Millions of animals may suffer because these companies,Avon, Mary Kay and Estee Lauder, want to sell their products in China. The Chinese government requires tests on animals before many cosmetics products can be marketed. At the request of the government, Avon, Estée Lauder and Mary Kay have started testing on animals. Let's tell them to take action to eliminate this requirement and push for non-animal test methods to be accepted. They should pull out of China rather than go along with this senseless cruelty.
Estée Lauder owns the following companies, all of whom can no longer be classed as cruelty-free!
ESTÉE LAUDER
M•A•C COSMETICS
CLINIQUE
BOBBI BROWN
SMASHBOX
ARAMIS
PRESCRIPTIVES
LAB SERIES SKINCARE FOR MEN
ORIGINS
TOMMY HILFIGER
KITON
LA MER
DONNA KARAN
AVEDA
JO MALONE
BUMBLE AND BUMBLE
MICHAEL KORS
DARPHIN
AMERICAN BEAUTY
FLIRT!
GOODSKIN LABS
GRASSROOTS RESEARCH LABS
SEAN JOHN
MISSONI
TOM FORD
COACH
OJON
ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA
If you disapprove of this practice, which is not even necessary, please go to
http://www.change.org/petitions/boycott-estee-lauder-companies-avon-and-mary-kay-for-animal-testing?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=autopublish and sign the petition.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Done, gladly.
One in the eye for those who step back to go forward!
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Thank you Tom
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
I guess the question has to be asked that would anyone use cosmetics or let their children use cosmetics which haven't been tested properly. This goes for food items and pharma drugs as well. Would you trust a computer to give the all clear to these products? Not sure if I would.
There are (she said wearily) plenty of very good tests that do not require animals to suffer at all, all of which I would happily accept. If you trouble to read this you will note that it is because these companies want to sell in China, who are requiring them to animal test if they want to sell there. Very few countries still do so BECAUSE the other tests are sufficient.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Sounds like more China bashing to me.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
All of the cosmetics under consideration here are each tested on animals every single day. They are tested on the consumers who use them. Many such consumers in the west will be of Asian and Oriental origin too.
If this requirement had come from Brussels...?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Cheers Bern, signed up . Repeat testing of products allready on the market is not necessary
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it is not as if cosmetics are a necessary part of life, we choose to use them.
if philip had his way they would be tested on polar bear cubs.
Inside a nuclear powered kennel?
I am confused, as ever, by Philip. How could it be China-bashing if it is a fact that they require unnecessary testing? Isn't it simply a statement of fact about which we can choose to respond? You choose to respond critically, I prefer a positive action that could make a proper difference.
Burning nuclear powered kennel ?
Burning Polar Bear cubs.........?
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
I prefer my polar bear cubs char-grilled washed down with a nice chianti fuf, fuf, fuf, fufv.
Each country has it's own setup in order to ensure that imported goods pass their own particular requirements. What's good for the EPA in the states is different to what we require in this country.
Isn't it slightly arrogant for us now to judge China for their rules and regulations when for years We've been doing the same in terms of testing these products on animals? It's an emotive issue, actually it's more than emotive to witness the extreme views taken by animal rights extremists on this issue in the past. A gut feeling tells me there's more to this than meets the eye perhaps. Making imported goods more difficult to access the Chinese domestic market may be the key here.
In the end though I can't really see an alternative to bringing products to market without those products being tested on animals. Given the choice to take one product over another with one being untested on animals I think most people would take the safer option - ie. the product tested on animals.
It's cruel, perhaps, but it's the world we live in.
It isn't the safer option. It isn't arrogant to want to stop cruelty. It isn't necessary to be cruel to animals to sell stuff. It isn't "extremist" or even "animal rights" to want to stop people doing unnecessarily nasty things to sentient animals.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Dear Philip,
Would you care to have a stab at reproducing the test questionnaire as filled-out by 'Bertie Bunny','Belinda Beagle', 'Charlie Cat' or 'Malcolm Marmoset'?
I wonder how they do with Mandarin or Cantonese?
Perhaps we could do away with toilet tissue. The tongue does just fine for cat and dog?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Tom your last post is proof positive of the benefits of testing produce on animals before letting humans consume them. I haven't a clue what you are talking about but it reminds me of that old joke:
How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?
The fish.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Dear Philip,
"last post"? Do you mean #16 or are you expressing some wishful thinking?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
Done. I hate animal cruelty in any form
