So I have taken some companies off the list.
Royal Talens- why: I wrote to them last year about Ecoline brush pens and inks; I got the information about the products not being tested on animals and no animal ingredients in the products. But why not say “we don’t test on animals” and not just” these products weren’t tested on animals”. So I would have to contact them again for a clearer response; in the meantime I took them off the list. I hope I get a reply though, when I’ll write to them again, because I got no response for my Sakura inquiries this year and in the past. (Royal Talens is the European distributor of Sakura and belongs to Sakura since 1991). Overall I got the vibe that they aren’t interested in offering vegan-friendly art supplies.
Kuretake, why: First I was assured that Kuretake is cruelty-free but then later, I was informed there is a problem due to a language barrier in understanding what cruelty-free/animal testing is and they had to look into this matter. A considerable amount of time has passed and I am none the wiser. So I had to take them off the list; it does not mean they do but, again no clear answer here.
Schmincke: They wrote that they have no information about animal testing through suppliers/ sub-suppliers&raw material suppliers. Although most ingredients used in art supplies have already been tested decades ago, and might not be tested again, this is not certain. Therefore, I decided to take them down.
I always struggle with how far I should go with my definition or whether I should adapt more. In our daily life we come into contact with non-vegan-friendly things and things that might be tested on animals all the time and we don’t even know. I am not talking about medical treatment but things we haven’t thought about, like keyboards, remote controls, cutlery, clothing (the dye used; the pesticides used for cotton)…, basically everything. We just strive to the best of our knowledge, but nobody can be 100% (maybe a hermits, making their own clothes, gathering food, making their own clothes, …)
I don’t always know how to evaluate the information I get. Is it too much to ask for raw-materials not to be tested on animals by suppliers? Some companies (not listed) have no idea on the stance of their suppliers concerning this issue and some even wrote they would contact their suppliers now for the information; others have the knowledge of theirs that they don’t. My inquiry form hasn’t changed, I only structured it better with my information sheet a couple of months ago, but it contains the same definition including animal testing through suppliers.
If materials have already been tested decades ago on animals, why should it be done again today, if the information is already available? I think “no animal testing through suppliers” has to stay part of my inquiry and information sheet.
I just don’t have an explanation why some companies have this knowledge about their suppliers and others, even if they are small businesses, don’t. Do they ask no questions about where the raw materials come from and if they use the safety data sheets from their suppliers, don’t they wonder how the data is collected? Is it the easy way out to say they don’t know, instead of asking questions? Or do they know and don’t want costumers to know? Is it really about not having enough resources to check?
But we have to ask companies those questions, so they start to ask themselves those questions and they have to turn to their suppliers to address this matter.
Source: Mail contact
