Loveinamist
Registered Shopper
BB, I put a picture up of our fluffy bunny. Does that make me care less about rats?
Help Support ShoppingTelly:
Me too, always have. Not bad quality either to be honest. It's a pity that the Co-op range of skincare is awful.
kitten_with_claws
Registered Shopper
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,659
Yeah, it is somewhat naff unfortunately - I think Donna & others have tried some of the M&S ranges though, so I might give those a go, I love Elemis but getting a bit sick & tired of Keeley spouting utter tosh constantly & their numerics in 'trials' are just laughable, so beginning to feel a bit like the wool being pulled over my eyes now.....! :wonder:
As far as the Co-op stuff goes, I can recommend the 'Soft White Handwash', if you don't mind slathering your mitts in SLSs & evil PEGs! lol I have incredibly sensitive hands (they start splitting & cracking horribly & painfully at the merest hint of most handwashes!) & this one is one of the few I can use without problems & as for the cheapo ingredients, well it is only about a quid! lol
QVC/USA announced their joint venture expansion into China in March this year = 35 million homes! (USA Today) 51% government-owned and 49%, QVC. If current Q vendors eg: L'occitane, are to sell on the Q/China network, is that the reason they must comply with China's animal-tested rules? What part does QVC play in this?
I am a little bit surprised at the ferocity of the reactions my comments had generated. I am not attacking anyone in any way, merely stating that I don't think people think all these things through. I have never said or even suggested I think I am better in any way than others, because I don't think that. I am a very principled person and I like an intelligent debate. This is one of the privileges that this forum and this country allows.
For the record, I have worked for a telephone company for the last 2 years. When I joined it was a pleasure to work there. People cared about the customers and colleagues. Now it has become money-grabbing and nasty. A recent incident saw a salesman selling a mobile phone to a 72 year old woman who was recovering from cancer and still working. She didn't need the product and yet they tried to force it on her. So angry was about this that I took it to the Union and my Manager who tried to silence me. I ended up buying her out of her contract with my own personal money because I felt so ashamed of my colleague and my company. As soon as I can I will get out of there. I have to put up with it at the moment because I have no family and have to support myself. I have been homeless in the past and would not wish to repeat the experience. Please remember that your opinion of me, a person you have never met or even conversed with, does not define me as a person any more than my opinion of you, gleaned through your postings, would define you. All I have ever stated is that some peoples' thinking on these animal rights issues is woolly, ignorant and borderline hysterical. So many people preach an agenda from their soapbox and just don't like it when someone calls what they are saying into question. If you look at the logic of my statements you should find them quite valid. Money is at the root of peoples' and companies' actions, not ethics.
For the record, I have worked for a telephone company for the last 2 years. When I joined it was a pleasure to work there. People cared about the customers and colleagues. Now it has become money-grabbing and nasty. A recent incident saw a salesman selling a mobile phone to a 72 year old woman who was recovering from cancer and still working. She didn't need the product and yet they tried to force it on her. So angry was about this that I took it to the Union and my Manager who tried to silence me. I ended up buying her out of her contract with my own personal money because I felt so ashamed of my colleague and my company. As soon as I can I will get out of there. I have to put up with it at the moment because I have no family and have to support myself. I have been homeless in the past and would not wish to repeat the experience. Please remember that your opinion of me, a person you have never met or even conversed with, does not define me as a person any more than my opinion of you, gleaned through your postings, would define you. All I have ever stated is that some peoples' thinking on these animal rights issues is woolly, ignorant and borderline hysterical. So many people preach an agenda from their soapbox and just don't like it when someone calls what they are saying into question. If you look at the logic of my statements you should find them quite valid. Money is at the root of peoples' and companies' actions, not ethics.
There is a way of educating people and calling them ignorant because you think you know better is hardly conducive to getting people to listen to you - all they see is the pompous attitude - which as I said before is how you come across in your posts, IN MY OPINION. I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve but I would think someone who has been through what you say you have would be a little more thoughtful in how they express themselves. Just as you say I cannot know you from your postings ( I agree, I only said that is how you come across) then surely you cannot know others to be ignorant from same postings.
They may not be ignorant people, but they may be ignorant about certain issues, as indeed I may be also. Although I try extremely hard not to be. I just think that it's important to think things through, that's all. Everyone has a right to their opinions. I just like to think about things with logic and with common sense. I actually don't like animal testing. I find the thought of it quite unsettling and repulsive, but I can concede that there may be some positive purpose in doing it, and I don't think it's such a black and white issue as some people believe. I am just astounded at the drippy sentimentality people have towards animals. Every morning I cycle past a "Cats' Protection League" shop and feel quite amazed at its existence. That people have banded together because they feel that cats need protection seems slightly odd to me! I am sure most cats can look after themselves! With so much human suffering and environmental damage I just don't feel that cats are particularly high priority. Is it OK to leave some old age pensioner freezing in her home over winter and yet fork out money for some cats?! Well bugger the cats! I couldn't care if they all died tomorrow! Sorry! People matter more. At least most people do. There are some "people" that don't even seem worthy of being part of the human race. (Luka Magnotta, Myra Hindley etc). I just wonder how many people who smugly don their Dennis Basso faux furs in the misguided belief that they are cruelty free realise exactly what they are supporting? Ethics have such a little role to play. I guarantee you if most QVC viewers could afford real furs and most people were happy to buy them, QVC would sell them!
How far should all this sentimentality go? Should we have the Bed Bugs' Protection League opening up next? Or the Houseflies' Protection Society? Or the "Feral Pigeons Support Guild!" If there were enough support for such a league no doubt it would require a director who would draw a high salary...
People seem to go all dotty over cats. Usually women of a certain age that say things like "Well I'm more of a cat person myself, actually" and go shopping in M&S with a bag that has pictures of cats on it!
I just wish people would see sense and prioritise things better. No cats protection, no olympics, no benefit payments to chavs and people who just don't want to work. Fix the hospitals. Repair the public transport. Educate our children. Enforce our laws. Restore our environment. Leave other countries to fight their own wars.
How far should all this sentimentality go? Should we have the Bed Bugs' Protection League opening up next? Or the Houseflies' Protection Society? Or the "Feral Pigeons Support Guild!" If there were enough support for such a league no doubt it would require a director who would draw a high salary...
People seem to go all dotty over cats. Usually women of a certain age that say things like "Well I'm more of a cat person myself, actually" and go shopping in M&S with a bag that has pictures of cats on it!
I just wish people would see sense and prioritise things better. No cats protection, no olympics, no benefit payments to chavs and people who just don't want to work. Fix the hospitals. Repair the public transport. Educate our children. Enforce our laws. Restore our environment. Leave other countries to fight their own wars.
C
Capirossi
Guest Shopper
I agree about the Olympics, benefits, hospitals etc (especially education, which has totally gone down the pan) However, I think a lot of dotty women of a certain age with pussy handbags would rather support charities that help innocent, suffering animals at the hands of your darling humans. I choose to do this rather than help the humans, who have more than enough charities looking out for them and who are, let's face it, ultimately suffering as an overall result of the over-populated world, caused by evil fluffy kittens, oh no, sorry, humans
That said, I am very charitable to humans, I just genuinely prefer to give to the animals being tortured by them.
Sent from my Sony Tablet S using Tapatalk 2
God for Bunnies
You can get a little booklet from the BUVA which lists all the products approved by them. Handy size to keep in your purse, handbag etc to check manufacturers whilst you are out shopping. You will find their address from their website. They do fantastic work protecting animals and really need everyone's support. They also have a FB page.
You can get a little booklet from the BUVA which lists all the products approved by them. Handy size to keep in your purse, handbag etc to check manufacturers whilst you are out shopping. You will find their address from their website. They do fantastic work protecting animals and really need everyone's support. They also have a FB page.
Sadly we don't live in Utopia so there will always be problems but caring for animals is all about compassion. I try to be kind and compassionate to every creature incuding humans. It is however humans who do the most terrible things to one another and to other animals Animals don't kill or injure each other just for the fun of it. There are still people carrying out experiments and testing on animals when it is completely unnecessary. I read just recently that human skin can be closed from a few cellsd which can be used for testing cosmetics and we don't need to still be squirting shampoo in animals's eyes to know it is an irritant.
C
Capirossi
Guest Shopper
Thanks for this Tilley. I have been on and signed the pledge. It comes as no surprise that Ricky Gervais is a patron, he loves his animals. I am a huge fan, as much for his logical, free-thinking as his comedy. Anyway, I digress! Here is the link in case anyone else wants it.
http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/consumer/get-involved/lbcf-request
Interesting that Liz Earle is still bunny-approved, whilst Avon isn't! I stopped buying Lis Earle when she sold out, and apart from the Eyebright, which I haven't found a substitute for, I don't miss it. I was using the Superdrug Vit E lookie-likie hot cloth cleanser and am currently using Purity, which is really lovely. I am shocked about Caudalie and will no longer buy their products as I wrongly assumed they were committed to no animal testing.
I won't be throwing away my last few L'occitane products as I can be a tight-wad at times, but I won't repurchase.
I won't be throwing away my last few L'occitane products as I can be a tight-wad at times, but I won't repurchase.
I am interested to hear which companies test on animals, or allow their products to be tested on animals as in this L'occitane/China case, because for me there is so much choice now that it is just unnecessary to use those companies when other companies that don't allow animal testing are out there. It is no loss to use something else where animal testing isn't an issue.
Many of the ingredients in the cruelty free brands were possibly tested on animals in the past, that can't be changed now, and in fact is one of the reasons it shouldn't be necessary to test on them now; we already have so much information. Testing for treatments for severe disease is one thing, but shower gel? I can cope without any breakthroughs in the shower gel area, thank you.
My mum uses a lot of Loccitane, and I was just about to place an order for something. Won't now. I agree we should do more to make ourselves aware of other moral problems in manufacture and retail, but also that doing something is better than nothing. Also agree with Minim though, that I don't see the beauty industry improving any time soon.
As for Liz Earle, I haven't used any for a while for a variety of reasons and I've realised I don't miss it at all.
Many of the ingredients in the cruelty free brands were possibly tested on animals in the past, that can't be changed now, and in fact is one of the reasons it shouldn't be necessary to test on them now; we already have so much information. Testing for treatments for severe disease is one thing, but shower gel? I can cope without any breakthroughs in the shower gel area, thank you.
My mum uses a lot of Loccitane, and I was just about to place an order for something. Won't now. I agree we should do more to make ourselves aware of other moral problems in manufacture and retail, but also that doing something is better than nothing. Also agree with Minim though, that I don't see the beauty industry improving any time soon.
As for Liz Earle, I haven't used any for a while for a variety of reasons and I've realised I don't miss it at all.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,144
That is what I said in an earlier post on this thread. Peta approved in the US, if the parent company tests then all those that are owned by them loose the approval. Yet with the bunny each company keeps it even if the parent tests.
The Body Shop and LUSH never had the bunny logo yet are very anti testing. I remember reading that you had to apply and pay for the bunny if approved.
By the way the bunny logo is for the British Union only so only British companies will have it. Other countries will have a different system so you if you really want to know need to check that out. The US as I have said does not, so all US products will never have the bunny logo.
The Body Shop and LUSH never had the bunny logo yet are very anti testing. I remember reading that you had to apply and pay for the bunny if approved.
By the way the bunny logo is for the British Union only so only British companies will have it. Other countries will have a different system so you if you really want to know need to check that out. The US as I have said does not, so all US products will never have the bunny logo.
About a year ago i made a decision to only buy beauty products that i could be sure were cruelty free. because of the ambiguity around cruelty free meanings (i had naively thought if a company said they had not tested their product that meant it was cruelty free, but not necessarily so - they could have paid a third party to do the testing or the product may not have been tested but its ingredients were) i committed to only buy from brands who had been approved by the BUAV. As mentioned by another poster, the go cruelty free org website has information on which companies have been approved. Leaping Bunny org also lists non uk companies. Both these sites regularly post updates of companies whose status is removed eg l.occitane because of their decision to go in to china.
As I'm a beauty product junkie as well as a handbag addict, i thought i'd really struggle and miss using some of the products i'd been using for years, but quite the reverse! I've discovered some great products from brands listed on the go cruelty free website, and saved myself a small fortune in the process my beauty spending on qvc has virtually stopped. Bella pierre which is on qvc are cruelty free so thats the only brand i,ve bought from them in the last year. Aas others have said Liz Earle are cruelty free and carry the bunny logo but i,d stopped buying because of the avon ownership who do test. You could take the view that its better to continue to buy liz earle to show avon that companies that don't test can still be profitable and hopefully encourage them to take the same approach.
Sorry for such a long post. I can recommend the following brands/products that are on the go cruelty free approved list:
If you like cleanse and polish, try www.natroma.co.uk for their hot cloth cleanser, its really good and they do travel sizes too. Theyve got lots of lovely products especially their soap and bath melts gift boxes which are beautifully packaged. pure tropic skincare also do products comparable with liz earle. I love their skin revive moisturiser and am currently using their hot cloth cleanser.
If you like emma hardie cleansing balm try neals yard wild rose balm. Substitute liz earle superbalm for balm in tube or pot form from balmbalm.co.uk - their bath oils are beautiful too, i love the detox one which is quite zingy. For nail varnish i,m now buying sparitual which ild compare to opi or leighton denny.
If you like bare escentuals foundation try either lilylolo or everdayminerals, who also do a great flat top brush which gives me a far better finish. BE showed up large pores and fine lines but flat top brush to apply everyday minerals doesn't do that.
Lastly (though i could list loads more) good old marks and spencer are approved and have some great skincare and makeup . Their autograph range does a gel liner to rival bobbi brown, have some great matte shadows and a primer exactly like l'oreal studio secrets .
As I'm a beauty product junkie as well as a handbag addict, i thought i'd really struggle and miss using some of the products i'd been using for years, but quite the reverse! I've discovered some great products from brands listed on the go cruelty free website, and saved myself a small fortune in the process my beauty spending on qvc has virtually stopped. Bella pierre which is on qvc are cruelty free so thats the only brand i,ve bought from them in the last year. Aas others have said Liz Earle are cruelty free and carry the bunny logo but i,d stopped buying because of the avon ownership who do test. You could take the view that its better to continue to buy liz earle to show avon that companies that don't test can still be profitable and hopefully encourage them to take the same approach.
Sorry for such a long post. I can recommend the following brands/products that are on the go cruelty free approved list:
If you like cleanse and polish, try www.natroma.co.uk for their hot cloth cleanser, its really good and they do travel sizes too. Theyve got lots of lovely products especially their soap and bath melts gift boxes which are beautifully packaged. pure tropic skincare also do products comparable with liz earle. I love their skin revive moisturiser and am currently using their hot cloth cleanser.
If you like emma hardie cleansing balm try neals yard wild rose balm. Substitute liz earle superbalm for balm in tube or pot form from balmbalm.co.uk - their bath oils are beautiful too, i love the detox one which is quite zingy. For nail varnish i,m now buying sparitual which ild compare to opi or leighton denny.
If you like bare escentuals foundation try either lilylolo or everdayminerals, who also do a great flat top brush which gives me a far better finish. BE showed up large pores and fine lines but flat top brush to apply everyday minerals doesn't do that.
Lastly (though i could list loads more) good old marks and spencer are approved and have some great skincare and makeup . Their autograph range does a gel liner to rival bobbi brown, have some great matte shadows and a primer exactly like l'oreal studio secrets .
Therefore L'Occitane cannot have had the Bunny Logo in first place!!!!
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,144
Sazza you are totally correct. So the old Daily Mail as usual have copied an article and put an UK spin on it. That also explains why never seen the bunny in the first place.
