Author:

Short answer

Old Spice is not cruelty-free. The parent company, Procter & Gamble (P&G) says they don’t test on animals unless required by law in some places. Because of that, Old Spice isn’t certified by Leaping Bunny, and I couldn’t find it on PETA’s cruelty-free list either. If you want an even deeper dive, my hands-on investigation of Old Spice’s animal-testing stance breaks down the policy document by document.

Now let me explain how I got there, because products and policies can get messy.

What I actually used

I’ve used Old Spice for years. My first stick was Old Spice Swagger. Big red tube, bold scent, and it worked through my sweaty spin class. I’ve also tried Bearglove (funny name, sharp scent), Fiji (light and beachy), and the Classic aftershave splash my grandpa used. The body wash lathers fast, which is nice when you’re late for work. But the deodorant left white streaks on my black tees if I rushed. Annoying, but fixable.

You know what? The scents are strong. My partner loved Swagger on date night, but the body spray was a bit much in small rooms. I learned to do one quick spray and walk through it. Old habit now. The fragrance-forward vibe actually reminds me of Bath & Body Works—another brand I’ve looked into for its animal-testing policy. And if smelling great boosts your confidence to get out of the house, you might also appreciate an easy way to pinpoint real-life social hotspots geared toward mature crowds—MilfMaps offers an interactive, city-by-city map of venues where seasoned singles actually gather, saving you the hassle of endless swiping and guess-work. If your plans take you down to North Carolina and you’d love to wind down with a stress-melting massage before or after the big night, check out the area-specific listings on Rubmaps Morrisville so you can skim honest user reviews, see current pricing, and avoid any sketchy parlors altogether.

What I checked about animal testing

I wanted a clear answer. So last summer, I chatted with P&G customer support and read their policy page. The message matched: they don’t test on animals unless a country’s laws demand it. That “unless” matters.

I also did three small checks:

• I looked for a cruelty-free logo on my Old Spice bottles. Didn’t see one.
• I searched the Leaping Bunny brand list. Old Spice wasn’t listed.
• I checked PETA’s database. Old Spice wasn’t on the cruelty-free side there either.

If you're curious about how companies can fully sidestep animal testing with modern in-vitro skin models, this clear explainer from InvitroDerm walks through the science step by step. That same legal gray area shows up with oral-care heavyweights like Crest and Colgate, which I’ve also reviewed in my bathroom-shelf tests.

So, even if most of their testing is avoided, the door stays open in places that still ask for animal tests for certain items. That’s why groups won’t call the brand cruelty-free.

Why this matters to me

I grew up loving the Old Spice Classic splash. It smells like clean shirts and Sunday chores. So this wasn’t a “toss it all” moment for me. It was more like, okay, I need to match my values with my cart. Small steps count.

I get that rules in some countries push brands into a corner. But I also like voting with my wallet while still being fair. No shame, just choices.

What I use now

I still have an Old Spice stick in a gym bag pocket. It’s my backup. But I’ve moved my daily use to cruelty-free picks, so my routine feels cleaner.

Here’s what’s worked for me:

• Native deodorant (P&G owns it, yes, but it’s listed as cruelty-free by PETA). The Coconut & Vanilla stick is gentle and doesn’t mark up my shirts.
• Tom’s of Maine deodorant. Mild scents, easy on my skin.
• Dr. Squatch soap bars. Cedar Citrus is like a campfire, but friendly.

Side note: a lot of “natural” sticks break down by late afternoon. I learned to reapply after lunch on hot days. And stash a travel stick in your work bag. Problem solved.

So… does Old Spice test on animals?

Here’s the bottom line:

• Old Spice, under P&G, says they don’t test on animals except where laws require it.
• Because of that exception, Old Spice is not certified cruelty-free.
• If you want a strict cruelty-free routine, you’ll want a brand with a verified logo and a no-exceptions policy.

Final take

Old Spice works. The scents hit, and the deodorant holds up. But the animal testing policy has that “unless” part, and that keeps it off cruelty-free lists. I keep one Old Spice stick for emergencies—old habits die hard—but my day-to-day is now brands that carry a clear cruelty-free stamp. Feels better. Smells good. Less fuss.

You know what? I grew up loving Revlon. My grandma wore Super Lustrous “Cherries in the Snow,” and the smell of that tube kind of lives in my head. So this question hit me right in the feels.

Quick answer

Revlon says they don’t test on animals unless a country’s law requires it. So do they test? Not in their own labs as a routine thing. But they allow testing when a law says they must. That means they aren’t cruelty-free by most standards.

I know—that sounds a bit messy. It is. For an even deeper, document-by-document rundown of Revlon’s stance, you can skim my dedicated write-up right here.

What I found out (and what I did)

I didn’t guess. I checked.

• I read Revlon’s FAQ in mid-2024 (for details, see Revlon’s official animal testing policy).
• I emailed their customer care (August 2024). The reply said Revlon doesn’t test on animals, except where required by law. It matched what’s on their site.
• I looked for third-party proof. I couldn’t find Revlon on the Leaping Bunny list when I checked. PETA didn’t list them as cruelty-free either at that time. An independent audit of Revlon’s uncertified status is summarized in this Ethical Elephant overview.

Here’s the thing: some countries can still require animal tests for certain items. So if a brand sells there, their products may be tested by others, even if the brand says “we don’t test.” That’s the catch.
Forward-looking labs now offer in-vitro safety screens—check out Invitroderm for an example—that give regulators the data they need without live animals.

Stuff I actually used (and loved… mostly)

This part is a little hard, because I did like a few things.

• Super Lustrous Lipstick, “Cherries in the Snow”: bright, creamy, a bit nostalgic. I wore it to a winter wedding and it held up through cake and too much dancing.
• ColorStay Makeup for Combo/Oily: I used shade 200 for sweaty summer days. It stayed put at a Houston wedding—humid like a greenhouse. It ran a little yellow on me, but powder fixed it.
• So Fierce! Mascara: good length, but it smudged under my eyes by hour six. Not raccoon, but close.
• PhotoReady Candid Concealer: light feel, nice for school pick-ups and Costco runs. Didn’t crease hard on me.

Do I still use them? No, not the makeup. I boxed up my backups and gave them to a friend who doesn’t shop by cruelty status. We had a long chat about it over iced coffee. Felt weird, but right for me.

Small twist: I still use the Revlon One-Step Hair Dryer. It’s a tool, not a product that gets tested on animals. That felt different to me. You might feel another way, and that’s okay.

So what did I do next?

I switched to brands that are certified cruelty-free.

• CoverGirl (Leaping Bunny) surprised me. Their Clean Fresh Tinted Lip Oil is easy and cute.
• e.l.f. is my weekly go-to. Their Halo Glow and Lash X are standouts for the price. (If you’re curious about how e.l.f. itself handles animal testing, I unpacked their policy in this deep dive.)
• Milani Conceal + Perfect does the heavy lifting when I need full face.

I’m not perfect. I still mess up sometimes in a rush. But I try to buy with my heart and my head.

If you’re shopping and want it simple

Here’s how I check now:

• Look for the Leaping Bunny logo on the box.
• Check the brand’s FAQ. “Except where required by law” usually means not cruelty-free.
• Use a well-known cruelty-free database to confirm.
• When in doubt, email support. Save the reply. It’s fast, and they do answer.

In case prestige counters tempt you, I ran the same checklist for a few legacy favorites—my no-fluff reports are here if you want them: Clinique, Lancôme, Dior, and Kiehl’s. Spoiler: their policies are all over the map.

Side note: laws change. Some regions eased rules in recent years, but not all. So I re-check once a year. Boring? A little. But it helps.

The human part

I felt torn. I liked Revlon’s prices. I liked the colors. But once I learned the policy, I pressed pause on their makeup. It’s a small choice, but it lined up with my values. And that made getting ready feel better—lighter, even.

That lifted mood even nudged me toward more open conversations with my partner about confidence and intimacy. If you’re on a similar journey and want to channel your boosted self-assurance into your sex life, check out this candid roundup of unexpected sex tips from real-live girls. It’s a quick, unfiltered read packed with practical ideas you can actually try tonight, straight from women who’ve been there.

For Midwestern readers who prefer a more tactile way to unwind after a hectic week of beauty research, you might appreciate this localized breakdown of discreet massage spots in Indiana—Rubmaps Kokomo—which serves up honest reviews, pricing insights, and safety pointers so you can explore responsibly and stress-free.

Bottom line

• Revlon says they do not test on animals, except where required by law.
• That means they allow it in some places, so they aren’t considered cruelty-free by most groups.
• If cruelty-free is your line in the sand, pick another brand. If it’s not, you’ll still find solid products there.

I wish the answer were cleaner. But hey, progress happens step by step. Until then, I’ll keep my “Cherries in the Snow” memories and my e.l.f. cart full.

I use these numbers for my job, and sometimes for my own peace of mind. I build decks. I check reports. I talk with lab folks and policy people. And you know what? The stats on animal testing often don’t match the way people repeat them online. They look clean in a post. But in the real world, they get messy fast. For the nitty-gritty version of how I see these numbers spin out, check out my full breakdown.

I’m not here to scold. I’m here to share what I’ve seen, up close, with coffee on my sleeve and a spreadsheet that won’t behave.

The “90%” Drug Stat That Won’t Sit Still

You’ve seen it. “Ninety percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.” I even put that line on a slide once. It sounded sharp. A friend in pharma called me after the talk and said, “Kayla, that’s not quite it.”

He was right. The FDA has said that about 90% of drugs that enter human trials don’t make it to approval. Those drugs did have animal studies first. But the stat isn’t proof that animal tests “passed” those drugs. It’s not that simple. Some drugs looked OK in animals, then failed for many reasons in people—safety, dosing, side effects, or just no benefit. Also, folks quote 90%, 92%, even 95%. It shifts by time and field.

So when you see that one-liner? Ask: Is this about drugs entering trials, or about animal tests “passing” them? Big difference.

My Spreadsheet vs. The Mouse Room

Here’s a real one from my week. I pulled USDA APHIS numbers for my state. The report showed a few thousand animals used at local labs. That seemed low. Then I walked through a mouse room with a lab manager. She said, gently, “We use tens of thousands of mice and rats each year. Those aren’t in that report.”

She’s right. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act does not cover rats, mice, or birds bred for research. The USDA reports leave them out. But they are most of the animals used. Groups like NC3Rs and Speaking of Research say mice and rats make up the big majority, by a lot.

So the official number looked neat and small. The real number was much larger. That gap matters. It changes how we talk about scale, cost, and care.

One Country Counts “Animals.” Another Counts “Procedures.”

A chart fooled me once. It compared the U.S. and Europe and said one side used more animals. But the EU counts “procedures.” The U.S. counts animals (and again, not all animals). If one mouse has two procedures, the EU count goes up by two. Same mouse, two lines. In the U.S., that might be one animal in the tally.

I learned this the hard way while fixing a slide before a meeting. I called our IACUC office (they oversee animal care). They walked me through it, step by step. “Make sure you say what the number is counting,” they said. Simple, but easy to miss.

Pain Categories: Not All Columns Mean the Same Thing

Another place where people trip: pain and distress. The USDA has columns—C, D, and E. C means no or little pain. D means pain was relieved with drugs. E means pain could not be relieved. I’ve seen posts that say, “Most animals feel no pain.” But that’s not what Column C means every time. It’s more like “no or minor pain,” or “no more than a needle.” It’s still a serious topic.

Across the ocean, the EU reports “severity.” Different words, different bins. So you can’t match them line by line. I once tried. I ended up with a color-coded mess and a headache.

The Cosmetics Tangle

I once shared a post that said, “Cosmetics animal testing is banned in the U.S.” A friend who works in policy texted me, “Not quite.” There’s no blanket federal ban. Some states—like California and New York—ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. The EU bans most cosmetics animal testing and the sale of newly tested products. But even there, chemicals rules under REACH can push testing for worker safety. It’s not a tidy story.

For a brand-specific snapshot, check out how Neutrogena navigates animal testing commitments and how Pantene’s policy reveals its own complications.

Also, Congress passed FDA Modernization Act 2.0 in 2022. It removed the old rule that said animals must be used for drug approval. That doesn’t ban animal tests. It just means other methods can be used. See how the words shift? I now read those posts twice.

Newer in-vitro skin models, such as those highlighted by InvitroDerm, show how non-animal methods are stepping up to fill the gap.

Missing Years, Blocked Pages, Slow Data

A quick memory: in 2017, USDA APHIS pulled some inspection files from the web for a while. I had a deadline and sat there refreshing the page. Data goes missing. Or it comes a year late. Or the format changes. When people share old charts like they are fresh, I cringe a little. Time stamps matter.

