The Great Cruelty Free Debate

When I heard a while back that Tarte had been sold to Kose, a non-cruelty free parent company, I was totally annoyed. I've always wanted to try Tarte, and at that point I was still vowing to use up the remainder of my products from brands who're owned by 'evil parent companies' and the such, in turn for buying makeup purely from smaller cruelty free vegan brands.

And then I came across a blog post from mybeautybunny which totally changed my mind. Many brands these days are owned by these big 'mean' parent companies, but that's just what happens within a capatalistic society, it's the way that it (unfortunately) works. 

mybeautybunny says - 

"Here’s another way to look at it. I shop at Sephora and ULTA. They carry many cruelty free brands and many brands that are NOT cruelty free. Sephora’s house brand is sold in China, and therefore, not cruelty free. That doesn’t mean I will stop shopping there. I will purchase the cruelty free brands, and hopefully (we will) show Sephora and ULTA (and other stores) that there is a strong consumer demand for cruelty free products. If you’re vegan, do you avoid grocery stores that sell meat? I doubt it. But you’re still putting money into the hands of the grocers who do sell meat. Same thing. You can’t live in a bubble. There’s no way to live a perfect life."

This reminded me of working at Typo last year, at my induction they said that while they're a part of the Cotton On Group, they're trying to break away and have more of their own identity, however, they're still owned by Cotton On because they're not big enough to survive on their own. 

Now I know that you can say that you can live without makeup, you CHOOSE to buy it. But you also choose to purchase food from a supermarket that may also sell meat, and you're therefore inadvertently supporting animal cruelty that way. 

Brands such as Rimmel London, and the Body Shop are indeed owned by larger parent companies, but the brands both claim to be cruelty free to the highest degree possible

Then there's the implication of law in certain countries. Brands such as MAC no longer guarantee to be cruelty free due to the current laws in China, and whilst I wish China would not ask for animal testing, if MAC stopped selling their products in my country (Australia - if it was to bring in a law mandating animal testing) I would be frustrated as MAC is one of the most highly regarded makeup brands in a MUA's arsenal and many clients like to see well known and well trusted brands such as MAC.
So while it bothers me, I can see that if I were a makeup artist working in China, while I would not agree with the rules, I would be glad that I still had access to the products. 

Then you also need to look at the good work MAC has actually done, such as it's Viva La Glam work, supporting AIDS research. The MAC AIDS foundation has raised a whopping $295,000,000 usd since 1994 which is amazing work, and has benefitted many people. 

Overall, it's each to their own, but there's no need to feel guilty for purchasing something owned by a parent company. Perhaps swap your favourite Maybelline mascara for an australis one next time, or maybe buy a Formula 10.0.6 moisturiser rather than a Loreal one next time.  

If you're making half an effort more than you were this time last year, you're doing well. 

Keep on supporting the outlawing of animal testing and let me know YOUR opinion on this below in the comments section! 

*I know you may disagree, this is merely my own opinion*