Smashbox is No Longer Cruelty Free

Smashbox is No Longer Cruelty Free

Just like fellow Estee Lauder brand MAC Cosmetics, Smashbox has also had a change of heart when it comes to their stance on animal testing. Smashbox is a brand that I have promoted here on Logical Harmony before. They didn’t used to test on animals, use ingredients that were tested, and they offered a lot of vegan options. Smashbox had quite possibly the best customer service when it came to helping people find vegan options, too. This is why sharing this news is so sad.

2016 Update

In 2015, Smashbox changed their public facing animal testing policy to the following.

“Animal Welfare

Do you test on animals?
We don’t test on animals, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except where required by law.

What countries require animal testing?
China, most notably, in addition to a few others that conduct testing by law of cosmetic products or ingredients to demonstrate safety.

Does Smashbox sell in any of these countries?

What are we doing to end animal testing?
Our founders launched with a commitment to end animal testing, and that commitment remains. For instance, we only conduct or commission in vitro/human volunteer testing to show our products are safe, and we’re part of the European Partnership for Alternatives to Animal Testing, among other efforts.

Thank you for reading—and caring!”

It is great that Smashbox has pulled out of the Chinese market! This is definitely worth commending them for as it’s a huge step for a brand to make that change in the right direction. However, they still state that they do test when required by law. I have reached out to them several times to try and find out why they still state this.

Required by law animal testing can happen in any country around the world and is not exclusive to China. It is also not exclusive to finished products.

Does this mean they use ingredients that are required to be tested on animals or that some of their formulations are required to be tested on animals? Or is this just something their parent company requires they include but it has no impact on their animal testing stance?

I have been unable to get clarity from Smashbox. While I would love to state that they are cruelty-free, I am simply not comfortable doing so at this time.

Original post:

For years, I’ve relied on Smashbox to give me great products that I knew were not tested on animals. After I decided to go vegan, I thought that I could rely on them for vegan options. Their former customer service department was extremely helpful and was even willing to check on specific shades of products to find out if they were vegan or not. Knowing that, for the first time in years, I will need to replace my PhotoFinish Foundation Primer is just heartbreaking. A lot of people were upset by the news about MAC, but I’m a Smashbox girl and have been for years. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement.

Just as with MAC, Smashbox is owned by Estee Lauder. This company has been openly testing on animals for a long time, and with all the recent changes to their once cruelty free brands, I wanted to check in on Smashbox as well. By some standards, Smashbox being owned by Estee Lauder is enough to not consider them cruelty free. With a parent company that supports animal testing, any profit Smashbox makes does then support animal cruelty. However, I’ve always found it best to support the animal friendly brands and let people make their own decisions about the parent companies.

Normally I post the entire email response from companies, but this email from Smashbox has a disclosure that prohibits me from doing so without permission. I have emailed asking for permission to copy the entire email but have received no reply. So I am only going to re-post one sentence here, and, just like with MAC, it is the only sentence that matters.

Smashbox has a longstanding policy to not test on animals, nor ask others to test on our behalf, except when required by law.

This means that Smashbox is no longer cruelty free and now tests on animals. It seems that Estee Lauder has decided opening up their brands to a bigger consumer market outweighs the benefits of Smashbox being a cruelty free company with lots of vegan options.

Because of this, Logical Harmony will no longer be supporting Smashbox cosmetics. All previous posts mentioning them will have a disclaimer added and Smashbox will be removed from any lists of cruelty free or vegan cosmetics. Also, just as with MAC, both PETA and PETA UK have quietly removed Smashbox from their lists of brands who don’t test on animals.


76 comments for “Smashbox is No Longer Cruelty Free

  1. Carissa Gatewood
    Sunday - June 19, 2016 at 4:02 am

    I’ve read that Smashbox has changed their animal testing policy again here in 2016. Are they now cruelty free?

    • Monday - June 20, 2016 at 5:07 pm

      They have not changed their policy again in 2016.

    • Sunday - October 18, 2015 at 7:34 pm

      Hi Liliya,

      As you can see on their own site, Smashbox still states that they do test when required by law.

      • Jessica
        Tuesday - December 8, 2015 at 10:31 pm

        Smash box wrote me and they do not sell in any county where it is required to test on animals.

        • Sunday - December 20, 2015 at 2:15 pm

          Hi Jessica,

          They have changed their FAQ recently to state that to do not sell in countries, such as China. However, animal testing as required by law can mean that the items are tested on to comply with local laws in regulations in many countries. This includes the EU and the US as well. Even if they are no longer selling in China, they do still sell in countries where animal testing may be required by law in some situations and they also still state that testing may occur as required by law. Because of this, I cannot consider them to be cruelty free. I did see your comment to them on Instagram suggesting that they talk to me. I have tried to reach out since then but have not received a reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *