Au trecut aproape 4 luni de cand m-am lasat de fumat, dar daca as fi stiut inainte ceea ce stiu acum, ar fi fost cu siguranta de ajuns sa ma las mai repede.

Smoking doesn’t just kill people.


Hundreds of thousands of animals are still used in cruel tests conducted by cigarette companies.

Even though U.S. federal law does not require that tobacco products be tested on animals and even though smoking experiments on animals have been illegal in Britain since 1997, thousands of animals are still kept in restraints like smoke masks and body holders and subjected to horrific experiments every year.

At this very moment, pregnant monkeys at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC) are being kept in small, barren metal cages, their fetuses exposed to nicotine. Funded by the U.S. government, ORPRC experimenter Eliot Spindel acknowledges that “the deleterious effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy are all too well established.” Yet his five year study, during which he will kill the baby monkeys and dissect their lungs, is funded (with tax money) through 2004.

This is one of countless examples of cruel and completely unnecessary experiments. Experimenters have taken large grants from cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris; from government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health; and even from the March of Dimes, to inject animals with nicotine, force them to inhale smoke and addict them to tobacco–a substance that they would never normally encounter or imbibe if left in peace.

Other examples of smoking experiments on animals include :

* Cutting holes in beagles’ throats through which the dogs are forced to breathe concentrated cigarette smoke for a year.

* Inserting electrodes into dogs’ penises to measure the effect of cigarette smoke on sexual performance.

* Strapping masks to the faces of rats and monkeys and permanently restraining them to force them to breathe cigarette smoke constantly.

* Forcing dogs to be on mechanical ventilators and chronically exposed to cigarette smoke.”

WWW.SMOKINGANIMALS.COM

Alternativa Always si OB

January 23, 2010

BUHU:

  • Procter and Gamble, producatoare a absorbantelor Always este una dintre cele mai mari firme care refuza sa inceteze testarea produselor pe animale. “As of 2008, P&G is the 8th largest corporation in the world by market capitalization and 14th largest US company by profit. “ link

Exista mai multe site-uri create special impotriva acestei corporatii, printre care:

http://www.boycottpandg.co.uk/

http://www.pandgkills.com/main.html

“Despite many alternative methods already used for testing of 8,000 cosmetics ingredients that are already proved safe and freely enter the market, Procter & Gamble (P&G) continues with the horrible tests on animals for the sake of profit. P&G, with more than 250 brands, is responsible for tormenting and death of thousands of animals per year, victims of painful, old-fashioned and completely unnecesary experiments.

P&G admit conducting poisoning tests on animals to assess chemicals in their brands which include Ariel, Dreft, Lenor, Olay, Max Factor, Fairy, Pantene, and Herbal Essences. If hundreds of other companies are able to produce cosmetics and household products without animal testing, why cannot P&G?” Link

  • JOHNSON & JOHNSON,  producatori OB, intra in aceeasi categorie ca P&G, ambele  fiind in topul companiilor care testeaza pe animale, conform PETA.

.

YEY!

“De peste 15 ani, Natracare este marca de incredere a femeilor care vad sensul alegerii naturale a tampoanelor si absorbantelor pentru menstruatie. Pentru fiecare ciclu lunar este mai bine sa alegem produse din bumbac organic, reducand astfel expunerea fata de reziduurile din pesticide si ingrasaminte care se folosesc pe culturile de bumbac.”  link

Absorbante:

-Descriere:
-Absorbant ultra subtire cu un strat absorbant natural, prezentate individual in hartie reciclata pentru o prezenta discreta in geanta. Materiale naturale, strat extra moale de bumbac, fara parfum, plastic, materiale albite cu clor. Biodegradabile.

Tampoane:

-Descriere:
-100% bumbac, tampoane fara aplicator certificate organic. Albire fara clor. Biodegradabile.

Doua recenzii foarte bine documentate le gasiti la Sideris si la Ligia Pop , ambele vorbind atat despre avantajele folosirii unor astfel de absorbante cat si despre nocivitatea  folosirii absorbantelor si tampoanelor obisnuite.

In Romania produsele Natracare se gasesc foarte usor de comandat online, cat si in magzinele cu produse  eco/ bio/ organice din orasul vostru.

Politica Oriflame

January 19, 2010

Asa procedeaza o firma care nu are nimic de ascuns: mi se pare foarte bine scris, nu lasa loc de interpretari si nu lasa nici o intrebare neraspunsa. Nu spun ca sunt cele mai sanatoase si mai indicate produse cosmetice, dar politica lor este de apreciat 🙂

“Testat dermatologic”

January 19, 2010

Faptul ca un produs cosmetic este testat dermatologic te asigura de faptul ca aceste produse nu au fost testate pe animale?

Nu, decat daca este insotit de un text sau o imagine care adauga: “not tested on animals”, sau “against animal testing”, “animal friendly” sau orice asemanator.

Pentru firmele de care nu sunteti siguri, un simplu google de genul: “Is x tested on animals?” clarifica de obicei dilema :).

Ce inseamna atunci “Testat dermatologic” ?

Inseamanca ca produsul x a fost testat de catre un dermatolog.

Toate insemnarile de genul “Testat dermatologic”, “Testat clinic”, “Hypoalgenic” sunt mici trick-uri pentru ca produsul sa para mai sigur. Numai un consumator informat stie sa interpreteze aceste trickuri de marketing.

“Health Which? surveyed over 1,000 people about label claims on cosmetics and toiletries. Asked what they thought the term ‘dermatologically tested’ means, over a quarter said they believe the product had been tested on human skin. While this is correct in a very literal sense, the term doesn’t tell you what the tests were designed to show, or whether the product passed the tests.” link

Pentru ca nu exista o definitie exacta, companiile care testeaza pe animale prefera sa lase situatia ambigua, stiind ca majoritatea consumatorilor se vor uita la cum miroase produsul si nu la ingrediente sau termeni 🙂

Pe site-ul NatraCare se explica termenul foarte clar:

“Claims such as ‘dermatologically tested’ or ‘dermatologist approved’ – found on many cosmetics, toiletries and some washing products – are confusing and potentially misleading. [1]

Such claims imply that a product has reached a certain level of safety or effectiveness, but there are no standard industry-wide definitions to determine how a product must be tested or the results it needs to achieve, before a company can make such a claim. This means that tests designed by companies to substantiate dermatological claims may not necessarily replicate how a product is actually used.

In most cases, the term ‘dermatologically tested’ does not tell you what the tests were designed to show, or whether the product passed these tests. Of the ten leading cosmetics companies, asked to supply evidence to support their claims, only eight replied despite repeated requests. Of the information supplied, this was considered by two independent experts to be only general information about the tests carried out. Without specific details on the methods used, or the results achieved, the experts were unable to assess fully whether the products lived up to their claims.

This lack of standard definitions is confusing, totally misleading and allows malicious companies to take advantage of consumer trust and confusion. Indeed, with companies refusing to supply details of their tests and results, these claims are meaningless, and consumers are left guessing about the benefits implied by such claims.”

December 16, 2009

Intro chitz

December 15, 2009

Pana acum doi ani, am crezut ca a testa pe animale inseamna a da cu un pic de spray colorat pe blanita, cu un pic de blush, putin rimel. De fapt, majoritatea oamenilor cred acest lucru, sau ceva asemanator: un procedeu harmless pentru iepurasi si soricei.

Cand am aflat adevarul, mi-am creat o noua harta dupa care sa imi ghidez felul in care vad produsele, si informatiile dupa care ma ghidez cand cumpar. Am devenit un consumator din ce in ce mai atent, fara sa devin extremista. Nu stiu toata lista pe de rost, si inca invat, iar in momentul in care descopar un produs testat pe animale incerc sa il inlocuiesc, sa gasesc alternative.

Exista multe bloguri foarte bune care vorbesc despre produse bune, naturale, organice, bio, etc. dar nici unul dintre ele nu spune explicit daca produsul respectiv este sau nu testat pe animale. Este o informatie care nu prea interesaza inca pe multi dintre consumatorii romani. Iar procesul de cautare este in multe cazuri complicat, si nu stiu cati sunt dispusi sa faca aceasta cautare.

Ceea ce vreau sa va demonstrez este ca putem trai la fel de pufy si comfty, detinand si puterea informatiei. Daca viata este un lung sir de decizii, putem face decizii blande si caring pentru animalute.