Make Up With A Background
Published 17 November 2016
Estee Lauder recently acquired cruelty-free beauty brand, Too Faced, at a cost of US$1.45 billion. Many compassionate cosmetic buyers are touting this as a positive move for animal welfare. They assume that, by acquiring cruelty-free brands, parent companies will eventually make changes to their overarching animal testing policies. This is a common argument to support the buying out of cruelty-free brands we’ve heard many times over the years.
However, there is no evidence it works. There are several cruelty-free brands that have been purchased by parent companies that continue to benefit from animal testing, and we are not aware of a single one that's adopted a cruelty-free animal testing policy as a result!
Consumers who buy cruelty-free brands owned by a parent company that's not cruelty-free are unwittingly helping to fund cruel and outdated animal testing.
It's not our place to tell people what they should or should not buy, but we believe every consumer has a right to know whether their purchase will be adding to the profits of companies that continue to benefit from animal testing.
Anita Roddick promised to use her influence on L'Oréal when she sold The Body Shop to the multinational organisation in 2006. But ten years later L'Oréal continues to be one of the biggest animal testers!
Like Too Faced, Kat Von D, Liz Earle, Victoria Beckham and Superdrug are also big multinational labels. They offer high end products that are perceived as being the best of the best, and they rely on customer loyalty for their well-known brands. But it is the animals who are paying the true cost. And it’s completely unnecessary.
To see truly cruelty-free, compassionate, cosmetics put to the test and how they hold up against the big players in the cosmetic industry, please see our most recent film Compassion Over Cruelty.