[blinkbelle]

(Original post by there's too much love)
BUAV don't appear to be what they used to be and I wouldn't take them as a good measure of an ethical guide if they do still embrace the body shop. I know since the take over they have I'd always hoped that stance had changed.

What's wrong with BUAV? They're my favourite animal charity!

[there's too much love]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
What's wrong with BUAV? They're my favourite animal charity!

A lot of activist have noted a general trend in their recent behaviour as being less and less controversial, they used to do a lot more in the way of undercover operations as far as I'm aware.
But I think I made it clear what my main problem with them is. That they endorse the body shop as a good company to shop from.

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by there's too much love)
A lot of activist have noted a general trend in their recent behaviour as being less and less controversial, they used to do a lot more in the way of undercover operations as far as I'm aware.
But I think I made it clear what my main problem with them is. That they endorse the body shop as a good company to shop from.

Hmm I'm not sure I buy into this whole 'just because Body Shop has changed hands it's ethically unsound' thing. I don't think Anita would have let it go into the hands of a company who would disrespect its fundamental principles.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
Hmm I'm not sure I buy into this whole 'just because Body Shop has changed hands it's ethically unsound' thing. I don't think Anita would have let it go into the hands of a company who would disrespect its fundamental principles.

Firstly I suggest you look at l'oreal.
Secondly they're part owned by nestle who are very well renowned for their poor business ethics.
www.knowmore.org type nestle in there.

[blinkbelle]

(Original post by there's too much love)
Firstly I suggest you look at l'oreal.
Secondly they're part owned by nestle who are very well renowned for their poor business ethics.
www.knowmore.org type nestle in there.

I'm aware that Nestle is the devil incarnate, but I'm just not convinced that the Body Shop is no longer an ethical place to shop.

[there's too much love]

(Original post by blinkbelle)
I'm aware that Nestle is the devil incarnate, but I'm just not convinced that the Body Shop is no longer an ethical place to shop.

By default then you are investing about 1/3 of anything you give to the body-shop in terms of profit to Nestle.

[lizfairy]

original source are an ethical brand :P

[there's too much love]

(Original post by lizfairy)
original source are an ethical brand :P

The best way to find something like this out is to find criticism about them.
My only one has been finding a dead spider in one of their bottles. Which is inevitable anywhere and was a one off. I'm guessing that's more to do with spiders crawling around in machinery as opposed to something malicious .

[splunket]

(Original post by lizfairy)
original source are an ethical brand :P

They may well have been, when they started out. A few years ago they were acquired by PZ Cussons though.

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=507

Yes, original source has the vegan society stamp of approval on the back, but please be aware that this refers to the sourcing of the ingredients only. Any processes they may have been through, or practices employed by the company ie. animal testing, bear no implication on the vegan stamp present.

The article I have linked to from April 2009 points out that Cussons' animal testing policy makes no mention of ingredients, thus leaving them free to test any individual ingredients on animals all day long, just not the finished product. A quick trip to Cussons website reveals that they must have sinced changed the wording of their policy, as it now reads:

"The Group does not conduct any animal testing or commission others to conduct any animal testing. We continue to support the development and acceptance of alternative methods which reduce or replace the use of animals in product safety evaluation and we work with our suppliers to ensure that our values on this subject are shared and, where feasible, that they work to similar standards."

The key is being able to deconstruct such a statement and read between the lines. A very solid looking statement, the main change since last year is from "none of our products are tested on animals" to "the group does not conduct any animal testing". This would eliminate any testing of individual ingredients carried out by Cussons themselves. The second half of that sentence: "or commission others to conduct any animal testing" would seemingly also eliminate animal testing from anything else Cussons use. It doesn't - just that Cussons aren't paying third parties to specifically carry out this role for them. What it does mean is that any ingredients they purchase from third parties will have used animal testing at the third party's own discretion, without Cussons' money and regardless of their views on the subject.

The remainder of the statement, about how Cussons fund research into alternatives to animal testing serves only as a red herring, and one commonly used in such statements. I could both eat meat and fund the marketing of soy products, the latter makes no difference as to the killing of animals for meat.

You can be sure then, that from their policy on animal testing, that PZ Cussons buys, uses and profits from animal tested ingredients. There is no reason why a multi national company such as theirs would suddenly grow a conscience, and indeed if they had, you can guarantee they would be shouting about it; the declaration of a cruelty free product leads to no loss of any consumer demographic, only new people to sell to.

This is why I do not buy Original Source products anymore. Of course, whether others do or not is up to them and depends how far you want to take your own consumer responsibilities. Others in this thread have expressed how they would still buy products from a parent company they disagree with, as long as the individual product is cruelty free. As to whether Original Source is, I doubt it, but will never know for sure. Anyone who does wish to abstain from Original Source products should be aware that there are plenty of alternatives out there, which are just as delicious, from Lush, Jason, Aveda, Weleda and others.

Also, if interested in parent companies which are in direct tension to some of the products they offer, check out Alpro soymilk now owned by dairy giants Dean Foods:

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=602

[there's too much love]

(Original post by splunket)
They may well have been, when they started out. A few years ago they were acquired by PZ Cussons though.

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=507

Yes, original source has the vegan society stamp of approval on the back, but please be aware that this refers to the sourcing of the ingredients only. Any processes they may have been through, or practices employed by the company ie. animal testing, bear no implication on the vegan stamp present.

The article I have linked to from April 2009 points out that Cussons' animal testing policy makes no mention of ingredients, thus leaving them free to test any individual ingredients on animals all day long, just not the finished product. A quick trip to Cussons website reveals that they must have sinced changed the wording of their policy, as it now reads:

"The Group does not conduct any animal testing or commission others to conduct any animal testing. We continue to support the development and acceptance of alternative methods which reduce or replace the use of animals in product safety evaluation and we work with our suppliers to ensure that our values on this subject are shared and, where feasible, that they work to similar standards."

The key is being able to deconstruct such a statement and read between the lines. A very solid looking statement, the main change since last year is from "none of our products are tested on animals" to "the group does not conduct any animal testing". This would eliminate any testing of individual ingredients carried out by Cussons themselves. The second half of that sentence: "or commission others to conduct any animal testing" would seemingly also eliminate animal testing from anything else Cussons use. It doesn't - just that Cussons aren't paying third parties to specifically carry out this role for them. What it does mean is that any ingredients they purchase from third parties will have used animal testing at the third party's own discretion, without Cussons' money and regardless of their views on the subject.

The remainder of the statement, about how Cussons fund research into alternatives to animal testing serves only as a red herring, and one commonly used in such statements. I could both eat meat and fund the marketing of soy products, the latter makes no difference as to the killing of animals for meat.

You can be sure then, that from their policy on animal testing, that PZ Cussons buys, uses and profits from animal tested ingredients. There is no reason why a multi national company such as theirs would suddenly grow a conscience, and indeed if they had, you can guarantee they would be shouting about it; the declaration of a cruelty free product leads to no loss of any consumer demographic, only new people to sell to.

This is why I do not buy Original Source products anymore. Of course, whether others do or not is up to them and depends how far you want to take your own consumer responsibilities. Others in this thread have expressed how they would still buy products from a parent company they disagree with, as long as the individual product is cruelty free. As to whether Original Source is, I doubt it, but will never know for sure. Anyone who does wish to abstain from Original Source products should be aware that there are plenty of alternatives out there, which are just as delicious, from Lush, Jason, Aveda, Weleda and others.

Also, if interested in parent companies which are in direct tension to some of the products they offer, check out Alpro soymilk now owned by dairy giants Dean Foods:

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=602

I'll check out that information a bit later, for now I'll just presume you're correct, if I agree later then it's another 'can't buy that' product:/.
Ah well c'est la vie, thanks for the post

[splunket]

(Original post by there's too much love)
I'll check out that information a bit later, for now I'll just presume you're correct, if I agree later then it's another 'can't buy that' product:/.
Ah well c'est la vie, thanks for the post

I know the feeling, I used Original Source for a long time in my life and for a while as a vegan before discovering where the money I spent was going to. Cussons are on most boycott lists along with the usual suspects, nestle, proctor & gamble, unilever, etc.

Like I say though, there's plenty of alternatives that are a pleasure to use.

The whole not buying from an evil parent company ideology is a tricky one to live by completely for anyone. After all, I still buy a fair few things from supermarkets which sell plenty of other stuff I don't wish to endorse. We live in a cruel world...

[there's too much love]

(Original post by splunket)
I know the feeling, I used Original Source for a long time in my life and for a while as a vegan before discovering where the money I spent was going to. Cussons are on most boycott lists along with the usual suspects, nestle, proctor & gamble, unilever, etc.

Like I say though, there's plenty of alternatives that are a pleasure to use.

The whole not buying from an evil parent company ideology is a tricky one to live by completely for anyone. After all, I still buy a fair few things from supermarkets which sell plenty of other stuff I don't wish to endorse. We live in a cruel world...

Well mum buys me original source things.

Do you know of any dirt on lush, I've never managed to find any. What about the brand 'faith in nature'?

Do you know much about suma?

And I'm cutting down on my supermarket spending more and more, I've started using a local organic veggie company called Arthur's organics (any students in Hull should try this out).

Before that there was a veg box scheme which brought veg in from Whetherby, called goose more organics.

Anyway, still not read your post properly because I need to go and get some cheap ass rice milk and juice (from a local shop, although I'm not that keen on most religious companies, if you've got any dirt on rice dream, please post that , like wise with rocks cordials).

[lizfairy]

i'm going to edinburgh uni now, anyone know any good vegan places there?

[there's too much love]

(Original post by lizfairy)
i'm going to edinburgh uni now, anyone know any good vegan places there?

http://www.happycow.net/