If you decide you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, we will be so sorry to see you go, but please simply 'unsubscribe' at the bottom. Thank you

Follow us on Twitter @beautywithoutcr for short updates and info!

We are happy to announce we have connected with a new on-line supplier and BWC hoodies, jackets, tees, cookbooks, bumper stickers are available, exclusively from Unicorn Cafe; Order from today, after you browse and see what else she has for you on the website   See BWC choices and more jackets and hoodies here R99 courier throughout South Africa.

We apologise for the lack of recent updates, technical problems were the order of the day. Please see our facebook page for what's been happening. 


This BWC initiative has resulted in our ability to share this important information with you, which has already been submitted to the Speaker; Part of the letter submitted to the Speaker and Memo on Animal Protection Bill, which addresses ANIMAL SENTIENCE, COSMETIC TESTING and changing the use of the word DESTROY to EUTHANIZE when referring to the merciful killing of animals.

We are most grateful to Cheryllyn Dudley, parliamentarian and Member of the National Assembly of South Africa, and her team, for their invaluable assistance in this matter. 
Cameron JA in a minority judgment in the case of NCSPCA v Openshaw [2008] ZASCA 78 noted that the Animal Protection Act, 1962 may not be conferring rights on animals, but it is designed to promote their welfare and it recognises that animals are sentient beings that are capable of suffering and of experiencing pain. In the case of Lemthongthai v S [2014] ZASCA 131, Navsa ADP (as he then was) reminded us that “the duty resting on us to protect and conserve our biodiversity is owed to present and future generations. In so doing, we will also be redressing past neglect. Constitutional values dictate a more caring attitude towards fellow humans, animals and the environment in general.” A culture of caring for and protecting non-human animals has significant benefits for the wellbeing of a society. Indeed, studies have shown that efforts to reduce cruelty to animals, are likely to reduce the tolerance that communities have for interpersonal violence (Regan Jules-Macquet BA). The above court cases were mentioned with approval by the Constitutional Court in the matter of National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2016] ZACC 46. 

It is necessary for the South African government to step in and not only give effect to the recognition of sentience of animals by our judiciary, but also to improve the level of protection that animals are afforded in South Africa. South Africa, a country that is on the forefront when it comes to the recognition and protection of human rights, was scored a “D” by the World Animal Protection. This international NGO has done a comparison of the animal welfare laws of 50 countries and found South Africa lacking in respect of its commitment to improve and allocate resources to animal welfare, as well as in respect of developing laws to provide for sufficient protection of animals. 

Although the people of South Africa, and indeed our highest courts, recognise the plight of animals and the need to protect them from abuses by humans, some practices persist: Testing on animals is kept strictly secret because of the highly competitive industries involved and includes processes like forced inhalation of chemicals; exposure to chemicals at levels that cause illness or death; electric shock or forced swimming. Although it is accepted that there are not sufficient alternatives yet to justify a total ban of testing on animals, measures should be put in place to ensure that such testing is only done when no other alternative exists. Furthermore, animals kept in laboratories are at times kept in small spaces that do not make sufficient provision for the animals’ physiological and ethological needs, causing their whole existence to be one of suffering. Where no alternative for testing on animals exists, provision should at least be made for these animals to be kept in appropriate enclosures. There are currently no known laboratories in South Africa that test cosmetics on animals. The European Union (28 States), India, Israel, Guatemala and Norway have already formally banned the testing of cosmetics on animals as well as the sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals outside of their borders; New Zealand, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Korea, USA and Taiwan are in the process of passing laws to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals. This means that 1 of the BRICS partners (India) already has legislation in place to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals and one (Brazil) is following suit. South Africa should lead Africa in this area. 

The purpose of the Bill is to amend two Acts with the intention to prohibit the sale and manufacturing of cosmetics that were tested on an animal in the Republic; criminalise the testing of cosmetics on animals; and criminalise the failure to provide an animal with an appropriate environment; and matters related to these objectives. The Bill amends the definitions section in both Acts and furthermore amends—
• the Animals Protection Act, 1962, (Act No. 71 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) to provide for new offences related to the testing of a cosmetic or ingredient of a cosmetic on an animal; and related to the failure to make sufficient space in an appropriate environment available to an animal and matters related thereto - including penalties, interim orders and an award of damages. The Bill also provides for the qualification requirements of an officer of any Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and empowers the Minister to make regulations setting standards for the testing of other substance (other than cosmetics) on an animal; and
• the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 Act to create an offence for the selling or manufacturing of a cosmetic that has been tested on an animal in the Republic, and matters related thereto. The Bill further makes provision for an inspector appointed under the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1993 (Act No. 169 of 1993) to conduct certain inspections under this Act and for all inspectors authorised by this Act to retain the powers conferred by their appointing laws. The Bill also provides for the process when seizing an animal. This Act is amended by way of inclusion in a Schedule as it is administered by the Department of Health. 

The Bill does not hold any financial implications for the State. There are existing structures already in place that inspects the welfare of animals with various institutions. Although these structures will now also have to consider the new offences created, the Bill makes provision for these structures to recoup reasonable expenses from a person charged or convicted of an offence.

The following stakeholders were consulted:
• Beauty Without Cruelty South Africa – Ms Toni Brockhoven and Ms Beryl Scott;
• Bilchitz, Prof. David (University of Johannesburg; Director of the South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and International Law (SAIFAC); Secretary-General of the International Association of Constitutional Law);
• Mark Dittke Attorney (Environmental, Health and Safety specialist) – Mark Dittke;
• M van Heerden Attorneys (Animals in law and Animal Rights Specialist) – Ms Michelle van Heerden (Director);
• Naidoo, Prof. Vinny BVMCh (Cum laude) MSc(Vet)(Distinction) PhD, Director: UPBRC, Professor: Veterinary Pharmacology
• National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – Ms Marcelle Meredith (CEO);
(and others)

We are in the process of having the BWC name and logo registered, to protect it from those who would casually use it without permission and without having proven humane manufacture compliance. But it is now trademarked, and therefore it is a criminal offence to use the logo or claim approved by Beauty Without Cruelty without written permission. Furthermore brands cannot claim they are 'beauty without cruelty' as this is our name, and not a fact. 

The Roald Dahl story "The Magic Finger" was the the theme, and which teaches that kindness towards animals rather than killing them is the way to go. The story tells of a girl who lives on a farm and who hates hunting. Her neighbours hunt regularly so she decides to point her magic finger at them and the following day the hunters wake up to find that they have shrunk and now have wings instead of hands.
Conversely the wild ducks they were hunting have human hands instead of wings. The switched identies lead to the ducks taking over the humans' house and the humans having to live in a nest. Eventually the winged humans appreciate the value of the ducks so the little girl uses her magic finger to put things as they were. When the humans have their hands back they decide to destroy their guns and feed the ducks rather than kill them.
The the children played a story -board game based on the actions of the book "where groups of cildren threw a dice and advanced or went backwards on the board, depending on whether they landed on a positive or negative action against animals in the story.


As yet another person has been told by an Isabella Garcia rep, that they have applied to BWC for approval, we share this info again:
Isabella Garcia has been "in the process" for YEARS and we have received nothing from them. We have asked them to stop saying they have applied, clearly with no luck.

In 2012 we sent Isabella Garcia the documents necessary for them to apply for BWC endorsement and we were told that the forms had been sent off to their chief chemist for attention. We contacted the company again in March 2013 asking for a progress report and reminding the company that the Advertising Standards Authority and the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Ass require companies to be able to provide proof of claims made about their products. We have still had no response. Furthermore we now know they use egg in some products. The fact that the egg is of fish origin (caviar) is irrelevant, which means they will not be accredited by BWC.

The Animal Testing Policy for Isabella Garcia: While we accept that Isabella Garcia’s finished products are not tested on animals, the same may not be said for the ingredients contained therein.

Ingredients may not have been tested specifically on behalf of SkinChem/Isabella Garcia, but they may well have been tested by the supplier on behalf of other companies, or because such tests were required by law. A company that is serious about not using animal tested ingredients would require written assurances from their ingredient suppliers that none of the substances have been tested on animals (by the supplier) after a fixed cut-off date. This is an internationally accepted requirement for non-animal testing endorsement. Suppliers would obviously be aware if such animal tests had taken place and unacceptable substances would not be used in a caring company’s products.

Beauty Without Cruelty is the only organisation in South Africa to investigate and endorse companies’ humane status and we have been doing so for over forty years. BWC’s humane criteria are in line with (and exceed) internationally accepted standards. The Advertising Standards Authority and the CTFA require that companies provide proof of their claims. IG  claims they abide by EU regulations, but the  EU standard is irrelevant in that certain ingredients may still have to be tested for non cosmetic reasons, and BWC does not accept animaims ng for any reason after the cut off date. Given that BWC is a recognized authority with 40 + years experience and trusted by names which includes the likes of Woolworths, this is no valid reason not to be listed, especially as there are no costs involved. 


BWC worked to ensure non-lethal methods of keeping alien species, in this case, fallow deer, in check. BWC and Voice for African Wildlife met with a key role player to discuss the issue, for the benefit of Robben Eiland as well as the animals in danger. It is unacceptable to keep killing animals to keep the numbers down, when neutering should have been done years ago. If they all die out of old age, so what? They are after all, an alien species. Sadly, it was then discovered that more than half of the deer already shot, 17, to be exact, had stomachs filled with plastic, and the unpleasant but necessary decision was taken to kill all the deer; there was no way to x-ray them all, and perform surgery on those with plastic, and often plastic doesn't show up, leaving the deer to die a slow and agonising death. We found the remains of a deer, and the amount of plastic in the stomach area told us all we needed to know. The issue is now at rest. 

This entire mass from the stomach area is plastic, mixed in with the grasses. 

We were invited to discuss fireworks and their impact on Smile Radio during the Honest Truth segment, where we had the opportunity to point out the poisons in fireworks which can be deadly for curious animals who ingest spent fireworks, pollution of sea and land, terror filled and disoriented birds who lose their nests or fly out to sea or into buildings and windows, animals who end up lost, injured and dead, both domestic and wild. If we cannot stop fireworks entirely, then we must get them out of public hands, and make it a criminal offense to sell them. Cities must host these events using professional pyro-technicians, and ban the use of percussive fireworks in their entirety. 

Please JOIN US on the 5th if you are in Cape Town! If you are not on social media, we will be at the Blaauwberg Road / Marine Drive circle from 6:30pm on Sunday 5th. We have a few posters, first come, first served, and we welcome animal interest organisations with banners and tee-shirts. 

We have updated so many new brands recently there are too many to list, so please visit for almost 90 brands. Save the link to your phone home screen so you have it on hand wherever you are. 

Thanks to the efforts of Giant Ads and IOM, we have two billboards up in Cape Town CBD which between them, have passing traffic of 3 1/2 million monthly. We are most excited about them and trust they will get people thinking and talking. 


BWC had a stand at Blue Route mall for three days, and had the opportunity to reach out and chat to folks. 

Kenesias has been busy doing successful children's outreach events, where the importance of the environment and wildlife is emphasised, talking at the monthly Talking Tree discussions and has now also been requested to do outreach for the Baby Rhino Rescue group. We are delighted to be affiliated with him and VFAW. 

FFSA found many instances of items being sold as synthetic, when in fact all were real fur. Retailers at fault were: Bliss Monger, Dogs Life, Jet, Farside Kids, Forever 21, Kingsmead Shoes, Makro, Shoe City, Sissy Boy, Solo Shoes, Tangible and YDE. Except for Sissy Boy, Kingsmead Shoes and Solo Shoes, all these retailers immediately withdrew the offending items. FFSA had several fur samples laboratory tested. Three brands of inexpensive shoes from China were identified as selling real fur as fake viz. Candys, Urban Choice and Spoilt Girls.  Unfortunately, Solo Shoes and Kingsmead Shoes continue to sell these shoes despite being given the facts about fur production.

their page for more information.
Donations Welcome - Beauty without Cruelty   |   Standard Bank - Branch: 025109 - Savings Acc: 077 491 645   |   Swift Number: SBZAZAJJ
Email EFT to Cape Town Head Office Tel / Fax: 021 438 2282    |   Chairperson:
Support BWC while shopping- get your free My Village loyalty card, click here. You do NOT need to have a Woolworths account to get the loyalty card! Simply choose us as your beneficiary. 
If you need to update your details or to add us as a beneficiary, please contact 0860 100 445. For a list of other partners in your area where you can swipe your card when you shop, please click here


Beauty Without Cruelty
Established 1975

Our Supporters
Humane List of BWC endorsed products

Posters, leaflets etc
PLEASE SUPPORT OUR CAMPAIGN - Education is vital in allowing consumers and suppliers to making informed decisions.
BRANCH 025 109

This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Beauty Without Cruelty · p o box 23321 · claremont · cape town, western cape 7735 · South Africa

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp