To establish the impact on the aquatic environment Ecover uses aquatic toxicity testing which uses water fleas (Daphnia), as they are present throughout the world in any freshwater system. As far as Ecover is aware there are no alternative tests available that will more accurately measure the impact of cleaning products on the aquatic environment. Ecover far exceeds the EU definition on what constitutes animal testing as Daphnia are invertebrates. The EU definition defines animal testing as the use of vertebrates, past a specified embryonic stage, (or larval stage in the case of fish and amphibians).
Ecover also uses a red blood cell test (Invittox RBC) on a non-systematic basis that uses blood from rabbit farming to test the effect of detergents on mucus membranes (to test skin compatibility).This test is used only in those cases where alternative testing methods are unavailable. Given the shortage of human red blood cells Ecover believes the use of human blood would be unethical. However, as alternative testing methods are continuously investigated, Ecover is confident that the RBC test shall become obsolete over the next few years. The Managing Director of Ecover has stated that if blood is needed for this test in the future he will donate his own blood!
Ecover continually strives to improve its product range against all of their exacting criteria. To achieve this, Ecover is continually developing and testing new ingredients. Ecover do not perform those tests on animals and employ alternative methods. For those ingredients to be included in a product, ingredient suppliers are forced by international law to prove their innocuity.
The introduction of a fixed cut off date at this stage would prevent Ecover from using these new ingredients and advances in their products which are developed in order to further benefit the environment. This is because a fixed cut off date prevents a company from introducing any ingredients that have been developed after this date. Ecover believes that by operating the five year rolling rule, by default, we are upholding our beliefs ? we are honest and integral in our approach and will continue to pioneer for the future.
The Vegan Society does not permit the use of the five year rolling rule for Trademarked products and so would not permit any ingredients to be sourced under this system.
Ecover respects the values of the Vegan Society and its members. Yet, as part of the company?s core values, Ecover owes its customers transparency and will continue to hold on to its principles as it has done so for the past 27 years. Thus, our organizations have mutually decided to disagree on these points of principle and consequently, Ecover shall no longer carry the Vegan Trademark. However the Society is happy to let Ecover use existing stocks of packaging printed with our logo.
The Vegan Society assures its members that we will not compromise on our criteria for Trademark registration.
We hope that Ecover will continue to develop non-animal test methods and environmentally sound products which will enable us to work together again in the future.
Als ik het goed begrijp, dan hanteert de vegan society een vaste datum, waarna niet meer op dieren of met dieren getest mag worden, en Ecover gebruikt een termijn van vijf jaar.
In ieder geval voldoet Ecover dus niet meer aan de normen die de vegan society hanteert voor vegan / niet op of met dieren getest.
Over het vloeibaar van ecover was ik niet tevreden: mijn was rook niet fris, dus hier had ik pas sonett vloeibaar wasmiddel gekocht: is plantaardig en niet op dieren getest maar duurder dan ecover. Ze hebben twee produkten die niet plantaardig zijn, nl: de wolkuur, dat lanoline uit schapenwol bevat en de ossengalzeep, die gewonnen word uit biologisch en biodynamisch gehouden runderen. De rest is wel plantaardig, ik had hier onlangs een mailtje over gestuurd naar sonett en heb een deftig antwoord teruggekregen.
