so what exactly IS wrong with pantene?

[Barca]

I've heard a few things-- one of them being that they drip it in rabbits' eyes!!-- i've been using pantene since i was about 16. i usually use only the conditioner b/c i rarely use shampoo, but besides the alleged animal testing (thought they didn't do that but i'm getting mixed reports) what adverse effects does it have to the hair?

honestly if they animal testing is proven to be true i'm dumping the bottle i have now.

[NiAosSi]

I heard the same thing too! I dont know it it's true (sorry). I don't use Pantene because it's too -coney for my hair and cause lots of build-up. Honestly, if that turnas out as fact I am glad I don't use it. That's just unacceptable.

[plainjanegirl]

I recently heard that there is an ingredient in Pantene that if used over time will cause thinning of the hair. I don't know this as fact. I like using Pantene occaisonaly though.

[Flaxen]

Yes, apparently Proctor and Gamble still does animal testing. They have come up with a cruelty-free alternative to the Draize test (rabbits' eyes), but whether it has completely replaced the animal test, I am not sure.

I don't care for Pantene because it makes my hair completely limp after one shampoo (instant build-up), and the fragrance gives me a headache.

[Barca]

i just looked on the forum and saw this was thread was "moved" i don't know if i accidentally posted this in someone else thread where it didn't belong..but if i did, sorry!

and thanks for your input everyone. i think the fact that all of these rumors are flyign around is a bad sign. butwhat exactly is the purpose of putting shampoo in rabbits' eyes? they don't have tear ducts, so i don't see how it would be an indicator of how a human would react if they got the product in their eyes...

[TheHuman]

Test for blindness I assume.

Pantene makes my hair fall out.

[danacc]

Here is information on the Draize test:
http://www.123exp-biology.com/t/01174121414/

[Darkhorse1]

hmm. That's interesting. I love pantene's clarifying shampoo, but this spring, I noticed a TON of shedding going on, not just after I washed my hair, but throughout the days to follow. I switched to herbal essence, and lo and behold, less shedding. I returned to Pantene clarifying, and more shedding occured. However, I waited a few months, returned to it, and nothing. My hair dresser said it's possible my shedding of my hair occured with the time I used Pantene. I love their stuff, and interchange with other products.

[Flaxen]

i just looked on the forum and saw this was thread was "moved" i don't know if i accidentally posted this in someone else thread where it didn't belong..but if i did, sorry!
No apologies necessary. :flower: Your thread is a discussion of a particular product, so the best fit is on the Products Board. :smile:

[Carolyn]

Animal testing issues aside, I thought Pantene shampoos were very harsh and stripping. It's been years since I used one of their shampoos and I've never used one of their current ones. I can't imagine they are much different. I've tried various conditioners over the years. All built up something awful due to heavy silcones. Silicone is how Pantene works. Silicone covers damage and makes hair look smooth and shiny. With long hair that isn't always such a good thing. Some people here love cones and love Pantene, so realize I'm just giving you my take on it. I don't have any Pantene in my stash now and don't plan to purchase any but I'd use it as a one time thing in an emergeny if that's all that was available.

[tinah]

As mentioned, P&G does indeed test on animals. However, wouldn't dumping your current bottle in fact be disrespectful to the animals that suffered? just don't buy any more.:twocents:

[GlassEyes]

I've used the conditioner.

My hair loves it.

[Kirin]

I'm no fan of pantene, so, batten down the hatches I am about to defend it, at least slightly.

The information you find online regarding pantene (as well as a slew of other things) is pretty much super - hype. Yes, they test on animals, but your typical super supreme magical natural shampoo was tested on animals too. I don't care if they say they dont do animal testing. Thats a falsehood of epic proportions. Every ingredient thats being used in any bottle lining a shelf, health food store or not, all the components were tested on, yup you guessed it, animals.

Now though Pantene may not work on MY hair.... that doesn't mean its bad (in theory), some love it and use nothing else. The general bad for hair thing is the cones, which myhair hates, and some (like me) HATE the smell.

