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.

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.

Just as when Logical Harmony broke the news that MAC Cosmetics is No Longer Cruelty Free, there are steps that you can take to let Smashbox hear your voice.

  • If you are concerned about buying animal friendly cosmetics, please no longer purchase Smashbox items.
  • If you are a cruelty free or animal friendly blogger, please don’t feature Smashbox 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 Smashbox know about the change!
  • Let Smashbox know that they are losing customers. Unsubcribe from their email updates, un-like them on Facebook, and un-follow them on Twitter!
  • I urge you to contact Smashbox yourself and ask them to change their stance on animal testing!

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

What do you think about this recent change to the animal testing policy of Smashbox?

Post navigation

79 comments for “Smashbox is No Longer Cruelty Free

  1. Sylvana
    Wednesday - August 5, 2015 at 11:32 am

    Great work, I knew about Estée Lauder, I used to work for Smashbox & after the acquisition a few top employees quit. I checked the peta website, if you had not investigated. I’d still be purchasing their products. Unrelated :Smashbox has aspartame , & sucrose in their make up , as far as I know sugar is PRO-oxidant , increases wrinkles. :(

    • Sunday - August 9, 2015 at 9:12 pm

      That’s so interesting that they use those ingredients. I can’t think of any reason to include them.

  2. Jennifer
    Monday - September 29, 2014 at 9:20 am

    You should read the rest of what they have to say. It’s only required by law in certain countries. AND THEY DONE SEE THEIR PRODUCT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. They have to say where required by law. But they don’t see in those countries so they are still cruelty-free. Oye.

    • Monday - September 29, 2014 at 11:02 am

      Hi Jennifer,

      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. They also still state that testing may occur as required by law. Because of this, I cannot consider them to be cruelty free.

      • Mary
        Thursday - October 30, 2014 at 9:58 am

        Hi Tashina, I know Smashbox state “unless required by law” but that is only because they are owned by Estée Lauder. Smashbox states that they do not sell their products in any country that requires animal testing by law. It would be illegal for them to say that if it weren’t true. Smashbox is cruelty free. It’s even on the bunny free app as being cruelty free.

        • Friday - October 31, 2014 at 9:01 am

          Hi Mary,

          Until recently, Smashbox was sold in China where animal testing is required by law. They did not have a required by law testing stance until just before they entered the Chinese market. There are no laws or regulations on the term cruelty free anywhere in the world. Brands can test on animals themselves and still claim to be cruelty free. There are also other instances, aside from selling in China, that may cause a brand to state that they test as required by law. It could be that they are using ingredients that the US or EU requires to be tested on animals.

          I think that everyone should decide what is best for themselves. I don’t base my information off 3rd parties. If you feel comfortable purchasing from Smashbox, then it’s okay for you to make that choice for yourself. I just do not feel comfortable endorsing any brand as cruelty free when they state that they may allow for testing to occur.

          • Mary
            Sunday - November 2, 2014 at 5:53 pm

            Thanks Tashina, I never thought about it like that, about the ingredients. Courtney from Phyrra beauty believes smashbox to be cruelty free. I just don’t know what to think so I think I’ll just stay clear of smashbox to be on the safe side. There are plenty brands that are happy to state 100% cruelty free so I’ll be supporting those brands. Thanks for making me think twice :)

    • Valerie
      Monday - April 20, 2015 at 3:12 pm

      Their FAQ…also mentions Europe:

      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.

  3. Aimee
    Wednesday - July 16, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    I just checked the list of brands on PETA’s website and Smashbox is still listed as being cruelty free and does not test on animals? Has this changed since you wrote this article?

    • Friday - July 25, 2014 at 6:15 pm

      Hi Aimee,

      This has not. Smashbox still states that they test on animals “as required by law”. I am not sure why PETA lists them as cruelty free.

    • Valerie
      Monday - April 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      They make note that they don’t sell in countries that test and still listed under PETA for cruelty-free company. They also have a stance to end it. We should give the company support as many companies cannot even make that stance.

      • Tuesday - May 12, 2015 at 7:26 am

        Unfortunately, since the brand states and has told me many times that they do test as required by law, I do not feel comfortable stating that they are cruelty free or supporting them. A brand can take part in required by law animal testing without selling in China. There are laws all over the world that would require animal testing of various kinds. So them stating that they do not sell in China any longer is not enough to assure me. Until they are able to state that they do not test on animals at all, they won’t be considered cruelty free by Logical Harmony.

  4. Cat
    Friday - June 13, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    What brand foundation do you use now?

    • Thursday - June 26, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      I currently use Wet’n’Wild. The CoverAll foundation is vegan!

  5. Bonnie
    Tuesday - May 6, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Companies have choices as to where to sell. Paul Mitchell does not sell in China. Urban Decay was going to but changed their stance but, unfortunately, got bought out by Lancome, ( I believe L’Oreal). So, keep looking. Not buying their products is the only thing they will understand.

Leave a Reply

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