MAC Testing on Animals?

Recently I have seen some worrying posts regarding MAC's policy on animal testing. For as long as I have been using MAC products (since 2005), the company has proudly stated that they did not test on animals, this has apparently changed. The website no longer makes any mention of animal testing unless you type "animal testing" into the search box and even then this is all that comes up:

''The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is committed to the elimination of animal testing. We are equally committed to consumer health and safety and bringing to market products that comply with applicable regulations in every country in which are products are sold.''
                             -maccosmetics.co.uk

That is it. Almost 30 years of having never tested on animals and they silently change policy, giving only two sentences full of weasel words designed to confuse those searching for that information. I particularly like how they claim to be "committed to the elimination of animal testing"; this would be one thing if they had always done so and were trying to eliminate it - not the other way around.

I do know why they have had this sudden change of heart: they want to sell in China, where the law requires the torture (I don't care what anyone says, that is what animal testing amounts to) of animals.  I do  not see the benefit of testing makeup and cosmetic products on animals as much more effective means of testing products have been used for decades.

I do wonder how they will respond to the banning of animal testing in the UK from March 2013 (I think this is true of the rest of the EU as well). Will they abandon the loyal and lucrative UK/EU markets? They cannot claim they do not test on animals when the same products will be sold in China. I know other companies test on animals, I simply do not buy from them if I know or even think they might test on animals and I will no longer support MAC by reviewing their products or buying any more from them. I am both saddened and inconvenienced by this development but I believe that testing cosmetics on animals is wrong and will not knowingly contribute to the misery and suffering of innocent animals in order to line the pockets of a business. I doubt this post would matter to them if they read it, I wonder how many people would have to blog, complain and boycott for them to care. I hope they reverse this decision like they pulled the Rodarte/Juarez collection in 2010. It is always sad to see the good guys become bad guys.

Here is a photo of Jess:

Dishonest Advertising

This has got to be the single most annoying thing in beauty advertising. If companies are going to use false eyelashes when advertising eyelash products, then they should be advertising false lashes, not the mascara hidden underneath it. I (and I suspect, most people) are aware that there is a fair bit of photoshopping and trickery going on in ads; whitening toothpaste advertised on people with whitened teeth or by use of ps; skin enhanced digitally for foundation and various other things, which if being used when another thing is being advertised e.g. whitened teeth when they are selling lipstick etc is absolutely fine but it isn't when the product being advertised is being linked to these effects, especially where the disclaimer does not make it clear* that you will not get these effects from that product.

This is seriously one of the reasons I don't tend to buy anything I can't test or find reviewed and swatched on an independent blog, I reason that if someone has had to put their hand in their pockets and paid for a product they didn't like they will be honest about it, not something you will ever expect get from the big companies who will of course tell you their product is amazing and you need it in order to ensure the continuing advertising revenue. Magazines are usually not much better. Makeup Forever released an unretouched ad this year and the models foundation looked amazing and whilst she was probably chosen for having amazing, flawless skin it was hers and not courtesy of post-production.  I don't think anyone could claim that this has harmed their business.

I am not anti-photoshop, I do use it myself but not to change the product or how it looks (I will cover up spots when swatching lipstick but not foundation or face products).

*Meaning the disclaimer is either non existent or hidden down at the bottom or in a corner.

Rant

I ordered a pair of gorgeous red, glittery high heels for a special event I am going to next week over a fortnight go, which still haven't arrived. I have sent 2 emails in the past week, both of which have gone unanswered and telephone three times today and been put on to the answering machine. I also noticed that when you call the company they do not identify who you are phoning and they give a very general response about talking to other customers and dispatching products.

I am not really annoyed, I ordered these shoes 3 weeks in advance so that, if the shoes were too big or too small I could exchange them or return them for a refund in plenty of time to get something else. To add insult to injury I paid for quick delivery, they are situated in Norfolk so it isn't as if the package has to cross any national borders, in fact it is about 100 miles away and inefficient as Royal Mail can be, even they can manage that with little trouble. I ordered stuff from Morgana Cryptoria in Arizona, 5,000 miles away which was sent out in a couple of days had to cross an Ocean, pass Customs before being delivered which took a little over a week.

Not sending a product you have received payment for is not exactly good business practice, especially if the buyer has paid for it to be delivered quickly. My Dad has suggested that she may be selling products she does not have in her possession, then ordering them up to send them out, this is plausible, if rather misleading (i.e. undertaking that goods will be in the customers possession within 2 working days, when you know you cannot fulfil it) or you could claim a deliberate attempt to mislead people. This still does not explain why she has not replied to emails (1 sent on Friday, the other on Wednesday) and why the phone is not being answered . This is really suspect to me, the bad business practice suddenly looks like fraud and this really gets on my nerves. I made my situation clear on Friday that I have to go to Scotland for a funeral and have the event just after I come back but if they don't fit I need to know to buy something else in time for it. So, I lost my patience this after noon and went into town and bought a nice pair which I paid for less than half the price of the first pair. So I am filing a dispute with paypal to get my money back.

Not only has this shoddy customer service cost them the £62 on those shoes but also the money I was going to spend on shoes for my birthday and graduation night outs ( so possibly another £150-200) plus for any other event I go to but now, I'll just order the shoes from a store in the US knowing I will have to wait up to about 2 weeks.

Not impressed.

EDIT: Paypal sorted it, despite numerous attempts over the past week to sort it to no avail, paypal fixed it in an hour.