Beauty & Cosmetics, Hair Care, Lifestyle, Nail Care, Product Reviews, Skincare

MAC Cosmetics Is No Longer Cruelty-Free

MAC Cosmetics Is No Longer Cruelty Free

Is MAC Cosmetics no longer cruelty-free? For a long time, one of the most well-known cruelty-free brands has been MAC Cosmetics. It was also a common rumor in the vegan community that all of their products are also vegan. Sadly, things have changed and MAC Cosmetics is no longer cruelty-free.

Known for their bright and bold collections as well as their wide range of classic shades, MAC seems to have something to offer to everyone. This is why they have been such a popular and iconic brand over the years. They have always heavily marketed that they are cruelty-free as well. Sadly, the MAC Cosmetics cruelty-free stance has changed. Keep reading for more details.

Is MAC Cosmetics no longer cruelty-free?

MAC Cosmetics is not cruelty-free.

MAC Cosmetics is owned by Estee Lauder. This cosmetics giant has openly tested on animals for a long time and has recently come under fire for conducting secret tests on cosmetics in China. It was this controversy that sparked me to check in with MAC about their status as a cruelty-free company who offers vegan options. By some standards, MAC being owned by Estee Lauder is enough to not consider them cruelty-free. However, I’ve always found it best to support the cruelty-free brands and let people make their own decisions about the parent companies.

Sadly, in my recent response from MAC, I noticed a change that affects their status as a cruelty-free company. In order for Logical Harmony to promote a company as cruelty-free, I want to make sure that there is no testing on animals at any point during the production of the products or in the materials used to create the products. This includes by the company itself or third parties that may provide ingredients. If a company can’t give a straight response to those questions, I don’t endorse them and I don’t feature them on Logical Harmony.

Normally I post the entire email response from companies, but this email from MAC 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 it’s the only sentence that matters.

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

“Except when required by law” is a phrase often used by brands who are selling their products in markets, such as China, that do require animal testing to sell there. Since these tests are done by a 3rd party, the brands often still try to claim to be cruelty-free. This means that MAC, long known for being cruelty-free, does test on animals. I emailed them back asking for clarification on what the terms for “required by law” are but have not received a reply. I also noticed that while PETA has endorsed them in the past, MAC has been removed from their list of companies who don’t test on animals. It’s not on the list of companies who do test, but it being removed from the don’t test list says a lot.

Because of this response, Logical Harmony will no longer be featuring any MAC Cosmetics products. All previous posts featuring MAC will be deleted or have the brand removed from the post. This just shows how important it is to support the vegan cosmetic companies out there. Cruelty-free may mean no testing on animals, but there are animal ingredients used in the production that do cause harm to animals to produce. “Cruelty-free” is far from actually being free from cruelty to animals. Cruelty-free products are featured on Logical Harmony as a step for people who are concerned about becoming animal-friendly but aren’t ready to transition to vegan cosmetics.

So what can you do?

  • If you are concerned about buying cruelty-free cosmetics, please no longer purchase MAC items.
  • If you are a cruelty-free blogger, please don’t feature MAC on your blog anymore. Please do a post about their change in testing policies and spread the word to your readers!
  • Promote this post on social networking sites to let your friends know!
  • Let your friends who use MAC know about the change!
  • I urge you to contact MAC yourself and ask them to change their stance on animal testing!

I also urge you all to consider trying cruelty-free brands. There are so many out there who produce amazing products without any harm to animals!

Subscribe Here

We'll send you weekly recaps & more!

view our privacy policy
Powered by ConvertKit
Previous Post Next Post


  • Reply Ashleigh Friday - May 27, 2016 at 6:02 am

    I don’t understand why it’s so hard for them to pull out of China. The body shop is refusing to sell in China and they are currently in negotiations with several agencies as well as the Chinese government to abolish their policy of animal testing….what are MAC doing other than making money? Loreal being the parent company of body shop have also agreed to have all of their companies and subcompanies animal testing free in 2020. Which while it’s still too far in my opinion, at least it’s a step in the right direction! With so many companies opting for a cruelty free product, I don’t see why MAC are so far behind the times!

  • Reply nyxalinth Tuesday - July 22, 2014 at 6:49 am

    While I’m not a vegan (my body has pitched ever-loving shitfits every time I’ve tried. I mean severe illnesses, wild mood swings etc. Not just short term either) I do my best to do as little harm as possible (no fur, and if I do have something leather it’s ancient as hell and from a secondhand shop so no company gets a profit from me). What a shame that MAC and benefit, two former favorites, do testing. I struggled with a severe depressive episode(I don’t take Big Pharma meds for my depression, only herbals now) that led to me not giving two shits about cosmetics or taking care of myself for nearly ten years. I was all set to go back to those brands, but they won’t get a penny until they and their parent company stop testing.

    I’m not perfect, but animal testing is where I draw a hard line. It isn’t necessary.

