L"Occitane lost its bunny

[SparklyBarbs]

Julius you are taking this whole item away from what its meant to be about. Its about
L"Occtaine going into the chinese market, which insists the products are tested on
animals. Your going into the bigger picture, which we cant go into, and i don"t want
to. It hasnt been publshed anywhere or mentioned that they"ve gone into the Chinese
market and lost their "bunny" symbol from last December, this is what i was bringing
to the forums notice, we all led to believe its from the fields of Provence and so pure
they even know where the farm the lavender is grown from. This makes a laugh when
they are now selling to China which , as ive said insists they test on animals, so why care
where the lavender is grown etc etc etc

 

[Julius]

Barbs I understand your point, however my purpose in writing was just to make people think about the wider picture of ethics and commerce at large. There is no reason why it can't be mentioned or discussed. This is a forum for discussion, and discussion can look at all angles and be so much the better for it. I am sure l'Occitane didn't mention the bunny thing for PR (just like Ultrasun didn't mention the ASA complaint) reasons, as they are a premium brand that I would imagine sell to fairly affluent clients (although I buy their products and I am not affluent on my £20,000 a year). The more affluent people become, the more ethical they tend to be. Someone who has a budget of £20 a week to feed their family is not going to be buying ethical, organic products. L'Occitane users and QVC viewers are probably a more ethical bunch of people than some and would probably be quite concerned about potential cruelty issues. UOTE=SparklyBarbs;586466]Julius you are taking this whole item away from what its meant to be about. Its about
L"Occtaine going into the chinese market, which insists the products are tested on
animals. Your going into the bigger picture, which we cant go into, and i don"t want
to. It hasnt been publshed anywhere or mentioned that they"ve gone into the Chinese
market and lost their "bunny" symbol from last December, this is what i was bringing
to the forums notice, we all led to believe its from the fields of Provence and so pure
they even know where the farm the lavender is grown from. This makes a laugh when
they are now selling to China which , as ive said insists they test on animals, so why care
where the lavender is grown etc etc etc[/QUOTE]

 

[lawrenson]

Hi,

apparently Urban Decay have decided not to sell in China because of this.

http://www.urbandecay.com/Animal-Testing-Policy/animal-testing-policy,default,pg.html

Cheers,
Karen

 

[BurlyBeaR]

Julius is the voice of reason on this. People who get hysterical about animal testing need to make sure they are squeaky clean in every other respect before they start getting too indignant.

 

[caretodiffer]

I cannot understand why anyone should do tests on poor bunnies, cats dogs and other creatures that cannot speak:sad:. They cannot say that things hurt them, or how itchy it is or how it burns so tests can be stopped at once, they are left to suffer longer till these testers can see the results by which time the poor animals have suffered longer unnecessarily:sweat:.
I think it is a lot better to test on humans, at least they can cry out if things hurt, or call out if things are burning etc. and the testing can be stopped at once.
I would hate to use anything I know has been sold after some poor animal went through some agony:mysmilie_476:.
Even Julius's remark (joke)about the bunnies with burnt out eyes has distressed me greatly and I am upset:mysmilie_512:. Please I will thank you not to say things like that again. I think animals like dogs are special, most of them are a lot better than some so called humans.
I don't like jokes made on people or animals that can't answer back......I think of that as cruel.

 

[caretodiffer]

Julius is the voice of reason on this. People who get hysterical about animal testing need to make sure they are squeaky clean in every other respect before they start getting too indignant.

What Julius says maybe reason, we all understand the necessity for companies to make profits and how that will improve the recession etc, etc, but unless we the minority of people who think it is wrong to hurt animals that cannot answer back also have a voice of reason. I am not saying that cosmetics should not be tested,let the testing be done on willing humans, who can stop the tests as soon as it starts showing any adverse reactions........not on animals that cannot speak out and shut in a cage and cannot even run, because things are hurting them. I don't want anyone to say that these poor animals don't matter. Just because they cannot voice their feelings, it does not mean that they don't get hurt or feel pain!