[Darian Moone]

Cones have always worked best on my hair but in general I prefer the Dove or Garnier Fructis products. Pantene's regular products can leave more of a build up if I'm not super careful. That said, Pantene does have one product that I just love, and it's their combing cream. I don't use it all the time - maybe once a month. I really do like how straight and smooth it leaves my hair. I don't know enough about the animal testing issue to comment on it at this time. This thread does prompt me to think about such things more and to start looking into it. I can only have an opinion once I'm well informed as to what exactly is/or isn't going on with Pantene products.

[Barca]

As mentioned, P&G does indeed test on animals. However, wouldn't dumping your current bottle in fact be disrespectful to the animals that suffered? just don't buy any more.:twocents:

i did think of that...but i actually feel really bad using it. i've been looking for a new conditioner, but the relaxed and natural SEEMS to really work. that draize test is awful!

[Barca]

I'm no fan of pantene, so, batten down the hatches I am about to defend it, at least slightly.

The information you find online regarding pantene (as well as a slew of other things) is pretty much super - hype. Yes, they test on animals, but your typical super supreme magical natural shampoo was tested on animals too. I don't care if they say they dont do animal testing. Thats a falsehood of epic proportions. Every ingredient thats being used in any bottle lining a shelf, health food store or not, all the components were tested on, yup you guessed it, animals.

Now though Pantene may not work on MY hair.... that doesn't mean its bad (in theory), some love it and use nothing else. The general bad for hair thing is the cones, which myhair hates, and some (like me) HATE the smell.

i think i just need to accept that there's no getting around some things.

[Soniasonia]

Somebody posted this on another site and i'll never forget it.

http://www.boycottpandg.co.uk/whatnottobuy.asp

[DragonLady]

I'll jump in with my two cents here.

That is, someone has to get it in the eyes. It's unrealistic to expect that anything used on hair won't eventually end up in the eyes of the user. When it does, we need to know what happens.

Remember, too, that all these ingredients are chosen because they're believed to be harmless. No manufacturer of anything ever says "Gee...let's add some hydrochloric acid to the mix, just to see what happens". They know that would be harmful. They choose stuff they don't believe will do any harm, and only then do they test the final product to make sure nothing unexpected has happened.

[Ndnlady]

I used pantene when I was a teenager. I stopped using it because it was making my hair thin and I was shedding excessively. I didn't know about clarifying at the time but it did make my hair dry and the ends would break off really easily.

[eadwine]

I'll jump in with my two cents here.

That is, someone has to get it in the eyes. It's unrealistic to expect that anything used on hair won't eventually end up in the eyes of the user. When it does, we need to know what happens.

Remember, too, that all these ingredients are chosen because they're believed to be harmless. No manufacturer of anything ever says "Gee...let's add some hydrochloric acid to the mix, just to see what happens". They know that would be harmful. They choose stuff they don't believe will do any harm, and only then do they test the final product to make sure nothing unexpected has happened.
That still doesn't make it right.

I would say for those who say it is ok to do animal testing, please go to the testing plant tomorrow and volunteer. If the products are so harmless what difference does it make then if you get tested instead of animals?

:twocents:

[toodramatik]

That still doesn't make it right.

I would say for those who say it is ok to do animal testing, please go to the testing plant tomorrow and volunteer. If the products are so harmless what difference does it make then if you get tested instead of animals?

:twocents:

Me> animals.

I think most people would rather have products tested on animals, than tested on say.. orphans? ;). Again, it does have to be tested on SOMEONE, or SOMETHING. And I prefer it to be animals than humans.

[FrannyG]

Far more cosmetic products have been tested on animals than not. Even products that are now cruelty-free were at one time tested on animals. If they hadn't been, we wouldn't have cosmetics to buy today.

I'm not saying it's right; quite the opposite, but there's a lot going on that would make us ill if we knew about it.

Ethical dilemmas aside, Pantene is the conditioner I reach for when I want to use cones. I used it exclusively for years, and I did not experience any thinning or unusual shedding. The only problem I had was a lack of shine due to buildup from time to time. That was before I knew about clarifying though.

Dove does nothing for me at all, and Garnier is hit and miss.

I might suggest the VO5 or Suave coney conditioners, although, I don't know anything about whether they do animal testing or not.