    • Reply Tashina Combs Friday - July 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm

      I agree. It’s hard for anyone to justify animal testing for cosmetics. There simply is no need.

  • Reply cg100 Tuesday - April 8, 2014 at 12:49 am

    It’s interesting, because one thing I’ve noticed that on Youtube for example in the comments section, everyone seems to be against animal testing. Which is wonderful, don’t get me wrong. But it’s just interesting that you’ll see people leave comments when people use certain brands, yet I can’t recall even once seeing any comments about MAC. I mean, perhaps people just don’t realize it’s changed, but I can’t believe that-it’s been off Peta’s list for ages now, this article is 2 years old-it’s definitely no secret. So it almost seems to me that when it comes to Mac, certain people that otherwise claim to be against animal testing seem to almost turn the other cheek so to speak. I know alot of people think that Mac is like the holy grail of all makeup, which it’s not IMO anyway, plus they see all these well-known beauty gurus & youtubers they love using it, & like I said, I just distinctly get the feeling that certain people just are turning the other cheek when it comes to Mac. I don’t know if it’s just me or what that feels that way.

  • Reply Beauty Without Bunnies | Tuesday - April 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    […] be cruelty free) did not deny that they still tested on animals when required by law (according to Logical Harmony’s testament/blog post which recounts her email reply back from M.A.C.) That simply means that even though they […]

  • Reply Ellen Saturday - December 28, 2013 at 7:31 am

    It’s an egregious breach of responsibility to our furry fellows, that a HUGE corporation would sell out like this. I know businesses are invented to make money, but if you’ve got a steady empire going like MAC did you could have probably slept easily at night knowing you were rich and cruelty-free. Some company-owners need to learn to live within their means. Animal-testing in order to make a profit? What underhanded duplicity!

  • Reply Nono Wednesday - November 6, 2013 at 11:57 pm

    OMG… I just made a purchase through MAC website. I love their products and always known to be animal cruelty free. But, I noticed it doesn’t say that on their box anymore. (I think they did have a little thing before to tell you animal test free).
    Then… I searched on webs whether my gut feeling is true or not.
    OMG… Can’t believe I bought their stuffs without thinking. No more… Though, many of my cosmetics are from the time they were animal cruelty free, I won’t encourage my friends to buy them. I won’t be buying anything from them again.
    They were just fine without testing on animals. So why now? Eff Estée Lauder and MAC

  • Reply Cami Wednesday - August 14, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    I just bought $200 worth of MAC products yesterday. I’m returning it all. So disappointed in this company. They have so many products that I love but sadly I won’t be purchasing from them any longer.

    • Reply Nono Wednesday - November 6, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      I did the same thing. I’m so very sad. Didn’t realize you can return it! Good idea!

  • Reply the woodlands tx dentist Sunday - August 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    In Los Angeles, pediatric dentists may recommend regular
    dental checkups even before a child’s first birthday. Some get restless or tense on the mere thought of it, while others do not even go to a dental clinic at all. Therefore to create a pleasing dental surgery environment it is required incorporate a proper color scheme with good balance of shades and tones and elegant style furnishings.

  • Reply Tyler Sunday - May 12, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    I’d just like to point out that it isn’t MAC Cosmetics anyone should be upset or disappointed with, due to LAW (A.K.A. RULES THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED) only specific products/ingredients must be tested on animals, it is not by the choice of the company that these tests are conducted, it’s the fact that if they were to ignore the LAW they would be sued/shut down etc etc etc. SO, how about we stop being moronic and sit back and use our brains. Just because a specific line is entirely “Cruelty Free” doesn’t mean they wouldn’t test on animals, it just means they don’t have a product that REQUIRES animal testing by LAW. If you aren’t going to purchase a product due to animal testing then no makeup brand is “safe”.

    • Reply Cathy Tuesday - November 8, 2016 at 7:02 pm

      Or they can CHOOSE not to sell in an area that requires cosmetics to be tested by law, like many other brands do. Nobody was forcing MAC to expand into China, they knew well that if they made that choice that animal testing would be involved. In this case, they chose to be greedy and went for extra profit, rather than sticking to their values.

  • Reply Leslie Jeffers Tuesday - April 16, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Shame-on-them!!!! Keeping up with the joneses now and another warped company in society! So disappointed I love MAC products but will no longer buy it! Crap!

  • Reply Sarah Sunday - April 7, 2013 at 12:16 am

    I’m very disappointed in this! And MAC mascara burns the crap out of eyes! You would think some of those poor bunnies reacted to it like me! My point, animal testing doesn’t work! Leave the animals alone! For all testing.

  • Reply Monica Lidizzia Sunday - March 10, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    From now on, boycotting MAC. Giving my money to others companies which do believe in a cruelty free business.

  • Reply MAC Eyeliner Friday - March 8, 2013 at 12:55 am

    Cheap Mac Makeup Wholesale,Mac Makeup and Mac Cosmetics save 60% off,Discount Mac Cosmetics wholesale online now!

    • Reply Carla Norris Monday - August 5, 2019 at 2:45 pm

      Ever since MAC ceased to be cruelty-free, I ceased to be their customer/addict. Prior to that, I LOVED their stuff, and waited with bated breath for the next collection, bought back-ups of LE items, etc.
      BUT I won’t anymore. Will NOT.
      Makeup just isn’t that important.
      Besides, I’ve found *terrific* alternatives, often for a fraction of the price.
      For example, many of Milani’s lipsticks are Every. Bit. As. Good. As. MAC’S. They don’t have the shade range that MAC does, but I can deal.

  • Reply Zoe Tuesday - February 19, 2013 at 9:06 am

    This is extremely disappointing! I WAS a huge fan of Mac makeup 🙁

  • Reply Jasmin Saturday - February 2, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    As a hard core gazillion percent VEGAN… I was devastated by this news, AND the news of Urban Decay being purchased by diabolical L’Oreal… (although apparently UD is still keeping its PETA approval… I hope PETA removes it eventually)… I have $500 worth of UD products and returned them ALL to Sephora, and then sold my remaining Sephora GCs at 50% (figured I’d just give up on Sephora too)….

    I recently was told about the cosmetic company called “100% Pure” – none of their products have even been tested on animals because nothing is artificial – their most processed ingredient is beeswax (not vegan, but it’s not in every product…) – NO DAIRY or insect stuff… the colours are made from fruits…

    Just an FYI! I ordered from them, I am praying they are as good as these seem because I so desperately want to support an independent, cruelty-free, vegan(ish) brand with my $$$ . …our money is the most powerful way we show our values!!

    XOXO Good luck friends…

  • Reply tiffany Monday - January 14, 2013 at 9:10 am

    This is lame that they changed like. who would change just out of the blue like that!!!!!!!!!!

  • Reply Tessa Sunday - January 6, 2013 at 4:56 am

    You know what? The go-to response everyone seems to have right now is that ‘China is an emerging market, MAC is simply trying to penetrate this lucrative market and that requires a change in their cruelty-free status in order to comply with Chinese law’. HOWEVER, what that tells me, is that MAC is now owned by a group of executives who are prepared to waive MAC’s previous staunchly cruelty-free stance ‘tested on models, not on animals’ in order to penetrate the lucrative chinese market. Great for business, but to the loyal MAC consumer? SELL OUTS. Big business is NOT what comes to mind when I think of the artistic nature and free thinking policies of MAC. Clearly the brand is prepared to forgo its roots, in order to make a better business decision, blantantly ignoring its previous strong stance on animal rights and animal testing. What does this tell me about the company? They have become just another impersonal corporate conglomerate. I no longer respect MAC. I will not be buying MAC until their policies change or they actively put pressure on the chinese government to change their archaic rules and cease business in China until they do. (A note: as another blogger so aptly put it, MAC is a large enough company to put pressure on the chinese government to change its existing rules, and fast) I do not care about the MAC/estee lauder executives bottom line, I care about a company that makes a strong stand on the welfare of animals and is anti-animal testing. This also makes me question how serious MAC originally were regarding their cruelty-free policy? Was that just to attract all sectors of the western market before adjusting policies to move into China? It smacks of insincerity.

  • Reply Althea Monday - December 31, 2012 at 4:44 pm


    Do you have an email template that we can use when contacting companies to see if their products are vegan/cruelty free?

  • Reply Jessica Monday - December 31, 2012 at 8:34 am

    China requires products sold in there country to be tested on animals. China has a growing population of consumers and is the next county set to be an economic powerhouse. The shift you see in animal testing is becouse of the growing demand in China. The pressure needs to be put on China to change its laws. It breaks my heart to see animals tested on, most of them are Begales becouse they are such a loving kind bread. I know first hand, we have two in our family.

    • Reply ISingForMe Thursday - May 9, 2013 at 7:03 pm

      Are you talking about bagels and breads? This is a cosmetics discussion, not baking.

  • Reply Ana Tuesday - December 11, 2012 at 8:21 am

    You are reading way too much into who is on what list and who is not on what list. If they said that they are not testing on animals, then they are not testing on animals. Every company out there has to include “except when required by law” in their policies whether they want to or not. Some simply may not tell you that they have that clause, but it’s there.

    • Reply Tashina Tuesday - December 11, 2012 at 11:07 am

      Hi Ana,

      Unfortunately, that isn’t the case when it comes to labeling with animal testing. By saying that they test when required by law, they are saying that they do test on animals. Many companies do not test on animals at all and chose to not sell in the very very few markets that require animal testing by law. Only companies that sell in these markets have to include it in their statement. Companies that do not sell their products in these markets do not need to include this statement because they are not testing their products on animals.

  • Reply Nukapai Monday - December 10, 2012 at 7:25 am

    The awful truth is this: there are no truly cruelty free cosmetics. That’s if you approach the cruelty-free issue with a very totalitarian view (i.e. you don’t want any of the ingredients to be tested at any point either). Every single cosmetic ingredient has been tested on animals at some point. It has to have been, to be deemed safe by the international laws that govern cosmetics.

    So many companies have adopted a policy where they at least don’t test their finished products on animals and this is a good thing. If you can accept that the ingredients have been tested (by someone, somewhere, at some point), then it makes sense to support the companies who don’t test their finished products on animals. Unfortunately some companies still do that – and here’s where the ones trading in China are in an unfortunate position; if they choose to trade there, then they will have to comply to local laws.

    Furthermore, the REACH laws in the EU now affect the entire cosmetic industry. Many of the main cosmetic ingredients (colour pigments, base materials, etc) are manufactured only by a small handful of global companies who, if they wish to trade in the EU, have to comply with REACH. This new bureaucratic nightmare is just the latest in many years of requiring some kind of testing for safety – and unfortunately the world still relies on animals to determine acute toxisity and many other safety factors. Many scientists don’t feel that animal tests results can actually be accurately extrapolated onto human beings, so the main problem with animal tests is that they don’t really “prove safety” in humans.

    So if you wish to continue using any cosmetics, it’s probably a good idea to support the companies who a) don’t test their finished producs on animals, b) give money towards reasearch into alternatives.

    If you want to be TRULY cruelty-free, you need to make your own cosmetics at home from food products (vegetable oils, beetroot dye, corn statch, etc) , or buy from very small craft-type manufacturers who only use these types of ingredients.

    • Reply Tashina Monday - December 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      Hi Nukapai!

      While you are right in that, at some point in history, the majority of ingredients were tested on animals at some point in history. However, it’s not necessary to continue to test these same ingredients on animals like so many brands do during the production process. Companies that now claim to not test the finished product on animals are likely testing during the production or using ingredients that are being tested on animals. This is in the present time frame and not decades ago when all ingredients needed to be tested on animals.

      • Reply Mary Sunday - February 9, 2014 at 11:22 am

        Needed? Do you believe that all of these ingredients should at one time have been tested on animals? If so, do you then also believe that any brand new ingredient should be tested on animals today?

  • Reply Lisa Monday - December 3, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I’ve just heard this very disappointing news about MAC! I am by no means a vegan or hardcore animal rights activist, but at least for vanity products I believe animal testing is completely unnecessary. I’ve been a loyal user for 12+ years, however I will no longer continue to purchase as of now.

    I am a former LUSH employee, and while the company has its faults, at least it has the conviction and common sense NOT to test on animals. I’ve been purchasing bath and body products from LUSH as long as I have from MAC, because of this policy.

    It’s such a shame that companies are going back to animal testing. Totally disheartening. There are very few alternatives on the market now for cruelty-free cosmetics. I will do my best to support the few holdouts and try to encourage change with my dollars.

    I’ve written to MAC customer service to let them know why I’m no longer purchasing their products. Sadly, it probably won’t make one whit of difference but there you go.

  • Reply jennifer Sunday - November 25, 2012 at 6:32 am

    apparently estee lauder bought most of mac in the 90s?

  • Reply Aveda is No Longer Cruelty Free » Logical Harmony Friday - October 5, 2012 at 10:38 am

    […] free! The hair care brand used to have a firm stance against animal testing. Aveda, just like MAC, has long been considered a great options for vegan as they were free of animal testing and many […]

  • Reply lydia Wednesday - September 26, 2012 at 10:13 am

    what a huge disapointment. i truly love mac, its my favorite makeup brand. its a shame i wont purchase their products anymore until they stop testing on animals.

  • Reply Elizabeth Wednesday - September 5, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    *smaller companies

  • Reply Elizabeth Wednesday - September 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Very upsetting news
    I’ve been a MAC fan for quite sometime, but it looks as though I may have to find another brand :/
    Unfortunately I came across this article a little late, and have purchased MAC products in the past few months (when I was under the impression that they did not test on animals).
    I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not the brand Makeup Forever tested on animals. I’ve tried to do some research, but there are so many contradicting statements.
    I will, in the meantime look into some of the smaller brands suggested! 🙂

  • Reply diedra Saturday - August 18, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    I am beyond disappointed in MAC !!! brutal…guess its time to find a new brand of make up.

