"We don't test on animals."
Why do they feel a need to inform people that it's safe to buy Avon products because they don't test on animals? Their website claims - as they do in sharing a similar statement which draws heavily on this claim - that Avon was the first cosmetics company to stop this practice way back in 1989 - 30 years ago - isn't it already old news? Why the continued accusations? Why the back-and-forth argument? What's the real deal here?
Is this smoke? Is there a fire under it?
Is this smoke? Is there a fire under it?
I decided to look into the matter for myself, and this article is the result.
It began a few weeks ago, while I was scrolling through my Facebook feed. I spotted one of many new Avon ads there. I'd used some Avon products before in the past, and I really liked them - and I always felt good about Avon reassuring their customers that their products are "cruelty free". It's been a long time since I actually bought cosmetics of any kind - especially Avon since they've become rather expensive - and since I hardly do more than a little eyeshadow and liner, and a dab of lipstick these days. I only put in more effort if I attend a work function or interviews or something related to my writing - and so make-up I bought years ago is still in plentiful supply in my dressing table drawer.
"Do you test on animals?" I saw some conscientious people ask on the various Avon advertising threads on Facebook.
"No, they don't." Came the repeated emphatic, unwavering response from the "Avon ladies" as their company refers to their network of sales reps.
"Oh, good." I replied on about the third one I spotted, when I had the time, "It's about time. What took you so long?"
Then I wondered when exactly they stopped animal testing. I mean, as far as I knew, hadn't they already stopped animal testing long before I started using cosmetics? And that's the big thing about me - I get curious. Then I dig. And I usually find what I'm looking for.
A day or so later, I saw another thread - a very busy thread - where an "Avon lady" apparently inundated by repeated questions asking whether Avon tests their products on animals, and her responses were indicative of frustration! She came across, I thought, as just short of outright hostile! It was almost like she was getting angry at all these people insinuating that her company - or she - was lying and indeed testing on animals.
That's the thing I love about us as South Africans - politics aside, when it comes to our hard-earned ronts, we tend to be less gullible and more street-smart, and less inclined to fall for anyone's bullshit.
I ventured to post on that thread that instead of getting angry at the people asking questions and just posting "no we don't test on animals" followed by any number of exclamation marks, the dear "Avon lady" should rather post a statement from her company and/or links to certification from an animal rights group that they are a "cruelty-free" company, and that this should be the end of it.
To date, I still haven't had a response on that particular thread from that particular "Avon lady" - but I did get one from the next interaction I had.
To date, I still haven't had a response on that particular thread from that particular "Avon lady" - but I did get one from the next interaction I had.
I saw an advert posted by an Avon sales rep, and decided to ask. After all, the "Avon lady" had broached the subject already by directly stating boldly and clearly that Avon doesn't conduct animal testing as a point of fact.
"When did you stop and do you have any news articls or press releases or verification from animal protection groups?" I asked.
A day went by. Then two. Before long, 4 days had passed - and then, the "Avon lady" posted her reply - in the form of a statement I assume was copied from a circular from Avon.
I read through it over breakfast that morning. Then I re-read it over coffee, and I realized I hadn't imagined it - there are holes in that statement! Great glaring ones you could fly a stardestroyer through, while doing barrell rolls!
"Avon was the first major company to end animal testing nearly 30 years ago" they claim. They didn't "end" it - they just stopped doing it - that's just semantics. But is that the whole truth? There's a good deal of waffle in that statement and on their website about support for ending all animal testing - but the whole thing reminds me of the old saying about conjurers - the hand is quicker than the eye! In a magic show the audience is spellbound by the conjourer as he waves his wand and wiggles his left hand - meanwhile all the action is happening by his right hand, where nobody's looking. Distraction is an artform - just ask an anglerfish!
Animal-testing is a big issue these days, and just as I'd given up hope that Humans might have something more to offer posterity than taking "selfies" while falling into a shark, or competing for the next Darwin Award using old cars with military rockets strapped on to make holes in rural landscapes, or exhibiting a shallow obsession with their own vanity at any cost - it seems that a lot more cosmetics-users have developed a conscience than before: A trend has risen to prominence, a trend of people buying from producers who affirm that their products are cruelty-free, and black-listing those who aren't. I have to admit I like this trend, I like it a lot.
Someone coined the term "beauty without cruelty", and it sure is fitting. The problem comes in where "beauty is only skin deep" applies - along with "appearances can be deceiving". I find myself wondering just how many of these beauty products companies claiming to not animal-test their products are really being honest?
Someone coined the term "beauty without cruelty", and it sure is fitting. The problem comes in where "beauty is only skin deep" applies - along with "appearances can be deceiving". I find myself wondering just how many of these beauty products companies claiming to not animal-test their products are really being honest?
Don't get me wrong - all this concern for animals suffering in corporate labs around the world is terrifically noble - after all, those poor creatures are caged, stuck with needles, poked and prodded, and, for example, after they're systematically blinded by having the same old face creams and mascaras stuck in their eyes until they go blind in order to ensure the same gunk people have been covering their wrinkles with (and testing) for decades - and a few new ones - don't suddenly cause Karen to develop an allergic reaction - they end up invariably euthanized. That means "killed" in plain terms, out of *cough* "compassion", because suddenly their suffering becomes an issue - meanwhile, the real reason is because they're useless to the industry now, since they've run out of eyes to stick gunk into.
The harsh truth about animal-testing is that it's still a multi-million dollar industry... and animals in that context are basically just fuel for the cosmetic industry's engines.
The harsh truth about animal-testing is that it's still a multi-million dollar industry... and animals in that context are basically just fuel for the cosmetic industry's engines.
Cosmetics companies today claim in their literature (some of which seems to have been drafted by lawyers) that they are against animal testing, or that they don't do animal testing, to various degrees. Some have various categories of rating when it comes to animal rights and vegan groups and entities monitoring animal abuses, while others have just gone ahead and made up their own to convince the public that they're 'kosher' in terms of meeting modern expectations of compassionate treatment of animals. Okay, perhaps 'kosher' isn't an appropriate term to use here, but then neither is lying - and in an economic environment where the end apparently justifies the means - and there are no laws to make it a crime, anything goes.
In recent years - and from what I can tell, especially this year - cosmetics company Avon has gone to seemingly great lengths to distance itself from the specter of animal testing. On this point, the recent flood of marketing for Avon in my Facebook feed raises questions for me - are they feeling pressure from animal rights groups etc? Are the bearers of fiery torches and pitchforks closing in?
I decided to go right to the source: Avon's own website. What does Avon say about animal testing?
The Avon website says basically the same stuff that's in the statement posted by the Avon Lady, right? I'm no statistician, but if I were to hazard a guess, it looks to be about 75% "hand-wavium" about how opposed to suffering and animal abuse Avon is, and the rest about 24% "distractium" - while the truth - the most important 1% of that statement - "obscurium", lies buried under the rest!
What Avon is saying is, in a roundabout sort of way (i.e. indirectly) that Avon doesn't test their products on animals EXCEPT in China (where it is required by law). This isn't their fault, they claim, because the Chinese government has these laws, see, that force them to animal-test their products so that they can sell them in China. But it's all okay - none of that matters, because those animal-tested products are only sold in China.
For me, adding that they "don't agree with the Chinese government on this" is basically moot - since they're still having their products animal-tested for the Chinese market anyway.
Avon - and its reps tell people they don't animal-test their products - and this often is where Avon's reps stop the bus. That's typically where the discussion ends - because a lot of people will accept that answer at face value and move on to something more interesting. Unfortunately the true, complete answer is not the absolute being presented by either.
But wait, even while the company's website and the statement posted by the reps are employed to categorically deny Avon animal-tests any of their products, those who read the fine-print (i.e. dig) are able to catch on and see it for what it is. A clever marketing dodge.
But wait, even while the company's website and the statement posted by the reps are employed to categorically deny Avon animal-tests any of their products, those who read the fine-print (i.e. dig) are able to catch on and see it for what it is. A clever marketing dodge.
The statement is nothing less than an admission that legal requirments placed on them by the Chinese government mean that they have to conduct animal testing on their products sold in China, or else they would have to give up on that market entirely.
But wait, I thought Avon cared so much about the poor suffering mice, rabbits, rats and beagles etc being tortured to death in animal-testing facilities?
But wait, I thought Avon cared so much about the poor suffering mice, rabbits, rats and beagles etc being tortured to death in animal-testing facilities?
Are these statements not an admission that they'd rather keep animal testing in place in order to keep selling in the Chinese market, than withdraw from China on principle?
Meanwhile, they add, they're still hopeful that their pressure on the Chinese towards "regulatory" change will yield results "soon", yadda yadda - which realistically, may never happen at all. Meanwhile, it will just be business as usual and Avon will keep on raking in the Dollars from its Chinese market and cry all the way to the bank about the resulting cost in animal suffering.
In the meantime, Avon now has a nice-looking "bunny badge" (about 20% of their statement focuses on it) to convince all the vegans, hippies and tree-huggers that Avon is "cruelty-free".
Whoops. So much for their "respect for animal welfare" ethic, right?
"Bunny Badge"?
"Bunny Badge"?
The corporate letter from Avon's mysteriously anonymous "Chief 'Operating' Officer" refers to an animal welfare organization called FRAME, whose "bunny badge" logo Avon's "Chief 'Operating' Officer" says Avon's reps will place on their adverts and packaging to indicate approval of the aforementioned organization.
Approval? By whom? Why, oh why would any credible, legitimate "cruelty-free" rating body give these people their blessing, I wondered.
Approval? By whom? Why, oh why would any credible, legitimate "cruelty-free" rating body give these people their blessing, I wondered.
I wanted to know about FRAME, so opened my browser to find out who or what FRAME was.
FRAME'd
FRAME - or "Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments" is a UK charity organization founded around the middle of the 20th century (1969) and has something of a reputation for encouraging corporations to explore alternative means of testing various products that do not involve animals. From what I can see on their website, it seems that they also manage or conduct alternative research FOR corporate clients using alternative methods in lieu of other labs that employ animal testing. That's a noble cause, and no mistake so it sounds good so far, but I still feel a little troubled by this.
It's still not clear to me what FRAME actually does (or doesn't do) in their lab - or for whom or why, thanks to a description so vague as yesterday is to an Alzheimer's patient!
Both FRAME and Avon seem to make a bit of a fuss on their respective websites over their "long relationship" and "support" of each other, and this is what bothers me, I suppose - or at least, it's at the top of my list. Okay, in all fairness, I may be wrong - I might be so far off base that I'm in Narnia for thinking this - but it feels a bit like watching a TV show about a cop who's been undercover with the mob for so long, he's forgotten which side of the law he's supposed to be on. Conflict of interests is what I'm getting at - the issue of trust... or rather, anti-trust.
The questions I have about this cozy arrangement between Avon and FRAME are two-fold: 1) why is FRAME, an animal welfare organization (that opposes animal testing) giving Avon its approval (by allowing Avon to use its logo to convince customers to buy their products on the premise that they're "cruelty-free") when it has to be aware that Avon is animal-testing in China? 2) What precisely is the nature of the relationship between FRAME and Avon, and 3) Why hasn't Avon received an endorsement from any other "bunny" brand watchdog?
There are several international "bunny" brand logos to indicate "cruelty-free" approval across varying degrees of evaluation or content or vegan status, including one called "Leaping Bunny".
There are several international "bunny" brand logos to indicate "cruelty-free" approval across varying degrees of evaluation or content or vegan status, including one called "Leaping Bunny".
FRAME 's website and Wikipedia both state similarly that "FRAME receives no direct funding from local or central government and relies entirely on donations, legacies and corporate support."
I have to admit, I never thought an NGO or animal rights group relying on handouts from any form of government was a particularly good or preferable idea - until just now.
I have to admit, I never thought an NGO or animal rights group relying on handouts from any form of government was a particularly good or preferable idea - until just now.
As to the somewhat murky relationship between Avon and FRAME, the latter organization's news page states: "The success of FRAME’s project caught the attention of cosmetics giant, Avon, and a long relationship between FRAME and Avon was formed."
Avon itself in turn seems to mention FRAME on its website only once:
This sort of thing makes me wonder, does "support" or "corporate support" result in permission from the recipient to use an organization's "bunny badge" (or equivalent) as "proof" that they meet the approval of that organization's animal welfare ethics - even when they've apparently failed to meet other rating organization's standards?
According to FRAME's "Corporate Support" page, "Various privileges are associated with corporate support membership, which might include collaboration in scientific projects, association with educational projects, benefiting from FRAME’s ethical expertise, advice and scientific support for product development, use of the FRAME logo on products or marketing materials, and much more." - so that might clear up the mystery of how Avon comes to be using FRAME's logo - although for some equally mysterious reason, Avon itself doesn't appear in the underlying listing of three whole "corporate supporters" on that page - Neal's Yard Remedies, The Kennel Club and PZ Cussons - so that might not be it either.
Perhaps I've missed something, or perhaps FRAME's website hasn't been updated (since about 1989?) however I think that's extremely unlikely... or perhaps FRAME simply doesn't see anything wrong or hypocritical in endorsing Avon with their "bunny badge" logo despite knowing that naughty Avon is still animal testing on the sly in China?
Perhaps I've missed something, or perhaps FRAME's website hasn't been updated (since about 1989?) however I think that's extremely unlikely... or perhaps FRAME simply doesn't see anything wrong or hypocritical in endorsing Avon with their "bunny badge" logo despite knowing that naughty Avon is still animal testing on the sly in China?
I decided to ask FRAME about it, and emailed them my inquiry via their website contact form on September 27. By the time I posted this article a week later, I still hadn't had any acknowledgement or response from them. Perhaps someone should head down there and check if they still have a pulse? I'm truly concerned about their "welfare".
Leaping Bunny Badges!
As to investigating the worth of FRAME's "bunny badge", it seems there are a lot of "bunny logos" in use by companies, and even by watchdog bodies like PETA, to indicate that companies or their products are "cruelty-free". The trouble is, it's murky water out there - not every bunny is honest!
According to this article List Of FAKE “Cruelty-Free” Brands kept by Ethical Elephant: "Not all bunny logos are the same. I always like to remind caring consumers to be aware of which cruelty free bunny logos to trust. There are unofficial bunny logos that hold no credibility or legitimacy as they’re regulated by the same people who are trying to sell you their products."
What this means is that some unscrupulous, dishonest companies produce their own "bunny badges" and stamp them on their products to con customers into believing these items are "cruelty-free".
Suddenly the question occurred to me: Could this be the case here?
Suddenly the question occurred to me: Could this be the case here?
I see there's a tendency towards this disturbing, dishonest sort of behavior right across the board, and not just in the so-called beauty industry - although interestingly enough, while Avon itself is listed in another article by Vegan Rabbit as a "fake cruelty-free brand" (having flunked every rating criterion relevant to the article - T = parent company tests on animals, C = sells products in mainland China, NV = not vegan, NLP = not Leaping Bunny certified)
I didn't see FRAME being discussed at all - not in any article I found, since the articles - like this one - only seemed to address brands active in Canada and the USA, and FRAME is located in the UK. In fact, outside of FRAME's website, Avon's website and a Wikipedia entry, I didn't find anything else about FRAME online at all. At least, not unless they've also diversified into window and door frames... but I digress.
So what is FRAME's "bunny badge" and what does it signify?
For an international "animal welfare" champion that's been around since the internet was in diapers, I haven't found a damn thing about it online - and aside from FRAME's own website, a Wikipedia page about FRAME, and a single entry on Avon's own website which describes FRAME simply as a recipient of its unspecified "support", it doesn't even appear on any of the cosmetics watchdog or advocacy websites I trawled over several days of research.
In fact, the only mention outside of the above I could find about FRAME's "bunny badge" is in a post on Facebook by an Avon sales rep called "Marie" from September 15, 2019, which states:
____________________________________________________
"Avon to adopt FRAME bunny logo to show our support for animal welfare
I’m delighted to share the news that we can now start using the FRAME ‘bunny’ logo on our packaging and communications materials in most markets.
Animal welfare has always been a key focus of Avon’s corporate responsibility efforts, and in recognition of this we’re going to be proudly displaying the FRAME logo moving forward. This will include websites, brochures and packaging.