[Iylivarae]

They made my hair limp and greasy whenever I used pantene products. Also, they contain cones and other chemicals I don't want to have on my hair and skin. The animal testing is also an issue for me.

[SeaPhoenix]

Technology is a wonderful thing and there are many options for testing substances for possible irritants now, other than animals. Synthetic membranes and actual human cells and tissues for one (not attached to humans, lab grown... as mentioned, most people would be opposed to being test subjects the way animals have been made to be in the labs). Another option is actually via computer programming. The chemical structure of various things are inputted, and the new chemical compounds are added in a simulation program to see how they will react. It's rather a bit more in depth than I explain - but, it was pretty neat to read about.
Some places are using the alternative methods available (I believe someone posted the alternative to the draize test), and some places don't. The options are out there now, more and more. For the cosmetics industry, animal testing really isn't necessary in this day and age when there are so many alternative methods available. I did a paper on this for one of my classes actually... wish I'd saved all my web pages with the reference material, so I could whip out some links... but - if really interested - Google is our friend. It's what got me started in finding my references which led to other references. :-)

For really fun research - it's neat to see all the drugs that passed animal testing, yet had to be recalled for severe side effects, and in some cases, death. Of all the drugs passed via animal testing, there's only a very small fraction that wind up being safe for human use. Something like 92% of drugs passing animal testing failed clinical trials in humans... and even with that small percentage, drugs still get released from time to time, that wind up having to be recalled for safety reasons.

But ok... sorry for the hijack! I know there's folks on both sides of the fence with animal testing - so thought I'd throw my two cents in, and if anyone feels like doing the research... well - it was a very interesting month for me, writing that paper! The research is interesting, if nothing else. :cheese:

[Stevy]

The Beauty Brains (http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/07/04/is-pantene-good-or-bad-for-my-hair/) say that the 'Pantene makes your hair fall out' story is a myth. They don't touch the animal testing issue, though.

[tomm]

The Beauty Brains ... don't touch the animal testing issue, though.

Actually, they have - many times (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22animal+testing%22+site%3Athebeautybrai ns.com), just not in that article :). The first article listed (http://thebeautybrains.com/2008/06/28/first-cosmetic-animal-testing-alternatives-approved/) has some good information on the progress towards reducing/eliminating animal testing.

I hope this helps.

[joyinc]

I've done quite a bit of reasearch on this... Pantene, Dove, and Garnier all test on animals. Well known fact and I dont think I need to get into why this is bad since all of you seem to agree that it stinks.

What i will add is that bunny eyes are NOT human eyes. And those tests will not give the same results as if we were to get a bit of shampoo in our eyes. Tests have been done on drugs that came out totally different when tested on animals. Look at that drug in the 70's that caused so many birth defects... it was deemed safe when tested on animals because it did nothing to them because they are biologically different. We almost didnt get penicillin and asprin because they failed animal tests, but was later on deemed safe for humans.

Another thing that bugs me is that they have the models and skin cells and all the technology RIGHT NOW available to test these products ethically, without any animals, with results that are applicable to humans. This is why I will only use products that are cruelty free. My hair isnt as important to me as making sure a bunny or a dog or kitty doesnt get hurt.

And let me tell you, the eye test is the LEAST of what they do to them. They also pump their bellies full of the chemicals they are using just to test how many animals die.

It's just not worth it.

Sorry for going off there lol.... I was only using pantene all the time before I discovered all this. And I agree, out of respect to the animal that lost her life, why not use up what you have and then switch to something more ethical? We are lucky these days that there are so many products out there that are ok because consumers insist that our money not contribute to the needless suffering of an innocent animal.

Ok ok, i wont keep lecturing... but if anyone has any questions or needs help finding an alternative, let me know.

I cant wait for the day all shampoos and hair products are cruelty free! (its coming!) Then I will switch back to pantene and fructis!

[DragonLady]

And let me tell you, the eye test is the LEAST of what they do to them. They also pump their bellies full of the chemicals they are using just to test how many animals die.

