Cooking the Crap Out of It
http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=22&t=p

 Tyson slaughter plant
Cross-contamination—the infection of kitchen implements, surfaces, or
food during preparation before cooking—is considered the predominant
cause of food poisoning.387 “It does not require much imagination,”
reads a public health textbook, “to appreciate the ease with which a
few hundred bacteria can be transferred from, say, a fresh broiler
[chicken] covered in a million bacteria to a nearby bit of salad or
piece of bread.”388 

Knowing that poultry is the most common cause of food poisoning in the
home, microbiologists had 50 people take chicken straight from a
supermarket and prepare a meal with it as they normally would in their
own kitchen. The researchers then took samples from such kitchen
staples as sponges, dishcloths, and hand towels, and tested them for
the presence of disease-causing bacteria like Campylobacter and
Salmonella. They found multiple contaminated samples. “Antibacterial”
dishwashing liquid did not seem to offer any protection. They
conclude, “Pathogenic bacteria can be recovered relatively frequently
from the kitchen environment.”389 Some animal parts are so
contaminated that the CDC recommends that during preparation the
household meat handler find caretakers to supervise his or her
children so as not to infect them.390 

The risk of cross-contamination with the bird flu virus may be
especially high because it exists not just in the meat, but on it. The
World Health Organization describes where most bird flu infections
have originated: “[D]irect touching of poultry or poultry feces
contaminated surfaces, eating uncooked poultry products (e.g., blood)
or preparing poultry have been considered the probable routes of
exposure leading to infection in most older children and adults.”391
Unfortunately, the “poultry feces contaminated surfaces” may be our
countertops. “Influenza virus is excreted in the feces,” a CDC
epidemiologist explains. “Chickens and ducks have fecal matter all
over them.”392 

Medical researchers at the University of Minnesota recently took more
than a thousand food samples from multiple retail markets and found
evidence of fecal contamination in 69% of the pork and beef and 92% of
the poultry samples, as evidenced by contamination with the intestinal
bug E. coli.393 This confirms USDA baseline data stating,
astonishingly, that “greater than 99% of broiler carcasses had
detectable E. coli.”394 “If chicken were tap water,” journalist Nicols
Fox writes in her widely acclaimed book Spoiled, “the supply would be
cut off.”395 

Most Americans don’t realize that our poultry supply is contaminated
with fecal matter. Delmer Jones, president of the U.S. Meat Inspection
Union, describes the current USDA labels as misleading to the public.
He suggests, “The label should declare that the product has been
contaminated with fecal material.”396 Eric Schlosser in Fast Food
Nation proposes a more straight-forward approach: “There is shit in
the meat.”397 

How did it get there? After chickens are shackled, stunned, have their
necks cut, and bleed to death, they are scalded, defeathered, and have
their heads and feet removed. The next step is evisceration. Birds are
typically gutted by a machine that uses a metal hook to pull out their
guts.398 The intestines are often ripped in the process, spilling the
contaminated contents over the carcass. If even a single bird is
infected, the machinery is then contaminated and can pass infection
down the line. In one study, when one chicken was inoculated with a
tracer bacteria, the next 42 birds subsequently processed were found
to be cross-infected. Sporadic contamination occurred up to the 150th
bird.399 The World Health Organization concludes that large,
centralized, and mechanized slaughter plants may “create hazards for
the human food chain.”400 

Millions of chickens miss the killing blade and are drowned in the
scalding tanks every year,401 in part because the USDA does not
include poultry under the protections of the federal Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act.402 The birds, still conscious, may defecate in the
tanks and inhale water polluted by fecal leakage into their lungs,403
which can lead to further contamination of the carcass down the
line.404 So-called “controlled atmosphere killing,” which uses inert
gases to essentially put the birds to sleep, is a more hygienic method
of slaughter.405 

