Sbc tsv 26/08/2014

[louise66]

Not true I'm afraid. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe. Likewise, just because something is plant-derived doesn't mean it's safe. There are many plant-derived ingredients that have been proven to be toxic to humans, which is why these plant-derived ingredients are tested just like any other. Ghastly experiments are done on animals to establish their toxicity, potential to irritate etc. Photographs of what these animals go through make my heart bleed.

Plants in the Aristolochia family, for example, have been proven to cause renal failure in humans, resulting in fatalities. They have also caused renal cancers in humans and have been shown to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals.

Plant-derived ingredients will be tested for repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, toxicokinetics, skin sensitisation and carcinogenicity to name but a few. And you can be sure that most of the tests will be conducted on animals which are then killed at the end of the experiments.

You can be sure that natural and plant-derived ingredients *are* tested thoroughly before they're used in cosmetics - and SBC has consistently refused to respond to my queries about how their ingredients are tested.



Again this isn't true where Cruelty Free International is concerned. Certainly Peta's endorsement isn't worth the paper it's written on, because all a company has to do is sign a form saying they don't animal-test their ingredients and Peta accepts it. They don't do any checks at all.
Cruelty Free International, on the other hand, stipulate that each company they endorse must be open to independent audits throughout its entire supply chain to ensure that it adheres to its animal testing policy and the Standards’ strict criteria. So it isn't just the producer of the end product that's audited, all the suppliers must be able to demonstrate their cruelty-free protocols too, and it's an audit programme that continues. To be endorsed by Cruelty Free International most companies have to completely scrap their established methods of production and put in place an entirely new supply chain. It costs them money and takes time and effort. M&S, for example, changed almost all their suppliers when they went after the Leaping Bunny endorsement for their cosmetics, and it took them two years to put the new production lines in place. Gaining Cruelty Free International's endorsement is not quick or easy, and you can't pull the wool over their eyes either. If you're not genuinely committed you won't be awarded the Leaping Bunny.



I'm sorry Louise, but I really think you have a very simplistic view of this issue. If there's one thing I know beyond any doubt it's that we cannot trust most of the information these companies give us. They employ people on huge salaries to fool us - wordsmiths who juggle sentences to sound the opposite of what they actually mean. We have to dissect every single thing they say, and if they make claims we have to ask for evidence. Those genuinely cruelty-free companies are only too happy to send reams of information about their production processes if you ask for it, because they're proud to be cruelty-free. If you are really on the side of the animals you won't use the products until the company has shown actual evidence that they're cruelty-free.[

Read my post again, and you will realise that, unless I am 100% sure that any product has not been tested on animals, I won't use it. I was being realistic, when I referred to us never being 100% positive; personally, I have to be. Plant derived/natural ingredients do not need to be tested on animals, but the added ingredients may need to be tested, using animals is one way we need to work to put a stop to.
As an animal rights campaigner, I feel rather insulted to have my morals questioned. But, hey, you don't know me, or my principles and, as this is an open forum, we are all entitled to have a say, which is how it should be.

 

[MrMarple]

MM, if I had proof positive that any product, cosmetic or other, or had any doubt that it had been animal tested, there is absolutely no way I could, in all conscience, use it. I have done some factual research into the company policy, not just read the basic philosophy. As the ingredients are all natural and plant derived, there is no necessity to test the products on animals. Eco friendly, whilst admirable, means nothing in reference to animal testing, so I ignore this. Again, the basic packaging keeps the prices low but, essentially, has nothing to do with testing.
I am satisfied that neither the individual ingredients, or the finished products are tested on animals. If I find out to the contrary, I shall have no hesitation in posting the updated info on this forum.
More and more consumers are beginning to care that many companies actually inflict pain and suffering, even death, upon animals to cater to the vanity of the target market. ultimately, however, how can we be 100% positive that any product is animal friendly? Even those endorsed by Peta, or with the leaping bunny logo, only have to prove to the testing organisations for the period of observance into testing methods, that no animal testing has occurred. There are ways and means; they are not supposed to know who is executing the watch, and when. There is always a way to get round anything.
We have to trust, fundamentally, the information we have access to. I always research everything before I use it, and it's parent company, and any other corporation which has any connection with it.

Not true I'm afraid. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe. Likewise, just because something is plant-derived doesn't mean it's safe. There are many plant-derived ingredients that have been proven to be toxic to humans, which is why these plant-derived ingredients are tested just like any other. Ghastly experiments are done on animals to establish their toxicity, potential to irritate etc. Photographs of what these animals go through make my heart bleed.

Plants in the Aristolochia family, for example, have been proven to cause renal failure in humans, resulting in fatalities. They have also caused renal cancers in humans and have been shown to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals.

Plant-derived ingredients will be tested for repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, toxicokinetics, skin sensitisation and carcinogenicity to name but a few. And you can be sure that most of the tests will be conducted on animals which are then killed at the end of the experiments.

You can be sure that natural and plant-derived ingredients *are* tested thoroughly before they're used in cosmetics - and SBC has consistently refused to respond to my queries about how their ingredients are tested.



Again this isn't true where Cruelty Free International is concerned. Certainly Peta's endorsement isn't worth the paper it's written on, because all a company has to do is sign a form saying they don't animal-test their ingredients and Peta accepts it. They don't do any checks at all.
Cruelty Free International, on the other hand, stipulate that each company they endorse must be open to independent audits throughout its entire supply chain to ensure that it adheres to its animal testing policy and the Standards’ strict criteria. So it isn't just the producer of the end product that's audited, all the suppliers must be able to demonstrate their cruelty-free protocols too, and it's an audit programme that continues. To be endorsed by Cruelty Free International most companies have to completely scrap their established methods of production and put in place an entirely new supply chain. It costs them money and takes time and effort. M&S, for example, changed almost all their suppliers when they went after the Leaping Bunny endorsement for their cosmetics, and it took them two years to put the new production lines in place. Gaining Cruelty Free International's endorsement is not quick or easy, and you can't pull the wool over their eyes either. If you're not genuinely committed you won't be awarded the Leaping Bunny.



I'm sorry Louise, but I really think you have a very simplistic view of this issue. If there's one thing I know beyond any doubt it's that we cannot trust most of the information these companies give us. They employ people on huge salaries to fool us - wordsmiths who juggle sentences to sound the opposite of what they actually mean. We have to dissect every single thing they say, and if they make claims we have to ask for evidence. Those genuinely cruelty-free companies are only too happy to send reams of information about their production processes if you ask for it, because they're proud to be cruelty-free. If you are really on the side of the animals you won't use the products until the company has shown actual evidence that they're cruelty-free.

Well I think I'm going to go with Scout. If they truly don't test on animals, I think they'd make it a selling point for the goods.
I'm just not willing to chance it.

It's like Revitalash products. The packaging claims that the 'finished product' isn't tested on animals, but that means nothing really does it? Nothing to say the individual ingredients haven't been before Revitalash buy them.

 

[Akimbo]

I'm a bit of an ostrich when it comes to animal testing, I can't bring myself to read about the testing done to animals because I know it will haunt me.

Am I naive in thinking that, historically all the generic ingredients found in beauty and household products will have been tested on animals at some stage? Don't shoot me down in flames but something cheap like SLS has been used as a surfactant for donkey's years so was it never animal tested? Talking of plant ingredients which have been used for centuries like rose oil or lavandin, have these chemicals never been tested on animals, even if it was a century ago? I suppose if the chemicals were tested decades ago, that can't be undone by not using these chemicals, is this how firms move the goal posts?

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, I'm not an apologist for companies who use animal-tested ingredients, I just wonder how difficult it must be to make informed decisions. With all the testing done in China and other countries there must be testing of thousands of ingredients somewhere in the world so how can even the most ethical companies be sure the chemicals they use aren't the subject of animal testing, even if they don't rely on the testing themselves?

With some regret I know I don't make enough effort to modify my product use and, as I dye my hair I'm guilty of using products that probably have been tested on animals at some stage in their evolution. I also take a bundle of prescription meds which keep me going and I have no doubt these have been tested. The meds I give my pets? Tested on animals? It seems like a full time job researching and living by the highest principles. I know Superdrug's own brand toiletries and ingredients aren't subject to animal testing (they claim) but they stock a whole raft of brands that do. Their own brand tooth paste contains Flouride, are they telling me that Flouride has never been tested on animals (historically) or was there a cut off date, before which tested chemicals were tested but are now subject to some sort of amnesty?

As I say I'm not trying to be flippant or ask a stupid question, but it's difficult to research online without facing shock horror stories which I simply can't read. I also feel a little intimidated by the evangelical purists on this topic. I can't commit to their restricted product choices but I'd like to make more informed choices as far as I possibly can.

please feel free to answer any points I've raised without quoting the whole post; I'm sure I'll be able to follow what you're saying :nod:

 

[donna255]

As some point in time back in history natural,essential oils and everything else used in cosmetics have all been tested on animals.

Alison Young once said live on air the same thing.

 

[MrMarple]

Definitely a cut off date Akimbo.
All Co-op own brand products are also BUAV approved and their bottles actually state when the cut of date was, but my mind has gone blank. I think it could be late 80's, but I'd need to check when I get home to be 100% sure.

 

[MrMarple]

As some point in time back in history natural,essential oils and everything else used in cosmetics have all been tested on animals.

Alison Young once said live on air the same thing.

Yes I agree, but it's the continued testing that bothers me. I can't change what happened in the past, but hopefully I can have a small influence on what happens in the future IYSWIM?

 

[Akimbo]

Thank you for replying. As a rabbit lover I can't bear to think of the suffering rabbits (and other animals ofcourse) are put through. I shop mostly at Superdrug (on the DHS) but I'll try to be more aware from now on.

 

[MrMarple]

Thank you for replying. As a rabbit lover I can't bear to think of the suffering rabbits (and other animals ofcourse) are put through. I shop mostly at Superdrug (on the DHS) but I'll try to be more aware from now on.

Same as me Akimbo. Superdrug for body stuff, Co-op for home cleaning stuff & Liz Earle for face products.

I know people aren't happy because LE are now owed by Avon (who do test), but LE are kept as a separate company and BUAV are happy to keep them accredited so I am happy to shop with them.

It is so easy to get confused though.
I was in Asda the other week and had a look at some of their own brand hair gel. It had a statement on the tub saying 'Asda are against animal testing'.
Sorry, but that means absolutely nothing. I'm against parents who smoke in the car when children are present, but it doesn't stop me smoking when I'm on my own!!

 

[Akimbo]

I used to like the Liz Earle self tan spray (lovely lavender scent) but she stopped production (before the Avon take over) because one of the ingredients was called into question and being unable to replace it with a guaranteed untested ingredient Dame Liz didn't reformulate it. I half expected Avon to relaunch it but fair play to them they haven't so far.

 

[louise66]

I contacted PETA who informed me that there are several reasons why a company does not appear on, or has been removed from, the PETA list of cruelty free companies. The parent company could use animal testing, which is as bad, in my view, as the company from which we are buying doing it; the company has refused to answer questions on it's policies, which also casts doubts on it's testing methods as, with public awareness re testing being a major selling point, stating it is anti animal testing, would be advantageous; or the company has refused to sign the PETA statement of assurance.
It would be total folly, and counter productive to sales figures and reputation, for a cruelty free company not to execute the necessary requirements to gain PETA's endorsement and, consequently, be able to tell the public what it's position is.
This is just a precis of PETA's email but, essentially, unless SBC (which I have also contacted) can prove otherwise, we have to assume it has something to hide, however minute a detail this may be.

 

[thatu]

I'm getting mixed messages here.

Which of you are against all forms of cruelty to animals and which of you are just against the form of cruelty that manifests itself in testing cosmetics on animals so that men and women can improve their looks? Because if it's the former, you also have to include: testing of drugs on animals (no animal would ask another species to do unspeakable things to itself in the name of science so that our species remains healthy), horse racing (no animal actively asks another species to bump around on its back), keeping pets in your house or garden (no animal was asked whether it wanted to lose its freedom in order to live a lifestyle it didn't choose) and so on. If it's just the latter, I'm not sure what the rationalisation is.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm simply trying to get my head round the thinking behind the stance.

 

[Weathergirl]

Whatever my own personal views on animal welfare are (and I will keep them to myself) I am getting fed up with threads on here being hijacked by quasi-political comments from people who approach beauty products from an activist stance. Of course people are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to live their own lives as they please. But quite frankly I am bored with threads being hijacked and individual posts being dissected with this topic. There has to be a line between an opinion being expressed and it being rammed down other forumites throats as often as it is being. In my opinion it puts people off posting on the thread ( well me anyhow) and does nothing to advance the cause at least in my mind anyway. Heck I just come on here for light banter about make up, skincare, clothes and bags when I am on the bus home from work after a day dealing with abuse and cruelty (to children not animals) so forgive me if I say please, enough already!!! I am off home to cuddle my kids, make a fuss over my cat and open a bottle of wine with my feet up.

I like animals by the way. But I eat meat, take pills when I am ill and probably own products that have been animal tested. And I like SBC.

 

[Autumn]

I contacted PETA who informed me that there are several reasons why a company does not appear on, or has been removed from, the PETA list of cruelty free companies. The parent company could use animal testing, which is as bad, in my view, as the company from which we are buying doing it; the company has refused to answer questions on it's policies, which also casts doubts on it's testing methods as, with public awareness re testing being a major selling point, stating it is anti animal testing, would be advantageous; or the company has refused to sign the PETA statement of assurance.
It would be total folly, and counter productive to sales figures and reputation, for a cruelty free company not to execute the necessary requirements to gain PETA's endorsement and, consequently, be able to tell the public what it's position is.
This is just a precis of PETA's email but, essentially, unless SBC (which I have also contacted) can prove otherwise, we have to assume it has something to hide, however minute a detail this may be.

Ok im confused because you have said you do use SBC though :S

 

[Letz-be-avenue]

Whatever my own personal views on animal welfare are (and I will keep them to myself) I am getting fed up with threads on here being hijacked by quasi-political comments from people who approach beauty products from an activist stance. Of course people are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to live their own lives as they please. But quite frankly I am bored with threads being hijacked and individual posts being dissected with this topic. There has to be a line between an opinion being expressed and it being rammed down other forumites throats as often as it is being. In my opinion it puts people off posting on the thread ( well me anyhow) and does nothing to advance the cause at least in my mind anyway. Heck I just come on here for light banter about make up, skincare, clothes and bags when I am on the bus home from work after a day dealing with abuse and cruelty (to children not animals) so forgive me if I say please, enough already!!! I am off home to cuddle my kids, make a fuss over my cat and open a bottle of wine with my feet up.

I like animals by the way. But I eat meat, take pills when I am ill and probably own products that have been animal tested. And I like SBC.

Well said Weathergirl, I could not agree with you more, I think it would be better to have a thread devoted to all things related to animal cruelty rather than beauty threads getting hijacked and I do not wish to offend any animal right activists, but this forum i think is meant to be fun and informative, and somewhere people can voice their opinions without being lectured,

 

[thatu]

Quite agree with the three* posts above. Enough is enough. I'm looking forward to the SBC TSV I've ordered.

*I posted "two" first so altered it.

 

[Vienna]

My Mother had a saying " you catch more flies with an ounce of sugar than you do with a big stick " ie. general conversation, gentle persuasion, basic facts and two sided opinions get you further than banging a big drum, waving a big stick or thumping people around the earhole, all of which simply aggravates the flies !
In other words, we are all adults, each person`s opinion matters just as much as the rest, and none of us are stupid. BUT Rome wasn`t built in a day and just like other major actions in life, such as encouraging Mums to vaccinate their kids or encouraging animal owners to spay their dogs or encouraging Joe Public not to drop litter, to recycle and to care where their food comes from etc etc etc the operative word is ENCOURAGING, not commanding and that applies to cosmetics, toiletries and a million other actions and items. Talk to me by all means, start lecturing me and I switch off and nobody gets anywhere ....

 

[louise66]

Ok im confused because you have said you do use SBC though :S

Totally understand what you are saying, so let me explain. Yes I have bought and used SBC, before I was cognisant of all the facts. I only received the email from PETA today and, consequently, unless I can get proof that SBC is totally cruelty free - I am awaiting a response - I will no longer use it.

 

[Scout]

Definitely a cut off date Akimbo.
All Co-op own brand products are also BUAV approved and their bottles actually state when the cut of date was, but my mind has gone blank. I think it could be late 80's, but I'd need to check when I get home to be 100% sure.

Co-op fixed cut-off dates are 1985 for toiletries and 1997 for household products.

 

[louise66]

I'm getting mixed messages here.

Which of you are against all forms of cruelty to animals and which of you are just against the form of cruelty that manifests itself in testing cosmetics on animals so that men and women can improve their looks? Because if it's the former, you also have to include: testing of drugs on animals (no animal would ask another species to do unspeakable things to itself in the name of science so that our species remains healthy), horse racing (no animal actively asks another species to bump around on its back), keeping pets in your house or garden (no animal was asked whether it wanted to lose its freedom in order to live a lifestyle it didn't choose) and so on. If it's just the latter, I'm not sure what the rationalisation is.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm simply trying to get my head round the thinking behind the stance.

Great point, not inflammatory at all. Personally, my position is that I abhor any form of animal cruelty, neglect, ill treatment whatsoever. Yes, I think animal testing for reasons of vanity is unacceptable. I feel the same about medical research. The ice bucket challenge, which seems to be the 'in thing' right now is in aid of Lou Gehrig disease, research involves extreme experimentation on animals, which is why I oppose this latest fad. I have boxers - I don't refer to them as "MY dogs", as this signifies possession and, imo, I don't own them. I have been vegetarian for well over 30 years, and work for animal rights so, whilst I am merely a small cog in a very large wheel, I like to feel that I am doing my utmost in protecting animals who, let's face it, can't speak out for themselves. They have the run of the house; the back door is always open, and they have a couple of acres to run around in. It would be impractical and untrue to say the dogs are never left in the house alone. There are times when going out is unavoidable. I am happy to see them lead a comfortable and happy life. What does annoy me greatly, is the number of people who have no qualms about leaving a dog in a locked car, in the heat. Unbelievable.
We all have a conscience, and we behave the way in which our conscience dictates. My conscience would not allow me to believe it is morally acceptable to use any product which had inflicted pain on animals in any way, during it's manufacture. Someone else may not bother that this torture is executed upon innocent animals and their conscience, therefore, tells them it is okay to use said products. I am absolutely abhorred by the way in which circuses use animals for entertainment, nothing to do with animal testing, but I also disagree with the old practice of using small people to amuse the audience, and referring to them as freaks. My compassion is generic.

 

[Autumn]

Totally understand what you are saying, so let me explain. Yes I have bought and used SBC, before I was cognisant of all the facts. I only received the email from PETA today and, consequently, unless I can get proof that SBC is totally cruelty free - I am awaiting a response - I will no longer use it.

Ok thankyou its getting very confusing on here ............

Anyway back to the Tsv hows everyone getting on with it :mysmilie_843: