FAQ - frequenty asked questions
Our print guide has been
out and about since February 2008 and in that time we've had great feedback.
Most has been positive, with most of the major criticisms being from people
who – like us – are committed to 'tangible change' and think that
we haven't gone far enough.
I'm encouraged by people
using the guide, but even more so by people actually asking the questions as
to “why” certain products are rated over others, and giving feedback
in the light of what they know.
Some of the most controversial
areas have been 'Animal Testing' , 'Palm oil', and 'Tuna'.
We're tried to give adequate
responses to these questions and the others that have come to us.
How can you have 'Ethical' supermarket purchases? Isn't this an 'oxymoron'
given the large and generally exploitative practices of supermarkets, especially
in Australia?
-
According to Wikipedia,
ethical consumerism/shopping is: “buying things that are made ethically.
Generally, this means without harm to or exploitation of humans, animals
or the natural environment”. Whether this can ever be achieved by
shopping at a supermarket for goods that are mass produced, as part of a
system where profit is the primary motivator, is of course a key question.
-
It’s worth noting
that the goal of the guide is to reach a mainstream audience with some new
criteria for purchasing their everyday essentials. Many people use the supermarket
and will continue to do so, so we hope to introduce them to some criteria
along side ‘cost’ and ‘convenience’ which are the
primary motivators of most purchases. I’m the first to admit it is
a very ‘light-green’ approach, and we see it as a starting place
for people. I suggest that the way to live more ethically is to start to
engage with the issues one by one, and then changing your behaviour to reflect
a responsible approach. Ultimately this may mean avoiding the supermarket
totally, which would be the ideal – right now it is the place we are
encouraging people to move towards.
-
First step is to ask
“Do I need this product?”
Why have you focussed
on 'company record'? Isn't this just one criteria amongst many? Can you give
a ranking to products based on their features as well as their company track-record?
-
The guide's focus is
on company track record. It's one aspect of the whole picture of a product
that is 'not on the label'. Some of the many criteria to use when seeking
for a more ethical purchase are outlined in the centrespread of the guide
(and here) and throughout
it as information blurbs.
-
We’d love to
more comprehensively cover products and their features, and this is the
goal of the wider project. However this is a large task given the huge amount
of products – each with various features. We’ve sought to address
this with the ‘Outstanding product features’ star – giving
a preference; and also pointed out common features for products types. We’re
looking for people who are interested in helping in the expansion of the
content of the project.
Isn't the rating
system ( tick-swish-cross-boycott ) a little simplistic? The guide relies on
information from secondary sources, which may be incompatible with each other
-
It’s a very simple
rating system. In assisting to make a choice, we recommend avoiding from
companies with a negative record, and then choosing the best of those left.
At the most basic level we are simply trying to give people a way of making
a preference. It could be said that such a comparison is comparing ‘apples’
with ‘oranges’, however we encourage users to follow the links
to the sources themselves, and make up their own minds. We are working on
a system to allow users to choose the sources used and so ‘customise’
the rating to match what they value.
-
Unfortunately some
large companies seem to rate well, given their resources to put in place
sustainability measures. This is a distinct limitation of the methodology.
We would recommend buying from smaller, local businesses in preference to
larger foreign owned ones.
What is your definition
of “Australian Owned?
-
Our definition of
‘Australian owned’ is more than 50% owned by Australian based
organisations. This is related to where the company is registered and where
they pay tax. Australian based subsidiaries of foreign owned companies are
not ‘Australian-owned’. By supporting Australian owned businesses
over foreign-owned, we channel money into the local (Australian) economy
rather than overseas. This supports infrastructure here. Additionally operations
in Australia are more likely to conform to requirements for fair wages and
conditions.
What is your criteria for including products in on the website?
There
is some ambiguitiy about the companies who test on animals and those that do
not test on animals. How do you choose which companies are criticised for testing
on animals?
We use 2 key resources for animal testing criticisms:
- PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a US animal rights organisation,
have a 'Companies that Do' and “Companies that Dont' list found here
search.caringconsumer.com
- Uncaged
Campaign, a UK based anti-vivisection (anti-animal testing) not-for-profit
organisation has a guide to companies involved in animal testing here: www.uncaged.co.uk/animaltesting.htm
There are some inconsistencies
between these sources, and this is partly due to the line drawn for animal testing.
More specifically, Beiersdorf, Colgate and PZ
Cussons are listed as 'companies that test on animals themselves or pay researchers
to carry out animal tests on their behalf' by Uncaged, yet PETA don't mention
them at all. We have given these companies criticisms for animal testing.
Some other companies are included on
PETA's cruelty free shopping list, while Uncaged list them as companies
who claim their products are ‘not tested on animals’ yet
still source ingredients that have been animal-tested for use in these
products. Examples include Revlon, Estee Lauder and Avon. We
have not given these companies criticisms for animal testing.
There
seems to be the following distinctions between company claims:
- No claim (likely to be animal
tested)
- None of our products
are tested on animals.
- None of our products, or ingredients
are tested on animals, and no testing is done on our behalf.
Our
understanding is that there is presently there is no legal requirement for companies
to test their personal care and household products on animals before selling
them to consumers. There is however a requirement that these products can be
assured as safe for human use. (There is a legal requirement for some pharmaceutical
products to be tested on animals.)
Although
non-animal test methods have proved to be more reliable and less expensive than
animal tests in most cases, some companies still test to defend themselves against
possible consumer lawsuits.
In
the European Union an official ban on animal testing for cosmetic products came
into place in 2009. Six years prior, beauty companies were encouraged to start
finding alternative methods to the cruel animal tests of the past without compromising
consumer safety. The new regulations prohibit any further testing of ingredients
on animals, and also prohibit the sale of any final product that contains ingredients
that were tested on animals. Choose Cruelty Free have a campaign to see similar
legislation introduced in Australia www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/stoptesting.html
Note:
Animal testing is legal in Australia but there are laws to ensure the protection
of animal welfare. The National
Health and Medical Research Council’s Code of Practice for the Care and
Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes is the basis for all practices and
procedures in Australia. "The code ensures that animal testing is: valid,
humane, justifiable and considerate" (from
www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Animal_testing.aspx)
Our
position: We have given a cross to companies that still engage in animal
testing if they are listed as testing on one of the two lists cited above. Exceptions
to this are if companies have publicly declared that they are phasing out testing
and that it is deemed 'necessary and required by law'. This is a difficult call.
We have based our judgment on the information available and encourage you to
evaluate the information for yourself
See the Environmental
Working Group's position, that explains the complexities well.
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/faq.php#10
I
heard product 'X' product contains palm oil. Why do they still get a tick?
Due to inadequate labeling
laws and a lack of comprehensive information on which products contain palm
oil, we don't give criticisms for palm oil use.
It is not always easy to identify products with palm oil. Under
Food Standards Australia New Zealand requirements, it is sufficient to have
vegetable oil in the list of ingredients on the packet, even though the product
contains palm oil. As a rule of thumb, if the saturated fat content is about
50%, there is a good chance that the vegetable oil will in fact be palm oil.
If we added criticisms for all companies who had palm oil in
their products, almost every company would get a cross, making it difficult
to distinguish between companies on other issues. (For example in margarines,
Melrose is the only one that does not have a palm oil derivative).
The only assessment source we use currently in respect to palm
oil is a WWF (World Wildlife Fund) report that rates companies relating to their
commitments to, and actions on, responsible purchasing of palm oil. You can
see the scorecard for European companies here
and Australian companies here.
WWF's Palm
Oil fact sheets includes this:
Q.
How do I know if my product contains sustainable palm
oil?
A.
The simple answer at the moment is... you don't!
The
best resource for finding products that don't contain palm oil is the
'Helping you buy responsibly' section on the BOS Australia website at www.orangutans.com.au
Find
out more about the RSPO (Roundtable
on Sustainable Palm Oil) and its signatories, including Unilever, H.J. Heinz,
Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson and Cadbury. See more.
Note that the RSPO has been criticised by many groups including Friends
of the Earth as a way to make the palm oil industry look 'responsible' or 'sustainable'
without actually reducing deforestation. “...it does not halt the
expansion of damaging oil palm plantations and it does not benefit local communities.
Basically it fails to deal with the causes of the palm oil problems”
- Friends
of the Earth International Agrofuels Campaign Coordinator Torry Kuswardono
from Indonesia.
The brands listed as 'most sustainable'
in the Greenpeace Canned Tuna Guide are different from those recommended in
your guide. How can I make sense of this?
The
inconsistency here is because our ratings are for the company, whereas Greenpeace
are rating by brand. The Greenpeace
Canned Tuna Guide was released after the 2010 Guide to Ethical Supermarket
Shopping. Personally
we'd recommend you don't buy tuna at all.
The
Australian
Marine Conservation Society guide suggests four fish types to look
for as more sustainable:
- Whiting
(over dory)
- Bream
(over flake)
- Flathead
(over redfish)
- Calamari
(over scallops)
If
you must buy tuna we suggest you refer to the Greenpeace Canned Tuna Guide and
write or email the companies with tuna brands you are avoiding to tell them
why you're not buying their product anymore. You can email them from the company
pages.
