ethics, fashion friday, lifestyle boxes

Who Made Your Pants?

Most of our clothes are manufactured in dark, crowded factories, like Rana Plaza was, the sweatshop that collapsed, killing many workers.

We don’t know the names of the men and women sewing, dyeing and embellishing the clothes we love. We probably never will.

Shops like Primark or H & M are brilliant for affordable, every day bits, and most of us don’t even think of the human cost.

Who Made Your Pants? aim to change that.

image

They make ladies underwear – in a range of sizes, styles, colours, fabrics and give them funny names like Hay Mears (camo print with a lace trim) or Lady Dynamo.

They send your pants out in a little brown box, which fits through the letterbox, lovingly wrapped and with a note telling you the names and a little bit about the people who made your pants.

You can order one offs or sign up for a year in pants – gorgeous pants selected for you by the team delivered once a month.

They are a charitable bunch and were involved in the Fashion Revolution earlier this year.

Follow them on Twitter or buy some pants and find out who made your pants!

ramblingmads

ethics, lifestyle, lush, questions

Lush and the problem of ethical beauty

image

On a facebook group recently a member asked whether anyone could recommend a beauty brand like Lush but not Lush as she was a member of Countryside Alliance and Lush support hunt saboteurs.

Now, fox hunting is illegal in the UK, even though our current (vile) PM is a member of a hunt, and fox hunting has been repeatedly proven to be not only inhumane but costly and pointless as a means of keeping numbers of foxes low.

It is in fact much cheaper and more practical to shoot foxes or poison them if they are causing a nuisance, eating your chickens or spooking your sheep.

The cost of raising hounds, horses, the outfits and damage done to farmland far outways the benefits of chasing one animal to the point of exhaustion and then ordering dogs to tear it apart.

I’m not saying that hunt saboteurs are a good thing either – in fact they are known to cause harm to animals as well. Spooking a horse, causing it to fall, maybe break a leg and have to be shot does not mean you took a stand for animal rights.

Foxes are a nuisance, and not just in the countryside. More and more of them are living in urban areas, raiding bins, attacking pets (and apparently babies, despite being very wary of humans) and having all night mating sessions involving screaming in people’s gardens.

I use Lush because I admire their ethical policy (not testing on animals – meaning until last year they didn’t add SPFs because they were predominantly tested on animals and they needed to find one that wasn’t) and the lack of chemicals in their products means that my sensitive skin doesn’t react to them.

Testing cosmetics on animals was banned in the EU last year (but check where your products are manufactured, as outside the EU no such restrictions are guaranteed by law). So theoretically all products are cruelty free. Lush led the charge and is very happy with this change in legislation.

Fox hunting is a touchy subject even in my extended family, my Yorkshire rellies own farmland and came to London a few years ago for a CA march. I held my tongue, I don’t agree with their ethics (or lack thereof) although they are family and I care about them.

Where do you stand on the question of beauty and cruelty? Do you check the provenance and ethics of your products or is it something you choose not to worry about when buying your cosmetics?

image

Images from Lush Ltd’s facebook page

ramblingmads