Ban Irish Fur Factory Farms Campaign

Posted in Fur News by Cif on the April 17th, 2009

400 Letters Sent
This week

400 letters were signed last 2 weeks at the ALiberation information stall (every saturday, from 2pm to 5.30pm).

Letters were sent by registered post to the Department of Agriculture and The Labour Party today, to support a ban on Irish Fur Farms.

It brings us to a total of 6140 letters since June 08.

Thank you for taking the time to sign the letters on saturday!


  • Share/Bookmark

Vegan Shopping : Tom’s of Maine

Posted in Vegan stuff by Glô! on the April 17th, 2009

Tom’s of Maine,
or Tom’s of Greed!?

Tom’s of Maine is an American company founded in 1970 by Tom and Kate Chappell. The company manufactures personal care products, such as toothpaste, soap and deodorant.

Tom of Maine has, up to 2006, been praised by ethical consumers, and was probably one of the most ethical companies around.
In March 2006, the Ethical consumer * magazine gave Tom’s of Maine the highest rating for its environmental reporting and animal testing policy (16 out of 20)*. Tom of Maine’s products are vegetarian and most of their products do not contain any animal ingredients.

In 2006, a controlling 84% stake in Tom’s of Maine was purchased by Colgate-Palmolive for $100M. The Chappells kept a 16% share in the company.
In other words, a once-proud local company is now 84% swallowed up by one of the worse corporations which is heavily involved in animal testing and environmental destruction.

To defend their action, Kate

Chappel stated : ‘’We chose Colgate as our partner because they have the global expertise to help take Tom’s of Maine to the next level […] We see Colgate-Palmolive as an excellent fit with our cultural values. Those values include a policy of giving 10 percent of pretax profits to community groups that benefit the environment and other causes.”

She also admitted that the couple would not be here forever and that they needed to find a “good home” for the company.


  • Share/Bookmark

Vegan Shopping : Ecover

Posted in Vegan stuff by ALib on the April 17th, 2009

Is Ecover suitable
for Vegans?

Ecover is a manufacturer of eco-friendly household cleaning products. Some of their products contain no animal ingredients, and up to 2007, the company was registered by the Vegan Sociey.
However, Ecover got the Vegan Society logo removed from its products for having an unsuitable animal testing policy.

What makes Ecover’s policy on animal testing unsuitable for vegans?

[1] Ecover operates a five year rolling rule.
The 5 years rolling rule is a weak and misleading policy used by companies which pledge not to use ingredients that have been tested in the previous five years. It is largely worthless, mainly because many new ingredients take that long to gain approval for use. It is also misleading because the company can use animal tested ingredients while still not being in breach with their policy.

Ecover claims that the only way they can manufacture new products is to introduce newly-developed ingredients, such as biosurfacants. Such ingredients have to be tested on animals by law, and this is why Ecover continues to operate a 5 year

rolling rule as opposed to a fixed cut off date.

[2] They also test their products on water fleas* -also called Daphnia- as a way to measure the environmental impact of their products on aquatic life. Daphnia are not fleas at all, but members of the crustacean family.

About a hundred Daphnia Magna are used to test each Ecover product. This test is called EC50 Daphnia.


  • Share/Bookmark

Vegan Shopping :The Body Shop

Posted in Vegan stuff by ALib on the April 14th, 2009

The Body Shop…
Find the Loophole!

The Body Shop was sold to L’Oreal/Nestle in March 2006 for £652m. According to Anita Roddick, who founded the firm 30 years ago, this deal was the best 30th anniversary gift the Body Shop could have received. Anita Roddick was expected to make £130 from the deal. Can The Body Shop be considered an ethical company?

Before its acquisition by L’Oreal, The Body Shop was known for their strong stance against animal testing. Yet, their animal testing policy always was and still is everything but strong. Due to a subtle loophole in their policy, the Body Shop was able to use animal tested ingredients while still keeping their image intact.

Up to 1997, the Body Shop had a 5 year rolling rule animal testing policy, which only applied to ingredients tested for the cosmetic industry.*

Facing many critics which questioned the efficiency of this policy, they adopted a fixed cut off date rule, stating no ingredients tested on animals since the 21/12/1990 will be used.

But the new policy still does not exclude ingredients tested on animals since 1990 which were tested for some purpose other than cosmetics.

Since most chemicals are developed for medicinal use, this renders the company’s animal testing policy totally ineffective.

For example, in 1991, for the use of its sun screens, the Body Shop purchased Vitamin E acetate from the pharmaceutical corporation Hoffman La Roche, also known as Roche. Roche performed animal tests on Vitamin E Acetate in 1989 and 1991 for pharmaceutical use. The BS continued to purchase from them, stating that the ingredient was not tested for cosmetic use, therefore they had not breached their animal testing policy.


  • Share/Bookmark

Vegan Shopping: Original Source Brand

Posted in Vegan stuff by Glô! on the April 10th, 2009

Original Source,
An Ethical Company?

Original Source is an English company which makes personal care products. Their products carry the carry the logo from the Vegan Society and the company also states that they “never test their products on animals”.

Although Original Source may sound like an ideal company to support and buy from, things are not always what they seem and a little research is needed to know who we are dealing with.

Original Source brand started in 1997 (with an investment of £45,000) and was acquired by PZ Cussons Ltd in 2003 (for £11M).

PZ Cussons Ltd is a corporation which manufactures products such as personal care (Carex and Imperial leather) industrial and household cleaning agents, pharmaceuticals (Drastin, Alagbin, Zubes, Maladrin).

PZ Cussons state that they “do not test their products on


This is a very vague and misleading statement, which only serves the purpose of reassuring consumers, while offering no guarantees whatsoever that no animal testing was carried out on their behalf and ingredient suppliers.


  • Share/Bookmark

DCU Fur Debate, 07 April 09

Posted in Events by ALib on the April 7th, 2009

Fur has no place
in Fashion.

Please come along to the debate on Tuesday 07 April on animal fur in fashion.
We are pleased to have Roger Yates speaking on the invitation of ALiberation.

Room CG86, Henry Grattan Building (beside Helix),
Dublin City University.

Tuesday, 7th April, 6.30pm.

For the motion:
Roger Yates will be speaking at the invitation of ALiberation.
Alan Lee on behalf of ARAN.

Opposing the motion:
A fashion designer and a fur factory farmer.

Why does the fur industry with the help of fashion view animals as things? Why does this exploitation exist within human society? Why are rights of animals violated by the fur industry and other animal use industries?

Worldwide, hundreds of millions of animals are killed for the fur trade. These animals will be trapped, caged, hunted or rounded up from the streets so their skins may be ripped off them and sold as garments.

They are killed by anal electrocution, beaten to death, stomped upon, suffocated,

strangled, poisioned by gas or lethal injection, drowned, smashed against the ground or skinned while still alive to name just some of the methods employed by this industry.

Before dying, each individual will be forced to endure a life in a cage, or their last hours in a leghold/ body crushing traps. Others will wait to die after a receiving a blow from a hakapik (large ice-pick-like clubs), a club, a bullet or after their skin has been pulled off.

These are by no means the only ways that animals exploited by the fur trade will experience.


  • Share/Bookmark

l> >