Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Animal cruelty and testing among animals has caused for some widespread controversy within todays leading brands. Companies like Huggies, Arm & Hammer, and Lancome are only a few that resort too these forms of torture.

Amongst these leading brands that do not have “cruelty free” marked on their products is one of the worlds leading cosmetic companies, L’Oreal. It is surprising that even a huge name like this one, is willing to stain their name by committing such a frowned upon act. In a plea to the people, L’Oreal has decided to donate 1.2 million dollars to the US Environmental Protection Agency in order to help improve the testing of safe chemicals. By doing this, it will lessen the amount of experiments performed on lab animals with the use of dangerous liquids. With this money they are able to test chemicals and identify whether or not they are safe enough too use on any living being whether that be an animal or human. Most companies tend to boycott the use of animal testing altogether because of highly expensive price of testing safe-chemicals. So if others can, why isn’t L’Oreal able to do the same? Or on that note, any company.

The question becomes this, is it really worth all the money to test for safe chemicals when there are other ways companies can ensure the safety of their product? Not only are these methods cheaper but they are shown to be more reliable. Personally I don’t believe so. Jessica Sandler the director of the Ethical Treatment of Animals said “Animals lives are worth more than hair color and another shade of lipstick” and she has a strong point. Although, us being humans, look at our selves as the superior genius race, we tend too forget all the many resources we wouldn’t have without the very creatures we share this world with. It isn’t right that we are using these creatures to better our appearences with materialistic things. Of course, there is the use of animal testing in life-saving medicine, which can also be brought too big debates. Essentially there is a huge difference between the sake of a life over the sake of redder lips. But at the end of the day, I’m sure that like the alternative ways to test makeup there also must be ones for breakthrough medications.

In relation, the bigger picture here is the idea of ethics. The idea that if we as a whole disapprove a major corporation’s ethics and the way they run their company do we then boycott them in protest? Or do we continue buying their products but say we are unhappy with their business decisions? By buying these products we are no better than the company that makes them. Fortunately for L’Oreal doing this may be a lot harder then just stopping the purchase of L’Oreal goods. L’Oreal also has the license to high end brands like Armani, Ralph Lauren, and Diesel. So yes, too make a point and too hopefully better the standard of morals in this company, boycotting some of the flashy ends may be in order. At the end of the day you’re ethics are in check and who knows, you may have the power to create a ripple affect and change the way companies run their testing strategies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2115572/LOreal-donates-1-2million-help-abolish-animal-testing-welfare-groups-say-company-stop-practice-NOW.html