There is nothing wrong with strongly held principles and having an uncompromising belief in what you see to be a just cause. It is this characteristic that makes us all individual and unique as a species.
But it is another thing entirely to bend those principles for financial gain or just from sheer ignorance. The latter could be excused; although there is an old saying that mentions getting your facts right before jumping up on your soap box.
This latest publication deals with the vacuous subject of beauty products and has more then its fair share of mind-numbingly inane little articles on what overpriced gunge you should be rubbing into yourself. Its a free world (or so they say) and if someone wants to spend their life, not to mention all their money on titivating themselves; then you could argue its none of my business. But, there lies the rub (no pun intended) if the cosmetics world is your chosen subject, then it would be a good idea to do some research into that industry, before flexing your laws at another.
The wearing of fur is always going to be a subject that has its opponents as well as its supporters and there are good arguments on both sides, but throwing in a couple of clichéd old lines in the hope of coming across as a caring human being , cuts no ice.
This is especially true, coming as it does, from the mouth of a cosmetics peddler. 'Beauty Magazine', champions the cause of several well known brands of cosmetics; page 44 is an article on Emporio Armani perfumes and page 45 is another article on Aramis Always perfume. These two perfumes are made by LOreal and Estée Lauder, respectively and pages 12-15 are a song of praise to all products made by Guerlain and Estée Lauder.
The French cosmetics industry has been quoted as the single biggest obstacle to ending cosmetic testing on animals and among the companys still using vast amounts of animals to test their products are LOreal, Estée Lauder and Guerlain. In fact an average 50,000 guinea pigs and rabbits were used last year to test products made by these companies.
In recent trials to curb the use and cruelty of animal testing, representatives from the leading French cosmetics manufactures appealed against the progressive ban on animal testing of cosmetics, saying it violated their right to freely undertake a professional activity.
Now what I dont understand here is, how with one breath a person can claim that wearing a fur coat is cruel, yet in the next breath, try to sell a mascara that has been tested on a rabbit (rabbits have no tear ducts and are therefore unable to relieve the stinging and pain).
If you have chosen the shallow and vacuous world of cosmetics to make your living, all well and good, but please, spare us the hearts and roses or at the very least, get your facts right before expressing an opinion that may well be contrary to your line of work and as such, comes across as total hypocrisy!
To comment on this article contact editor@ webexpressguide.com or make your comments as per link provided below. For more information on animal testing visit www.arkonline.com com All statistics correct at time of print and further information is available at the official European parliament website: www.europarl.europa.eu and for real information on the fur trade, visit the International Fur Trade Federation at www.iftf.com