From my understanding, China requires manufacturers TO test on animals.
In any event, UD holds themselves out as a company that doesn't test, and its going against that by deliberately entering a market where they know animal testing of some sort will have to be done. People on FB are up in arms about this.
I have to honestly wonder if the FB people are reading the letter, I'm with Swizzle, it says the company won't test, but to enter the market the Chinese government may conduct tests. And really, that's just semantics, sure, the Chinese government could make them go hire someone to do it I guess - but it doesn't really seem to change their company policy, which is they don't.
Also, remember this letter is written by someone who is well versed in spinning PR. I wouldn't necessarily put stock in this letter. From what I've read, China does require animal testing- currently.
Apparently they are not the only company that claims to be cruely free but has animal testing in China.
I don't think a company that knows its products will be tested on animals- regardless if they conduct the testing or not- can be called cruelty free. Its all semantics. They have the choice to market China or to boycott China because of its current policies. They chose to renege on their previous cruelty-free stance to make money. Some people will find this distasteful.
That being said, I am not saying its necessarily a bad idea to enter a new market and to try to change people's minds, and to make money in the process. I'm just putting the info out there since I know this is an issue people care about.