Unilever

A few months ago I bought shower gel by "Original Source" which is owned by "PZ Cussons" which is owned by "Unilever"... the vicious cycle of ridiculous money hungry corporations. Arrggghhh! I bought the shower gel because I looked on the back and it stated with a "smiley" face, "tested on us". I was jumping with joy, thinking yay, not tested on animals. I was unfortunately wrong. I emailed PZ Cussons to inform them of my concerns. Unilever emailed me about 2 months later to give me every ridiculous reason under the book as to why they test their "ingredients" on a "small" amount of animals and not to be concerned because the finished product is test on humans. Anyway, I have to share the email with you as the excuses are just pathetic. No animal deserves this treatment.

"Dear Lani

Thank you for taking the time to contact us on this matter, we certainly take your views seriously.

Animal testing is a contentious issue, and there are strong and diverse opinions on the need for animal testing to underpin the development of new consumer products, particularly cosmetics. Unilever is required to provide animal data to comply with the safety regulations in place in different countries across the world. Where we are legally obliged to commission animal studies, we ensure that the minimum numbers of animals are used.

Unilever is committed to the elimination of animal testing for its business, and is at the forefront of research into non-animal approaches for assessing consumer safety. Currently, a very small amount of animal testing is still necessary to deliver innovative products that provide consumer benefits and are market competitive.  

At Unilever, using non-animal approaches is the norm. Most of our products reach consumers without testing any of their ingredients on animals. We do not test our actual products on animals (any testing is undertaken on individual ingredients), and we do not undertake animal testing in our own laboratories (any studies are conducted by third party laboratories). A few countries still undertake product testing in their government laboratories. We are working with the local authorities to ensure the implementation of non-animal methods.

Unilever does not make ¿not tested on animals¿ claims for its products, since the ingredients may have been subjected to some animal testing at some point by their manufacturers (to meet regulatory requirements).

For more information about our position and progress in developing non-animal approaches, see our website: http://www.unilever.com.au/sustainable-living/Concerns/

Thank you for taking the time to contact us and for giving us the opportunity to respond.

Privacy Message -

In accordance with the privacy laws, we require your permission to contact you again. Your details are available to you on request. They may be used to provide you with information, send out samples for product trial, or to obtain feedback in relation to Unilever products and services only. If you do not wish for us to contact you in the future please reply stating "No" to this email.



Yours sincerely
Consumer Relations
www.unilever.com"

...and this is my reply, and with a little help from the RSPCA and Animals Australia/Unleashed, I am sure this will fluff their feathers quite a bit. No excuses for animal cruelty.

"Dear Unilever,

Thank you for your response to my concerning issue with your use of animal testing. I appreciate the time you have taken to take to discuss your reasons for the use of animals for testing purposes. However, this is not satisfactory to myself as a consumer for several reasons. I will explain the reasoning behind these further:

   You stated that Unilever is "required to provide animal data to comply with safety regulations in place in different countries across the world". I am an Australian citizen living in Australia and no such thing is required since by law it is illegal to test on animals for cosmetic/hygienic purposes in Australia. So your products are deliberately tested overseas to avoid complying with the legal requirements or the ridiculous loop hole of testing individual ingredients. In the end, you are still testing on them and they are still suffering. (http://www.unleashed.org.au/change_the_world/animal_testing/)

   Animal testing is NOT necessary as it has already been completely outlawed from testing the finished product and any ingredients on animals in the UK and the EU. (http://kb.rspca.org.au/Are-animals-used-for-cosmetics-testing-in-Australia_399.html)

   You also stated that "Currently, a very small amount of animal testing is still necessary to deliver innovative products that provide consumer benefits and are market competitive" and you are "legally obliged to commission animal studies, we ensure that the minimum numbers of animals are used". This is completely false, many companies out there create products that provide "consumer benefits", are "market competitive" and comply with "safety regulations" as you say, all without using animal testing. For example, I now use Nature's Organics for body wash, shampoo, conditioner, dish washing liquid, laundry liquid, disinfectant, etc. They are completely vegan certified, no animal testing, natural ingredients, plant based bottles... They are a great company and they can do all this and sell their products. Yet you say "We are working with the local authorities to ensure the implementation of non-animal methods". Why is it so difficult to eliminate cruelty?

   Safety? Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) - This test aims to find the amount of a chemical you must feed to a group of animals of the same species before half of the animals die. To do this the animals are regularly force fed the same chemical until half of the animals die. For toxic chemicals this can cause extremely painful and cause serious problems before death. For less toxic chemicals the animals may have to endure force feeding of huge quantities of the substance before finally their bodies can no longer cope and they die. This meaningless test is often done on rats and mice, but can also be done on beagles, cats, and many other animals. Scientists have argued for a long time that animal tests are ineffective at ensuring products are safe for humans. All species differ significantly in their physiology. In fact, one international study found that LD50 tests in rats and mice could only predict toxicity in humans with 65% accuracy, as opposed to about 75% with cell-line tests (a non-animal test). (http://www.unleashed.org.au/change_the_world/animal_testing/)


I honestly do not understand the "safety" perspective of your products. I do NOT see how this is in any way beneficial for the consumer or for any living being. I am now in a position where I have used your "Original Source" shower gel then bought another one and with the understanding that you only tested on humans, I am now left with an almost full packet of shower gel that I can NOT use. Yes, I agree you have not falsely advertised, but your advertisement is misleading. Most companies in Australia would test on us but test the ingredients on animals. They don't state "tested on us" on their products because it is not entirely true. It is tested on us... and you forgot to mention the animals. The information is very misleading, it is cleverly marketed to mislead the consumer into a false sense of security. You have lead me to believe that you only tested on humans because you have "kindly" enough stated only the human part. All in all, I am still left with in unusable product due to misleading advertisement, where am I left? With the short stick is where I am left.

Sincerely,

Lani Moore
(I have attached photos of the products in question)"