You are here: Home Blog A path to a Canada no one will recognize
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 by Karl Hardin

A path to a Canada no one will recognize

LUSH cosmetics is known for being controversial.

In 2010, LUSH staff in stores across Canada took off their clothes and donned barrel outfits to protest the expansion of the oilsands. Earlier this year, LUSH staged an unsettling performance in their London store that subjected performance artist Jacqueline Traides to the kinds of tests performed on animals used by the cosmetics industry. Edgy stuff.

We like to work with people who are willing to go out on a limb and try interesting and risky things. That’s why it was a natural fit for us to team up with LUSH this June.

They’re hosting “polling stations” in their stores and are asking customers to vote against the Enbridge tanker and pipeline proposal, effectively signing our No Tankers petition in the process. They’re also donating 100 per cent of proceeds from their Charity Pot product to Dogwood Initiative.

When Enbridge announced a new $5 million ad campaign in B.C. last week, due in no small part to the opposition to the project across the province, the wonderful people at LUSH decided to make a spoof of Enbridge’s TV ad with some input from us as a rejoinder (you can watch the original Enbridge ad, if you want).

Facebook Share Button Twitter Button

Finn Canadensis says:
Jun 08, 2012 02:12 AM

I think this is brilliant. I'd like to see many more Canadian retailers put their advertising dollars toward similar initiatives. Customers have power and LUSH is leveraging this. YAY!

Jun 08, 2012 06:54 PM

I agree we need everyone in Canada to stop this Enbridge Oil Company from putting the pipe line through our waters and no tankers please...before there is no Canada left.

Matt says:
Dec 15, 2012 04:58 PM

"I'd like to see many more Canadian retailers put their advertising dollars toward similar initiatives". Accept LUSH is not a Canadian retailer, it is a British retailer. They are only interested the U.K. not Canada. Why do you think LUSH is not going after BP for the massive oil spill in 2010? Because they wouldn't dare go after a fellow British company. I would prefer Canadian ethical over Saudi conflict oil. Or would you rather oil from Venezuela where the government has closed down radio stations that have criticised the president.

Karlin says:
Jun 08, 2012 04:56 AM

Not that I wanted to, but that link didn't work.
I would imagine theEnbridge ad was full of lies, like th whopper they told this weeek about "60% of the natices along the route are signed up" [turns out only 2 of 45 are] - the same tactic TransCanada used on the Keystone line the Ogallala area - there was strong local opposition, but TransCanada claimed "strong support from locals".

They cannot be trusted, BIG OIL will say anything.

Tina Robertson says:
Jun 08, 2012 05:24 AM

They may have spent millions of dollars for their ads, but it is still pure propaganda and most people will see right through it and know that is is just pure lies! Something that Enbridge IS very good at.

Nicole Frayne says:
Jun 08, 2012 08:14 AM

What a joke. I love the spoofed video, Enbridge is ignorant enough to think Canadians aren't paying attention. Even the fellas working in the oil sands are so brainwashed by the money they make out there that they think these initiatives are harmless. I won't be supporting the pipeline.

Susanne Shaw says:
Dec 31, 2012 05:59 PM

True, Nicole, but we all fall for Big Oil framing. For instance, it's Tar Sands--not Oil Sands. We need not repeat ESSO CEO's framing. Go there on a sunny day. The TAR is even in the air. I have tons of pictures of the place when I worked up there.

Kevin says:
Jun 08, 2012 09:17 AM

Beautiful, what a brilliant comeback. Probably at 1/1000 of the price Embridge paid. If a spill should happen, the cost of the damage could be estimated in the tens of millions in dollars.

Melanie says:
Jun 15, 2012 01:38 PM

Way more than that in many cases damages are adding up to billions. But when it comes down to it, how can you put a $ price on the waste, devastation and depression? Ask the people of Alaska (30 years after Exxon they're still affected) ask the people around the Gulf of Mexico, ask anyone in the world who has been affected by an oil spill. I was, when I was a kid. The sinking of the Irving Whale. I saw 80 KM of our prestine beaches back east in the Magdalen islands in the Gulf of St-Lawrence covered in oil, birds, fish suffered and died. The locals had to clean the mess and now they want to drill in the Gulf of St-Lawrence.

Jeff says:
Jun 08, 2012 11:18 AM

WTG LUSH! You've got a new customer as of today! What a refreshing change fom typical corporate "values."

