- across from Macy's in NYC,
- down the street from Pike Place Market in Seattle,
- in Vieux Quebec (totally by fluke, but I still found it),
- in Barcelona around the corner from my hostel,
- and the easy one at Pearson Airport in Toronto.
I love that they use what they consider "free trade", "organic", "ethically sourced" ingredients...I guess we all have a little "hippy" in us. I also love that they have a body lotion - Charity Pot - where a portion of the sale of the product gets donated to the cause on the lid. For a period last year, it went to help families in Japan after the tsunami. Another of their recent causes was to help women in Columbia start their own businesses. I guess I'm partially biased to the causes that have a human side to them, as opposed to some of the other causes they choose to support. Right now, I don't think I'll be buying any Charity Pot though.....because of it's most recent cause.
Last month's cause was to stop testing cosmetics on animals. Now, I'm all for the prevention of animal cruelty, but I believe that there is a place and a purpose for all animal testing. I understand where the people at Lush are coming from, but I don't think they understand the WHOLE story. Let me explain:
As a medical/veterinary researcher, I read a lot of journals...peer-reviewed SCIENCE...where certain tests have been performed on one species (mostly specially bred lab mice) because it's simply UNETHICAL, UNSAFE, UNREALISTIC and most of all IMPOSSIBLE to safely perform these tests on human, with full following of the unbiased scientific process.
Let me give you an example:
For some tests, mice are induced with rapidly advancing simulations of degenerative diseases...like say osteoarthritis...then their progress and outcomes are measured so we can gain a greater understanding of the disease in general; primarily to improve patient care and early diagnosis. I don't think ANY ethical board will allow ANY group of researchers to induce a completely healthy population (because we need a suitable and reliable baseline) with a degenerative disease, when we don't even have an idea on how their bodies will react. Also, for humane reasons - because who would honestly want to live their life with a rapidly advancing degenerative disease (I'm all for SCIENCE, but I wouldn't wish that shit on anyone) - after the experiment, the animals are euthanized. I don't think we could get away with euthanizing 50 to 100 humans, who were healthy 3 weeks ago, after our investigation was complete.
Hell, name one sane person who would sign up for that shit! I honestly don't even think we could use prisoners on "death row" for this, for a few reasons - they're largely male (so we're no longer dealing with a representative sample), they may not have the best track record for drug use (we need a healthy baseline and crack-heads just won't do) and again the whole aspect of patient care (we have a hard enough time caring for our prisoners as it is, let alone if they're full of untreatable diseases).
Anyways, for the past 2 months, Lush was collecting signatures on a "petition" to stop cosmetic-related animal testing. They were writing names all over the windows, so I have a hard time accepting this as a legal petition, but if it makes you feel good about yourself.....
Last time I stopped in, I was approached by the clerk at the door, with the marker, asking if I wanted to sign my name. I said, as politely as I could, "Actually, I can't. If I sign this, I'm in conflict of interest of my research, and my job. I'm really sorry." I think I pretty much drove over the clerk's cat. She was pretty crushed.
I went on to explain that I understand that this is specifically petitioning against cosmetically-related animal testing, but cosmetics companies follow the same set of ethical guidelines/laws/procedures as direct medical research, and if I sign this glass window with your little white marker, I'm essentially signing away the future of my job.
I then went on to ask why Lush no longer sells their "Suncare Line" - they used to have 2 or 3 types of sunscreens....they were pretty amazing. She didn't even know that they sold sunscreen once upon a time. I had to explain that once upon a time, Lush sold sunscreens, but had to kill the line because in order to declare a product safe to use as a "sunscreen" or "sunblock" with an SPF, FDA requires that the product is extensively tested on animals to make sure that it actually does what it is supposed to do.....prevent skin cancer. I told her that because of the claim, and significant but moderately related evidence, that excessive sun can cause skin to change and may result in skin cancer, Lush can't sell cosmetics and claim that they have an SPF rating, unless it's been proven so. It's a safety issue.
(Disclaimer: I'm all for the use of a minimum of SPF 30, as a preventative measure. Because I'm a scientist, I can't make causal claims, but I do believe that sunscreen can prevent skin cancer....so lather up kids.)
Again, when I told her that, I'm pretty sure I crushed her second cat with my car. I crushed her cat for another 10 minutes, explaining that in order to improve quality of life, we will ultimately need to perform medical-related tests on animals. There's a fine line between "cosmetic" and "medical". In my eyes, they're one and the same. I didn't want to sign my job away.
Their current campaign is to stop the development of a pipeline running from the Alberta Tar Sands to the British Columbia Coast. Once again, something I'm not entirely for. I have quite a few reasons, but I want to make sure I get my facts straight before I walk into the store and start debating with the staff.
