The ADgenda: this week's most offensive advert

Estee Lauder's Day and Night repair.

During the Paralympics one advert seemed to be running interminably throughout the Channel 4 coverage. As we watched heroic athletes at their physical peak, battling to claim public recognition for all the gruelling years of training and dedication they had sweated through, Estee Lauder were more interested in educating us about life's necessities. A purring voice grabbed our attention with the words "Millions of women can't live without it" and up our ears pricked, what could this wonderful new invention be that we had so far survived just fine without but had now arrived to show us how dreary and base our existence had been up until this very moment? 

Turns out the one thing that women require as a basic need the world over is anti-aging cream. No, not clean running water or access to electricity. Not even the oxygen we breathe is as crucial or as life-sustaining as holding off those wrinkles, ladies. This isn't just that we'd quite like healthy, younger-looking skin - no, it's not that flippant. We NEED a youthful, bouncy complexion - our very lives depend on it. 

Sadly, someone forgot to tell child poverty charity Plan International who in the same week have released an advert for their campaign "Because I Am A Girl", highlighting the continuing yawning chasm of gender inequality in certain parts of the world. While actress Freida Pinto spoke of girls who will not survive adolescence because they have no access to quality healthcare, Estee Lauder were busy convincing the rest of the world that survival depends upon slathering your face in a thick white cream every night. 

The company recently announced that they are upping their advertising spending by about $80m, so I imagine we're going to be treated to ever slicker examples of sham beauty products we just simply can't do without. But where's "the science bit"? While we're regularly subjected to the statistics behind the effectiveness of beauty products – "99.99999 per cent of women found their skin was a bit wetter after applying this product" – the company are strangely silent when it comes to backing up this particular claim. Perhaps they rounded up millions of women who were at death's door, smeared some cream on their face and miraculously they were cured, marching out into the sunshine radiating pure health. Perhaps. But then Estee Lauder would be modern day saviours worthy of our undying admiration, not grab-a-buck-quick fraudsters who profit from manipulating women's insecurities.

The Estee Lauder advert. Photograph, Getty Images.
GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.