av magazine issue 3, 2015

A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETYAV 2015 | Number 3

magazine

CRUELTY- FREE COSMETICS THE

FACE OF THE

FUTURE

ALTERNATIVE METHODS

GAIN ACCEPTANCE

p.10

LEAPING BUNNY AT

20p.4

AV

DEPARTMENTS

1 First Word Memories of makeup and choices for animals.

2 Briefly Speaking Animalearn Honors Humane Educator of the Year; Innovation Has Its Awards; Department of Defense to Reduce Animal Use; NIH to Retire 50 “Reserve” Chimpanzees; Humane Cosmetics, Changing the Status Quo.

22 GivingSupporting better science through the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation.

22 TributesSpecial friends honored and remembered.

24 Members’ CornerWhy “guinea pig” should be synonymous with compassion.

Cruelty-Free Cosmetics:The Face of the Future

7 The Humane Cosmetics ActA measure to ban cosmetics tests on animals is working its way through the U.S. Congress. By Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Paul Locke

8 Protesting Animal Testing How consumers learned about–and then rallied against–cruel testing methods.By Jill Howard Church

10 Alternative Methods Gain AcceptanceThe five key steps toward making humane science a reality.By Martin Stephens

12 Toward a Cruelty-Free World Countries around the globe are making important changes to animal testing policies. By Claire Mansfield

15 What Makes Rabbits SpecialA leader in the rabbit rescue world celebrates these endearing companions. By Margo DeMello

16 PerspectivesStudents, entrepreneurs, advocates, and a manufacturer tell why being cruelty-free matters to them.

20 Interview: Amy SmartActress and animal lover Amy Smart stars in our new Leaping Bunny video.

FEATURES

Founded in 1883, the American Anti-Vivisection Society’s (AAVS) mission is to unequivocally oppose and work to end experimentation on animals and to oppose all other forms of cruelty to animals. AAVS is a nonprofit education organization using legal, effective advocacy to achieve meaningful, lasting change.

2015 Issue 3

4 LEAPING BUNNY AT 20 The program created by a coalition of groups is committed to certifying what “cruelty-free” really means. By Caitlin McGrother

12

CO

VE

R P

HO

TO B

Y IS

TOC

K/A

RTE

MIS

PH

OTO

; OP

PO

SIT

E P

AG

E, P

HO

TO B

Y M

AU

RIC

E R

OB

BIN

S

20

AV MAGAZINE 1

I REMEMBER, AS A LITTLE GIRL, watching my mother “make up her face” in the morning. It was a fas-cinating, transforming ritual of applying subtle creams and powders, ending with a flourish of color and cologne. When she was finished, she was so satisfied and confident and, I thought, so pretty. I was so proud she was my mother.

As a teenager, I experimented with makeup, only to give up. My sky blue-colored eyelids looked a little ridiculous when I stepped back from the mirror. I realized this was a skill I’d have to work to perfect, and I didn’t have the patience or inclination. Gentlemen, all I can say is, it’s harder than it looks!

Fortunately, I grew up in a time and place when young women could be “natural,” and that suited me. Then when I learned that cosmetics were tested on animals, that sealed the deal. I rejected them, even though my mother sold them in a department store.

How interesting life can be. Now, years later, I chair the Leaping Bunny Program that cer-tifies cruelty-free cosmetics. I got involved to stop animal testing, not to celebrate makeup.

But guess what? I’ve come around. I’ve grown to appreciate and value quality products for personal care, such as soaps, moisturizers (it’s winter!), shampoos, and conditioners. And I even got brave enough to try some lipstick and “a little this and that,” as my mother would say, after I turned 40.

I don’t want to overstate it, but it’s a kind of miracle that consumers all over the world have stepped up to vote with their wallets to reject animal-tested cosmetics. And now it’s time for a different kind of voting—the regular kind. It’s time for all of us who want to prevent animal suffering to not just think of our power as consumers, but as citizens. All of us can help pass legislation in the U.S. to end the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients.

As always, AAVS will help ensure that your voice is heard. Go to our website to send a message to your representatives in Congress. It’s easy, and they want and need to hear from you.

Your mother would be proud of you for standing up for what is right.

Thank you for caring.

SPECIAL REPORT

p 22

First WordAVExecutive Editor

Sue A. Leary

Managing Editor and Copy EditorJill Howard Church

Staff ContributorsJill Howard ChurchChristopher Derer

Kim PaschenCrystal Schaeffer

Robert Skvarla

Art Direction Brubaker Design

AV Magazine (USPS 002-660) is published by the

American Anti-Vivisection Society for the benefit of its members, and has been in continuous publication since 1892. Annual membership

dues: $25.00.

Office of Publication:801 Old York Road, Suite 204Jenkintown, PA 19046-1611

phone: 215-887-0816e-mail: [email protected]

www.aavs.org

AAVS welcomes requests to reproduce articles that appear in

AV Magazine. In all cases, we will require that credit be given to the

author and to AAVS.

The individual views and claims expressed in AV Magazine are

not necessarily those of the organization.

AV Magazine is printed on recycled paper.

magazine

VOLUME CXXIII Number 3 ISSN 0274-7774

My mother, Catherine Murray Leary, on her wedding day in 1948.

FPOFSC LOGO

Sue A. Leary, President, American Anti-Vivisection Society

Take Action ataavs.org/HumaneCosmeticsAct

Ask your legislators to support H.R. 2858, the Humane Cosmetics Act

2 2015 CRUELTY-FREE COSMETICS

Innovation Has Its Awards The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF) is an AAVS affiliate that funds and promotes the development, validation, and adoption of non-animal

methods in biomedical research, product testing, and education. This year ARDF’s Alternatives Research Grant Program awarded a record $220,000 to eight innovative scientists.

This exciting work includes a project by April Davis and William Lee at the New York State Department of Health, who are developing cell lines of two bat species to replace live bats used to study the deadly white-nose syndrome and other zoonotic diseases.

At Washington State University, Boel Fransson and Claude Ragle are validating a new model that veterinarians can use to develop important skills for more efficient and less invasive spay surgeries. Yusuke Marikawa at the University of Hawaii is also reducing the use of live animals by creating an in vitro model of embryonic development that will help study developmental toxins. Another study at the University of Pittsburgh, led by Lawrence Vernetti, is evaluating a new model liver that could reduce

IN NOVEMBER, Animalearn announced that its 2015 Humane Educator of the Year is New Jersey science teacher Bonnie Berenger. Honored for her years of dedica-tion to promoting humane science education at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, Berenger received her award at the National Science Teachers Association conference in Philadelphia.

“We are proud to honor Bonnie Berenger as our Humane Educator of the Year for her dedication to continuously raise awareness about the harmful use of animals in edu-cation,” said Animalearn Director Nicole Green. “She is a true change-maker and passionate advocate working on behalf of students and animals.”

Since 2000, Berenger has used Anima-learn’s resources to enlighten others about humane science. Because of her passion and dedication, Berenger, along with a colleague,

designed a non-dissection biology course that was later incorporated into her school’s curriculum. This pioneering course uses a virtual CD program, movies, human plastic models that students can take apart and manipulate, and interactive labs in which students test human functions, such as heart rates. After a few months, the course won the support of school administrators and quickly became more popular than the tradi-tional biology course at Hunterdon.

“As teachers, we need to go beyond educat-ing. We can also inspire compassion,” said Berenger. “Guiding students to tap into hu-manity’s innate respect for, and dependency on, healthy ecosystems can encourage the next generation to be better stewards of the web of life than we have been.”

As a part of the award, Animalearn donat-ed $1,000 worth of dissection alternatives for Berenger to use with Hunterdon students.

BrieflyNEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW

SpeakingANIMALEARN HONORS HUMANE EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR

PH

OTO

S C

OU

RTE

SY O

F B

ON

NIE

BE

RE

NG

ER

(LE

FT)

AN

D C

HIM

P H

AV

EN

(R

IGH

T)

and then replace animals commonly used to study liver disease.

Chaitali Ghosh of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation is using an in vitro model of the human Blood-Brain Barrier to explore effective treatments for diseases affecting the brain and central nervous system, while Lei Kerr of Ohio’s Miami University is developing a test (including an artificial nose!) that mimics breathing patterns related to brain studies.

“All of the grant proposals are evaluated for their scientific merit and for their potential to replace animals in areas of research that currently involve significant suffering,” said ARDF and AAVS President Sue Leary. “We are very happy to recognize and support these individuals who are bringing us new science that benefits people and animals.”

AV MAGAZINE 3

ALMOST THREE YEARS after retiring more than 300 federally owned chimpanzees, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) an-nounced it will also retire the 50 chimpanzees it had been holding on

“reserve.” Funding to research facilities holding chimps whom NIH does not own will also be phased out. The move comes five years after NIH commissioned a report that concluded that the use of chimpanzees in research is not “necessary.”

“I think this is the natural next step of what has been a very thought-ful five-year process,” said NIH Director Francis Collins. “We reached a point where in that five years, the need for research has essentially shrunk to zero.”

According to Collins, NIH received only one application to use chim-panzees in research since 2013, and that request was later withdrawn. Additionally, the Fish & Wildlife Service, which in June listed captive chimps as Endangered, has received no requests for research exemptions.

The Humane Cosmetics Act (HCA) would end the use of animals to test cosmetics and their ingredients at every stage of manufacture, as well as prohibit their sale. But this bill is not just about makeup; many believe it could help establish wider acceptance of better, more humane science.

Kim Paschen, Program Manager for Leaping Bunny, which certifies cruelty-free products, says shoppers want cosmetics that are not tested on animals and are even willing to pay more for them. To answer this demand, she says, “Major companies are investing more than ever in alternative methods, and are sometimes acquiring established cruelty-free companies to bring added value to their portfolio of brands.”

Alternative testing technology to keep products safe and cruelty-free is available and becoming more widely used. Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of the federal agencies that has traditionally required extensive animal testing, announced that it was incorporating automated screening methods to evaluate chemical safety. When the EPA and the multinational company Uni-

NIH TO RETIRE 50 “RESERVE” CHIMPANZEES

Humane Cosmetics, Changing the Status Quo

The military’s use of animals in its research has long been the focus of criticism and scrutiny because of its lack of transparency, particularly regarding biodefense experiments, which often involve immense animal suffering. In recent years, the Department of Defense (DOD) has made an effort to reduce its animal use, and it commissioned the National Academies of Sci-ences to study how it can incorporate modern testing methods to better predict acute chemi-cal toxicity. Released in July, the report, titled “Application of Modern Toxicology Approaches for Predicting Acute Toxicity for Chemical Defense,” makes recommendations that include utilizing methods that reduce or replace animals, while still providing reliable data that can be used to protect military personnel.

The report states that integrated strategies that include databases, assays, and models can “evaluate a large number of chemicals for acute-toxicity potential more rapidly than traditional, mammalian in vivo studies.” It recommends that the DOD work with federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, that have successfully developed in vitro screening programs.

Also recommended is that the DOD develop toxicology screening programs that focus on its specific needs, like skin and inhalation expo-sure, which are of special concern in biological warfare. Just by limiting the scope of concern, many tests may be avoided and animals spared. The report observes that information on many of the chemicals that are of great concern to the military is lacking, so the DOD is encouraged to invest in computational approaches to assess acute (lethal) toxicity, as well as further develop alternatives to animal tests.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO REDUCE ANIMAL USE

lever announced a collaboration to share data, their efforts were hailed as “the first steps in a paradigm shift for chemical safety testing and risk assessment, that will spare tens of thou-sands of animals from immense suffering.”

Consumers and industry support cruelty-free products, and new high-tech test methods can ensure they are safe. Now it’s time for Con-gress to insist on humane cosmetics. Contact your Representative and urge him/her to co-sponsor the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 2858). Tell him/her that the Humane Cosmet-ics Act, and protecting animals from harm, is something everyone can support! Take action at www.aavs.org/HumaneCosmeticsAct.

More retired chimpanzees will eventually join Flick and other former NIH chimps at the Chimp Haven sanctuary in Louisiana.


LEAPING BUNNY AT TWENTYBY CAITLIN MCGROTHER

PH

OTO

BY

ISTO

CK

PH

OTO

As 2016 arrives, the Leaping Bunny Program embarks on its 20th year certifying cosmetic, personal care, and household products as cruelty-free. The program was formed by a coalition of like-minded animal advocacy

organizations that were on a mission to set a standard by which the claim “cruelty-free” could be substantiated. Named the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC), it established specific requirements to ensure that the cruelty-free designation would be meaningful to consumers. Today, the co-alition comprises the American Anti-Vivisection Society (Chair), the Animal Alliance of Canada, Beauty Without Cruelty, the Doris Day Animal League, the Humane Society of Canada, The Humane Society of the United States, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Anti-Vivisection Society, and the New England Anti-Vivisection So-ciety. Its international partner is the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

The Leaping Bunny program ensures that no animal testing is performed on ingredients, formulations, and finished products.

IN 1996, A GROUP OF ANIMAL PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS UNITED TO CREATE A STANDARD

THAT WOULD GIVE CONSUMERS CONFIDENCE WHEN SEEKING CRUELTY-FREE PRODUCTS.

In order to be certified, a company must choose a fixed cut-off date after which the company and all its suppliers and manu-facturers attest that going forward, animal testing will not take place. Once a date has been chosen, the company must monitor its supply chain management, requiring all raw ingredient sup-pliers and/or contract manufacturers to complete Declarations in which they agree to the fixed cut-off date. Any new suppliers or manufacturers added must adhere to the original fixed cut-off date as well.

Additionally, a selected group of companies is audited every year to confirm that these businesses are meeting CCIC’s “Cor-porate Standard of Compassion for Animals.” These stringent rules are necessary for the Leaping Bunny program to establish integrity and trust.

CREATING A COMMUNITYAlthough the Leaping Bunny’s standard is considered strict, it has not deterred companies from seeking certification. Since its beginning in 1996, the Leaping Bunny program has grown to


AV MAGAZINE 5

more than 650 companies, with new ones applying and being certified all the time. Not only do we continue to receive incredible support from small, grassroots companies, we have also made solid con-nections with large, mainstream establishments such as Burt’s Bees, Method, Mineral Fusion, Sev-enth Generation, and WEN by Chaz Dean.

Over the years, Leaping Bunny has grown its community to include a wide variety of consumers, companies, and individuals interested in learn-ing more about living a cruelty-free lifestyle. Our extensive social media network includes more than 105,000 likes on Facebook and nearly 7,000 fol-lowers on Instagram. More than 27,000 individu-als subscribe to our monthly e-mail list.

One of the hallmarks of the Leaping Bunny program is our passion to show that cruelty-free shopping can be fun for consumers and good for companies. Through daily social media posts, the monthly e-newsletter, and tabling events, Leaping Bunny-certified companies can take advantage of an abundance of free marketing opportunities. We love working with our companies on giveaways, reviews, and exclusive discounts. Some companies even take an additional step and help raise money for the Leaping Bunny program by donating a percentage of their profits back to us. This friendly relationship is a true testament to the program and the companies dedicated to upholding our cruelty-free standard.

Recently, “subscription boxes”–bundled samples that consumers get delivered to them at certain intervals–have gained in popularity, so we have helped devise several Leaping Bunny beauty boxes with the companies Vegan Cuts and Petit Vour. The boxes contain products exclusively from Leap-ing Bunny-certified companies. The subscription box companies often donate a portion of the proceeds to help sustain our program, which also relies on the annual contributions made by CCIC member organizations and AAVS, which covers overhead and salaries.

THE CRUELTY-FREE CONNECTIONFor consumers, shopping cruelty-free has never been easier. Leaping Bunny’s Compassionate Shop-ping Guide is accessible to view and print on leapingbunny.org, and is also available by request as a pocket-sized shopping guide. The list of approved brands is also available as a smartphone app that allows consumers to search by product type, com-pany name, or by scanning a product’s UPC code.

Leaping Bunny-certified products are available in a wide variety of locations, including national

MYTHS & FACTS ABOUT THE LEAPING BUNNY PROGRAM

MYTH: IF A COMPANY IS LEAPING BUNNY-CERTIFIED, ITS PRODUCTS ARE VEGAN.

FACT: Leaping Bunny offers the most up-to-date list of companies that have agreed in writing to ban animal testing throughout their manufacturing process (including ingredients, contract manufacturing, and finished products). Be-cause ingredient information is available to consumers—and required by law—conscientious consumers can read labels to determine whether products are vegan or not. For this reason, Leaping Bunny chooses to focus its resources on validating information that is not readily available to consumers, such as animal testing claims.

MYTH: COMPANIES OWNED BY LARGER COMPANIES THAT CONTINUE TO CONDUCT ANIMAL TESTING CANNOT BE LEAPING BUNNY CERTIFIED.

FACT: A small company acquired by a larger company that may continue to test on animals can be Leaping Bunny certified if it operates as an indepen-dent subsidiary. This distinction requires the acquired company to maintain complete control over its raw ingredients, contract manufacturing, and finished products, and continue to be a legal entity accountable for its activities. Examples include Burt’s Bees (owned by Clorox) and The Body Shop (owned by L’Oreal). The Compassionate Shopping Guide and the Leaping Bunny website indicate which companies are owned by parent companies that may continue to test on animals.

MYTH: COMPANIES SUCH AS L’OREAL ARE CRUELTY-FREE NOW THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO SELL ANIMAL-TESTED COSMETICS IN EUROPE.

FACT: The EU law, while very good, only applies to the testing done for con-sumer safety and the marketing of cosmetics within Europe. Companies that sell in the EU may still not meet the cruelty-free standard set by the Leaping Bunny program. In particular, if products contain ingredients that are not solely used in cosmetics, other EU laws may actually require testing to determine environmental risk, and to test for worker safety, and those could include animal tests. Additionally, companies may continue to sell in China and other countries where animal testing is still required by law.


drugstores, big box stores, and grocery chains. High-end marketplaces, such as Sephora and Ulta, also carry Leaping Bunny-certified brands. With the shopping guide and app as a resource, consci-entious consumers can easily choose cruelty-free products in nearly any environment.

One of the amazing aspects of the program is that there is a wide array of companies to fit any consumer’s needs when it comes to cosmetic, per-sonal care, and household products. It is not neces-sary to shop at a specific store, have a certain price point, or be located in a specific geographic area. Consumers are able to make the cruelty-free con-nection free of boundaries and restrictions.

VALUE IN THE BUNNYThere is no denying that consumers have become more aware of the harsh realities surrounding animal testing. However, the truth about cruelty-free claims can be difficult to decipher among the various labels and logos used on product packaging. Does the Leaping Bunny help P

HO

TOS

CO

UR

TESY

OF

KIM

PA

SC

HE

N,

CCIC Program Manager Kim Paschen works with many cruelty-free compa-nies, including WEN, owned by celebrity stylist Chaz Dean (lower left), shown with Kim and CCIC Administrator Caitlin McGrother.

resolve the confusion? The answer is yes.The environment division of UL, a global in-

dependent safety science company, conducted a study called Claiming Green in 2014 to provide insight on consumer awareness of “green” product claims, including personal care and household product markets. This survey revealed that Leap-ing Bunny approval was the leading certified claim influencing purchasing decisions for personal care products and cleaning products. Interestingly, the claims “cruelty free” and ”all natural” ranked in the top 10 for most confusing, misleading claims and negative brand impact.

That’s an indication that consumers are discern-ing enough to doubt vague claims, but they do val-ue legitimate, certified claims. With so many logos and labels in the marketplace, shoppers are looking for independent parties such as Leaping Bunny for recognizable, trustworthy labeling. The Leaping Bunny program works hard to maintain its integ-rity, and due to its transparency, it is recognized as the gold standard in cruelty-free certification.

