I am surprised that an entire article ostensibly about cruelty-free soap talks extensively about animal testing but fails to even mention animal soap. It is small comfort if a bar of soap is not tested on animals, if the soap itself consists mostly of rendered animal fat from the flesh of slaughtered factory-raised animals (as does most soap sold in pharmacies and supermarkets). The starting point for "cruelty-free" is the contents of the product itself, and while "sodium tallowate" and the like may be obvious giveaways, it is often difficult to tell whether or not soap is made with animal ingredients, as there are no labeling requirements for this.

It sounds as if the Procter & Gamble guy won you over buying to buying their products that have been produced using cheap labor, probably animal tested, and often with animal products in them.

Yes, I hate it that "cruelty free" isn't a guarantee, especially since those products could still contain animal products, but that doesn't mean giving your money to this huge multinationals who treat not just animals, but people and the environment poorly! Yes, it is a luxury and a privilege to choose to buy more expensive soap, but not all of it is expensive! I recently bought a bar of oatmeal soap with no fancy packaging for less than $1.50 at Whole Foods no less. Usually however, I like to buy handmade soap from friends of mine, craft fairs, or places on the internet!

The more local you buy, the less ingredients a product has, and the less packaging it has are all things to consider. At least try doing this if you want to make a difference!

If you stink, all your 'cruelty-free' bullshit won't mean diddly squat. All RC has pointed out is how dumb she has been until now as she fell for the "feel-good" label. At least she has the courage to call out PETA's list for what it is: equal parts of hope and speculation.

I urge her to follow her own advice: buy soap that works for her and give her extra money to those who need it.

So sleazy companies will try to profiteer off of peoples' good intentions - what's new about that? It's no reason to give up and waste money on some homeless guy who probably voted for Bush.

If the author had read PETA's info (and Googled) she would have discovered that some of the cheapest, virtually generic brands are also cruelty free.

You don't have to be rich to be vegan. I do find the ultra-expensive health food store marketing annoying because it goes hand in hand with the idea that only gays, feminists and rich yuppies should care about animals.

There are a few of us middle income straight white, moderately conservative white males who just don't like hurting animals.

what a facile statement - is all business bad business? In fact, as PETA states, good profits depend on good PR and lying to the public is a fast ticket to a big red ledger, so I'll wager that good business people know that cruelty free is good business...

I know that if people bought something that was listed on PETA's caring consumer guide, only to find out that they tested on animals later, there would be trouble. I also agree with the comment that cruelty free doesn't automatically translate into higher prices. You have to be a smart shopper.

Where only animals have human rights. You and I will live to see the day where a person is convicted of a capital crime for cruelty upon an animal. Fueled in part by the fanatics of PETA who's prior? president Ingrid Newkirk once famously said "I don't care if it cured AIDS and cancer, animal testing is wrong and cannot go on." To me, these people are just the liberals' version of Fred Phelps.

What I really want is for these folks to put their money where there mouths are and forego any and all medical procedures, drugs and protocols that have employed animals in their development.

The article raises the point whether any product can claim to be cruelty free, given that most ingredients have, at this point, been tested on animals at some point in the past. But this is, in fact, one of the primary arguments against animal testing of cosmetics. If we already have the research, why would a company bother re-testing chemicals that have already been proven safe?

It is a combination of outdated government regulations and industry habit that ensure the continued torture of animals in the name of looking good. It's unfortunate that we have a long history of animal testing, but we can use this past sacrifice to prevent the future abuse of animals.

I'm empathic to the scores of busy people who squeeze their shopping into the 30 minutes between racing home from work and picking up the kids at daycare or whatever. It's tough to know what to believe about product claims, and many consumers just don't have the time to do the exhaustive research needed to sort out the valid from the bogus. So, this comment isn't directed at any regular folks who've shelled out for cruelty-free, discovered the flaws associated with that claim, and now are wondering whether it's worth it and thinking that maybe they should just go back to using whatever is on sale at the grocery store.

This comment IS directed at the author of this piece. If I read this article correctly, Rebecca Clarren, a woman who makes her living by conducting research and writing is too overwhelmed to investigate further about the validity of product claims even though she's writing an article about that very topic. This is just absurd. There are consumer reporters for many major publications who would tackle this issue as follows: they'd do the research, provide a full explanation of the limits of the claim 'cruelty-free.' Then, if they were competent and really interested in providing something useful to their readers, they'd provide a list of brands that had reliable track records with regard to treatment of animals. If they were really good, they'd target that list to their demographic (supermarket brands for the time/cash-strapped, luxury brands for those seeking indulgence, whatever).

The present article, however, does none of that. The author makes a facile discovery (product claims are untruthful or exaggerated), pokes listlessly around among the many resources that exist on the topic, then decides to just take the word of a corporate spokesman when he reassures her that it's really not worth thinking about.