I understand everyone's arguments so far, and I think there have been a lot of excellent points made. But I have trouble believing this statement. Test animals are expensive. They cost money to purchase, house, feed, record, and dispose of when they die. There has to be some point to the tests besides just counting the deaths. Maybe testing the lethality? The old LD/50 standard of determining whether someone had taken an overdose big enough to warrant stomach pumping and ICU care? Something.... I honestly believe researchers do not go into research for the joys and thrills of torturing the lab rats; they have other things to do with their time.

[RedCardigan]

The Beauty Brains (http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/07/04/is-pantene-good-or-bad-for-my-hair/) say that the 'Pantene makes your hair fall out' story is a myth.

Maybe so but I used to shed wads of hair when I used Pantene Clarifying Shampoo and a Pantene conditioner. Granted it, I was using them both on a daily basis as well as heat stying but I don't lose anywhere near the amount of hair since I changed products as well as styling methods. I do clarify once in awhile with the shampoo and I do notice more shedding. That's just my personal experence though and not at all claiming it to be scientific proof of anything. Since I quit using the conditioner I can't stand the scent or how it makes my hair feel.

[akurah]

What cracks me up about animal testing is that even if a company doesn't do animal testing themselves, they still use the research done by other companies that DID animal testing to formulate their products. Link to the beauty brains article detailing this. (http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/05/05/the-truth-about-animal-testing-and-cosmetics/)

The companies that don't actively test on animals are no better than the companies that DO test on animals, for the reasons outlined above. It annoys me that they behave all hoity-toity and project a misleading attitude to make them seem more "animal friendly" or "better" ethically than any other company.

[naomimcc]

I love Pantene. But, my hair loves loves loves cones. I just make sure to strip it every once and awhile.

[NiAosSi]

I think animal testing (as disgusting as it is) can be inevitable! My husband works for a major hospital in the tri-state are (we are in NYC) and they HEAVILY test on animals. I assume to find cures and all that horrible stuff. He's heard rumors as well as seen things I care not to repeat here.

The only way to comabt these things is to try and move toward more natural products. Herbs and such. But, in this day and age that is very difficult, we are so used to the marketing of an easier life. "If you don't have to do it, why should you?" should be the corporate motto.

[joyinc]

I understand everyone's arguments so far, and I think there have been a lot of excellent points made. But I have trouble believing this statement. Test animals are expensive. They cost money to purchase, house, feed, record, and dispose of when they die. There has to be some point to the tests besides just counting the deaths. Maybe testing the lethality? The old LD/50 standard of determining whether someone had taken an overdose big enough to warrant stomach pumping and ICU care? Something.... I honestly believe researchers do not go into research for the joys and thrills of torturing the lab rats; they have other things to do with their time.
The information is out there. All you have to do is look it up. It's public knowledge.

Unfortunately this kind of thing happens all the time

[Eboshi]

The companies that don't actively test on animals are no better than the companies that DO test on animals, for the reasons outlined above. It annoys me that they behave all hoity-toity and project a misleading attitude to make them seem more "animal friendly" or "better" ethically than any other company.
Thank you akurah, I agree completely and will even take it a step farther. I feel that the companies that do not test on animals are even worse than those that do. They sit back and wait for other people to "do the dirty work" for them. Once the new ingredient is approved, they are able to reap the benefits of someone else's work and research and then - they pat themselves on the back for sitting back and waiting for somebody else to do the work for them.

Pantene is way too coney for my hair, smells nice though.

[eresh]

The Beauty Brains (http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/07/04/is-pantene-good-or-bad-for-my-hair/) say that the 'Pantene makes your hair fall out' story is a myth. They don't touch the animal testing issue, though.



It sure wasn't a myth for me...
Pantene has long since been banned from my shower.


BTW, companies using the knowledge of animaltesting, yep, because that knowledge is now old and widely spread already.
That doesn't mean you have to still use these barbaric ways to gain NEW knowledge while there are now other ways to get it (mentioned already earlier in this topic)

[Barca]

i definately agree with the point made earlier that animal testing isn't always effective, and that especially with the advances of science there are alternatives. unfortunately, generating skin cells is more expensive than blinding or disfiguring the caged animal they already have in the lab...

:(

[joyinc]

Thank you akurah, I agree completely and will even take it a step farther. I feel that the companies that do not test on animals are even worse than those that do. They sit back and wait for other people to "do the dirty work" for them. Once the new ingredient is approved, they are able to reap the benefits of someone else's work and research and then - they pat themselves on the back for sitting back and waiting for somebody else to do the work for them.

Pantene is way too coney for my hair, smells nice though.
there are also companies that just dont research new chemicals at all. the world doesnt need any more shampoos, and there are plenty of cruelty free options out there :cheese:

[eresh]

I just had to share these Dutch clips that are shown on tv :-)
The first are one campaign in which the clips show a man asking people on the street to help him.
Dog clip (http://www.proefdiervrij.nl/client/video/hond_high.wmv)
Horse clip (http://www.proefdiervrij.nl/client/video/paard_high.wmv)
The man says: hello can I ask you something?
Woman reply: sure!
Is that your dog/horse?
Yes
What's his name?
Woman says name
Man asks: We are testing something, can you spray some pentahexol in his eyes/nose/?
Woman reacts outraged and full of disbelief

Text in screen says: A lot of testing animals are hoping for the same reaction.


This campaign is also great:
Dove clip (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=m_6qvEU6yKM)
Man: Hello, I'm here to lend you a dove to help you with the mail
Girl:Laughs
Man: Can he help you or not?
Girl: What can he do then??
Text in screen: A lot of animals are already replaced by technique
Man: That's how it was done in the old days!
Text in screen: And now for the testing animals to follow...
Girl: Disbelief/flabbergasted.

Ox clip (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=KOp07c4RI5M)
Man: Hello, I'm here to bring you this ox to help you work the land
Farmer: Yes, (stunned), but how do you want to do that? This is all done by machines
Man: It's done mechanical?
Farmer: Yes!
Man: But you can't use the ox for this?
Farmer: This is how they did it in the old days, long time ago....
Text in screen: A lot of animals are already replaced by technique
Farmer: Time change eh.
Text in screen: And now for the testinganimals to follow...

Creative and effective clips :-)
Without showing nasty images
It does make people think

[Elle]

Personally, I like the way Pantene smells. It's what it does to my hair that I don't like. It makes my hair fluffy and poofy. I prefer my hair sleek. I suppose if fluff/poof is what I was after, then I'd probably keep buying it. I was told that the culprit is its ingredient panthenol, so now I avoid any conditioners that contain it.

[danacc]

What cracks me up about animal testing is that even if a company doesn't do animal testing themselves, they still use the research done by other companies that DID animal testing to formulate their products. Link to the beauty brains article detailing this. (http://thebeautybrains.com/2006/05/05/the-truth-about-animal-testing-and-cosmetics/)

The companies that don't actively test on animals are no better than the companies that DO test on animals, for the reasons outlined above. It annoys me that they behave all hoity-toity and project a misleading attitude to make them seem more "animal friendly" or "better" ethically than any other company.

Ugh. I had no idea. Thanks for sharing. (And thanks extended to tomm who had also posted the Beauty Brains article.) Since a couple of alternative testing methods are now approved, I'll be looking for companies that invest in them. I'd rather support a company that puts money into available alternatives, even if they are using animal testing in other areas where the government still requires it. I'm completely against animal testing where alternatives are available, but this is a regulation issue, not a corporate one. "Unapproved" alternatives do no good.

Those building on top of others who did animal testing, and then claiming they are "cruelty free" leads to other ethical concerns for me. They didn't introduce more cruelty, and I can see that being a good thing. But their claims are misleading at best, especially if they are just pushing the responsibility onto their own suppliers!

[intothemist1999]

I've heard a few things-- one of them being that they drip it in rabbits' eyes!!-- i've been using pantene since i was about 16. i usually use only the conditioner b/c i rarely use shampoo, but besides the alleged animal testing (thought they didn't do that but i'm getting mixed reports) what adverse effects does it have to the hair?

honestly if they animal testing is proven to be true i'm dumping the bottle i have now.




Well, most mainstream companies do. I think Revlon and Avon are the only two "biggies" that I can think of who no longer animal test.

