My rabbit doesn’t even wear lipstick

I recently caught some news that L’Oreal is buying The Body Shop. This everyday corporate business wouldn’t normally catch my eye, were it not for my abhorrence for animal testing. Now, I’m not a perfect beast, but nearly every product I buy is examined for a ‘cruelty free’ label or purchased from a company that publicly rejects and does not participate in animal testing. L’Oreal is not quite there yet, though you will read mixed messages in the reports regarding the merger. According to Peta — who regularly track company policies — L’Oreal is still on the list of companies who conduct animal testing. According to one article about the takeover, L’Oreal claims they stopped animal testing in 1989, yet when you dig deep enough on L’Oreal’s corporate site you’ll find that they carefully word their policy to read:

L’Oreal has also, for a number of years, been committed to research, development and validation of methods leading to reducing and replacing animal testing of the chemical ingredients used in cosmetics.

There are currently three areas of toxicity for which alternative methods have been scientifically validated and which replace animal testing: skin corrosion, phototoxic potential and percutaneous absorption. L’Oreal Research has contributed extensively to the development, validation and international regulatory acceptance of these tests.

Other articles seem to more directly report on the issue of L’Oreal’s animal testing. From The Toronto Star:

Owen-Jones said L’Oreal wouldn’t be able to stop animal testing overnight, but it does have the long-term plan of “joining Body Shop on the issue.”

And some showed the uglier side of some animal rights advocates. From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Ruth Rosselson of Ethical Consumer Magazine said: “I for one will certainly not be shopping at Body Shop again. L’Oreal has yet to show its commitment to any ethical issues at all.” Animal protection groups called for a boycott.

As for that last quote, how is it going to help the cause by abandoning The Body Shop? Come on folks. Even Peta supported Burger King when it introduced veggie burgers! (And here too.)

Back on topic, for more information about companies that do and companies that don’t animal test check my links below. Peta updates their lists every few months. I can honestly say that I don’t support everything Peta does or says, but I do tend to align with them more than I do not.

I suppose my stance on cosmetics testing can be simplified to a few basic questions: If you wouldn’t spray your pet rabbit’s eyes or raw skin with hairspray, why would you let someone else? If you wouldn’t smear mascara into your cat or dog’s eyes, why is it OK for someone else to do it? Is vanity worth the suffering of another creature?

Nope. Never.
The more you learn about it all, the more you understand the barbaric and often inaccurate practice of animal testing.

Here’s hoping The Body Shop has swift influence over L’Oreal and that we all try to do good by watching what products we buy. Thanks for reading!

Important Links:
Companies that DO and that DON’T animal test

(You can also find similar lists for Charities HERE.)

And, although not related to this post in particular, here’s a link for the animal friendly
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Technorati Tags: ,

6 thoughts on “My rabbit doesn’t even wear lipstick”

  1. Hey Jen,

    PETA aren’t exactly a high water mark in animal welfare however…

    We’re having lots of fun with them here in Australia where they’re trying to build up a critical mass – their tactics seem to be based on targeting children ๐Ÿ™

  2. err, the link above “high water mark” doesn’t appear to have any decoration, though it’s active ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. Hi Matt!

    Thanks for the link. It seems a somewhat biased article, but I don’t believe it could be untrue. Having been involved in animal rescue (including having my own ferret rescue) for over 10 years, I’ve seen plenty of organisations with good intentions go sour. It’s horrible to see happen.

    Yeah, as I say, I don’t align myself with all that Peta does, but I do appreciate them in general. I’ve never liked extremist methods, but I guess I am glad they exist. They have done really good things for anti-fur, vegetarian promotion, factory farm reform, and pressures to vivisection and other cruel practice labs.

    Unfortunately, with such a huge organisation, Peta will have its bad branches and groups of individuals that blemish the whole cause. It’s not limited to animal rights, of course. The Red Cross assistance in New Orleans just after Katrina was reported as pitiful and self-serving. Plenty of people suffered when they should’ve been able to count on The Red Cross…

    But, as with Peta, we should be glad in general that The Red Cross exists. Very different organisations, but if you look at the larger amount of good these charities do then โ€šร„รถ?ร‘?ร† although it doesn’t excuse the bad โ€šร„รถ?ร‘?ร† it reminds us why they exist.

    Until humans become responsible โ€šร„รถ?ร‘?ร†ยฌยจโ€šร„โ€ truly responsible โ€šร„รถ?ร‘?ร† then organisations will exist to ‘fix’ things and they will get things wrong here and there. But, that’s fine with most people because it becomes someone else’s problem…

    You can see my lack of hope for humanity. ๐Ÿ™

Comments are closed.