is lush


sonoora  asked:

Would you happen to know if LUSH is still supporting Compassionworks?

Yup, they are. I don’t think they have a charity pot out right now, but CWI was using LUSH’s branding on their table at the National Animal Rights conference this summer and promoting the association. 

For those new followers who weren’t around for the beginning of this story, back in April of this year, CompassionWorks International decided to use the publicity around the birth of April the Giraffe’s baby to attack zoos; they did so by straight up lying about the factual success of conservation projects, deleting any comments by zookeepers or the public who tried to correct the gaslighting, and then bragging about how many people they’d blocked because they’d supported zoos on the post. The problem is that the Lush guidelines for American charity pot sponsors say they support organizations that do “environmental conservation” and “animal welfare” work - even if CWI’s sponsorship comes from the animal welfare side of things, it’s still a huge issue for an organization that funds conservation work to support a group that is fine lying about conservation. You can read more about it here - a lot of people wrote Lush and got responses that all boiled down to ‘CWI is does education about animal cruelty and we support them’. I spoke to the woman who runs the CWI Facebook page at the national animal rights conference, by the way, and she openly admitted that she hates zoos because they do some good conservation work and that makes it harder to get people to hate them - so there’s confirmation that they were purposefully lying on Facebook to mislead supporters into thinking no zoo conservation effort has been successful. 

Unfortunately, LUSH is pretty solidly in the animal rights (not animal welfare) camp at this point, sadly. The US site is the only one that talks about animal welfare work - the UK site talks about ‘animal protection’ which is a common radical animal rights buzzword - and even the language on the US site is pretty charged (they don’t support anyone “involved in cruelty or subjugation of animals”). 

One of the current Canadian Charity Pots funds a campaign to move Lucy, a lone Asian elephant in a zoo in Alberta, to PAWS - despite that fact that a very thorough and entirely transparent evaluation by a well-qualified independent expert determined that it’s best for her health to stay where she is and that her current care provides impressive “active behavioral consideration and management” -   “so she can heal.” The irony of this is that Lucy has a congenital respiratory pathology that requires active medical support, and not only did the expert who assessed potential options for her rule the facility out because it doesn’t have “the handling systems nor [the free-contact] culture required to manage [her] problems,” but PAWS is has well documented issues with resident elephants dying of tuberculosis. That’s not a great situation into which to send an animal whose respiratory system is already compromised - not to mention the fact that it’s likely Lucy would die during a long transport due to complications from her respiratory issues. Despite all this publicly available evidence, LUSH is still choosing to support an “animal welfare” initiative that is most likely to end in the death of the elephant involved… it certainly appears that they agree with CWI about zoos being evil and that even death is better than an animal’s life in one. 


003-100 | 100 days of productivity | 08-30-2017

A day in the life of your local Slytherin: AM potions chemistry and coffee, PM house color bathbombs.

Also your friendly reminder that self care legitimately counts as productivity.