Ricky Gervais urges consumers to boycott cosmetic companies using China as 'excuse' to test on animals

                         Ricky Gervais is urging consumers to boycott companies that are testing on animals in order 

                         to expand into Chinese market where it is mandatory.

Louise Gray (2012) in his article argues that the UK and Europe in general has moved away from animal testing. However, with the economic power moving to the east and companies seeking to expand into new markets, most are now torn between adhering to their own policies or testing certain products and ingredients on animals as is the case in China. The big brands such as L’Oreal have also agreed on animal testing in order to sell in China and many of these products are finding their way back to the UK. She argues for the need to end the practice on animal cruelty.

Reference:

Gray, L. (2012) ‘Ricky Gervais urges consumers to boycott cosmetic companies using China as 'excuse' to test on animals’, Telegraph, 31 July, Available at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/9441090/Ricky-Gervais-urges-consumers-to-boycott-cosmetic-companies-using-China-as-excuse-to-test-on-animals.html (Accessed: 31 December, 2013)

L’Oréal: animal testing alternatives vital but ensuring product safety is a MUST.

Andrew McDougall (2013) argues that L’Oreal is on the correct path by implementing policies and innovative approaches to testing. The move away from animal testing by the firm and the use of alternative testing however presents another challenge, the challenge of safety of the products. Despite the high investments in alternative testing, it is important to ensure that the products developed by the firm are safe for use by humans before availing the products on the shelves. Thus, according to him, the move into alternative testing is commendable but the issue of safety must be ensured in this process to ensure safety of consumers. (McDougall, 2013)

Reference:

McDougall, A. (2013) ‘L’Oréal: animal testing alternatives vital but ensuring product safety is a MUST’, Cosmetics design-europe, 19 December, Available at: http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/L-Oreal-animal-testing-alternatives-vital-but-ensuring-product-safety-is-a-MUST (Accessed: 29 December 2013)

L’Oreal turns attention to testing alternatives in China as it ramps up regional business.

Andrew McDougall (2013) is of the view that L’Oreal has resorted to alternative forms of testing its products so as to effectively operate in China. Being one of the largest cosmetics firms in the world, the firm has come under scrutiny for operating in a nation that upholds animal testing. L’Oreal has resorted to the use of Episkin, a human reconstructed epidermis model as a replacement method for animal testing. The new innovation comes as a result of the increased speed of expansion in the nation by L’Oreal. Animal rights groups welcomed the idea seeing it as a good move by the firm. ( McDougall, 2013)

Reference:

McDougall, A. (2013) ‘L’Oreal turns attention to testing alternatives in China as it ramps up regional business’, Cosmetics design-asia, 20 November, Available at:

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-asia.com/Formulation-Science/L-Oreal-turns-attention-to-testing-alternatives-in-China-as-it-ramps-up-regional-business (Accessed: 27 December 2013)

THE QUESTION OF ANIMAL TESTING

L’Oréal no longer tests on animals any of its products or any of its ingredients, anywhere in the world. Nor does L’Oréal delegate this task to others. An exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes.

L’Oreal tries to answer the question of animal testing in its facilities and argues that it no longer tests on animals. The group makes it clear that none of its products or any of its ingredients anywhere in the world. It also argues that it does not delegate the task of testing to other companies. However, the group argues that the only exception is where regulatory authorities demand testing on animals for regulatory purposes as is with the case in China. Thus, the firm argues that it does not engage in animal testing for any of its products and ingredients but this can only take place if mandated by the law. (L’Oreal, 2013)

Reference:

L’Oreal (2013) ‘The question of animal texting’, Available at: http://www.loreal.com/csr-commitments/loreal-answers/the-question-of-animal-testing.aspx (Accessed: 23 December 2013)

SOLD IN CHINA: L’OREAL BUYS BACK INTO ANIMAL TESTING

Elizabeth Culliford (2013) argues that China is a big market for cosmetic products and this has made international players to enter the market.  L’Oreal in particular had won the hearts of many with its policies against animal testing. However, the recent entry of the firm in China is seen as a move to embrace animal testing so as to penetrate the market. Although the firm argues that it does not do animal testing and only relies on science based expertise and alternative methods of testing, there is no guarantee that the firm does not conduct animal testing especially that the Chinese law requires the same. 

Reference: 
Culliford, E. (2013) ‘Sold in China: L’Oreal buys back into animal texting’, The World Of Chinese, 26 September, Available at: http://www.theworldofchinese.com/2013/09/sold-in-china-loreal-buys-back-into-animal-testing/ (Accessed: 22 December 2013).

Consumers 'being misled' over cruelty free cosmetics

Amy Bainbridge (2013) reports that consumers are being misled by the notion that there are cruelty fee cosmetics. An investigation carried out by consumer choice in Australia has proved that firms are misleading consumers about their animal testing policies. It argues that companies have allowed their products to be tested on animals in order to gain entry into the lucrative Chinese market. L’Oreal in particular says it is committed to advancing the cause of alternative methods of testing but its products are still tested on animal which has given it greater access to the Chinese market. The consumer group is thus developing a non-animal test for cosmetics.

Reference:

Bainbridge, A. (2013) ‘Consumers 'being misled' over cruelty free cosmetics’, ABC news, 6 May, Available at:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-05/claims-consumers-being-misled-over-cosmetics/4669122 (Accessed: 21 December, 2013)

Boycott The Body Shop

Nature watch (2013) is arguing consumers in the EU to boycott the Body Shop, a subsidiary of L’Oreal. The reason for this is that as much as the EU has implemented a cosmetics testing ban, the firm’s profits are used to fund L’Oreal’s operations in China through a research facility that tests products on animals. It urges consumers to boycott the firm because L’Oreal has shown impressive performance in China as revenues are above expectations and this reinforces the concern that the firm is indeed testing products on animals before selling them in China. Thus, consumers ought to shun the firm because of the same.

Reference:

Natual watch (2013), ‘Boycott The Body Shop’, Available at:

http://naturewatch.org/campaign/the-body-shop-boycott (Accessed: 20 December, 2013)