Rehoming and End-of-Study: The Quiet Blind Spot

People ask me, “How many animals get adopted out?” I wish I had a clean number. Some schools post nice stories about beagle adoptions. Some don’t share much at all. There isn’t a standard national rollup. I’ve tried to track it. I made a small sheet with notes from facility reports and local laws. It felt like trying to hold water in my hands.

Two Talks That Changed How I Read These Numbers

• A vet tech showed me how refinement works. She talked about better housing, handling, and pain care. I saw how small changes helped. The 3Rs—Replace, Reduce, Refine—weren’t just words on a poster. NC3Rs has good guides on this. It made me less quick to judge a whole lab by one stat.

• A toxicology lead walked me through false positives and false negatives in tests. It sounded dry. It wasn’t. It explained why a test can look “right” in animals and still steer a team wrong for people. Or flag risk where there isn’t one. It’s not just “animal vs human.” It’s the test, the model, the dose, the method.

So… Are The Stats Useless?

No. I still use them. I just treat them like a weather report: helpful, but not the whole sky. Numbers guide budgets, 3Rs work, and policy talks. They also get spun. Mine have too. I’m not proud of that one slide. But I learned.

Quick Checks I Use Now

• What is being counted? Animals, procedures, or studies?
• Which animals? Are mice, rats, and birds included?
• What year is the data? Is it national, state, or just one facility?
• How were pain and severity scored? By USDA columns or EU levels?
• What’s the source? USDA APHIS, EU Commission, NC3Rs, FDA, or a group with a stance?
• Does the claim match the source words, or is it a leap?

I keep these on a sticky note. It lives next to my keyboard with a coffee ring on it.

That habit of double-checking raw counts carries over to my non-work life too. A while back I was helping a community health friend tally how many massage and wellness shops actually operated in Central Florida. The state licensing board’s list was months out of date, and Yelp wasn’t much better. A street-level directory like Rubmaps’ Winter Haven roundup pulled the locations, user feedback, and updated status into one neat table, making it far easier to verify which storefronts were real and which were phantom listings.

For anyone who has ever stared at a spreadsheet and then had to jump straight into a meeting to explain it, turning stats into plain speech is its own mini-art form. A quick refresher like the conversational pointers in this set of hot chat tips can help you frame tricky numbers in a way that keeps the room engaged and open to nuance.

One More Real Example

A local reporter asked me if our city’s labs used “only a few hundred animals” last year. She had a neat PDF from a USDA report. I said, “That’s not the full set. It leaves out mice and rats.” We called the lab’s comms team. They shared a high-level figure that was much higher. The story changed. It got more honest. No one loved the new number, but it was true to the data.

My Take, Plain and Simple

• The 90% drug stat

I’ve used Aveeno for years. The big green pump. The oatmeal smell that’s not really a smell. My winter elbows love it. But when I started cleaning up my routine, I had to ask the hard question: does Aveeno test on animals?

Here’s the thing—I wanted a simple yes or no. I didn’t get one.

What Aveeno told me (and what I saw)

I chatted with Aveeno customer support this fall. The rep told me they don’t test on animals, unless a law requires it. That exact line made me pause. It sounds okay at first. But it means they might allow testing when they sell in places that still ask for it.

I also checked two lists I trust: PETA’s “Beauty Without Bunnies” and Leaping Bunny. As of December 2025, I didn’t see Aveeno on either cruelty-free list. According to Aveeno's official animal-testing policy, the brand “does not conduct animal testing on its cosmetic products anywhere in the world, except in the rare situation where governments or laws require it,” and because of that clause they remain absent from PETA’s registry and do not hold Leaping Bunny certification.

And my bottles? No Leaping Bunny logo on the label. I checked three: Daily Moisturizing Lotion, Skin Relief Moisturizing Lotion, and Eczema Therapy Cream. Great feel. No bunny.

My real-life use: the good, the weird, the why

I’ll be straight. The products work. My Daily Moisturizing Lotion sits by the sink. One pump after washing dishes keeps my hands soft. It goes on slick, then settles in fast. Not greasy. No perfume cloud. I’ve taken that bottle on trips and even tucked it in the stroller basket when my kid’s cheeks got wind-burned at the park. It’s a “set it and forget it” kind of lotion.