Suzanne Shaw says:
Jun 08, 2012 11:44 AM

very good production by a well-known environmentally conscious

Gillian Butler says:
Jun 08, 2012 11:58 AM

Count me in as a new customer.

helge braun says:
Jun 08, 2012 12:33 PM

LUSH is hardly an ethical business itself. Just read the ingredients. and this, if you're up for it.

helge braun says:
Jun 08, 2012 12:37 PM

this is simply a chemical laden cosmetic company that masquerades as an ethical one, cashing in on a certain demographic. Support LUSH, but know their ingredients aren't the pure healthful ones you may think. do your homework.

Shelley Woloshyn says:
Jun 08, 2012 12:52 PM

Count me in as a customer as well. Good going, Lush. Truly a responsible corporate citizen.

Julie says:
Jun 08, 2012 01:45 PM

It is a well know fact that the largest advertising budgets are spent on things that aren't good for us, pre sweetened cereal, and cigaretts. No wonder they needed a 5 million dollar campagne.

Milena says:
Jun 08, 2012 03:49 PM

Erm, since Lush refuses the sign the compact for safe cosmetics and routinely uses petrochemicals in their products, doesn't all of this merely amount to greenwashing? I personally find it offensive. They're taking all of us for fools. As helge braun writes above, do your homework.

Dustin Webb says:
Jun 08, 2012 04:37 PM

Yes, just smell a Lush store walking by, and you know how "natural" it is. But Still props to them for informing the public, and making this ad. It was inspiring.

Cody says:
Jun 08, 2012 07:00 PM

this really makes your "initiative" seem like a joke... LUSH uses petrochemicals in their products. greenwashing

mark says:
Jun 09, 2012 03:44 PM

No one wants it here in Northwest BC .

joe says:
Jun 09, 2012 11:03 PM

Enbridge is buying off 1st nations groups, who need money by offering them a 10% stake. Everyone has a price. What is the price we all will pay for Enbridge? Let's end enbridge!

sam verigin says:
Jun 10, 2012 12:14 AM

Let's not forget that we NEED petroleum! We could be very hard pressed to replace some of the greatly needed products that are made from the gloves and gowns in the medical field, rain gear, cameras, computers, wood preservatives, electrical/wire, etc.,etc,. My point is, we don't have to use it for a lot of things too. Fuel for airplanes, ocean cruisers, et al could run on other sources. The world has used and abused petroleum and petrolem products and many know no other way but to heat their homes and run their vehicles any other way. This is my opinion re the use in cosmetics.

Joanna DR says:
Jun 11, 2012 12:40 AM

No doubt Enbridge is spending a HUGE whack of dollars on their totally inane 'Northern Gateway' is wonderful-for-you TV ads, which are completely pointless to say the least. These millions of dollars could be far better spent by this horrible corporation on things like: better safety installations for their pipes, or for helping the First Nations communities cope with the coming invasion (of pipelines, since the Harper Regime has already declared it will override the NEB if the NEB amazes us all by giving a thumbs-down) ... I recently saw a whole-page Enbridge ad. in the Globe & Mail and its content was absolutely meaningless. When will these people GO AWAY ??! And now I'm watching another stupid ad. on CBC (June 10th) What's that about anyway?!

CHris says:
Jul 01, 2012 01:01 PM

Fabulous! Way to go LUSH!
If all our tax money that went into subsidizing this insane tar sands/oil industry were invested in green energy, not only the health of this planet would improve but so would the health of its inhabitants. TIme to move away from fossil fuels. There are already enough toxins in our air, food, water, earth - its time to clean it up so future generations can enjoy the beauty our earth holds.

Anonymous says:
Jul 12, 2012 01:57 AM

There ARE alternatives! Just because we have brainwashed ourselves into thinking we need all the things that petroleum can make for us, we have become addicted to the conveniences of modern day! Half the stuff we do because we didn't know was harmful,growing up, and now we need to take all the small steps we can to make our way into the future by balancing some of the old ways with the new ways to have greener days!

Y.B. Winnipeg says:
Aug 02, 2012 02:18 PM

........and this bitumen still has to travel over a fault zone! Remember? The west coast is still worried about 'the big shake'... Hard to believe!!!

Jones says:
Aug 23, 2012 04:08 PM

Lush's comeback ad is protesting the building of pipelines, not against oil itself. So I don't see how this is greenwashing?

Add comment

You can add a comment by filling out the form below. Plain text formatting. Comments are moderated.

Question: What is 5 + 4 ?
Your answer:
Stand up for BC. Join us.

  • © Dogwood Initiative, 2015

    Authorized by Dogwood Initiative