Why Lush Went Too Far

27 Apr

Three years ago (wow I can’t believe it’s been that long) while backpacking through Italy with my friend, Lizz, I ran out of shampoo. This was a serious, serious problem as, after almost a month of travelling with the same duffle bag of clothes, that was about the only thing keeping me from not smelling like a moldy ball of sweat and grime. I was gross.

While walking around Rome one day Lizz and I stumbled on a store called Lush, a cosmetic store with only all-natural, organic, handmade products. They also had shampoo bars, which was beyond necessary (and traveled better than liquid shampoo, FYI!).  That was my first experience with the store, but since then Lush shops have been popping up everywhere, including in the mall right by me.

I really do like their products, they smell and feel amazing, but I can’t quite say that I like Lush anymore. This week, in the front window of Lush’s Regent Street (London) shop, they decided to put on a performance as an attempt to put an end to animal testing on cosmetic products. They stuck a 24-year-old performance artist in a nude leotard on a table, then streamed a 10-hour long series (before clicking that link please be aware that it includes a very graphic video of the performance) of torturous procedures, depicting what animals go through during one day at an animal testing lab. A “doctor” in a white lab lab coat and mask stretched the woman’s mouth open, choking her with lotions and creams, sprayed contact solution in her eyes, even shaved her head. It was long, graphic and in my opinion extremely unnecessary.

Obviously I’m against animal testing for cosmetics or any other product, because I’m not a heartless monster. Obviously I don’t want to subject animals to pain or poison them or stick them in cages to be used as basically live bait. Obviously. And I don’t know anyone that agrees to animal testing either. But this bizarre and brutal performance does not help curb animal testing, it just displays really terrifying and disturbing images to innocent civilians. It puts a fear in children that stumbled across it while walking past the shop or looking online. It harms human beings and does nothing to end animal cruelty.

It was a cheap and poorly-planned publicity stunt for the company. I don’t know if I’ll ever shop at Lush again, because I’m really offended that they would subject a human being to such pain and their customers to such offenses all to prove an already-obvious point. They could have asked people to sign a petition and people would have signed it without that performance, because animal testing is wrong regardless of that.

If you want to make a difference when it comes to animal testing, check out this list (after the jump) of brands that still test products on animals and don’t buy them. It’s that simple. Hit them where it hurts, in the wallet, and don’t terrify others who don’t have their hand in what goes on with these companies. Keep this list in your wallet, and next time you go shopping skip over the bad guys. It’s as easy as that.

Click below

Products that test on animals (courtesy of Peta):

3M
Arm & Hammer
Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiaries listed below:
Acuvue
Ambi
Aveeno
Band-Aid
Carefree
Clean & Clear
K.Y.
Listerine
Lubriderm
Neutrogena
Piz Buin
Purell
Purpose
Reach
Rembrandt
ROC
Rogaine
Savlon
Shower to Shower
Skin ID
Stayfree

Church & Dwight and their subsidiaries listed below:
Aim
Arm & Hammer
Arrid
Close-Up
Kaboom
Mentadent
Nair
OxiClean
Pearl Drops

Reckitt Benckiser and their subsidiaries listed below:
Air Wick
Calgon
Clearasil
Easy-Off
Finish
Lysol
Old English
Resolve
Rid-X
Spray ‘N Wash
Veet
Woolite

Unilever and their subsidiaries listed below:
Alberto-Culver
Axe
Comfort
Dove
Lux
Ponds
Signal
Sunlight
Sunsilk
Vaseline

Procter & Gamble and their subsidiaries listed below:
Always
Aussie
Braun
Christina Aguilera Perfumes
Crest
DDF
DOLCE & GABBANA
Downy
Dunhill Fragrances
Escada Fragrances
Fabreeze
Fekkai
Gillette Co.
Gucci Fragrances
Halo
Head & Shoulders
Herbal Essences
Hugo Boss
Iams
Ivory
Joy
Lacoste
Fragrances
Max Factor
Mr. Clean
Natural Instincts
Nice ‘n Easy
Olay
Old Spice
Pampers
Pantene
Physique
Puffs
Scope
Sebastian Professional
Secret
SK-II
Swiffer
Vicks
Vidal Sassoon
Zest

GlaxoSmithKline and their subsidiaries listed below:
Aquafresh Sensodyne
Clorox and their subsidiaries listed below:
Armor All
Ever Clean
Formula 409
Fresh Step
Glad
Green Works
Liquid Plumr
Oomph!
Pine-Sol
S.O.S
Scoop Away
Tilex

Avon Products, Inc.
Schering-Plough and their subsidiaries listed below:
Bain de Soleil Coppertone
Bic Corporation
L’Oreal and their subsidiaries listed below:
Biotherm
Cacharel
Garnier
Giorgio Armani
Helena Rubinstein
Kerastase
Kiehl’s
Lancome
LaRoche
Posay
Matrix Essentials
Maybelline
Mizani
Ralph Lauren Fragrances
Redken
Shu Uemura
Soft Sheen
Vichy
Viktor & Rolf

Blue Buffalo
Pfizer and their subsidiaries listed below:
Chapstick
Clorox
Colgate-Palmolive Co.
Dial Corporation and their subsidiaries listed below:
Dry Idea
Purex
Renuzit
Right Guard
Soft & Dri
Soft Scrub

SC Johnson and their subsidiaries listed below:
Drano
Fantastik
Glade
Nature’s Source
Off
Oust
Pledge
Raid
Scrubbing Bubbles
Shout
Windex

Estee Lauder
Hoyu
L’Occitane
Mary Kay
Mead
Melaleuca
Merck
New Dana Perfumes
Nu Skin International
Bausch + Lomb and their subsidiaries listed below:
ReNu
Shisheido Cosmetics
Walgreens

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Why Lush Went Too Far”

  1. bellesogni April 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    I haven’t seen the video, so I can’t really comment on it, but, by your posting this entry, you do know that you are giving them free publicity, don’t you?

  2. Ms. Afropuff April 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

    I’m glad you posted this, it makes me not want to see it. I love Lush products, but there have been a few things they’ve done that make them questionable to me. I disagree with Bellesogni only in that this provides good information for readers to make wiser decisions on who to support in their buying habits. It’s not necessarily good publicity directed to Lush.

  3. Emily April 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    I’m from the UK by the way, and Lush originates from these ‘ere parts.

    The stunt may seem extreme, but considering the kind of anti-animal testing “stunts” that extremist animal rights protesters have done in the past in the UK, I’d prefer this.

    A consenting person – she is a performance artist – agreed to be involved in this stunt for Lush.

    Yes, I’d way more prefer what Lush did compared to the animal rights extremists who stole the ashes of a – non-consenting – dead woman who happened to be the mother of the CEO of Novatis who has connections with Huntingdon Life Sciences http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Animal_rights_extremists_target_Novartis.html?cid=7537734

    You may think this is extreme, but this is moderate compared to other actions that happen in the EU.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: