” The idea of dressing up as a shepherd seemed more promising to the wolf than the one with the sheepskin.”
…an idea is as good as its implementation
Regards and good night, Venus
” The idea of dressing up as a shepherd seemed more promising to the wolf than the one with the sheepskin.”
…an idea is as good as its implementation
Regards and good night, Venus
Climate change: 2020 set to be one of the three warmest years on record
The Earth continued to endure a period of significant heating in 2020 according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Its provisional assessment suggests this year will be one of the three hottest, just behind 2016 and 2019.
The warmest six years in global records dating back to 1850 have now all occurred since 2015.
The most notable warmth was in the Siberian Arctic, where temperatures were 5C above average.
To work out the annual rise in temperatures for their State of the Climate report, the WMO uses information from five different global datasets.
They then compare modern readings to temperatures taken between 1850-1900. This baseline figure is sometimes referred to as pre-industrial levels.
With data available from January to October this year, the WMO says 2020 is set to be around 1.2C above the baseline, but with a margin of error of 0.1C.
All five datasets currently have 2020 as the second warmest, behind 2016 and ahead of 2019, based on comparisons with similar periods in previous years.
However the expectation from scientists is that the temperature data from November and December will likely see enough cooling to push 2020 into third spot.
That’s because a La Niña weather event has developed in the Pacific Ocean and this normally depresses temperatures.
Despite this, the WMO is certain that 2020 will remain one of the warmest three.
“Record warm years have usually coincided with a strong El Niño event, as was the case in 2016,” said Prof Petteri Taalas, WMO Secretary General.
“We are now experiencing a La Niña, which has a cooling effect on global temperatures, but has not been sufficient to put a brake on this year’s heat.”
These relatively similar global temperature figure recorded over the past few years hide considerable differences at local level.
In 2020, Siberia saw temperatures around 5C above average, which culminated in a reading of 38C at Verkhoyansk on the 20th June, which is provisionally the highest known temperature recorded anywhere north of the Arctic Circle.
January to October was also the warmest such period on record in Europe.
But some places were below average including parts of Canada, Brazil, India and Australia.
Overall though the 2020 figure reinforces the view that climate warming, driven by human activities is persisting. The decade from 2011 to 2020 is the warmest yet recorded.
The majority of the excess heat generated from warming gases in the atmosphere ends up in the oceans.
This is putting added strain on the seas, with around 80% of global waters experiencing at least one marine heatwave this year. These events, similar to heatwaves on land, see prolonged exposure to high temperatures which can have devastating impacts on marine creatures and ecosystems.
A long-running heatwave off the coast of California, known as “the blob”, was said to have killed up to a million seabirds in 2015-16.
Researchers say that these events have become more than 20 times more frequent over the past 40 years.
“About 90% of the heat accumulating within the climate system from anthropogenic climate change is stored in the ocean,” said Prof John Church from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
“This latest update from WMO clearly shows the oceans are continuing to warm, and at an accelerating rate, contributing to sea-level rise. This means climate change has significant momentum committing us to further change over the coming decades.”
The WMO says that warming continues to drive melting in many parts of the world, including Greenland where around 152 billion tonnes of ice was lost from the ice sheet in the year to August 2020.
There were 30 named storms during the North Atlantic hurricane season, breaking the record for the number of such events. As well as record numbers, new evidence suggested that hurricanes get stronger when they hit land because of rising temperatures.
Other impacts noted by the WMO this year included wildfires in Siberia, Australia and along the US West Coast and South America, which saw plumes of smoke circumnavigate the globe.
Floods in Africa and South East Asia displaced large numbers of people and undermined food security for millions.
The findings of the WMO report won’t come as a surprise to most observers.
“The state of the global climate? Parlous,” said Prof Dave Reay from University of Edinburgh, UK.
“These annual updates of deteriorating planetary health always make for bleak reading; this year’s is a full red alert. Surging heat, intensifying droughts and rampant wildfires all speak of the acute impacts of climate change in 2020. They also warn of the chronic undermining of global carbon sinks – the oceans, trees and soils around the world – that is underway.
“Throw yet more emissions and warming at them and they will rip the Paris climate goals from our grasp forever. The year ahead will be defined by our recovery from Covid-19, the centuries ahead will be defined by how green that recovery actually is.”
Environmental campaigners say the report adds urgency to calls for the recovery, post-Covid, to focus on climate change and the environment.
“Although the pandemic will have been the biggest concern to many people in the developed world in 2020, for millions in climate vulnerable places the climate emergency remains the biggest threat and sadly there is no simple vaccine to fix the climate. But keeping fossil fuels in the ground would be a good start,” said Dr Kat Kramer, from Christian Aid.
“These findings show just how important it is to ensure the government’s economic recovery measures don’t entrench the fossil fuel economy but act to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon world.”
According to a new report from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), climate change is now the biggest threat to the most important world heritage sites.
The IUCN says that 83 such sites are now threatened by rising temperatures, including the Great Barrier Reef where ocean warming, acidification and extreme weather have all contributed to a dramatic decline.
It has been rated as having a “critical” outlook for the first time.
Guest commentary by Daniela Schneider: (She is the campaign manager for animal transports at the animal rights organization “Four paws Germany” based in Hamburg).
“Eyes wide open in panic, cattle shivering with exhaustion, huddled together and carted for days without a break in high-risk states such as Uzbekistan, Morocco, or Algeria under animal welfare law: Everyday torment of animals – even on German roads.
But instead of ending this ordeal, Agriculture Minister Germany`s Klöckner is not only inactive in this country.
It also misses the chance of the German EU Council Presidency to stop cruel animal transports across the EU.
If animal transports are dispatched from Germany to these third countries, this is almost always done in disregard of the applicable animal protection regulations.
“Four Paws” has therefore filed 21 criminal charges against those responsible on suspicion of aiding and abetting animal cruelty. Although almost all federal states have ensured that far fewer third-country exports are approved, transporters unscrupulously circumvent the applicable requirements.
The animals are first brought to other EU countries such as Hungary and then shipped on to third countries.
Instead of leaving the federal states alone as before, the minister should create nationwide uniform legislation that ensures that animals can no longer enter third countries. That would be an important first step and a strong signal in the direction of the EU.
Because the problem is a European one.
Only through an EU-wide ban on third-country exports and a limitation of transports to eight hours will the cruel animal transports actually end.
Together with us, 150,000 citizens are calling for this in a letter of protest to the minister.
Alternatives to the senseless death drives must become standard. If at all, only meat and breeding seeds should be transported instead of living animals.
Against the background of blatant animal welfare problems and a worsening climate crisis, the question arises why animals are “produced” on a massive scale and transported across the world like goods”.
And I mean…Around 3.8 million animals are transported every day in the EU alone. That’s 1.4 billion animals a year.
As in all branches of the economy, animal transport is all about money: animals are transported to where the highest profits await. In the agricultural industry, work steps are separated: breeding, keeping, and fattening are concentrated where feed and wage costs are low.
For example, animals are born in Denmark, fattened in Germany, and finally slaughtered in Italy.
An EU animal welfare transport regulation EC 1/2005 applies throughout the EU.
Why animal transport laws don’t protect animals?
First and foremost because there is no time limit for animal transport. The animals are often on the move for days, sometimes even weeks, because there is no time limit for the transports.
On the other hand, because the EU regulation contains a large number of imprecise provisions that are always interpreted to the detriment of animals in practice.
Not even the few regulations that exist are observed: Serious deficiencies are found in around a third of the controlled transports.
Basically, food, litter, and drinking water are saved, because additional weight means higher transport costs.
And there is also a third reason for the meat industry and its lobbyists in Brussels to stick to live animal transports: The transport of live animals is still cheaper than transporting meat, which has to be permanently refrigerated.
And that is why the cruelty to animals on Europe’s roads never ends.
For a decisive change in the problem, one can forget about the EU.
Only civil society can change something – and it is developing into a new historical subject that even functions without a party program.
My best regards to all, Venus
Photo – Getty Images.
Farm animals antibiotics data raises post-Brexit trade fears
Use of antibiotics on farms in US and Canada about five times the UK level, says report
The overuse of antibiotics on farm animals is rife in some of the key countries with which the UK is hoping to strike a post-Brexit trade deal, a new report shows, raising fears that future deals will jeopardise public health and British farming.
The US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all allow farmers to feed antibiotics routinely to livestock to make them grow faster, and in the US and Canada farm antibiotic use is about five times the level in the UK, data compiled by the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics shows.
Meat produced in this way is cheaper, because the animals grow faster and can be kept in overcrowded conditions. But the meat is soon to be banned in the EU, for safety and public health reasons.
Antibiotic use in cattle in the US is about seven times that in the UK, and in pigs twice as high, according to the report. In Australia, the use of antibiotics in poultry is more than 16 times higher than in the UK, and use in pigs about three times higher.
