Friday, 5 June 2009
Primark has the style, but how's the substance?
Whew - welcome to the new domain. I've been so busy fiddling with it I almost forgot to post. I think I thought I was a web designer. A really really bad web designer.
So - The mighty Primark, "cheap and cheerful" as my mum calls it. Maybe not so cheerful if you've been keeping up with media coverage. (Worker exploitation and child labour allegations. A big problem, by no means exclusive to Primark, the whole high street is full of unethically sourced clothing. But I'm here to talk about the makeup today.)
Primark has stocked a line of makeup called "Opia" for a few years now. It's very cheap, naturally. It's not the greatest quality, but there are a lot of colours available so it's probably an attractive option for teens and the budget-conscious. They also have some bath and body products with packaging that's very similar to the infinitely-more-lovely (and more expensive) Philosophy range.
Now it seems, Penneys (Primark's parent company) are driving further into the cosmetic market with a new range of funky-looking slap bearing a kind of 50s pop-art theme reminiscent of Benefit's look and feel.
There's concealer, eyeshadow, liner, mascara, blush, compacts and lipgloss, all with a kind of Lichtenstein look to them. They have cute tongue-in-cheek names too, like many of the expensive cult brands.
I got as far as the till with a handsome looking "9 and a half winks" black mascara, before checking the product information on the back. There's something missing - and it's a line that goes something like "Product and ingredient not testing on animals".
If that information is missing from the product information, it's probably because animal testing has gone on. I don't know for sure, but I don't want to risk it. I put the mascara back. It was £2.
They did have some nice handbag-sized mirrors though, which (unless I'm missing something) are pretty certain to be cruelty free.
EDIT - I've done a little research on Beautiful Colour Cosmetics there, and found the policy documents of Swallowfield, who produce the range. There's a clause in their Ethical Policy - well, here:
"b) There must not be any testing or commissioning of tests of finished products or raw
materials on animals."
So it seems they don't test the products or the ingredients on animals after all, which is a happy result. Still, glad I checked!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have the feeling it's no longer compulsory to put it on:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals#UK_position
...but I applaud your stance. It's not worth it.
Thanks champ!
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's ever been compulsory, has it?
My logic is that a company that has a stringent policy will make a point of declaring that it does not test on animals or use ingredients that have been tested on animals subsequent to a fixed cut-off date (more info here.
Better to be safe than sorry, yo.
hi, just to let you know. that part of the ethical policy doesnt seem to be there anymore.
ReplyDeleteit now seems to be in health and safety that all goods must not have been tested on animals within the last five years.
so it seems theyve changed from a higher animal welfare stance to a 5yr rolling stance.