According to former USDA microbiologist Gerald Kuester, “there are
about 50 points during processing where cross-contamination can occur.
At the end of the line, the birds are no cleaner than if they had been
dipped in a toilet.”406 The toilet, in this case, is the chill water
bath at the end of the line in which the birds’ remains soak for an
hour to increase profitability by adding water weight to the carcass.
At this point, the bath water is more of a chilled fecal soup. This
collective soak has been shown to increase contamination levels by
almost a quarter. “That extra 24% of contamination the chill water
adds,” writes Nicols Fox, “can be credited to pure greed.”407 

As Fox points out in Spoiled, the microbiologist’s assertion that the
“final product is no different than if you stuck it in the toilet and
ate it” is not gross hyperbole. Gross, perhaps, but not hyperbole. In
fact, the toilet might actually be safer than your sink. Researchers
at the University of Arizona found more fecal bacteria in the
kitchen—on sponges, dish towels, the sink drain, countertops—than they
found swabbing the rim of the toilet.408 Comparing surfaces in
bathrooms and kitchens in the same household, the investigators note
that “consistently, kitchens come up dirtier.”409 The excess fecal
contamination is presumed to come from raw animal products brought
into the home. As Fox points out. “The bathroom is cleaner because
people are not washing their chickens in the toilet.”410 













pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

Mr Adam Vaughan writes

http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
a recent joint statement.

The Belgian company's biodegradable and phosphate-free products -
which include washing-up liquid, washing powder and more - are tested
on water fleas and rabbit blood to detect danger, respectively, to
aquatic life and human skin.

While the EU definition of animal testing doesn't include
invertebrates such as water fleas, the Vegan Society's founding
criteria does.

The main sticking point between the charity and eco cleaning business
was Ecover's refusal to submit to a cut-off date for specific products
to be free of animal-tested products. 

Instead, the green cleaning co is continuing a 'five year rolling
rule' (more on Ecover's site here) that means although it pledges not
to use today's animal-tested ingredients in its products for the next
five years, it could theoretically include them in 2013.

Remaining stocks of Ecover products will continue to bear the Vegan
Society logo, but new ones will not carry it. The society says: 'We
hope Ecover will continue to develop non-animal test methods and
environmentally sound products which will enable us to work together
again in the future.'

Lisa Drummy of Beanie's Health Foods suggests: 'Ecover may soon find
themselves the subjects of a mass boycott by ethical, animal friendly
shoppers.'

Ecover, in its defence, points out that only 0.5ml of rabbit blood is
used to test one new product, and the shortage of human red blood
cells makes the use of human blood 'unethical'. 












pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:44:40 +0000, Gloria 
wrote:

>Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>
>http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
>A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
>cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
>a recent joint statement.
>
>The Belgian company's biodegradable and phosphate-free products -
>which include washing-up liquid, washing powder and more - are tested
>on water fleas and rabbit blood to detect danger, respectively, to
>aquatic life and human skin.
>
>While the EU definition of animal testing doesn't include
>invertebrates such as water fleas, the Vegan Society's founding
>criteria does.
>
>The main sticking point between the charity and eco cleaning business
>was Ecover's refusal to submit to a cut-off date for specific products
>to be free of animal-tested products. 
>
>Instead, the green cleaning co is continuing a 'five year rolling
>rule' (more on Ecover's site here) that means although it pledges not
>to use today's animal-tested ingredients in its products for the next
>five years, it could theoretically include them in 2013.
>
>Remaining stocks of Ecover products will continue to bear the Vegan
>Society logo, but new ones will not carry it. The society says: 'We
>hope Ecover will continue to develop non-animal test methods and
>environmentally sound products which will enable us to work together
>again in the future.'
>
>Lisa Drummy of Beanie's Health Foods suggests: 'Ecover may soon find
>themselves the subjects of a mass boycott by ethical, animal friendly
>shoppers.'
>
>Ecover, in its defence, points out that only 0.5ml of rabbit blood is
>used to test one new product, and the shortage of human red blood
>cells makes the use of human blood 'unethical'. 
>
Just 0.5ml! Couldn’t an employee just prick their finger and be done
with it? 

Will White 14th August 2007 at 10:52am

Dear ethical consumer, 

As a pioneering ecological company Ecover respects the mission and
values of the Vegan Society. Ecover has not been stripped of its vegan
logo, but came to a mutual decision with the Vegan Society not to
carry the Vegan trademark. The decision to do so occurred precisely
because of Ecover’s longstanding ethics and principles. 

Ecover’s toughest challenge in developing an ecological washing and
cleaning product is minimising the effects of its use on aquatic
systems. Not accurately measuring the toxicity of these products on
aquatic life would result in Ecover not being able to determine the
effects of our products on the wider environment. This has to be a
priority in our industry. 

The RBC test, which uses a mere 0.5 milliliters of rabbit blood
(acquired as a byproduct), has not been performed for 2 years.  This
test was amongst the first alternative methods to testing on live
animals. Both the rise of HIV and the shortage of human red blood
cells via donation played a part in our decision to use rabbit’s
blood. However this year Ecover’s CEO, Mick Bremans, is voluntarily
donating his own blood as an alternative. Thus Ecover conforms to the
standards set by the vegan community. 

Essentially, the vegan community and Ecover share many values.
However, Ecover is not a vegan company and as such we have differing
objectives. Ecover produces ecological products made from plant-based
ingredients with minimal possible impact on the environment. Ecover
has been an open and transparent company for 27 years, and will
continue to be as we take further steps together on a journey towards
a more sustainable future for all people, animals and the planet. 

Ecover 14th August 2007 at 4:20pm

Suggesting a boycott of these products is like cutting off your nose
to spite your face! 

Their testing process might not conform to every ideology but the
principles of the company are still admirably high and considerably
better than a lot of companies making huge profits today.  

Don’t punish the good guys - they’re doing a great job in a tough
market. 

Sam 14th August 2007 at 5:22pm

The Vegan Society’s responsibility is to stick to their guidelines. I
don’t see the problem with that. Nobody is being forced to boycott
Ecover purely because it has lost this one endorsement. Provided the
information is available, people (who I will assume are adults, since
children don’t usually buy cleaning products!) are capable of making
their own minds up about which issues affect their choice of products.

Elise 14th August 2007 at 6:41pm

I certainly won’t be boycotting Ecover - in fact I’ve just bought a
host of 5 litre tubs at a refilling place at So Organic in Greenwich.
It seems logical to me how Ecover do their testing and admirable that
both companies recognise their differences. 

There aren’t many mass market ‘green’ products so I want to support
them (as well as others) and the statement written above proves to me
they are the sort of company to be respected and supported. 

www.lifegoggles.com 16th August 2007 at 9:12am

I am not a big opponent of animal testing as such (depends on the
circumstances, in my opinion), but I can understand people who oppose
it on principle. But to oppose testing on water fleas! (Why not oppose
testing on bacteria as well...) especially since the purpose of the
testing is to protect the environment! 

Gogo 16th August 2007 at 6:47pm

It is not only the testing on daphnia and rabbit blood that has
causded Ecover to lose it’s Vegan status but also it’s decision to use
the five year ‘rolling rule’ in animal testing. This is the ultimate
‘get out’ rule and is used by many of the large corporations who
pretend (to confuse consumers) that they do not test on animals.
Basically it means that they can use any product to test that was
animal tested five years ago. It is a fudge, no more than that and
hardly ‘ethical’. This is a further explanation of it… 

“This means that the manufacturer only excludes ingredients that have
been animal-tested within the last five years. This is not a fixed
date, so an animal tested ingredient may be excluded one year (because
it falls within the ‘last five years’ bracket), but included the
following year (when it falls outside this bracket). By using this
method, the manufacturer is making no clear commitment to reject
animal testing and is still profiting from and perpetuating animal
testing. The only difference here is that the company delays buying
that ingredient for five years. This would make little difference to
most suppliers and the industry as a whole, as they know that
companies like this may not buy the ingredients today but they will
buy the ingredients eventually.” 

As ‘ethical consumers should we really support a company who uses
this? 

Caryne 23rd August 2007 at 9:55am

Thanks for these explanations: it makes more sense now. 

Gogo 23rd August 2007 at 9:59am

What I’m concerned about is how long Ecover have been doing this, and
how it is that the Vegan Society were not aware of it in the first
place. 

It’s clear from the comments that before two years ago, Ecover had
been carrying out these tests while using the Vegan Society’s
logo/trademark. It is also therefore clear that Ecover neglected to
inform the Vegan Society of such practice, or even check with the
Vegan Society directly whether such practices would be acceptable. I
believe that if Ecover wishes to secure ‘vegan’ endorsements from
official Vegan bodies, then it is Ecover’s responsibility to ensure
they fully understand the requirements. 

I also have to ask if there is anything within the Vegan Society’s own
practices that could have unwittingly contributed to this situation
arising in the first place. 

My faith in Ecover, which wishes to present itself as environmentally
friendly and also seeks to promote ethical credentials in regards to
animal testing/welfare, is all but destroyed. Whether or not Ecover
properly veganises its products in future, I will still have serious
doubts. 

By failing to be upfront about their testing makes me feel that Ecover
is driven more by profit concerns than we are led to believe. Yet,
promoting on the basis of ethics requires honesty and integrity. 

Let’s face it, until more recently, we have been a much easier market
to target due to our natural receptivesness for environmentally
friendly products than perhaps other consumer groups. I feel quite
misled and very disappointed. 

I have until now taken it on blind faith that any product displaying
the Vegan Society logo meets my needs as a vegan. However, though
while I am sure the Vegan Society would not knowingly allow something
like this to occur, this incident has also dented my faith in the
logo. 

Credit is due to the Vegan Society for withdrawing the logo from
Ecover. However, given the time that has passed since this issue was
first identified, it still begs the question as to why Ecover products
are still listed under the Vegan Society’s trademark listings. 

sim 27th August 2007 at 5:20pm

I can only agree with you 100% it certainly seems that Ecover have
been deliberately misleading the Vegan Society for some time and, for
one, would love to know when the facts actually came to light. 

Ecover, in a personal reply to ne, seem to be saying that they are
more ethical than any other similar company and that their tests are
fine as they do not recognise testing on ‘Daphnia’ as animal testing
(though, I find it amazing that they can draw the line..it’s a little
like those idiots who eat fish whilst claiming to be vegetarian). IN
their reply to me they also failed to acknowledge my questions about
them using the ‘5 Year Rolling Rule’ (the get out used by all the
‘major’ companies who lie that they do not use ingredients tested on
animals) and make very little of the tests they have done using
rabbots blood, merely to say they havn’t carried them out for a couple
of years. 

There are still many questions to be asked here but Ecover have shown
themselves to be a company not to be trusted and hardly fitting for
inclusion in an ‘Ethical Consumers’ shopping basket. 

Finally, sadly, when it comes to updating their site the Vegan Society
are very slow. They should be taking Ecover off their approved list
and I am sure they will. Maybe some of us should be writing to them to
remind them? 

Caryne 27th August 2007 at 6:07pm

About animal testing, out of interest, where do the Vegan Society put
their limit? How do they propose to test the potential effect on an
ecosytem? What about testing an desinfectant on bacteria? 

Gogo 27th August 2007 at 6:18pm

It’s simple. The Vegan Society will not sanction anything tested on
animal life. There are the three categories, animal, vegetable and
mineral. If it is not vegetable or mineral then it will not be
acceptable. 

I am not a scientist so I cannot tell you any more about ‘potential
testing on an ecocsystem’. However I can tell you that there are
companies producing vegan alternatives who are also ‘environmentally’
ethical. Companies such as ‘Clear Spring’, ‘Bio D’ and the ‘Earth
Friendly’ range sold at the Vegan Store 

http://www.veganstore.co.uk/household_index.html 

If you want full details on how they test the effect I suggest you
contact the manufacturers 
of the above mentioned products. 

Caryne 27th August 2007 at 7:31pm

I also find it quite insulting that a company that openly states it is
not ‘vegan’ can then presume to define what ‘vegan’ means, without
checking it properly with the relevant authority. Who defines what is
acceptable to us as vegans other than ourselves? 

Imagine if they did that when seeking religious endorsements?...! 

Ecover sell their products across Europe (at least). How much of an
issue has this been there, does anyone here know? 

sim 27th August 2007 at 8:36pm

What I find interesting is not only is this company ‘Not Vegan’ but
its products are not suitable for ethical vegetarians or anyone who
cares about the animal testing/exploitation. 

It seems to me that Ecover have got by over the years on one big lie
and now they have been found out (I so wish I knew how it happened)
Just makes you wonder who else is lying to us? 

What I also await is all the shops removing the products from its
shelves. I realise that large supermarkets etc won’t give two hoots
but there are 100s of wholefood shops around the UK who operate on
vegetarian/vegan principles who should no longer be selling this
product. My local shop knew nothing of the fact that Ecover was
‘animal tested’ until I told them, not surprisingly Ecover do not seem
to informing their retailers of the fact. It is up to us, at ‘Ethical
Consumers’ to make sure all ethical retailers are aware of this
companies lies and ensure that they stock ‘ethical products’. 

Caryne 27th August 2007 at 9:12pm

But I still don’t understand how *any* companies making, say, a
vegan-labelled dishwash, could test if their product is not
detrimental to the environment without trying it on, say, some water
containing some wildlife, including micro-organisms. If the Vegan
Society is so strict, then in my opinion, “animals” include
micro-organisms, planctons, etc. I am obviously not a vegan, but I
would prefer to use a product which I am sure is not harmful to the
environment rather than a product which has not been tested for this
purpose (I hope I make sense...). I the definition is as strict as
that, I would rather look for a product *not* having a vegan label… 

Gogo 27th August 2007 at 9:21pm

You’re right! - it does seem that a certain amount of fudging of
ethical issues (as illustrated by Ecover’s supposed defense) has been
done out of corporate self-interest. 

I didn’t much like it when L’Oreal took over The Body Shop, nor
Cadbury’s takeover of Green & Blacks. For all the reasons outlined
above, I now like it even less. 

I have just realised that amongst other brands, Ecover also acquired
the Eco Lino domestic cleaning/detergent range. Needless to say, the
Eco Lino policy now reflects similar concerns to those already raised
here, including the ‘5 year rolling rule’! 

sim 27th August 2007 at 9:40pm

Gogo...as I suggested I would point you in the directions of the
companies I listed and ask that you contact them directly. 

Personally I want a product that is vegan and environmentally
friendly. These still appear to be available and I would trust these
over any company that has, so it seems, spent years lying to its
consumers over its ‘animal testing procedures’ (and for the umpteenth
time we are talking not just of ‘daphnia’ but rabbit blood and
anything if you remember they are operating under the ‘five year
rolling rule’). Let’s get this straight Ecover have lied over its
animal testing for years..how on earth do we know whether or not they
are lying about anything else? 

With these big companies ‘corporate self-interest’ always wins out
over ethics. Personally I was flabbergasted that this very site listed
Anita Roddick as an ‘Ethical’ champion when she sold her company to
the scum that is ‘L’Oreal’. 

Caryne 27th August 2007 at 10:11pm

I find it slightly odd that while “The Vegan Society recognizes Ecover
as a company of integrity”, some of the comments here now paint Ecover
as the Devil incarnate. 

Given that the Vegan Society has obviously spent quite a bit of time
with Ecover discussing the issues (more, I suspect, than have some of
those commenting), are people saying that the Vegan Society is lying? 

NickB 29th August 2007 at 5:45pm

Quote: 

It’s simple. The Vegan Society will not sanction anything tested on
animal life. There are the three categories, animal, vegetable and
mineral. If it is not vegetable or mineral then it will not be
acceptable. 

End quote 

Actually, the Vegan Society defines animal as “all vertebrates and all
multicellular invertebrates”, leaving quite a large number of species
which are not vegetable or mineral as acceptable, apparently. 

NickB 29th August 2007 at 5:50pm

We are just playing with words here (the sort of behaviour I expect
from the right wing media not a ‘so-called’ ethical consumer site.) 

I do think that the Vegan Society have been a little too kind to
Ecover to be honest but, in the end, they have done the right thing
and stripped them of their ‘vegan’ status. 

Many people here seem obsessed with the ‘testing on daphnia’ issue.
Whilst that makes it ‘non-vegan’ (of course) I am more concerned by
the fact that they seem to be totally fudging over the testing on
rabbits blood and, most important, the fact that they use the
‘ultimate get out’, ‘The Five Year Rolling Rule’, when it comes to all
its animal testing. 

Caryne 29th August 2007 at 6:00pm

Well, I agree that words are often put together quite carefully in
press releases, but it is the Vegan Society’s release and they could
have said that Ecover was “stripped” of their vegan accreditation if
they wanted. What they have actually said is that they have “mutually
decided to disagree on these points of principle and consequently,
Ecover shall no longer carry the Vegan Trademark”. 

As someone who has conducted ethical audits on businesses for some
years, I would put the Vegan Society and Ecover’s attitudes and
approaches in this situation at the better end of the scale. 

And for those who think that Ecover has “lied” to the Vegan Society,
I’m not sure how they know that? There is nothing here that says
Ecover did not complete the accreditation process completely honestly.
And it seems this issue has been in the open between the two
organisations for some time, but I can’t say that for definite,
because I don’t have inside knowledge of either, and so I’m not going
to jump to conclusions. 

NickB 29th August 2007 at 6:31pm

No, I don’t have any inside knowledge either and I have no idea how
Ecover were ‘found out’. However, to gain the Vegan Society symbol a
company has to go through a fairly rigorous questioning so the only
logical explanation is that they did, in fact, lie in the first place.
If anyone can tell me different then I would love to know. 

Caryne 29th August 2007 at 6:35pm

Well, it’s not such a logical conclusion. I have seen many types of
accreditation process, though not the one in question here, and I can
quite see how such a situation might arise without any lying or
deliberate obfuscation. 

Either scenario is possible. All the facts are rarely in the public
domain and we have to bear that in mind when considering any ethical
consumption decisions. It’s good to have discussion and debate around
it though! 

NickB 29th August 2007 at 6:45pm

They would be asked, for Vegan accreditation, if they at any stage
tested on animals. They, so it seems, have always tested (both rabbits
and daphnia) as well as well as using the, unacceptable, ‘Five Year
Rolling Rule’. Hence my comment that the only logical conclusion is
they lied or ‘misinformed’. Yes, I accept other companies have very
different ideas of what is ethical but it is fairly straightforward
with The Vegan Society. 

Caryne 29th August 2007 at 6:57pm













pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

"Gloria"  wrote



SPAM


-- 
-- 
Regards, Vince.

"He may have shared an address in 1994 and he may originally have been
a joint author of a website but that in no way proves that I am he" (Doug, 
on Doug Bollen)

In article , Gloria says...
> Mr Adam Vaughan writes
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
> A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
> cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
> a recent joint statement.
> 
OFF TOPIC IN THIS NEWSGROUP

-- 
Conor

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Gloria wrote:
 [a load of irrelevant crap]

Would you and Doug please get a room and stop bothering the rest of us
with this shite.

"Gloria"  wrote in message 
news:3s4pj35a29dkv592ih9g4tdcs5pd721dlf@4ax.com...
> Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
> A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
> cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
> a recent joint statement.

And what has that got to do with classic cars?
Please confine your gratuitous vegan rantings to n/groups that are more 
appropriate.
Mike.

Mike G wrote:
> "Gloria"  wrote in message
> news:3s4pj35a29dkv592ih9g4tdcs5pd721dlf@4ax.com...
>> Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
>> A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
>> cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according
>> to a recent joint statement.
>
> And what has that got to do with classic cars?
> Please confine your gratuitous vegan rantings to n/groups that are
> more appropriate.
> Mike.

It's a sad lonely masturbatory troll, leave it alone, ignore it, don't feed 
it.

I hereby liken it to a Nazi, officially bringing this thread to an end.

-- 
Cheerz - Brownz
Beta TR34 (Ring ding ding ding pop pop)
http://www.brownz.org/

What the hell does all this veggie nonsense have to do with classic cars, 
and why would anyone give a rodent's posterior who had lost their Vegan 
logo???

KH
"Gloria"  wrote in message 
news:3s4pj35a29dkv592ih9g4tdcs5pd721dlf@4ax.com...
> Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
> A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
> cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
> a recent joint statement.
>
> The Belgian company's biodegradable and phosphate-free products -
> which include washing-up liquid, washing powder and more - are tested
> on water fleas and rabbit blood to detect danger, respectively, to
> aquatic life and human skin.
>
> While the EU definition of animal testing doesn't include
> invertebrates such as water fleas, the Vegan Society's founding
> criteria does.
>
> The main sticking point between the charity and eco cleaning business
> was Ecover's refusal to submit to a cut-off date for specific products
> to be free of animal-tested products.
>
> Instead, the green cleaning co is continuing a 'five year rolling
> rule' (more on Ecover's site here) that means although it pledges not
> to use today's animal-tested ingredients in its products for the next
> five years, it could theoretically include them in 2013.
>
> Remaining stocks of Ecover products will continue to bear the Vegan
> Society logo, but new ones will not carry it. The society says: 'We
> hope Ecover will continue to develop non-animal test methods and
> environmentally sound products which will enable us to work together
> again in the future.'
>
> Lisa Drummy of Beanie's Health Foods suggests: 'Ecover may soon find
> themselves the subjects of a mass boycott by ethical, animal friendly
> shoppers.'
>
> Ecover, in its defence, points out that only 0.5ml of rabbit blood is
> used to test one new product, and the shortage of human red blood
> cells makes the use of human blood 'unethical'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:26:39 -0500, "Kevin Hall"
 wrote:

>What the hell does all this veggie nonsense have to do with classic cars, 
>and why would anyone give a rodent's posterior who had lost their Vegan 
>logo???
>
>KH

Pay attention goofy.

>"Gloria"  wrote in message 
>news:3s4pj35a29dkv592ih9g4tdcs5pd721dlf@4ax.com...
>> Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
>> A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
>> cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
>> a recent joint statement.
>>
>> The Belgian company's biodegradable and phosphate-free products -
>> which include washing-up liquid, washing powder and more - are tested
>> on water fleas and rabbit blood to detect danger, respectively, to
>> aquatic life and human skin.
>>
>> While the EU definition of animal testing doesn't include
>> invertebrates such as water fleas, the Vegan Society's founding
>> criteria does.
>>
>> The main sticking point between the charity and eco cleaning business
>> was Ecover's refusal to submit to a cut-off date for specific products
>> to be free of animal-tested products.
>>
>> Instead, the green cleaning co is continuing a 'five year rolling
>> rule' (more on Ecover's site here) that means although it pledges not
>> to use today's animal-tested ingredients in its products for the next
>> five years, it could theoretically include them in 2013.
>>
>> Remaining stocks of Ecover products will continue to bear the Vegan
>> Society logo, but new ones will not carry it. The society says: 'We
>> hope Ecover will continue to develop non-animal test methods and
>> environmentally sound products which will enable us to work together
>> again in the future.'
>>
>> Lisa Drummy of Beanie's Health Foods suggests: 'Ecover may soon find
>> themselves the subjects of a mass boycott by ethical, animal friendly
>> shoppers.'
>>
>> Ecover, in its defence, points out that only 0.5ml of rabbit blood is
>> used to test one new product, and the shortage of human red blood
>> cells makes the use of human blood 'unethical'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk 
>








--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

Kevin Hall wrote:
> What the hell does all this veggie nonsense have to do with classic cars, 
> and why would anyone give a rodent's posterior who had lost their Vegan 
> logo???
> 

Ditto for the poultry group.  A typo, I expect: I'm almost certain it's a Vogon 
posting.  Wait in terror for the poetry.  The Vogon "Lament for the Lost Logo" 
is excruciatingly boring and goes on for several hours even on broadband.

A L P



>>Mr Adam Vaughan writes
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/27ceca
>>A refusal to agree a cut-off date for animal testing has left green
>>cleaning brand Ecover stripped of its Vegan Society logo, according to
>>a recent joint statement.