But. I care about testing. I keep a tiny note on my phone: “Cruelty-free yes/no,” so I don’t blank out in the aisle under those bright Target lights. When I don’t see a bunny logo, I look it up. If I see “unless required by law,” I treat it as a soft no.

You know what? It’s a little awkward. The lotion calms my red spots. The policy doesn’t calm my mind.

So…do they test on animals?

Short version: Aveeno says they don’t test on animals, except where laws require it. If you want the long-form details, this deep dive on Aveeno’s animal-testing stance breaks it all down with timelines and receipts. That means they’re not considered fully cruelty-free by groups that set the bar. No independent certification from Leaping Bunny. Not listed as cruelty-free by PETA.

It’s a “not quite.” I wish it were a clear yes or no, but it isn’t.

Labels and shelf checks I’ve done

• Walgreens trip: I checked four Aveeno body lotions. No cruelty-free logo on any.
• Target run: Aveeno Baby wash and lotion—again no bunny logo.
• Packaging fine print: lots about oats, hypoallergenic claims, and sensitive skin; nothing about a cruelty-free cert.
• Quick compare: right next to Aveeno, I saw Pacifica and Versed. Both had clear cruelty-free notes on shelf tags and on the box.
• I did the same scan for Neutrogena—a sister drugstore favorite—and spotted the same “unless required by law” language. You can see exactly what I found in this hands-on take.

If you want only cruelty-free, here’s what I’ve swapped in

I tested these on my dry “radiator skin” winter days:

• Pacifica Body Butter: Thick, sweet scent, vegan, cruelty-free. Good for night.
• Versed Dew Point or Press Restart Body: Light, no heavy scent, cruelty-free. Great for mornings.
• The Body Shop Body Butter: Rich, lasts forever. Long-time cruelty-free brand.
• Paula’s Choice Body lotion with AHA: More “skin-care nerd” feel, cruelty-free. Smooths bumpy arms.

For readers who want to understand how modern labs replace animal testing with advanced skin models, visit InVitroDerm for clear, science-backed updates.

None feel exactly like Aveeno’s oatmeal glide. But they come close, and I sleep easier.

Why the wording matters

“Except where required by law” is the key phrase. Some countries still ask for animal tests for certain products, or keep rules that allow them after a product is on shelves. Rules change, and some are changing for the better, but it’s not a full stop yet. If a brand sells there, it might agree to that testing. And that’s the line many animal-rights groups won’t cross.

Think of it like reading the fine print on a contract. Most of it looks good—until you see the tiny clause that changes the whole deal. If you’re a data person, this statistical deep dive into animal-testing numbers shows just how messy the reporting can get—and why those tiny clauses matter.

How I shop now

• I look for the Leaping Bunny logo first.
• If there’s no logo, I check brand sites and the cruelty-free lists.
• I save a few “go-to” lotions so I don’t get stuck guessing in the aisle with cold hands and a fussy kid.

While we’re talking self-care beyond lotions, feeling confident sometimes means expanding your social circle too. If you’re curious about connecting with financially secure, like-minded partners, the detailed overview of Established Men breaks down how the platform works, who tends to join, and the safety tips you’ll want before signing up, so you can decide if it meshes with your lifestyle goals.

Another way I’ve been upgrading my self-care days is by pairing a fresh bottle of cruelty-free lotion with an actual massage session. If you ever road-trip through Arkansas’s spa city and want the inside scoop on which parlors are clean, reputable, and worth the splurge, the crowd-sourced listings at Rubmaps Hot Springs walk you through menus, pricing, and real customer feedback so you can book with confidence and skip the tourist traps.

For brand-by-brand comparisons, my review of Neutrogena’s policy is a helpful companion piece.

Honestly, I still have an Aveeno bottle at home. I’m using it up—no waste—then switching. Tiny steps. Real life.

Final answer

Does Aveeno test on animals? They say no—unless a law asks for it. Because of that, they’re not considered fully cruelty-free and don’t carry Leaping Bunny certification. If you want strict cruelty-free, pick a different brand. If you’re okay with the “unless required by law” line, you may decide Aveeno works for you.

Policies can change, so check again when you shop. I’ll keep checking too. My skin likes oats, but my heart wants that little bunny.