Kent in a bowl . . .

[Rev-O]

. . . so I go into T K Maxx and there's a BNIB Kent soap in a lovely wooden. Soap all wrapped up and says in front "No animals were harmed in the manufacture of this product."

Flip over and top of the list of ingredients . . . sodium tallowate.

??????????

Henk! Help!

 

[joe mcclaine]

. . . so I go into T K Maxx and there's a BNIB Kent soap in a lovely wooden. Soap all wrapped up and says in front "No animals were harmed in the manufacture of this product."

Flip over and top of the list of ingredients . . . sodium tallowate.

??????????

Henk! Help!

I raised the same point on SMF about a month ago.

I think they mean no animals were harmed specifically to produce that soap. The Tallow is a by product of the food industry and the lanolin is obtained from wool without hurting sheep.

 

[IanM]

Vinny is right. No animals are killed purely to obtain tallow, it is a by-product.

Badger hair is a different story...

Ian

 

[Flatfish]

There is about to be a badger cull in my area.
When asked about my views on the cull I reply with "I have no opinion on the cull, but I do know that badgers make nice shaving brushes". So far I've not been hit.
If the cull goes ahead, do you think the hair will be used? I bet man being man will waste this fine resource.

 

[henkverhaar]

. . . so I go into T K Maxx and there's a BNIB Kent soap in a lovely wooden. Soap all wrapped up and says in front "No animals were harmed in the manufacture of this product."

Flip over and top of the list of ingredients . . . sodium tallowate.

??????????

Henk! Help!

While it is possible to make a product that would be indistinguishable from tallowate using purely vegetable sources, the use of the term tallowate implies that animal fats were used. I also am pretty sure that formally, you can only put a statement concerning harmed animals on your product if that is absolutely, totally true, which, however you look at it, it is not for a soap containing tallowate. The term is usually used referring to animal testing, and thus usually reads that no animals were harmed in the testing of said product.

Methinks that the label was designed by someone with no idea about the cosmetics industry -- wanting to do his competitors one better, he/she specified 'manufacturing' rather than just 'testing', without having the faintest idea that many cosmetics ingredients actually come from agricultural sources...

Henk

 

[Rev-O]

I thought was a by-product of the tallow industry.

 

[henkverhaar]

Of course it is. No cows are slaughtered explicitly for producing tallow for making soap -- but in order to get the tallow, the cow HAD to be slaughtered so, as far as my interpretation of the EU rules goes (yes, there are rules regulating what and how you can mention on your label whether animals weren't harmed), you are not allowed to proclaim that no animals were hurt in manufacturing if your ingredients can only be retrieved from dead animals...

Henk

 

[joe mcclaine]

Of course it is. No cows are slaughtered explicitly for producing tallow for making soap -- but in order to get the tallow, the cow HAD to be slaughtered so, as far as my interpretation of the EU rules goes (yes, there are rules regulating what and how you can mention on your label whether animals weren't harmed), you are not allowed to proclaim that no animals were hurt in manufacturing if your ingredients can only be retrieved from dead animals...

Henk

Ooops.

 

[rangers62]

Of course it is. No cows are slaughtered explicitly for producing tallow for making soap -- but in order to get the tallow, the cow HAD to be slaughtered so, as far as my interpretation of the EU rules goes (yes, there are rules regulating what and how you can mention on your label whether animals weren't harmed), you are not allowed to proclaim that no animals were hurt in manufacturing if your ingredients can only be retrieved from dead animals...

Henk

Ooops.

Maybe the cows had liposuction!