MECCA Cosmetics called out for misleading cruelty-free claims

MECCA Cosmetics called out for misleading cruelty-free claims

THE WHAT? Mecca Cosmetics has been called out online for stating misleading cruelty free claims, according to a report by News Daily. 

THE DETAIL The Australian beauty company stated on its Instagram account, which has 620,000 followers, that ‘all brands at Mecca are cruelty-free’, a claim disputed by consumers due to Mecca stocking brands such as M.A.C Cosmetics, Clinique, Benefit, NARS, YSL, GlamGlow, Estee Lauder and Shiseido, all of which use animal testing.

Following the statement, consumers took to social media to dispute the claims, while consumer-led industry watchdog Estee Laundry called out the company on its Instagram site. 

THE WHY? With vegan and cruelty-free products continuing to be in high demand from consumers, brands are keen to promote the claims. 

However, with Chinese regulation making it essential for all products to be tested on animals before being sold in the country, many are lured into the market, therefore making cruelty-free brand claims null and void. 

1 Comment

  1. The Ghost of The Body Shop, still overshadows, safety of consumers, for not just cosmetics, but more so foods and pharmaceuticals.

    Was there ever any logic in this , in effect a pure marketing ploy ? or was it a human belief trait.

    First aspect of this 44 years debate, is
    a simple one:
    That Cosmetics should be tested in alternative methods.
    Thereby describing that Cosmetic could be harmful.
    Thereby admitting Cosmetics did diffuse into the blood system.
    Thereby modifying the “ Then Definition of Cosmetics”, did not penetrate the skin.

    Where are we today after 44 years.

    Less effective cosmetics, which have by purely negativism, disrupted the use of proven effective materials, as Lanolin, Parafinum Liquidums, Parabens, Beeswax, etc…
    But also less safe Cosmetics, by using untested naturals ( most being Hexaned processed ) rich in multilevel irritants and after long term use , allergies.
    Lowest level of scientific endeavours to meet marketing needs in beliefs rather than scientific progress.

    So where are We today?
    In Vitro Cell testing, Ex-Vivo testing, Diffusion skin analysis are inadequate.
    Animal testing was inadequate.

    Well human skin testing, ethical or not , is what is left?

    The simple question of all, was it all the objective to destroy Cosmetics ?

    Or to stop cruelty to Animals!

    That was never really clear, ever.

    At the time, Cosmetics represented 0.2% of testing.
    Cosmetics have never been so ineffective since the 1930s, for your skin care!

    Any way to improve this long event of regression?

    Modern science, by new players, and not dubious marketing beliefs.

    One simple question, would be to ask yourself, what size is the CoronaVirus-19?
    And start becoming scientific.

    It is a long avenue, and mind expansion needs, but one that will indeed change you, forever.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *