124
5
10
15
20
S
upplemental Reading
0
5
0
“G
reen” has become a popular English phrase. It means that
something is good for the environment. Customers are looking
for products that are “natural,” “pure,” and “made from recycled
material.” They feel good
about helping the Earth and
about buying food and cosmetics that are healthier for
their bodies. Anita Roddick sensed this when she founded
The Body Shop in 1976. She advertised cosmetics that were
“100 percent pure” and boasted that The Body Shop’s
products were not tested on animals. Also, she said The
Body Shop did not take unfair
advantage of the workers in
poor countries.
For some people, this sounded too good to be true. In 1994, reporter Jon
Entine wrote a famous magazine article disputing Roddick’s claims. He said that
The Body Shop cosmetics were actually only 1 percent pure. Entine also pointed
out that most of the ingredients in The Body Shop’s
products were, indeed, tested
on animals. This prompted Roddick to change the phrase on her cosmetic labels.
Instead of “not tested on animals,” it became “against animal testing.” Later, other
critics joined in. The London chapter of Greenpeace
accused The Body Shop of
exploiting poor workers.
Today many other “green” companies face similar criticism. Are products
marketed as “green” really good for environment, or do producers simply claim
that they are so they can make more money? It’s a tough question. Thanks to
writers such as Entine, however, one thing is certain: They
are less likely to trust
the manufacturer’s word.
