MAC Retro Matte collection (September 12, 2013)

cyclops68

Well-known member
I did apply. They won't approve me. Bastards. I could have one of the companies I've done makeup for write a letter of reference, but that's just tedious. Plus now that they're owned by a company that tests on animals I'd rather not use them.
L'Oreal no longer does animal testing, and if i remember right, it has been the case since the 90s. Besides, European companies are bound by all sorts of strict European directives regarding cosmetic ingredients, the latest having been enforced just 2 months ago, so even if they do still use any ingredients that have been tested on animals by their suppliers, these are being phased out and replaced by approved ingreients to comply with regulations. I think one such regulation was signed into law a few years ago to ban the sale of any product that has been involved in animal testing and the ban is being enforced this year.
 

erine1881

Well-known member
L'Oreal no longer does animal testing, and if i remember right, it has been the case since the 90s.
It's my understanding that they don't test their finished products on animals, but this doesn't apply to their product ingredients, and are therefore on peta's list of companies that do test on animals. Is this correct?
 

butterflyeyes

Well-known member
I did apply. They won't approve me. Bastards. I could have one of the companies I've done makeup for write a letter of reference, but that's just tedious. Plus now that they're owned by a company that tests on animals I'd rather not use them.
I totally missed the last part if this. I want to say that UD themselves still don't test on animals but I know that some people don't like buying from brands that are owned by parent companies that do/did participate in animal testing. There are always debates about it...I respect the choice and completely understand it. I wish so many of these smaller brands weren't being purchased by these large parent companies...a lot of the time the quality and innovation that brand had suffers. But I digress lol.
 

erine1881

Well-known member
I totally missed the last part if this. I want to say that UD themselves still don't test on animals but I know that some people don't like buying from brands that are owned by parent companies that do/did participate in animal testing. There are always debates about it...I respect the choice and completely understand it. I wish so many of these smaller brands weren't being purchased by these large parent companies...a lot of the time the quality and innovation that brand had suffers. But I digress lol.
Yeah. That's what sucks about it cuz in the end, many times the parent company has the say
 

geeko

Well-known member
Well if the company has outlets in china most likely they did some form of animal testin Cld b diect or in direct Coz china requires animal testin in their law for cosmetical products. Boo to china... they shld change their laws for this.there r other ways of testin product safety like in vitro testing. Well cant be helped. China is nt exactly known for animal rights.
 

bluelitzer

Well-known member
I only got the nude matte shade from this collection + MAC Brave and MAC Twig. I was going to get FOF but then it's giving me such a Daddy's Little Girl vibe which I have 2 of. Totally skipped on Relentlessly Red because it looks like Party Parrot which didn't work on me (although it looks amazing on you guys). Dangerous was also a skip since I just got MAC So Chaud, 2 MAC Scarlet Ibis (from Marilyn) and still have not used much of Sail La Vie. The others don't really appeal to me as much but I'm happy I'm catching up to my permanents wish list!
 

cyclops68

Well-known member
I am having some trouble multi-quoting on my iPad but I was editing my post to include more information about European directives when Erine and butterflyeyes replied. Anyway it might not be as bad a thing as you think for indie companies to get bought up by a larger company... Sure it makes them more "commercial" and less indie, but on the other hand,they get access to more resources that they would never have been able to afford and can therefore push out more innovative products. In large companies, research is shared across the board and not confined to a single brand. Often, indie brands do not really have much technology to speak of, but with access to new research, truly innovative products can be put out. Of course I am looking at this from a researcher's standpoint, so I understand that for some, there is the nostalgia associated with supporting small independent companies, but maybe thanks to the distributing power to larger parent companies and their marketing budgets, these indie companies can reach a larger audience elsewhere. If a parent company is self-aware, which I thinking pretty much the case now for many conglomerates, they would actually be smart to preserve the soul and original selling point of the company that they just acquired so as to preserve its fan base, while spreading its name further to attract more like-minded people. It makes no sense from the business point of view to acquire an indie brand and rebrand it to make it a commercial brand because it is not like they are lacking any of those.
 

Tahlia

Well-known member
I was bad and bought all the lipsticks and new lip pencils, even FOD which I said I wasn't guna buy (because Erine posted that photo and it looked soooo good!). And now I'm poor. I have issues.
 

ForeverJenn

Well-known member
Okie! :kiss: If i still worked for mac i would tell you yes, you need the mac sharpener. But seeing as i don't...any good quality sharpener will do. Just not some crappy sharpener from the $1 store. I've had 2 mac sharpeners in the last 3 months fall apart on me, so i myself am looking for a replacement sharpener, $9 pieces of crap! It'll be fixed tomorrow or the day after. It took 2-3 days for them to fix the pro discount on LL paint pot, but they finally got it fixed!
lol! thanks for answering my question :)
 

ForeverJenn

Well-known member
I was bad and bought all the lipsticks and new lip pencils, even FOD which I said I wasn't guna buy (because Erine posted that photo and it looked soooo good!). And now I'm poor. I have issues.
it reminds me so much of diva, (ESP in T's post) so I'm talking myself into skipping it :crazy:
 

NewChick10

Well-known member
Quote:Originally Posted by Pinkdollface

I'm also liking Shock Value. I thought it would be like Silly, but it seems more blue-based, deeper and brighter. It does look a lot like CYY, so hopefully it'll be the perfect liner for it.



Maybe someone will give some comparison shots of lippies.
 

Tahlia

Well-known member
it reminds me so much of diva, (ESP in T's post) so I'm talking myself into skipping it :crazy:
Haha I tried to convince myself but I failed miserably and spent sooo much money. I still want to buy clothes as its spring now in Australia so good luck to my wallet. Thankgod we have a month til RiRi !
 

mommylovesMAC78

Well-known member
I gotta take it easy on the MAC. I just had a baby and I don't even go anywhere really, except once and a blue moon to the movies with my husband or Wal*Mart :( Yeah I'm that girl with the beat face getting groceries. lol So I kept my order short and sweet: 1 FOF 1 AFU 1 SG (not really my color but I don't want to miss out on it) No back ups. I figure it will probably take me 20yrs to finish the 60+ l/s and l/g that I have. Thank you Richelle83 for the link earlier.
 
Top