 

[BurlyBeaR]

Even Julius's remark (joke)about the bunnies with burnt out eyes has distressed me greatly and I am upset:mysmilie_512:. Please I will thank you not to say things like that again. I think animals like dogs are special, most of them are a lot better than some so called humans.
I don't like jokes made on people or animals that can't answer back......I think of that as cruel.

With respect, this forum is not here to pander to your fragile sensibilities.

Do you think animls like rats are special? You can be as emotive you like about your fluffy bunnies and doggies but the fact of the matter is that most testing is carried out on animals ith rather less appeal.

How about if they tested your mascara on a chicken before it got its throat cut and made it's way onto your dinner table?

As usual, double standards abound

 

[caretodiffer]

With respect, this forum is not here to pander to your fragile sensibilities.

Do you think animls like rats are special? You can be as emotive you like about your fluffy bunnies and doggies but the fact of the matter is that most testing is carried out on animals ith rather less appeal.

How about if they tested your mascara on a chicken before it got its throat cut and made it's way onto your dinner table?

As usual, double standards abound

Is this forum only f for insensitive people? I did not know that, I would not have registered if we have to belong to a special type of group. I want some clarification on this issue.
IS THIS FORUM OPEN TO ANY ONE TYPE OF GROUP?

Please will the admin, or mods please reply my query, so that I will know whether I have wrongly entered this forum, thank you.
I would not want the mascara (I don't use mascara by the way) on the chicken before its throat is cut. Cutting its throat is a lot kinder than letting it live with irritating and sore eyes.
I think all living things are special.......kill them humanely if they spread diseases etc, just because they try to survive by scavenging on food etc, does not give anyone the right to make them suffer and die in prolonged agony!

 

[BurlyBeaR]

The forum is here for anyone who wants to post within the guidelines. It's not for you to tell/ask people to refrain from posting anything just because you find it personally upsetting

Im getting a bit fed up of the animal Gestapo calling the shots on ST.com.

 

[caretodiffer]

The forum is here for anyone who wants to post within the guidelines. It's not for you to tell/ask people to refrain from posting anything just because you find it personally upsetting

Im getting a bit fed up of the animal Gestapo calling the shots on ST.com.

You have just posted what you said said you don't expect others to do. Don't we have the right to post what we want, why are you saying you are getting fed up of "the animal Gestapo"
I hope you understand the maning of Gestapo................if not please look it up.

 

[caretodiffer]

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a personal conflict between you and me, BurlyBear :happy: If you have anything more to tell me, please use the PM method.

 

[BurlyBeaR]

I know exactly what it means, thanks.

There is nothing I need to PM you about.

 

[minim]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole Beauty industry stinks.

It is worth billions (estimated to be worth $50 billion in 2010 in the U.S. alone)
it uses highly questionable ingredients
it tells downright lies

Expecting this industry to have morals/ ethics is like blowing kisses in the wind

 

[Pickles]

A while ago i heard a T-caller speak to Alexis and she asked if the products were made of palm oil. Oh Yes, Yes sprouts Alexis thinking that was a good thing (all natural and all that). The caller says thanks and goodbye. Once again Alexis had missed the point about her products - palm oil plantations mean that the natural habitats of orang utans are being destroyed in Borneo etc. I understood why the T-caller was asking, Alexis did not.

That program that was on last week about skin aging - at the L'Oreal labs weren't they testing on 'lab' skin grown in dishes? Surely this is the way forward.

 

[donna255]

Animal testing has been banned in EU countries. But many pick up ingredients which have been tested independently in labs which break the five year ruling. You must prove that all ingredients fit outside the five year rule to get the bunny.

Now in the US it is the Peta award they aim for, but Peta and the bunny can have very very different rules. Smashbox was Peta approved but lost it due to being owned by Estee Lauder who have moved into the Chinese market. Now going by that LE would have lost the Peta rating too, but the bunny is not as strict about parent companies owning these brands. In the US Avon was forced to take down from their website the NO ANIMAL TESTING banner.

It can be a total minefield, as US sites will say one thing but UK/EU ones totally different about which brands test etc. So you get people swearing brand X tests because they looked at one directory stating they do. Then someone else will put up another directory saying they do not. Also many of these directories do not up date their lists.

