From the shampoo or shaving cream we use in the morning to the cologne we apply to go out on the town, our personal care products say a lot about us.

But there's one thing your makeup or shampoo choices should never say: that you support torturing and killing animals.

Of all the ridiculous reasons that people inflict needless suffering on animals, vanity is one of the most pathetic. Despite the availability of effective and cruelty-free product-testing methods, countless individual rabbits, mice, and other animals are still poisoned, blinded, and killed every year in outdated and ineffective tests—all for the personal care products that fill many people's bathroom cabinets.

When PETA's investigations expose companies testing on animals, we tell people to shop elsewhere. And this economic pressure gets corporate attention, often when nothing else will. Major corporations, including Revlon, Mary Kay, Method Home, Estée Lauder, Bath & Body Works, and others, have signed PETA's pledge against animal testing. In the last year alone, 44 companies have licensed PETA's cruelty-free bunny logo, which certifies their stand against cruel and unnecessary tests on animals.

Yet some companies, such as L'Oréal, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson, remain in the "dark ages," performing cruel and crude tests on rabbits, mice, guinea pigs, and other animals. Companies like these drip caustic chemicals into the sensitive eyes of rabbits, blinding them before they kill them, or they pump nail polish down animals' throats to see how much they can endure before dying in agony.

And for what? Animal tests on most consumer products are not required by the government. These experiments are bad science and do nothing to make products any safer. Even if a cosmetics maker finds that its mascara blinds animals, the company can still legally sell it to you! With the availability of so many effective non-animal testing methods—which are cheaper, faster, and more reliable—conducting animal tests for personal care products is not just unnecessary but also inexcusable.