  • Reply Annie Tuesday - August 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    It is a DEFINITE law in China to test on animals. If you want to sell a product used on the body, it has to be tested on animals. This isn’t something the company decides, it’s something the GOVERNMENT decides. As it’s a communist-moving-into-socialist-capitalist economy, the companies DO NOT and WILL NOT have ANY control on the government for a WHILE. (Unless it has to do with electronics. They can do whatever the fuck they want, *cough cough*, apple, *cough cough*.) (I can say the same that if you have any MAC[seriously lol what a pun!] product/iphone you ARE supporting depression, poverty, and suicides in China. Just saying.)
    I recommend that you email estee lauder and OTHER companies that are trying to sell in China(they have a much larger consumer base there, they are able to sell so much more there than they can in the US. It’s a bad business idea to not sell in China, and they are a business, don’t hate on them for being a business and trying to make money. It happens.) urging them to ask China to stop requiring them to test on animals. There are companies for “progressive change”. We need to urge more companies to do that, with enough companies urging China to stop the requirement, and if people would sign this petition: hopefully it will work. The problem is China, not most of the companies. Sign the petition please! It won’t have much influence by itself, but with the companies pressuring them, foreign and natives, I’m sure it will eventually work! Please! Spread awareness about it. 🙂

  • Reply Jen Saturday - July 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Great article. Like many, the issue I have is not whether the mac products I purchased here in the USA were tested an animals, its whether the company as a whole is testing when required in other places. I have now asked a hand full of mac employes about this who continue to respond with “we test on human models- not animals” with a rehearsed tone. If this is the case, why doesn’t mac appear to pop up on any updated cruelty free lists? I have e mailed mac directly about this but sadly I’m anticipating a canned response.

  • Reply DL Friday - July 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I’ve been using MAC foundation and eye shadow for several years. I was about to restock the MAC Studio Tech foundation and MAC Studio Fix powder when a girlfriend of mine mentioned MAC was no longer cruelty-free because they are selling in China which requires cosmetics to be tested on animals before being allowed on the market in China.

    I was gobsmacked. I thought it was a cruel joke. But after some Googling I came across your website (and why haven’t I found you before now?!?!) and it is true! Oh gosh, I am so disappointed with MAC. I read what you suggested about sending an email to MAC and I did so (using that awesome template from Phyrra) and I expressed my extreme disappointment they are compromising their long history of cruelty-free beauty all in the name of the dollar and I won’t be purchasing their products anymore.

    Having done that, I am now stuck wondering how to replace my long-standing MAC foundation and powder. What can I use in place of the MAC Studio Tech and Studio Fix? They were so awesome for my makeup and I have no idea where to start to find the same kind of products that are cruelty-free. I wonder if you might have suggestions to what products would be the same as MAC Studio Tech and MAC Studio Fix.

    I also want to commend you on your awesome website. I have bookmarked it and will be sure to refer to it often.

  • Reply Ruby Wednesday - June 20, 2012 at 4:56 am

    Thank you very much for this information.

    It is so hard for me to find cruelty free products.
    MAC was the only thing that I can physically go and try before purchasing.
    At least now I know they are not cruelty free. I won’t be supporting them in any way anymore.

  • Reply Susan Wednesday - May 2, 2012 at 1:51 am

    I was/am shocked and disappointed to read MAC is no longer cruelty-free, as I was a devout MAC user for many, many years. I have now thrown the rest of my MAC in the bin, and am going to be trying some Urban Decay instead, which I know to be cruelty-free.

    As for China requiring animal testing by law, I can’t say I’m surprised at their antiquated stance on this, considering their Human Rights record… :-O

    • Reply Randi Sunday - August 19, 2012 at 4:54 am

      Sorry but Urban Decay is also no longer cruelty free. 🙁

  • Reply Mein MAC-Herzchen blutet « We heart… Saturday - April 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

    […] mittlerweile scheinbar doch an Tieren testet. Laut verschiedenen Beauty Blogs wie z.B. Phyrra, Logical Harmony oder auch My Beauty Bunny hat darf die Firma mittlerweile nicht mehr von sich behaupten […]

  • Reply Rakel Friday - April 20, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Thank you so much for sharing this information with us! This is not acceptable at all!
    So now all the products I had from MAC is is the trash!

  • Reply Maria Monday - April 16, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Forgot to mention i will be letting my subscribers know about that contact letter

    THANKS xoxo

  • Reply Maria Monday - April 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm


    Great post and great blog.

    I edit a cruelty free beauty product website (Venus Loves Virgo) and thought I would add my two cents.

    I recently found out MAC went back to animal testing and was so mad. I actually never really liked them (MAC) that much because of the high price and the same boring colors they would reissue every season. Plus other brands have better less expensive stuff.

    I occasionally receive products for review or as gifts and someone sent me some MAC Extra Dimension products which I will not review or swatch. Most of my members know not to send me animal tested products but sometimes people send me tings anyway.

    What confused me was the label on back that said Made In Italy. I suspect because it’s a baked product and only Italy bakes cosmetics. So, they are not just manufacturing in China? Are some of the items cruelty free?

