Food giants caught in animal testing scandal

Rabbits, piglets and mice are being killed when heavily pregnant, injected with deadly bacteria and bled to death by food firms testing fashionable superfoods, it has emerged. The experiments involve food giants including KitKat maker Nestle, Unilever - the owners of PG tips - Knorr, Hellmann’s and Yakult, the maker of probiotic drinks. Companies like Unilever, Nestle, Yakult and Danone have allegedly been involved in 'sickening' tests on animals. A spokesman for Nestle said that Nestlé does not use animal testing to develop conventional foods and drinks, such as coffee, tea, cereal and chocolate. Unilever also said it does not test tea or tea-based products on animals.  If tests are required by law for safety reasons, they are kept to a minimum and carried out by third parties. (Daily mail, 2013)

Reference

Macrae, F. and Rowe, N. (2013) ‘Food giants caught in animal testing scandal’, Daily mail, 21 June, Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2345276/Food-giants-Nestle-Unilever-caught-animal-testing-scandal.html (Accessed: 19 February, 2014)

An Ugly Dilemma for Beauty Companies

Lisa Lin claimed that China is the only major market where companies must test their mascaras and lotions on animals. That’s created a dilemma for Procter & Gamble that want to sell in the giant market without alienating consumers in countries where public sentiment frowns on such animal treatment.  Most of the companies need to devise separate formulations for China and Europe or produce China-only items. P&G gets about 18 percent of its annual sales from Asia by its products. P&G, the largest seller of beauty and personal-care products in China, chose it for the global launch of its Oceana skin-care brand in January and has introduced products there under the Pantene and Head & Shoulders lines. P&G, which says it doesn’t test on animals unless required by law, has discussed the benefits of non-animal trials with Chinese authorities, it said in a statement. (Business week, 2013)

Reference

Lin, L. (2013), ‘An Ugly Dilemma for Beauty Companies’, Business week, 26 September, Available at: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-26/cosmetics-makers-dilemma-animal-testing-rules-differ-in-china-europe (Accessed: 18 February, 2014)

Is This an Image of L’Oreal Bunny Testing?

Waffles (2013) discusses an image about animal testing that is alleged to have been used by L’Oreal during the process of testing. There are arguments that the L’Oreal is testing and that is why it was removed in PETA. However, there is little that can be found that links L’Oreal to the rabbit testing. L’Oreal in a rejoinder says that it only submits products for testing in China as mandated by the law and only tests a small portion about 1% of its products on mice and rats. Waffles argues that L’Oreal is faced with a dilemma of adhering to rules in China or its own policies.

Reference

Waffles (2013) ‘Is This an Image of L’Oreal Bunny Testing?’, 30 December, Available at: http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/12/30/loreal-bunny-testing/ (Accessed: 17 February, 2014)

Beauty Brands and Companies That Do Not Use Animal Testing

Stefani Forster (2013) in this article said that since many of our beloved products are manufactured by large, international beauty giants like L'Oreal, the push for cruelty-free cosmetics is more elusive than you might think. Some governments, such as China, require (by law) that cosmetic products be tested on animals, and a global market often dictates a company’s policies. To L’Oreal, China is a big market for its products like make up, hair shampoo, skin care which decides that L’Oreal cannot give up this attractive opportunity for its expansion even though it may cause a dilemma of Animal Testing.

The video below is about China Animal Testing Complicates L’Oreal Expansion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/china-animal-testing-complicates-l-oreal-expansion-aHA3oZkkRPi84XFtW7~2CA.html

  

Reference

Forster, S. (2013) ‘Beauty Brands and Companies That Do Not Use Animal Testing’, Stylelist Canada, 19 June, Available at: http://www.stylelist.ca/2013/06/19/beauty-brands-companies-that-do-not-use-animal-testing/ (Accessed: 15 February, 2014)

Taking a humane look at cosmetics

Wei Xu and Lei Zhang (2013) claimed China is considering ways to reduce animal testing of cosmetics. The draft stated that cosmetics made from ingredients that have already been tested and classified as safe will be exempt from animal testing. L'Oreal, which recently expanded a factory in Hubei province into its largest production base in the Asia-Pacific region, has developed a Chinese EpiSkin model. It can provide solid technical support for the new EU regulations because it can be used as a replacement for human and animal tissue in some tests and the product has already been certified for use in Europe. However, the methods are still immature in terms of testing new ingredients in cosmetics, especially the methods of testing for chronic diseases. For some ‘special use’ products like hair dyes and sunscreens L’Oreal still need to test on animals to meet the Chinese laws.

Reference

Xu, W and Zhang, L. (2013) ‘Taking a humane look at cosmetics’, China Daily, 20 December, Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2013-12/20/content_17186590_4.htm (Accessed: 13 February, 2014 )

Teaching Tip: An Ethical Dilemma for Beauty Companies

Barry Render (2013) claimed that western cosmetics makers are ecstatic about the prospect of continued growth in China’s $32 billion beauty market. China is the only major market where companies must test their mascaras and lotions on animals. That’s created a dilemma for L’Oreal that want to sell in the giant market without alienating consumers in countries where public sentiment frowns on such animal treatment. L’Oreal isn’t about to turn away from China because it gets about 19% of its annual sales from Asia and companies’ shares have been rising as well. Those brands which refuse to do animal tests are blocked from the Chinese market entirely. L’Oreal in a statement said the company always abides with local regulations. Chinese consumer doesn’t think as much about ideals such as animal testing and they care about the price, the brand, and the product.

Reference

Render, B. (2013) ‘Teaching Tip: An Ethical Dilemma for Beauty Companies’, Heizerrenderom, 8 October, Available at: http://heizerrenderom.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/teaching-tip-an-ethical-dilemma-for-beauty-companies/ (Accessed: 12 February, 2014)

Is Your Beauty Worth the Lives of 11.5 Million Innocent Animals?

Jessica Ramos (2014) argues that an individual’s beauty is not worth the lives of 11.5 million innocent animals. In the article, the controversy surrounding the issue of animal testing is highlighted with a research that was conducted for the purpose of establishing the credibility of the animal testing argument. The author argues that large firm’s such as L’Oreal in their rush to enter China have argued that they do not engage in animal testing except when required by the law. However, the author argues that the company is known for not being transparent and therefore not committed to cruelty free products.

Reference:

Ramos, J. (2014) ‘Is Your Beauty Worth the Lives of 11.5 Million Innocent Animals?’ , Care2, 5 February, Available at: http://www.care2.com/causes/is-your-beauty-worth-the-lives-of-11-5-million-innocent-animals.html (Accessed: 10 February, 2014)