 

[Kop Girl]

Julius is the voice of reason on this. People who get hysterical about animal testing need to make sure they are squeaky clean in every other respect before they start getting too indignant.

Then Julius should also consider his own position before passing judgment over who he calls the' ignorant' and appearing to feel he is superior to most of the others ( that's just my opinion on how he comes across as he's posted in the LG thread too). He admits to working for a company which is more interested in profit than ethics. I left my last very well paid job because I didn't like what the company stood for. That doesn't make me any worse or better than anyone else doing what they can. We do oiur best to make the changes we can or feel comfortable with and that is surely better than taking the attitude of doing nothing because you can't do it all ?

 

[louise66]

I think Anita Roddick led the way.

The first thing I consider when purchasing ANYTHING - cosmetic/household/clothing - is whether or not animal testing has been performed or the product contains any animal ingredients/by products. The main reason for purchasing l'occitane is the fact that it doesn't test on animals. If this has changed, then I also will never use this range again.

Although because I use premium body/skincare products and so would not, consequently, use the body shop anyway, the fact that Anita Roddick sold out on an ethical level - offer someone a huge amount of money and their beliefs are so easily compromised - would make me stop purchasing from them. These huge conglomerates are able to offer smaller companies whatever it takes to buy them out and they, nfortunately, seem too keen to allow themselves to be bought.

 

[kitten_with_claws]

Julius is the voice of reason on this. People who get hysterical about animal testing need to make sure they are squeaky clean in every other respect before they start getting too indignant.

Not necessarily BB, we all have to start somewhere & I think people do what they can as individuals; RL isn't like playing the Fable series, it's virtually impossible to be totally 'good' & 'pure' all the way through, all the time, in every aspect of living! lol

Me, I eat meat but not veal, due to the unnecessary unnatural & incredibly cruel confinement of calves to produce a 'luxury' meat, same as I always buy free range chicken & free range eggs! I try to avoid stuff with palm oil in, unless stated it has been ethically & ecologically soundly grown & harvested, that's hard enough these days! I buy cleaning products from the Co-op, whose stuff all carries the Bunny symbol!

I can however take a simple stand against animal testing, buying cosmetics & skincare products that do not test on animals, as although far from being a fluffy-wuffy-bunny twee hugger type, I absolutely do not believe in slapping something on my face to make me look *snort* prettier or less wrinkly that another species has had to endure physical suffering & a miserable confined existence for to flatter my completely unnecessary (& probably pointless!) vanity!

I do not block out everything else & pretend it doesn't exist, I just do what I can, as do many people & therefore I start with the most obvious & easy to remedy, which is animal testing in the beauty industry, beauty products being in no way actually essential to life or health! :mysmilie_515:

 

[Loveinamist]

Then Julius should also consider his own position before passing judgment over who he calls the' ignorant' and appearing to feel he is superior to most of the others ( that's just my opinion on how he comes across as he's posted in the LG thread too). He admits to working for a company which is more interested in profit than ethics. I left my last very well paid job because I didn't like what the company stood for. That doesn't make me any worse or better than anyone else doing what they can. We do oiur best to make the changes we can or feel comfortable with and that is surely better than taking the attitude of doing nothing because you can't do it all ?

Here here Kop Girl, very well said.

 

[Loveinamist]

A while ago i heard a T-caller speak to Alexis and she asked if the products were made of palm oil. Oh Yes, Yes sprouts Alexis thinking that was a good thing (all natural and all that). The caller says thanks and goodbye. Once again Alexis had missed the point about her products - palm oil plantations mean that the natural habitats of orang utans are being destroyed in Borneo etc. I understood why the T-caller was asking, Alexis did not.

That program that was on last week about skin aging - at the L'Oreal labs weren't they testing on 'lab' skin grown in dishes? Surely this is the way forward.

Well said Pickles. And to compound the issue, there is organic and orangutan-safe sustainably harvested palm oil. If she knew there was a difference she would have jumped on the chance to spout out how wonderful L'Occitane is.