For a long time, this has been regarded as the most rigorous scientific method to test the safety and effectiveness of many
consumer products, including cosmetics. Researchers wanted to evaluate the risk of short-term exposure through normal use of
cosmetics or accidental contact with the eyes or skin. They also wanted to check the effects of long-term exposure to some of
the ingredients in cosmetics, and whether health problems such as cancer or developmental abnormalities could arise.
Many of those researchers felt (and some still do) that we do not sufficiently understand the complexity of the human body to
design suitable, animal-free tests. They believed that experimenting on animals is what comes closest to experimenting on the
human body.
As scientific methods and tools progressed however, this idea has been questioned. The use of animals to test a product designed
for humans is archaic and ineffective, in addition to being unethical, as these tests do not produce the most rigorous results
possible. Scientifically, they are now less robust than some of the new methods that have been developed, such as cell cultures,
or tests with human skin samples.
Nowadays It's hard to find products that really are cruelty-free.
If a product says " cruelty-free " or has a bunny on it, that means it has not been tested on animals really.
Designation as "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals," or even the image of a bunny on a label may only refer to the finished
product, when in fact, most animal testing occurs at the ingredient level.
OCFYS never tested on animals, not only on the finished product even at the ingredient level.