Farm antibiotic use has risen in the US, Canada and New Zealand in recent years, and in Australia was rising in 2010, the latest year for which full data was available. Some of the drugs used are also problematic: the growth promoter bacitracin is used in the US, despite scientific evidence that it increases resistance to an antibiotic of last resort called colistin, used to treat life-threatening infections in people.
Cóilín Nunan, scientific adviser to the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, said: “Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, and we need to raise standards around the world to prevent it increasing. These free-trade agreements need to take that into account.”
Overusing antibiotics on farm animals gives rise to resistant forms of bacteria, known as superbugs, which can have devastating consequences for human health. Meat infected with resistant bacteria can directly cause infections in people, and can also contribute to a more general rise in people’s resistance to antibiotic treatments.
British farmers also face the prospect of being undercut by imports of cheaply produced antibiotic-treated meat, which could reduce welfare standards in the UK, as farmers will be forced to stock their animals more densely to cut costs and compete with floods of cheap imports.
“UK producers will be forced to compete by reducing costs, which means larger numbers of animals in worse conditions, which means an increase in the use of antibiotics,” said Nunan. “Any new trade deals must not undermine British standards and threaten public health by allowing cheap meat and dairy produced with antibiotic growth promoters into the UK.”
Medical experts are increasingly worried about the rapid rise of antibiotic resistance around the world, which could leave us defenceless against common diseases, and make routine operations such as caesarean sections or hip replacements potentially fatal. Antibiotics are used far more on animals than on people around the world, but moves to curb their use have been rejected by the powerful farming lobbies in many countries.
Antibiotic use is more tightly controlled in the EU than elsewhere, and the use of the drugs as a growth promoter has been banned since 2006. In the UK, the use of antibiotics in farming has been broadly falling in the last half decade, to about half the levels of 2014, though there was a slight uptick last year.
In just over a year’s time, from January 2022, stricter EU rules will ban the import of meat treated routinely with antibiotics as a growth promoter, and ban all preventive antibiotic mass medication of livestock. The UK is unlikely to sign up to this ban.
The government has repeatedly said that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef would continue to be banned from the UK after Brexit, after widespread concern about food standards in future trade deals. However, food and farming experts have pointed out that this still leaves the door open to hundreds of other forms of food and agricultural products that are currently restricted under EU safety rules, and under current processes many of these could be quietly signed into legal acceptance without public scrutiny.
Nunan called the forthcoming EU regulations “a huge step forward” and called on ministers to adopt them in the UK. “The UK government should commit to implementing the same ban [on preventive mass medication], as relying on voluntary action is not a sustainable approach for the long term. It should also ensure that trade deals set high standards for imports to protect human health and avoid undercutting British standards.”
A government spokesperson said: “This government has been clear that we will not compromise on our world-leading environmental protections, animal welfare and food standards.
“The UK already prohibits the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported products – and this will continue after the transition period. We will also continue to operate robust controls on the medicines that can be used for all animals, including food-producing ones, to protect animal and human health and the environment.”
‘I hope you’ll respond by banning fur farms in Denmark, which would protect public health and spare countless animals miserable lives and violent deaths’
Celebrity actor and vegan advocate Pamela Anderson is urging the Danish Prime Minister to ban fur.
The Baywatch star’s demand follows multiple COVID-19 outbreaks on mink fur farms across Europe and the States. Moreover, the COVID-19 mink variant found on a Danish fur far could spark a new coronavirus pandemic, experts warn.
Anderson has therefore written Mette Frederiksen a letter, saying ‘now is the time for action’.
She wrote: “Like many people around the globe, I was alarmed to hear that a new, mutated strain of the novel coronavirus—one that could have ‘devastating consequences worldwide’ as you rightly pointed out—has been found in minks on Danish fur farms and that this strain has infected several humans.
“I hope you’ll respond by banning fur farms in Denmark, which would protect public health and spare countless animals miserable lives and violent deaths.”
Anderson continues, describing fur as ‘out of favor’ even before the current pandemic. She says most designers and retailers such as Prada, Gucci and Ralph Lauren have already banned mink fur.
“Now is the time for action,” the star added. “Please, for everyone’s sake, ban [these] cruel, dangerous fur farms.”
You can read the full letter here
WAV Comment – we have still not had a reply from the Danish Ambassador in London when we wrote to him on the same issue recently.
Here is the link to our letter info:
BAA BAA BREXIT
MINISTERS will begin the abolition of cruel live animal shipments tomorrow — a ban only made possible by Brexit.
Under strict European Union Single Market rules that guarantee free movement of goods, no member state can ban livestock being transported across borders alive.
But with Britain finally cutting ties with Brussels in 29 days time, the controversial process will be outlawed to the delight of campaigners.
Boris Johnson has repeatedly vowed to use the “the opportunity of Brexit” to “champion animal welfare” and will unveil plans for new legislation on Thursday.
In 2018 Mr Johnson hit out: “I cannot believe that this barbaric trade is still going on — but it is. Every year this country sends thousands of live calves overseas for slaughter, and some of them are enduring nightmare journeys as far as North Africa.
“They are jammed together in the dark. They are terrified. They slip and slide in their own excrement as the boats buck in the swell.”
Then a backbencher, he wrote in The Sun: “They travel for more than 100 hours in conditions of such extreme discomfort that campaigners have been protesting for decades.
“The animals know they are going to die — and they are going to die far from home.”
The Sun can reveal the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs are to reveal the ban plan to the farming industry, launching a formal consultation on Thursday.
Last night a No 10 source said: “The Prime Minster has always been a passionate supporter of animal welfare, and as part of his plans to build back better and fairer, he is determined to make sure that the UK continues its proud tradition of protecting animals.
The insider added: “Free from EU red tape, we can now do away with the cruel practice of exporting live animals for slaughter and fattening – setting an example to other countries with our world-leading standards.”
Yesterday talks between the EU and the UK over a post-Brexit trade deal continued.
Animal protection organisations and cosmetics brands defend animal testing bans
2 December 2020
This morning, close to 500 brands and animal protection organisations sent an open letter to the EU Parliament, Commission and Council calling on them to uphold the cosmetics regulation bans.
The animal testing and marketing bans included in the EU Cosmetics Regulation have been used as the gold standard around the world: setting the precedent for products and ingredients to be sold without subjecting animals to cruel tests. These bans have now been dealt a devastating blow following a series of decisions taken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), with support from the European Commission and the ECHA Board of Appeal.
ECHA’s decision totally contradicts the European Parliament’s call in May 2018 for a worldwide ban on testing cosmetics on animals by 2023. ECHA is now requiring some widely used cosmetics ingredients to be tested on thousands of animals to be in line with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation (REACH). This undermines the purpose and value of the EU Cosmetics Regulation, and it could also impact non-EU countries, potentially compromising the legislative development of their own animal testing bans.
One of the principal objectives of the Cosmetics Regulation is the protection of human health, with the intention that this be safeguarded in all situations. The ingredients at the centre of ECHA’s decisions have a long history of safe use by consumers and have been handled safely in factories for many years. It is perfectly possible to use exposure-based weight-of-evidence assessments, employing a variety of non-animal data, to fill any perceived critical information gaps.
The EU ambitions for chemical safety cannot be addressed with more animal testing. The Commission’s future policy for chemicals regulation – the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability – is set to greatly expand testing requirements for cosmetics and other chemicals. Animal-free safety assessment approaches will be an absolute necessity to guarantee the safety of humans, animals and the environment under the goals of the EU Green Deal.
“At a time where we clearly need concerted actions and strategies to move towards more effective and humane science, it is disappointing to see the only historical ban on animal tests being shredded. We hope the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council do everything in their power to uphold the will of the public and enforce the animal testing ban for cosmetics. Moreover, it is high time for the Commission to lead the way towards human-relevant science and formulate a strategy to phase out the use of animals for other testing purposes, research and education in all scientific areas” commented Reineke Hamelleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals.
The open letter and list of signatories can be downloaded here.
Letter and signatories:
To: David Maria Sassoli, President, European Parliament
Charles Michel, President, European Council
Ursula von der Leyen, President, European Commission
Cosmetics Animal Testing Ban Effectively Shredded
The EU Cosmetics Regulation animal testing and marketing bans have been used as the gold
standard around the world – setting the precedent for cosmetics products and ingredients to be
used safely without subjecting animals to cruel and unnecessary tests. These bans have now been
dealt a devastating blow following a series of regulatory decisions made by the European
Chemicals Agency (ECHA), with support from the European Commission and ECHA’s own
Board of Appeal.
ECHA is now requiring some widely used cosmetics ingredients (and ingredients used in many
other types of consumer products) to be tested on thousands of animals under the guise of the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. As a
direct result of these decisions, the use of thousands of rats and rabbits in tests is required, some
of whom will be force-fed a cosmetics ingredient throughout pregnancy before they and their
unborn offspring are killed and dissected. REACH must not be used to circumvent the Cosmetics
Regulation and render the cosmetics testing and marketing bans meaningless.
The approach of ECHA and the Commission is at odds with the European Parliament’s call in
May 2018 for a worldwide ban on testing cosmetics on animals by 2023. It undermines the
purpose and value of the Cosmetics Regulation, which many of us have worked determinedly
over many years to shape, implement, and leverage with non-EU countries in developing their
own cosmetics legislation. The approach also has consequences for citizens around the globe
who want to purchase cruelty-free products: 84% of respondents to a recent global survey said
they would not buy a cosmetics product if they knew it (or one of its ingredients) had been tested
The bans are further threatened by the Commission’s future policy for chemicals regulation – the
Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability – which is set to expand testing requirements for
substances including cosmetics ingredients, at the cost of potentially thousands of animals’ lives.
One of the principal objectives of the Cosmetics Regulation is the protection of human health,
with the intention that this be safeguarded in all situations. The ingredients at the centre of
ECHA’s decisions have a long history of safe use by consumers and have been handled safely in
factories for many years. It is perfectly possible to use exposure-based weight-of-evidence
assessments, using a variety of non-animal data, to fill any perceived critical information gaps in
order to be assured of the safety of these ingredients.
Indeed, as clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the 2016 European
Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients case, new safety-assessment data for cosmetics substances
imported into the EU must rely only on non-animal assessment methods. Logically, precisely the
same approach must be adopted for testing within the EU, whether under REACH or any other
We, the undersigned, call for the EU cosmetics animal testing ban to be upheld as intended, with
no new tests on animals allowed.
1 Frame. Fact or fiction? Mapping perceptions of animal testing. https://frame.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/FRAME-report_final.pdf. Published June 2020. Accessed 13 November 2020.
Can they ignore this ?
24K Cosmetics ADDA, Spain
28 Litsea ANIMAL, Portugal
4organic Animalia, Finland
Abela Animals Without Borders, Croatia
Above Beyond Group Ltd Cruelty Free Europe
actiMare natural cosmetics Cruelty Free International
AD skin synergy Diervriendelijk Nederland
Adesse New York EcoVegAnimals, Bosnia
Aesop Eurogroup for Animals
Agilise Cosméticos European Coalition to End Animal Experiments
All About Good Vibes GAIA, Belgium
Alter-Native Humane Society International
Alucia Organics LAV, Italy
Alvend Laboratoire Menschen für Tierrechte – Bundesverband –
Amanda Murray NYC der Tierversuchsgegner e.V.*
Aqua Natural (*People for Animal Rights – German Association –
Aqua Natural Ltd. Against Vivisection)
Arctic Fox PETA Australia
AREU AREU PETA Deutschland e.V.
Argital PETA France
ARTONIT Cosmetics PETA Nederland
Assured Products Ltd. PETA UK
Astonish PETA US
Aurelia Probiotic Skincare SAFRIreland
Aurelia Skincare Ltd Stichting Proefdiervrij
Ava May Aromas Svoboda Zvířat, Czech Republic
Awake Organics Ltd.
BareFaced Beauty Ltd.
Beauty Kitchen UK Ltd
Beauty Without Cruelty
Bee Good Enterprises Ltd.
Bellapierre Cosmetics Ltd.
Better Health Ltd.
Black Dahlia Lacquer
Black Sheep Organics
Body & Face St Cyrus
Body & Face St Cyrus Ltd
Bolt Beauty Limited
Bo-Po Nailpolish (Worx Toys)
Bramley Products Ltd.
Capure Goat Milk Soap
Cemon Homeopathics Ltd
CHEMEXC S de RL
Chemical Manufacturing and
Exporting Company S de RL
Chez Lapin Goods
Childs Farm Ltd
Clean Beauty Distribution
Cool & Nature M32 SL
Corinne Taylor Holistic
Crane + Wilton Ltd
Crystal Spring Consumer
Cultivator Natural Products
Day Lily Paris
Della e Delle
Designer Lashes UK
Doers of London
Doers Skincare Limited
Dr Jackson Limited
Dr. Jacobs Naturals
E Beauty Ltd.
Earth Conscious Ltd
Eco Chic Chick
Eleni & Chris
ELLIS FAAS Cosmetics
Eloise Hall Ltd.
Emeis Holdings Pty Ltd
Emma Hardie Ltd
Endemic Biotech S.L.
EXQUISITE Luxury Ltd
Extraordinarios Luxo Natural
Faith in Nature Ltd.
FatFace UK Ltd
FFS Beauty Ltd.
Floral Street Fragrance
For Your Nails Only
Forest Herbs Research
Friendly Soap Ltd.
Fuchsia Brands Pty Ltd
Funky Soap Shop Ltd
Fushi Wellbeing Ltd
Fusion Body Art
Gaia Skincare Limited
GEL.IT.UP by GIUP®
Comercial Integral Navalon SL
GHS Direct Ltd
Girls with Attitude
Green Beauty Cosmetics
Green Beaver Company
Hanaei Beauty Company
Happy Carrot Skincare Ltd
Here We Flo
Hibisco cosmetica natural
Home and Body Company
I AM Cosmetic
IC Scandinavia AS
Ikeda Group Pte Ltd
Imperial Bioscience Ltd
Inari Skincare Ltd.
Inlight Beauty & Wellness
InovAir Ltd (“Pairfum”)
Institut Claude Bell
Internet Café-BG Ltd.
J Bloom Cosmetics
Jessica Laura Organics Ltd.
JL Cosmetica Natural
Julie Clarke Candles
Karma Organic Spa
Kiss the Moon Ltd
Kit and Kin
Koh Australia Pty Ltd
Kokoro Beauty and Lashes
Kri Skincare Ltd
La petite main
Laber Organic Cosmetics
Lanolips Pty Ltd
Laura Sanchez Makeup
Leac de un Veac
Les Happy Curiennes
Li Cosmetic AG
Lisa Nail Lacquer
Little Danube Limited
Little Soap Company
Lock Stock & Barrel
Grooming Co Ltd
Look Fabulous Forever
Loopy Products Limited
Love Beauty & Planet
Love Henri Ltd
Love Home & Planet
Lucy Bee Ltd
Lukasz Romuk Wodoracki t/a
Ma Sista Stuff
Made for Life Organics
Made in Youthland
Maison de Navar
Mama Zebra Cosmetics
Marie Hunter Beauty
Mark Birch Trichlogist
Marks & Spencer PLC
Mary Jean Limited
Melchior & Balthazar
Mervue Natural Skincare
Milton Keynes Products
Molton Brown Limited
Moss & Adams
Myrtle & Maude Ltd.
Natroma & The Natural
Natura Cosméticos S/A
Natural by Nature Oils Ltd
Naturally Tribal Skincare Ltd
Nature Knows Best
Nazan Schnapp GmbH
Neal’s Yard (Natural
Neo Make Up
New Look Cosmetics
Organic and Nature
Pai Skincare Ltd.
Pamoja Skincare Ltd
Passion Cosmetics Paris
Patricia Deleon Cosmetics
Pet Revolution Ltd
PHB Ethical Beauty Ltd
Phil Smith Be Gorgeous
Phil Smith Be Gorgeous Ltd
Poppy’s Natural Skincare
Power Health Products
Power Health Products Ltd
Power Pets Brands
Pure Argan Co Ltd
Pure Chemistry S.A.S.
Pure Essence Collection Ltd
Ren Clean Skincare
Rhug Organic & Natural Ltd
Rhug Wild Beauty
Royal Tara Giftware Limited
SAHARA International Group
Salt of the Earth
SAMAYA Ayurveda Limited
Sana Jardin Limited
Sanoll Biokosmetik GmbH
Sasy n Savy
Saving Face Limited
Shea Shea Bakery
Sister & Co. Skin Food
Skin Sapiens Ltd.
Spiezia Organics Ltd
Sugar Coated Ltd
The 7 Virtues
The Aftercare Company
The Beauty of Eczema
The Bio-D Company Ltd
The Body & Face Place
The Body Shop
The Co-Operative Group
The Dartmoor Skincare
The Good Garden
The Good Stuff
The Green People Company
The Konjac Sponge Company
The London Oil Refining
The Naissance Trading &
Innovation Co. Ltd.
The Natural Barber Co.
The Perfume Laboratory
The Pure Collection
The Victorian Garden OrganicSkincare
Total Solutions Inc
TRUE Skincare Limited
Two Orchards Ltd
Ultra Glow Cosmetics Ltd
Vegan Beauty Care
Velvet & Sweet Pea’s
Ville de Fleurs
Wax Melts International
White Rabbit Skincare Ltd.
Wild & Wolf
Wilde Beauty Limited
You & Oil
Zoya Goes Pretty