as opposed to just accepting the status quo. And I respect your integrity in not wanting to mislead your vegan customers.


----------



## carebear (Jan 5, 2011)

> However, if a ban is enforced on animal testing, proving the safety of ingredients may not be possible.
> 
> This leaves the industry in a very tricky position. Consumers and interest groups demand ingredients that are safe, and regulation that will investigate not just new ingredients before they go to market, but re-investigate old ones if enough concern is voiced.
> 
> ...


http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/F ... er%2BDaily


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 7, 2011)

carebear said:
			
		

> > However, if a ban is enforced on animal testing, proving the safety of ingredients may not be possible.
> >
> > This leaves the industry in a very tricky position. Consumers and interest groups demand ingredients that are safe, and regulation that will investigate not just new ingredients before they go to market, but re-investigate old ones if enough concern is voiced.
> >
> ...



Thank you for this link. Overall I think it's good news. I'm still confused about this statement in the article though: 

"However, if a ban is enforced on animal testing, proving the safety of ingredients may not be possible."

Anyone can Google "animal testing alternatives" and find loads of developments that give safer and more accurate results. The author of the article is responding to the ban against animal testing as though it is a ban against testing in general... regardless, it is good news and I think a lot of people will support this as we all learn more. The UK is often one step ahead on animal welfare.


----------



## carebear (Jan 7, 2011)

It's the word "proving that you need to focus on in that quote.  I think the author meant that the in vitro testing is not always as accurate as the in vivo testing.   You can reach a higher level of certainty by testing with critters than you can in a test tube.  And frankly, not every type of ingredient or body part can be emulated in vitro with equal accuracy.  So you have to strike a balance in your decision.  

It'd be great to have high certainty and no animal involvement, but those two things don't typically go hand-in-hand.

The discussion is interesting, but I haven't changed my stance that it's a matter of balance.  And that animals don't always win.  People first.  

This said, I don't think mascara was mentioned in the US Bill of Rights, and don't wear it myself - so when it comes to cosmetics I say "just dump 'em all" - but I'm pretty sure a lot of CONSUMERS would disagree.


----------



## alwayssomething (Jan 12, 2011)

carebear said:
			
		

> It's the word "proving that you need to focus on in that quote.  I think the author meant that the in vitro testing is not always as accurate as the in vivo testing.   You can reach a higher level of certainty by testing with critters than you can in a test tube.  And frankly, not every type of ingredient or body part can be emulated in vitro with equal accuracy.  So you have to strike a balance in your decision.
> 
> It'd be great to have high certainty and no animal involvement, but those two things don't typically go hand-in-hand.
> 
> ...



But animals' bodies do not respond the way people's bodies do. Their systems are built to tolerate different sorts of things than ours are, which is why animal testing is often inaccurate. In medicine, for example, there have been plenty of AIDS vaccines created that cured animals, but are totally useless on people, because our bodies behave so differently. (That is not to say they should stop testing medicine on animals, it is just to demonstrate how completely different our systems are.) And the alternatives today are not just "test tubes", there are many options for different kinds of products, including scale models. There is no law that anyone needs to test cosmetics on animals. The only reason it's done is because it is cheaper. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary. So as a consumer, I won't support people who test on animals. I even order my tampons from the UK because there is only one ethical brand I can find, so I'll use it. Many leading companies like St. Ives and Mary Kay don't test their products on animals, and they're getting along just fine. If animal testing was just smearing some lipstick on a healthy rodent, I really wouldn't make such a fuss about it. It is literally torture, and it is totally unnecessary. People come first, but I don't really think that companies who test on animals are putting people first at all. They still sell dangerous products -- they just have a lot of dead animals in their files to prove that their products are dangerous.

I know what you mean by "just drop 'em all". As a consumer, if I can't find something I consider ethical, I won't use it, even if it's something I liked using. Lots of consumers feel this way. This is the whole reason I started making my own stuff. I'm just trying to do it in the most responsible way possible. That's why I said, right off the bat, if there are no cruelty-free preservatives, then I won't make products that need them. That is fine with me.


----------