Proctor and Gamble are not as bad as some, but it bothers me to see them buy up companies who DO NOT engage in animal testing...who knows how they change the policies?

Unfortunately some products say "this product" or "finished product" not tested, which doesn't mean that the individual ingredients might not have been animal tested. They might also say "this company does not engage in animal testing," which doesn't mean they don't hire someone ELSE to do it!

If shopping at regular stores and drugstores you really have to read all the labels to find out if they don't do animal testing (although there are a few that don't, but don't say so...not sure why!). You can be pretty safe buying items at health stores since they almost never use animal testing.

I like a product like Avalon (http://avalonorganics.com/?title=Hair+Care) who says, "We do not test our products or ingredients on animals, nor do we ask others to do so for us." They go on to say, "Furthermore, we require that all our ingredient suppliers meet the same criteria of no animal testing."


.

.

[intothemist1999]

Again, it does have to be tested on SOMEONE, or SOMETHING. And I prefer it to be animals than humans.


Babies, or animals, they can't speak for themselves.

Humans shouldn't pick on the weak.

This is why I love TLHC so much...I've moved on to EDIBLE hair care products!

[sedonia]

I think some products work on some heads of hair, and some don't.

When I first joined this forum, I tried some of the non-conventional products that work very well for others here -- Chagrin Valley shampoo bars (3 varieties), coconut oil, shea butter. I stripped all the cones off my hair and used these for about 3 weeks. My hair slowly turned greasy at the roots, dry at the ends and looked/felt like straw. I started having problems with my scalp itching which

I went back to my cone-filled products, got my shiny soft hair back, and finished off the shampoo bars as hand and body soap. I use a combination of Pantene and L'oreal products.

[joyinc]

when i first joined here i tried all the natural stuff too and had the same sort of results. it wasnt good. so i went on a search to find non animal tested stuff that was more like the mainstream stuff i was using before. outrageous is a good replacement for pantene, loreal or other cone filled products.... i just started blogging about all of this :)

its nice not to go all gross and frizzy just because you want to be cruelty-free :)

[eadwine]

I just had to share these Dutch clips that are shown on tv :-)
The first are one campaign in which the clips show a man asking people on the street to help him.
Dog clip (http://www.proefdiervrij.nl/client/video/hond_high.wmv)
Horse clip (http://www.proefdiervrij.nl/client/video/paard_high.wmv)
The man says: hello can I ask you something?
Woman reply: sure!
Is that your dog/horse?
Yes
What's his name?
Woman says name
Man asks: We are testing something, can you spray some pentahexol in his eyes/nose/?
Woman reacts outraged and full of disbelief

Text in screen says: A lot of testing animals are hoping for the same reaction.


This campaign is also great:
Dove clip (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=m_6qvEU6yKM)
Man: Hello, I'm here to lend you a dove to help you with the mail
Girl:Laughs
Man: Can he help you or not?
Girl: What can he do then??
Text in screen: A lot of animals are already replaced by technique
Man: That's how it was done in the old days!
Text in screen: And now for the testing animals to follow...
Girl: Disbelief/flabbergasted.

Ox clip (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=KOp07c4RI5M)
Man: Hello, I'm here to bring you this ox to help you work the land
Farmer: Yes, (stunned), but how do you want to do that? This is all done by machines
Man: It's done mechanical?
Farmer: Yes!
Man: But you can't use the ox for this?
Farmer: This is how they did it in the old days, long time ago....
Text in screen: A lot of animals are already replaced by technique
Farmer: Time change eh.
Text in screen: And now for the testinganimals to follow...

Creative and effective clips :-)
Without showing nasty images
It does make people think

I always loved those little commercials, so true! thanks for sharing :)

[justgreen]

I have the new long hair Pantenne in my shampoo rotational. I like it, diluted of course, but dont use it often.

[Buddaphlyy]

I only use Pantene conditioners. Mostly the treatments and masks. The shampoos are too stripping and none of the leave-ins work for me.

[eresh]

I always loved those little commercials, so true! thanks for sharing :)


Thanks :-)
I guess you're the only one who actually looked at them.