Avon was the first major cosmetics company to end animal testing nearly 30 years ago, and we’ve supported FRAME for over three decades. FRAME is a UK non-profit organisation dedicated to the development of ethical scientific methods, to replace the need for testing on laboratory animals in medical and other scientific research, education and safety assurance.
Our deployment of the FRAME logo marks a significant milestone in our efforts to support animal welfare. Like other global beauty companies, we have faced significant challenges in China, where the National Medical Products Administration requires animal testing on several product categories. We’ve been working tirelessly to tackle this issue and have made progress by changing the way we develop new products, to enable us to discontinue any products previously tested on animals, outside of China.
This means we can give our Representatives and customers full assurance that no Avon products sold in LATAM and EMEA have been tested on animals. We will be able to give the same reassurance in the rest of APAC - outside of China - later this year.
Avon strongly disagrees with China’s requirements to conduct animal testing as a means to substantiate product safety, and for the past 30 years we have worked on developing proven, alternative scientific approaches to meet safety standards. In addition to partnering with FRAME, Avon works with many other with key organisations in this field, such as the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS) and Humane Society International (HSI) to facilitate regulatory change, promote adoption of alternative methods and ultimately end animal testing of cosmetics once and for all.
I’d like to thank the many teams who have been involved in helping us achieve this milestone, particularly R&D, Supply Chain, Marketing and Communications.
I’m confident this move forward will support our efforts to meet consumer and Representative demands across the world, as we rejuvenate our brand and business. And we’ll continue to fight for positive change.
For more information and to read our animal welfare policy, please visit our website."
____________________________________________________
This appears to be the very same statement that was reposted VERBATIM on September 27, 2019 in reply to my request made earlier that same week (4 days earlier) posted to another Facebook account "Avon Port Elizabeth to Storms River Eastern Cape": "When did you stop and do you have any news articles or press releases or verification from animal protection groups?" I asked.
"Avon doesn't test on animals" they claim - and then they post something long and convoluted which says the company stopped animal testing in 1989, and add something indistinct and vague about laws in China which make animal testing a necessity - but only in China, so their hands are supposedly clean.
So Avon doesn't test on animals - except in China? But they don't conduct animal testing? Er...what? What is this, a riddle? A paradox? What's going on here?
Is a company profiting from animal torture in China while insisting that it's not its fault - and is an animal rights reform group allowing that company to display their logo as a sign to the public that the company in question is "cruelty-free"?
The thing is, whether in the EU, Africa, USA - or China, it's still the same company using the same brands and logos and calling the shots - and if one part of it is still animal testing, then the whole is still contaminated by that same guilt - even the part that doesn't get animal-tested and apparently qualifies for a cheerful "bunny badge" from FRAME.
Now as I start to wrap this up, let's examine the circumstances according to industry watchdogs, and try to fill in some of the blanks around what they have to say about it:
"The cosmetic brand, Avon took a lot of heat over the years when they were called out and removed from PETA’s cruelty-free list. PETA found out that Avon products were sold in China and were required by law to be tested on animals but Avon didn’t bother to tell anyone about these changes to their animal testing policy. Now Avon is considered to be like the poster child of a company that continues to mislead customers into thinking that they care about animals." - Ethical Elephant, cruelty-free brand guide.
The Avon website itself has a page called "Ethics and Compliance", where they list everything from improper use of Avon assets to coruption and confidential reporting - but surprise, surprise, not a single word about animal testing or abuse - and not even the FRAME "bunny badge" is there. Perhaps the following article from Plantway reveals why:
"Avon made big waves with the animal rights community when it proclaimed to have ended animal testing nearly 25 years ago. This claim earned them big marks with PETA, who proudly championed them as a company that cares about animal welfare. However, in 2012, news broke that Avon’s animal welfare policy was anything but, as it admitted that it was marketing its products to countries that require animal testing to sell to the public – most notably China. As a result, Avon has come under fire for misleading its customers and later removed its animal ethics statement from its website." - The Plantway.com
So they removed the FRAME "bunny badge" from their ethics and compliance page because they got called out on it - but now they're going to put it all over their packaging and marketing? Hmm... I have to admit, that one has me stumped.
All the sources I checked in my research that monitor the cosmetics industry internationally, seem to echo the same findings (even Snopes.com): Avon still animal tests their products in China specifically in order to remain legally viable for the Chinese market, and tries to hide that fact from their customers by using cleverly worded, official-looking and anonymous "statements".
There's no doubt in my mind however, that increased and continued pressure from the side of militant animal rights groups and a growing, concerned, conscientious public have taken a toll on Avon's profits over the last 30 years, so when I read the following it came as no surprise:
There's no doubt in my mind however, that increased and continued pressure from the side of militant animal rights groups and a growing, concerned, conscientious public have taken a toll on Avon's profits over the last 30 years, so when I read the following it came as no surprise:
According to the Wikipedia article on Avon, "Recently, Avon has struggled. In 2014, its global sales had fallen for five straight years, and its North American revenues fell 18% that year. In 2016, Avon completed the separation of its United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico business as New Avon LLC, which also trades with the "Avon" name. As part of a three-year plan, the global Avon Products moved its headquarters to London in the United Kingdom. In August 2019, New Avon LLC, the privately-held North American company that split from Avon Products, Inc. (Avon Worldwide) in 2016 has entered into a definitive agreement with South Korean consumer goods giant LG Household & Health Care, Ltd., which will purchase the direct-selling cosmetics business for $125 million in cash."
I'm left wondering whether after Avon was exposed as still conducting animal testing in China, and PETA and other anti-cruelty monitoring groups withdrew their approval for Avon in 2012, did Avon need to get the mounting pressure from animal rights activists off its back? After all, negative press hurts sales. A lot. I mean it's bad enough if you're caught out selling a defective product in good faith - but when a company is exposed as having been dishonest, no matter how creatively - that's so much worse.
This article "30 Make-up Brands That Still Test On Animals" lists cosmetics companies that test their products on animals (or have resumed - and in some cases have started animal testing) in order to enter or remain viable in the Chinese market! The entry for Avon reads: "Avon claims to be the first major cosmetic company to end animal testing nearly 25 years ago, but in reality they’re authorizing and paying local officials in China to test on animals for them so they can sell their products there. While they claim to have “a deep respect for animal welfare”, it seems to be part of careful wording to distract from the fact that they are not cruelty-free."
Okay, so technically, according to the above article, Avon isn't torturing animals with their products in China either - at least not in terms of having an Avon torture chamber staffed by Avon torturers - instead they're having the Chinese government do it for them in order to carry on selling their wares in China. Not that I can see any real difference between the two, can you?
Okay, so technically, according to the above article, Avon isn't torturing animals with their products in China either - at least not in terms of having an Avon torture chamber staffed by Avon torturers - instead they're having the Chinese government do it for them in order to carry on selling their wares in China. Not that I can see any real difference between the two, can you?
Another article from Cruelty Free Kitty, "Animal Testing In China" says "It might be shocking to learn that animal testing is required by law in China for all foreign cosmetics companies. This means that all the big American and European cosmetics brands that are currently sold in China, must undergo animal testing. Some of these big brands include MAC, Clinique, and even Benefit."
Thank you, I won't be using any of those brands in future either.
Thank you, I won't be using any of those brands in future either.
That aside for a moment, what does all the above tell me about China? By all other accounts from general news and current events, we can already infer that China has zero consideration for animals - I mean, they already have no human rights ethics to start with - that's a given - so why would they give a collosal crap about animals? Dog-eating festivals in China and the live-skinning fur-trade continue unabated and unapologetically. That any country or business with an appreciation for human rights is willing to do any kind of trade with that country at all is quite mind boggling, don't you think? It is to me - and frankly, it says a hell of a lot about any companies willing to torture other living beings just to make an exta buck!
It says as much about those individuals who support them financially too.
Meanwhile, as animals are still being tortured to ensure Avon remains viable for the Chinese market, their marketing department still has the brass-faced cheek to claim "Avon Cosmetics Announces Support For A Worldwide Ban On Animal Testing" in paid-for advertising and press releases to animal rights groups in April 2019! Another article, this time from Humane Society International, "Avon joins Humane Society International’s #BeCrueltyFree campaign calling for a worldwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics" tells the same sordid lie. The fact that these "animal rights" news pages or blogs even agreed to post these items makes them seem highly questionable to me.
No correction to the above-linked articles is evident, so I can only presume that "World Animal News" and "Human Society International" either don't fact-check their own articles, or are onboard with the agenda in one way or another. I'm even tempted to wonder if they're anything more than fronts, but that's not a question I feel equipped to answer just yet. I might find out - and I might not like it.
Meanwhile, I'd like to point out, by means of a question, the simple truth - the dirty, blood and tear-drenched core of this sordid tale - to Avon and it's associates, investors, shareholders, reps - those "Avon ladies" and their customers.
Surely if Avon felt as strongly about animals and ending the cruelty inherent to animal testing their products as they claim they do, they would have pulled out of the Chinese market?
I mean, it's not fucking algebra or quantum physics, folks! If compassion for animals is one of your principles, as you loudly insist it is, it shouldn't even be a question! Thirty years is a very damn long time to be ambivalent about it!
Instead, the truth is obvious - Avon claims to not conduct animal testing and launches ad campaigns stating that it is opposed to animal testing, WHILE it is actively continuing animal cruelty on an industrial scale just to make more money in China - AND its marketing efforts try to obscure that fact.
In Conclusion
"No, Avon doesn't test on animals." Their agents tell potential customers. "Oh, alright then, sign me up!" new recruits say. "Perfect!" say the new customers - after all, Avon's cosmetics are really nice and good quality. But is it worth the extra guilt on your conscience? Is it worth knowing your money supports a company that tortures helpless animals in China - and tries to minimize and deny its complicity?
I realize that businesses exist to supply products or services and to make money - to remain profitable - and face it, the Chinese market is worth billions annually to companies like Avon... which shows exactly where Avon's priorities lie: money - and it's deceitful marketing and ambivalent approach to animal testing proves that it's not going to let a few suffering and dying animals a year - or YOUR conscience - get in the way of all that lovely money.
On top of that choice to support animal testing and cruelty, Avon also made a choice to deceive their customers as far as possible with carefully worded advertising intended to fool their client-base into believing the lie that Avon's products aren't animal-tested, and they add a little vague waffle about laws in China (which make it not their fault) while not clarifying what that actually means.
Avon reluctantly admits their products are tested on animals in China to comply with the law - but what they don't admit to in their glossy advertising is that they're choosing to keep on selling their products in China and are quite willing to go on in spite of how many animals are tortured to do it.
In reply to my request to the "Avon lady" on Facebook for confirmation of the statement that Avon doesn't conduct animal testing, she posted a statement on animal testing (the one that says Avon doesn't conduct animal testing EXCEPT in China) in order to try to convince me Avon doesn't do any animal testing at all. Didn't the "Avon lady" read the full statement past the bit where it says Avon stopped in 1989 - or did they just not understand it themselves?
Do you know what all that boils down to? The answer is as plain as the shock and disbelief on my face.
Ethics.
And if a company - any company - supports animal cruelty on an industrial scale just to make more money, and deliberately sets out to deceive anyone who asks about it - up to and including promulgating that deception through its own employees and marketing agents and material - relying on legal technicalities and distraction and showmanship to go on getting away with it, then the answer is pretty damned obvious:
It hasn't got any.
"Blachart" by Christina Engela, narrated by Nigel Peever, now available on Audible.
All Mykl d’Angelo had to do to redeem the other shipwrecks in his life – his lost career in the Imperial Space Fleet and a chance at a relationship with the girl of his dreams - is lead a recon team on a suicide mission behind enemy lines, brave the perils of Meradinis, risking danger and death.
No Problem.
Further reading:
______________________________________________________________
All Mykl d’Angelo had to do to redeem the other shipwrecks in his life – his lost career in the Imperial Space Fleet and a chance at a relationship with the girl of his dreams - is lead a recon team on a suicide mission behind enemy lines, brave the perils of Meradinis, risking danger and death.
No Problem.
Get it now on Audible.
If you would like to know more about Christina Engela and her writing, please feel free to browse her website.
If you’d like to send Christina Engela a question about her life as a writer or transactivist, please send an email to christinaengela@gmail.com or use the Contact form.
All material copyright © Christina Engela, 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment