RSPCA awards ethical retailers

As if being animal-friendly isn't reward in itself, the RSPCA is now giving out gongs to ethical retailers. Hester Lacey approves

"There are no other awards for animal welfare standards," says David Bowles of the RSPCA. "Retailers consistently say they give consumers what they want, but we feel there is a vacuum here despite public concern. We want to bridge that gap."

To support the new awards, the RSPCA commissioned a Mori survey, which showed a high level of public interest in animal welfare related to retail. In particular, it emphasises that 84 per cent of people asked said that businesses that minimise needless animal suffering should be rewarded.

Yet findings such as this should hardly come as a surprise. The Brits are well-known for being a nation of animal lovers, in theory at least. When asked if, in principle, they support cruelty-free products, there can be few people who'd answer: "No! Let the bunnies, hens and lambkins suffer!" But translating that concern into action is quite another matter.

We have astonishingly little idea how to target our spending towards animal- friendly products. And more than four out of five people (82 per cent) wish that businesses were clearer about their animal welfare policies.

"Our polling shows that consumers are concerned but also confused, particularly when it comes to labelling and information," says Bowles. Award-winners will be awarded the use of a new marque to help consumers identify them as committed to higher welfare standards. Potential winners will be invited to nominate themselves. But the issues that will be judged, says David Bowles, will be the ones that the public have raised with the RSPCA.

"We hope that, when our winners are published, people will ring up and find out why their favourite store didn't appear on the short list."

The independent judges include John Webster, emeritus professor of animal welfare at the University of Bristol, Richard Johnson, presenter of the BBC's Full on Food and Wayne Hemingway, founder of Red or Dead.

"It's high time that some companies took more responsibility for animal welfare," says Hemingway. "Make sure your company is not left in the cold and have a good long think about how you can help create a new industry benchmark."

But why should companies care about creating yet another new set of benchmarks, targets and quotas? Even a veritable flood of entries for the award scheme - however laudable its aims - won't signal a crisis of conscience over animals among British companies. The basic argument is that sellers have to give today's fickle consumers exactly what they want, or valuable customers will vote with their feet. If what buyers want is animal-friendly products, those are the ones that will set the cash tills ringing. The end result in this case is desirable however it's achieved.

But from the retail end, motivation will largely stem (as usual) from profit rather than from principle.

For further information and to download an entry pack, see www.rspcaalternativeawards.org.uk

FOOD

After the Second World War, there was a huge increase in battery farming, which has meant more suffering for hens, pigs and dairy cattle. Chickens, for example, are expected to reach slaughter weight very rapidly: they grow so fast that their legs are unable to support their bodies.

Any progress?

Intensive farming is still widespread, but the Eighties and Nineties saw an increased awareness of animal welfare problems and some improvement of legislation to raise standards. Veal crates, notorious for their cruelty, are now illegal in the UK and will be phased out in the whole of the EU from next year. Battery cages are also being phased out by 2012, though intensive egg production will continue and many welfare experts argue that the new regulations go nowhere near far enough to allow chickens a decent life. Seventy-three per cent of us agree that retailers should use suppliers with a proven animal welfare record

What now?

"We want to see more products in stores that are animal-welfare friendly, produced under quality assurance schemes such as Freedom Food," says the RSPCA's David Bowles. Labelling also needs to be clearer, he says. "Certain one-off restaurants and pubs are already promoting local produce," he adds, "and we're hoping to see that cascade into the chains. It's harder for fast-food outlets; some are moving towards better sourcing but they haven't pushed that message.

"Free range eggs are probably the easiest ingredient to source, but adding meat and fish is the challenge."

BEAUTY

The LD50 test was developed as far back as 1927; in it, groups of animals are dosed with the test substance to determine how large a dose kills half of them. Other tests were developed to assess skin penetration, irritancy, sensitisation and so on. The notorious Draize eye test involves dripping substances into the eyes of rabbits.

Any progress?

Testing cosmetic products on animals has been banned in the UK since 1997. However, some companies have simply moved elsewhere. The EU introduced a six-year phase-out in 2003, at the end of which 25 countries will all be operating under the same conditions, so no single area can grab a sneaky advantage by turning a blind eye to practices that are banned in neighbouring countries. Sixty-nine per cent of us would prefer not to use cosmetics and toiletries that have been tested on animals, and more than a third (37 per cent) believe that it is important for companies to replace animal testing.

What now?

Many global corporations produce and sell in Europe, the US or Japan, where animal testing is still permitted. "We tend to think the battle on cosmetics has been won, but that's not the case," says David Bowles. "These companies spend a lot on development of new products. They need to look into alternatives to testing on animals and channel some of their profits into better research."

Clear labelling is again an issue. "When animal testing is phased out in Europe, companies from outside won't be permitted to sell products tested on animals here," says Bowles. Hopefully, this will mean that some of the global companies decide to fall in with the smaller producers who already eschew animal-tested ingredients. "For consumers, it matters, and these companies want to retain customer loyalty," says Bowles.

FASHION

The obvious issue here is the use of farmed or wild fur. But there are other, less well-known examples of cruel practice. Karakul lamb skin, or astrakhan, is valued for its soft texture, but it is produced by killing a pregnant ewe and removing the developing foetus for its skin.

Any progress?

In the Eighties, there was a huge public backlash against the use of fur and fashion houses responded accordingly. However, it is now staging something of a comeback, though happily fur still has an image problem and 63 per cent of the public feel that celebrities should not wear fur as it sets a bad example. Selfridges' fur department closed down last month. Almost half of us (47 per cent) still believe that where animal products are used for clothes, the animal would have been killed principally for its meat. This isn't necessarily true.

What now?

This is primarily about sourcing, explains David Bowles. Does the company have a policy on cruelty-free sourcing? Does it have an anti-fur stance? Does it only use leather that is a by-product? This doesn't just apply to cow leather but to the skins of crocodiles, snakes and ostriches. There is also the question of sourcing from wild animals: ostriches are mostly farmed, and crocodiles can be too, but the majority of snakeskin comes from animals trapped in the wild.