    In any case, I no longer buy MAC and will not until they change the policy back to cruelty free. Sometimes I wonder if they were ever truly cruelty free

    What was even more hurtful to me was finding out Smashbox is no longer cruelty free! That pissed me off!

    Thanks for letting me vent.


  • Reply katie Saturday - March 24, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Peta recently notified supporters that Mary Kay and Avon are no longer cruelty free either. I guess this is because they are now selling in China which has laws REQUIRING animal testing before the products can be sold in the Country… unfortunately they are doing it. China market may be the same reason MAC is now contributing to the cruelty too?!

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 30, 2012 at 10:26 am

      I believe that access to the consumer market in China is the reason for the change with MAC, and nearly all other Estee Lauder brands as well. It’s sad to see that they would rather make more money than be ethical.

  • Reply Catherine Saturday - March 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Thank you for this. I recently did a post on one of Mac’s lipsticks. I will be adding the disclaimer you had posted to my post. Boo 🙁 on the matter. I hope Mac starts adapting to the new technology that is out there.

    • Reply Catherine Saturday - March 24, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      I linked your site to the quote.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 30, 2012 at 10:25 am

      I’m so sorry that you have had to add a disclaimer. 🙁 It’s so frustrating that MAC has changed their stance on animal testing.

  • Reply Bere Wednesday - March 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    thank so much for this info.
    I bought mac makeup about 5 days ago still haven’t used it which is a good thing because now that I know that they change to testing on animals I’m going to return it ( I hope I get my money back )
    its a big disappointment that they change to hurting animals because I did like them a lot.
    Greed changes integrity, honesty……..which is really sad!
    well I am now going to start looking for another cosmetics……cruelty-free of course!
    thank you again
    take care

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 30, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Hi Bere!

      Where you able to return your recent purchases? I really hope so. MAC needs to know that people aren’t okay with their change!

  • Reply Vegan Aquawoman Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    MAC, you got it all wrong. There are NO LAWS that require the testing of household products and beauty aids on animals.

    You are on my black list now. I will be sure to share this information with EVERYBODY that I can.

    I hope you go belly-up.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm

      I guess in China there are laws that require it and apparently the market there is large enough to be worth the change to them. 🙁 I feel like they are going to lose a lot of customers over this. Thank you so much for sharing this information! I think it’s so important to let people know the truth!

  • Reply H Friday - March 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Just to clarify.. MAC was never 100% vegan. I know some of the lipsticks aren’t vegan and obviously the brushes aren’t even close to vegan.

    I’m glad people are finally talking about the animal testing issue. I read about the EL statement last year but none of my MAC-loving friends believed MAC could have anything to do with it.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:37 pm

      Yeah, I knew that MAC being all vegan was always a rumor. However, it’s one that a lot of people believed so I wanted to address it in this post as well.

      What’s crazy is that while EL has been testing for a while, the MAC change is recent. I really thought that they wouldn’t change their stance. 🙁

  • Reply Crystal Friday - March 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Thank you for this post! Ugh, “We’re cruelty free… except when we’re not.”

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      You’re welcome. 🙂 I just think companies should be up front about this stuff so that consumers can make educated choices.

  • Reply Sarah Friday - March 16, 2012 at 11:55 am

    I find it shocking that people still support PETA… Really all I have to say on this matter.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      To a lot of people, PETA’s lists of companies who do and don’t test still hold strong. Referencing those lists is quite different from anything related to PETA’s actions or campaigns. I felt that it was important to mention that PETA removed MAC to help give my statements more backup. None of the information was from PETA.

    • Reply Krista Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 10:23 am

      Really??? I find it shocking that people make statements like this when PETA is able to provide information that benefits consumers so they can make educated ethical decisions. Not sure what contribution you have ever made to the cosmetics industry or animals for that matter?? Unless you are part of the population that doesn’t really care. I don’t support PETA but I started using their list when I decided that an animal should not have to suffer so I can wear makeup of all things. How selfish of us as humans to not care about suffering for the sake of beauty. Also the author never said anything about supporting PETA she only referenced it..

      • Reply Tashina Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm

        I think that the lists from PETA are a great resource. Especially for those just starting out on a cruelty free or vegan lifestyle or those who want a quick way to check on things.

        • Reply lora Sunday - April 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm

          I’m almost 40 years old and mac has always been cruelty free. I’m pissed!! I have so many mac products. I will simply take them all back to mac for recycling and will never use them again. They are going to hear from me. I guess from now on I will only use smaller companies. I’m really tired on this happening. I’m a faithful customer of urban decay, mac, smashbox and I feel betrayed.

  • Reply Stella Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:28 am

    I’ve been ordering everything here
    While some of their products contain silk or crushed pearls, there’s a LOT of vegan options, they don’t test on animals and the ingredients of their individual products are listed on the website.

    I also find their prices a LOT lower than companies like MAC that have an advertising budget and the quality is every bit as good, often better.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      I’ll check out that link. Thank you for sharing it, Stella!!! 🙂

      • Reply Sarsie Sunday - April 8, 2012 at 6:29 pm

        Seconding supporting smaller companies like Silk Naturals, Meow Cosmetics, Alima Pure, Bubble & Bee Organics, Badger Balm, Vapour, Abbey St. Clare, etc. — the list is far too long to elaborate! I’ve noticed that the smaller companies tend to be quite responsive to customer desires, are cruelty-free, and have many of their products (or all of them, depending on the brand) be vegan.

        Over the past year, I have slowly moved away from the larger cosmetics/personal care companies (with the exception of my beloved Urban Decay) and moved towards these smaller companies. Doing so aligns with not only my cruelty-free preferences, but also my preference for supporting local/indie companies who also tend to use ingredients I prefer. I thought it would be tough to find product replacements of an equivalent caliber, but it has been the opposite — the quality is excellent and the costs are much less.

        My only caveat would be to do your research if you are exploring a brand that is hitherto unknown to you, because just as there are shady larger companies, there are also some shady indie companies. But I pretty much research everything I buy anyway, so it’s not really that much of a burden on me.

  • Reply Deirdre Friday - March 16, 2012 at 7:08 am

    For the love of everything, is there a reason you keep writing that cruelty is free instead of referring to things as being “cruelty-free”? The hyphen isn’t optional for that compound adjective, you know.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm

      Proper grammar doesn’t always match up with what’s best for SEO, unfortunately.

  • Reply Kimmi @ The Plastic Diaries Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    Ok I am really confused because as far as I knew (from my discussions with the company) this has been their policy for at least a few years, and it is a policy adopted by all companies in the Estee Lauder Companies group.

    I wonder if this different between markets because Australia is often grouped into the ‘Asian’ market (so very annoying). I just don’t get it.

    Nevertheless, China sucks. It shocks me that in this day and age a country can demand that for a product to be sold there, it is required to go through animal testing. So stupid. So insane. Makes me sick. This puts a huge kink in my new found love of the MAC brand.

    • Reply Tashina Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      Huh. I’m not sure. Even just a couple of months ago (the last time I had emailed MAC until a couple of weeks ago) they had a no animal testing at any point and no use of animal tested ingredients stance. So, here in the US at least, this is very recent.

  • Reply Kandiss Powell Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Lily – I’m pretty sure that when that exception is in a company’s policy – citing “where required by law” – it means they are being sold in a certain country that requires some things to be tested. Because this is a recent change, MAC could just pull their product from whatever country is requiring the testing and go back to selling where it was sold before. Or it could mean they recently added some kind of ingredient that is required to be tested on animals in the countries they already sell in, in which case they could replace that ingredient with something else.

    Anyone please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve always understood that part of the policy to mean.

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm

      As far as my understanding goes, that’s what it means too. If someone has more information I’d gladly welcome it!

    • Reply Krista Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 10:28 am

      Unfortunately the almighty dollar rules over ethics. Selling their products in a coutry with a population over one billion is a great way to like their pockets. There are alternatives however. For example : L’occitane sells in China but instead ships their finished cruelty-free products to China instead of opening a production facility where the finished products would need to be tested on animals. However it is more cost effective to produce and sell in China so that is what these companies have opted to do. It’s unfortunate that morals get pushed aside for the almighty dollar. I will not buy product that choose to test on animals or that are owned by a company that tests on animals, because that is still lining the pockets of the [aren’t company. I don’t care if the tests are done here or a million miles away. There are other options like shipping their products to that country or simply not doing business in a certain country that does not meet the companies’ requirements. Urban decay has beautiful formulated products; it is independently owned and has been certified cruelty-free by an independent company. Every purchase we make is a vote for a product and the only way to stop animal testing is to hit them where it hurts.

      • Reply Tashina Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm

        I didn’t know that about L’occitane! That’s really interesting and a great point to bring up. These companies do have other options if they really wanted to stay cruelty free. However, just like you pointed out, the dollar often means more.

  • Reply Lily Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Sorry, but are you suggesting MAC should disregard laws that may require animal testing?

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:08 pm

      Not at all. They are free to do as they please. I just don’t support companies that choose to test on animals when it’s unnecessary. In this case, my guess is that it was so they could sell products in China. China is the only place where animal testing is required by law.

    • Reply Krista Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 10:44 am

      Like I said before: there are alternatives. Many other companies don’t test on animals! Just because a company wants to increase market share by selling their line in another country or decide to produce products in another country, that requires animal testing, to save money, doesn’t make it right. Not by my standards. It’s greed plain and simple! There are lots of different makeup companies out there that will get my money instead. I was a devout MAC supporter and spent probably thousands on their makeup before I heard this. They better hope that their Chinese customers are just as loyal because they aren’t getting another penny from me.

      • Reply Tashina Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 7:46 pm

        Just like you said, it’s SO easy to NOT test on animals! Doing so is simply to have access to more markets to make more money. It’s really sad. Especially from a company that used to be so vocal about their stance against animal testing.

  • Reply Krista Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    This really sucks as Mac was a company that used to get quite a bit of my buisness. You should know though that PETA isn’t as perfect as it claims. They don’t believe that animals should be pets so animals that they’ve saved from various places are almost always put down instead of placed up for adoption. Just something to think about. Thanks for posting this information!

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Oh, trust me, I know that no company or organization is ever as perfect as it claims. I do think that they are a trustworthy source when it comes to checking in on companies being truly cruelty free though.

    • Reply Krista Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 10:35 am

      That was an article produced by the company that owns KFC that was recently attacked by PETA. Not sure if I would put any stock in that claim considering the founder of PETA owns several pets herself. There was a shelter in virginia that had a high euthanasia rate that was apparently run by PETA, but according to PETA this is false. Also this shelters euthanasia rates were not any higher than other shelters in the south where there is an influx of unwanted pets. Just cause it may have been run by PETA doesn’t mean that they can work magic or miracles. I worked in a shelter where animals had to be euthanized twice a week to make room for the ever revolving door of new animals being abandones and there was nothing we could do. It’s supply and demand: not enough homes for the animals being abandoned!

      • Reply Tashina Thursday - April 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm

        “Just cause it may have been run by PETA doesn’t mean that they can work magic or miracles.”

        So true. I think that people hold them to a higher standard. In some cases because they believe in PETA and in others because they don’t. Either way, I don’t think it discredits their information about cruelty free/vegan brands or the amount of information they offer about so many animal friendly related things.

  • Reply Moxie Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Horrible to read. I thank you, so much, for letting us all know. I have RT the link to your post, and I will also add your post to my FB page. Again, thank you, Tashina. x

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Thank YOU for helping spread the word about this change! 🙂

  • Reply Crystal Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    So stupid when they try to make it sound like they’re cruelty free when in reality they’re not.

    I haven’t purchased any MAC in awhile. I’m usually just a fan of their limited edition collections with the pretty packaging.

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      I agree. I just want to know a company is up front and gives me a trustworthy statement. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for.

  • Reply Jessica Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 10:54 am

    I knew something was up…I was interested in a few MAC products so I checked around for the animal friendly stuff + such + saw nothing. I was really considering getting some lip products from them last week + I am so glad I decided to wait since I could not find the info I was looking for…ty for sharing this=)

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

      You’re welcome! I’m glad that you are not going to buy the MAC products you were thinking about!!! They used to have an anti-animal testing claim in their FAQ too, but that is now gone.

  • Reply Natalie Smith Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:38 am

    I was on the PETA (UK) website the other day, and MAC WERE on the list for companies that DO treat on animals. Couldn’t believe it! MAC/Estee Lauder should have the money and power to not do it.

    • Reply Tashina Thursday - March 15, 2012 at 9:44 am

      MAC didn’t used to test on animals either. That’s what’s so sad/frustrating about this. It’s a recent change. 🙁

      • Reply Stella Friday - March 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

        Yes…a giant step backwards. 🙁

    • Reply Bridgett Thursday - May 3, 2012 at 10:02 am

      Common sense would lead anyone to believe that. From my experience it’s the opposite though. The larger the company is the more likely they are to use crap synthetic ingredients and to test on animals.

      I started working for a few years ago (after several years with Estee Lauder) they’re small, cruelty free, vegan, and completely non-toxic. <3 <3!

      Smaller cosmetics companies are popping up all the time and I think the quality of the product is WAY higher.

      • Reply Em Thursday - May 31, 2012 at 11:00 am

        Gosh that is very interesting to know and thank you for sharing – it will help me make better decisions in future. I also am extremely disappointed with Estee Lauder….and they own so many companies whic now I no longer use. I can’t believe these huge corporations are re-testing again just to break into the China market….they should have stuck to their guns and made China changes IT’S policies, rather than the other way around!!

    • Reply Moe Tuesday - June 19, 2012 at 7:39 am

      MAC does not test on animals. I work for the company; Estée Lauder does but MAC Cosmetics does not. An when it mentions “by law” it means if we sell on certain countries we have to because their laws state it is a must. Don’t just go by what people post, do your research people. PITA put them on the list once Estée Lauder bought MAC just because of how they are now offilliated… Their name should be taken off unless they know the truth.

      • Reply admin Tuesday - June 19, 2012 at 11:09 am

        When a company says that they only test “when required by law” it is still testing on animals. There is no way around that. Whether it’s required or optional, testing on animals is still testing on animals.

        I’ve done my research. Trust me. I do very extensive research on all the brands that I post about, whether it’s saying that they are cruelty free or not. Nothing is based off what others may be saying. This post is based on information that I received from MAC. The PETA list is just an interesting note, but it is not what this post is based off of.

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.