pros:
terrible product. I don't recommend it to anyone. F-
this was taken from www.39thandbroadway.com/hate-21/
Sweatshop labor in the US – Forever 21 has been
running sweatshops in California and using Mexican immigrant labor in subpar
working conditions to provide you with cheap disposable clothing. Especially for
our LA readers, how can you in good conscious spend money on a product that
forces fellow women to work in sweatshop conditions? Several of these
women have banded to together and created a must see documentary called “Made in LA”. It is
very easy to say “Oh yeah, it may be cheap labor but I can’t afford anything
better” and thereby distancing yourself from the issue at hand but watching this
documentary and seeing the faces behind your garments should open everyone’s
eyes. Additionally, Forever 21 has been taken to the California Supreme
Court regarding its unfair labor practices repeatedly. As one factory
worker Guadalupe Hernandez explained she earned, “$4 per hour working 10 hours a
day 6 days a week in a factory with no running water and no bathroom.” Clearly
the cost of fast fashion is too high!
Sweatshop Labor
overseas – As many are not aware, much of Forever 21’s products
are not made in their own factories, but rather subcontracted out. F21
finds third party manufactures who produce private label pieces (i.e. with
Forever 21’s labels and hangtags) made in subcontracted overseas sweatshops to
make the incredibly low price-point that F21 demands. You see,
Mexican/American sweatshop labor is far more expensive then that of Chinese,
Cambodian, or Bangladeshi workers. Forever 21 has repeatedly faced
lawsuits regarding overseas sweatshop labor; however, they avoid the
consequences by laying the blame on the third party contractors and deny
any responsibilities. Unfair labor practices, child labor, dangerous work
environments and the exploitation of women are the true cost of that $12.99 sun
dress you picked up.
cons:
A+++ I love all cetaphil products just fyi!
i liked this shampoo because it was very inexpensive. sadly, its a small bottle and lasted me a short time. i did notice a shine to my hair, but only after several times use. i liked the smell, although i cant decide what it is. i like that it has silk powder and amino acids in it, which is very good for your hair. i think i would repurchase again, if i needed a cheap alternative. a very good drugstore shampoo. A-
my mom gave me a sample of this because she had problems with it and wanted me to try. what she said was that it dried her skin out rather than moisturized it. it is prescription and she got it ar a dermatologists office. i have to say i really liked the fact that it had spf 30 in it, which is more than any other lotion or makeup ive had. i didnt like the smell...which is hard to describe. i also thought it felt strange on my skin, not soft but kind of sticky. i would say that its a great sunscreen alternative but not a great moisturizer. C+
this cream has vitamin E, and allows the skin to soak up moisture rather than allow it to remain on the surface, like most lotions. it gives your skin a soft, dewy feel to it, for any kind of skin care (but if you have very oily skin, it may be a little too heavy). this moisturizer has no scent or color, which is a good bonus. this way odors wont mix (ex. body mist vs. moisturizer). It is pretty expensive for a moisturizer (30$) but it's formula is very much worth it. 
I absolutely love this product. hands down, best foot scrub ever. it smells really good, and has a nice feel to it. it kind of gives off a tingly sensation with on the skin which is pleasant. it contains little coarse particles to exfoliate the skin and soften the tough skin on the bottom of your feet. The only downfall to this product that it is pretty expensive for a foot scrub (15$) and it runs out very quickly. I used it for about two months, and about two times a week. Overall, not bad!
Shame, H&M, shame.
Last week we learned that both the trend-forward
retailer and Wal-Mart engage in the odd and wasteful practice of destroying
unsold merchandise, and throwing it in the trash. Both companies scrambled to
come up with apologetic statements, a rep for H&M vowing that it was an
anomalous error that wouldn’t reoccur: “It will not happen again. We are
committed 100 percent to make sure this practice is not happening anywhere else,
as it is not our standard practice.”
Yet when New York’s WPIX recently
returned to the scene of the crime, reporters came across an employee hauling
bag after bag of shoes into a truck. When asked where the bags were going, the
employee clearly stated, “In the trash,” as if it should be obvious. When they
questioned if he was aware of H&M’s wasteful shredding and trashing method,
he got shy, repeatedly saying, “I can’t comment on that.”
Of course, all of
us are watching this, completely appalled. Why wouldn’t H&M or Wal-Mart drop
the clothes off at a charity? It would require the same manpower and resources.
Yet, there is a reason why retailers wouldn’t want their merchandise going back
into circulation.
On Double X, Erika Kawalek, who is writing a book on this
issue, brings up a point which may recall your teenage shoplifting days (cough,
cough): “They are more concerned with their cheap merch flooding discount
channels or coming back as ‘unpaid’ returns at their cash registers.” Return
something you never bought; get the refund. One of the oldest tricks in the
book. Still, the concept of throwing out clothes remains unacceptable.