As Leaping Bunny continues to grow and ex-pand, the mission remains the same: to provide consumers with a reliable, up-to-date list of cos-metic, personal care, and household product com-panies that do not test on animals in any stage of production. We are constantly moved by the out-pouring of support from the community of com-panies and consumers. It is astonishing how much the program has grown over the last 20 years; large and small companies continue to make the cruelty-free commitment. And until product testing on animals ends, we will continue to make compas-sionate shopping choices easier than ever. AV

Caitlin McGrother, M.A., is the Administrator for the CCIC.

AV MAGAZINE 7

The Humane Cosmetics Act

PH

OTO

S C

OU

RTE

SY O

F O

FF

ICE

OF

RE

PR

ES

EN

TATI

VE

EA

RL

BLU

ME

NA

UE

R

More than 30 countries–including New Zealand, Norway, India, Israel, and all of the nations of the European Union–have banned animal testing for cos-metics and cosmetic ingredients. Other nations are

considering similar bans, and many cosmetics companies have ended their use of animal tests. It is time for the United States to become a leader in this worldwide movement.

The Humane Cosmetics Act (HCA) would do just that. The HCA was introduced in the House of Representatives last June by Representatives Martha McSally (R-AZ), Don Beyer (D-VA), Joseph Heck (D-WA), and Tony Cardenas (D-CA). If passed, this legislation would make it unlawful to sell any cosmetic in the United States if the final product or any of its components was developed or manufactured using animal testing. Viola-tors of the HCA could be subject to heavy fines of as much as $10,000 per violation. Since the use of each animal, and each day, could be considered a separate violation, these penalties would be substantial.

The ban on animal testing would be phased in over several years. This legislation now has more than 100 bipartisan co-sponsors and is now being considered by the Subcommittee on Health of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Eliminating animal testing for cosmetics is feasible. There are many ingredients for use in cosmetics that are already known to be safe, and these ingredients are being used regularly to create

new cosmetic products. Scientists have already devel-oped alternative non-animal methods of testing–such as techniques that use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin, or computer models–to assess the safety of new products. A large number of cosmetics companies have voluntarily adopted these alternative test methods be-cause they cut costs and save time.

Passage of this legislation will spur scientists to de-velop more, and more sophisticated, non-animal testing methods–methods that could also have the potential to inform chemical testing in other sectors where animals are also currently used. Stimulating new and innovative science is another benefit of enacting the HCA.

From an ethical standpoint, this legislation affirms an approach that is finding increasing support among Americans. According to a 2013 poll conducted by

The Humane Society of the United States and Lake Research Partners, more than-two thirds of voters are opposed to using animals to test cosmetics. This opposition crosses gender and age lines. Women, the primary consumers of cosmetics products, are opposed to animal testing in even greater numbers. And a 2015 Gallup poll shows that support for animal rights has increased 25 percent since 2008.

The HCA was recently the topic of a Congressional briefing that was widely attended by Republicans and Democrats. Supporters of the leg-islation continue to raise awareness and build support for the bill on Capitol Hill and are pushing for consideration this Congress.

As Pope Francis articulated in his recent encyclical, Praised Be, how well we treat animals is intrinsically linked to how we treat each other. It is time for the United States to take a leadership role on this issue, and for Congress to pass legislation that will transform the global marketplace. AV

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has represented Oregon’s third dis-trict since 1996, which includes most of Portland. He is a co-sponsor of the HCA and is co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, a bipartisan group of more than 125 members of Congress who support improving animal welfare. Paul Locke, Dr.P.H, J.D., M.P.H, is an environmental health scientist and attorney, and an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. (The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins Univer-sity or the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

By Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Paul Locke

PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION WILL SPUR SCIENTISTS TO DEVELOP MORE, AND MORE SOPHISTICATED, NON-ANIMAL TESTING METHODS.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (standing) and Paul Locke (seated) were among those who spoke at a briefing on the Humane Cosmetics Act in July, sponsored by the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus.


Protesting Animal TestingBy Jill Howard Church

T he signs in the store win-dows were impossible to miss: AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING, they proclaimed, several feet

high in bold black, red, and white letters. The same statement was emblazoned on shopping bags, T-shirts, and other items announcing the motto of The Body Shop personal products chain, which first ap-peared in the United States in 1988.

Founded in England in 1976, The Body Shop was among the first compa-nies to actively distinguish itself by virtue of its opposition to using animals to test cosmetics. By promoting its testing poli-cies as prominently its actual products, The Body Shop helped draw the retail dividing line between companies that do and don’t do animal tests.

But The Body Shop wasn’t alone. Another such company was John Paul Mitchell Systems, which began putting anti-animal testing language on its Paul Mitchell hair care bottles and in magazine ads starting in 1980, before many people knew what they were referring to.

These and other brands declared them-selves “cruelty free” at a time when public awareness about animal tests was growing rapidly. One by one, manufacturers with

links to animal testing laboratories were bombarded with letters, phone calls, boy-cotts, and petitions demanding that they stop animal testing.

PUBLIC IMAGESMuch of the public outrage over animal tests for cosmetics was fueled by images obtained by animal protection groups. In 1988, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) conducted an under-cover investigation of a product testing laboratory in Philadelphia, opening a lot of eyes to what was going into rabbits’ eyes.

Biosearch, Inc., was a contract lab that used rabbits, mice, dogs, and cats to test products and ingredients for about 200 cosmetics and household products com-panies, including L’Oreal, Revlon, Noxell, SC Johnson, and Benetton.

Photographs taken inside Biosearch showed rabbits in barren metal cages with gaping bloody wounds on their sides and their eyes swollen shut. Those pictures il-lustrated procedures such as the notorious Draize test, which involves putting a sub-stance into the eye or onto the skin of an animal (usually rabbits, since they don’t produce tears) so that any resulting irrita-tion or injury can be documented.

On Oct. 8, 1988, more than 500 people held a two-mile protest walk that ended with a rally outside the Biosearch building, with marchers waving posters and chanting slogans that expressed both outrage and determination to stop the cruel tests. The event was supported by AAVS and numerous animal protection groups.

However, this was not the first time the Draize test had been the focus of public outcry. In 1979, independent New York City activist Henry Spira formed a coali-tion of more than 400 animal protection groups called the Coalition to Stop Draize Rabbit Blinding Tests. Pulling together a strategy team of scientists, advertis- P

HO

TOS

CO

UR

TESY

OF

RO

B C

AR

DIL

LO (

LEFT

) A

ND

AA

VS

(R

IGH

T)

ing professionals and others, he targeted cosmetics giant Revlon to stop using Draize tests. As with other campaigns, the tactic was based on the premise that any company equated with beauty would feel tremendous business pressure if it became synonymous with ugly suffering.

Spira galvanized public support for the campaign using full-page newspaper ads with arresting imagery, and demonstra-tions outside Revlon’s headquarters, an effort that author/activist Norm Phelps said “dwarfed anything that had ever been attempted on behalf of animals.” Soon, Spira convinced Revlon to finance the de-velopment of non-animal alternatives to the Draize test, which led to the founding of the Laboratory for In Vitro Toxicologic Assay Development at The Rockefeller University in 1980.

In the pre-Internet days there was no “going viral,” but protests against animal tests still found their way into popular media pretty quickly. The Bloom County comic strip, by Berkeley Breathed, ran a long series of cartoons lampooning Mary Kay Cosmetics that was seen by millions of readers nationwide and was later fea-tured in Breathed’s 1989 book The Night of the Mary Kay Commandos.

CONSUMER DEMANDSIndividual animal protection organiza-tions made cosmetics testing awareness part of their ongoing public education efforts, including publication of lists and shopping guides that kept a running tally of which companies did and did not test their products (and sometimes ingredi-ents) on animals. AAVS generated one such list in 1978.

A pioneering company whose very name denotes humane cosmetics made its U.S. debut in 1989. Beauty Without Cruelty began in England in 1963 under the auspices of the BWC Charitable Trust. Cosmetician, vegetarian, and animal advocate Katherine Long helped develop

AV MAGAZINE 9

(From left) AAVS President Sue Leary at the 1996 March for the Animals in Washington, D.C.; a full-page newspaper ad targeting Revlon’s use of animals in the late 1970s; and protesters outside the Biosearch testing lab in Philadelphia in 1988.

BWC cosmetics without animal ingre-dients or testing. After she died in 1969, BWC regrouped in 1978 with help from AAVS ally Lady Muriel Dowding, and introduced the product line in America just as U.S. consciousness about animal testing was reaching new heights.

Protests continued as companies that tested on animals became targets of activ-ist campaigns. In 1980, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) pub-lished a special “Close-Up Report” about animal testing. Its members, and others, pressured the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to

THE TACTIC WAS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT ANY COMPANY EQUATED WITH BEAUTY WOULD FEEL TREMENDOUS BUSINESS PRESSURE IF IT BECAME SYNONYMOUS WITH UGLY SUFFERING.

develop humane alternatives. With fund-ing from Avon, CTFA provided support to establish the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins Uni-versity and toxicologist Alan Goldberg, Ph.D., was hired to take the helm.

By August 1989, The New York Times reported that Avon, Revlon, and Faberge had “quietly” ended their animal tests, and that Mary Kay and Amway had enacted testing moratoriums. The paper quoted Allan Mottus, publisher of the cosmetics trade newsletter The Informa-tionist, as saying, “The industry trend is that if you don’t play the game and get out of animal testing, you’re going to be targeted, boycotted, and left out in the cold.”

But it would take sustained public pressure to get some companies to stop animal tests; Gillette didn’t issue a mora-torium until 1996. Other companies, in-cluding Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Pal-molive, and L’Oreal, reduced animal test-ing but would not commit to stopping, even as they invested significant resources in developing alternatives. Then there was the issue of whether the companies that supplied ingredients to cosmetics manu-facturers were likewise ending animal tests, a distinction that muddied claims of products being truly cruelty-free.

Consumers gradually caught on, and

many changed their buying habits. A public opinion survey conducted by the Humane Research Council (now called Faunalytics) in 2008 reported that 40 percent of those surveyed had purchased cruelty-free products out of concern for animals. Another poll sponsored by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics in 2011 found that 67 percent of respondents believed that “companies should not test consumer products like cosmetics and dish detergent on animals.” And a 2013 study of U.S. voters by The HSUS/Humane Society International noted that 68 percent of those polled “know that animals are used to test the safety of cosmetic and personal care prod-ucts, and 67 percent are opposed to the practice.”

Today, the widespread use of the In-ternet and social media means that in-formation about animal testing is much more readily available and more quickly disseminated.

Concern for animals is clearly on the rise, with people seeking to integrate their humane values into daily choices.

Protesting animal testing has evolved to employ many approaches, and it shows no sign of letting up. AV

Jill Howard Church, M.A., is Managing Editor of AV Magazine.


ALTERNATIVE METHODS GAIN ACCEPTANCE

BY MARTIN STEPHENS

PUBLIC PRESSURE has led to concerted efforts to replace the use of animals in cosmetics testing with non-animal methods. We’re well on our way to achieving that goal, but some challenges still remain.

Scientists have become increasingly skillful in developing model systems that use tissues, cells, or molecules to reflect an intact organism’s response to potentially toxic substances. In general, the mo-lecular and cellular approaches work because they detect the subtle changes that occur early in the cascade of effects leading up to the overt toxic out-come (e.g., eye irritation). These approaches are in line with the ongoing paradigm shift towards 21st-century toxicology with its emphasis on in vitro tests that detect disruptions of biological pathways. On the other hand, the new tissue-based approach-es work primarily by showcasing the actual end-product of toxicity (e.g., skin tissue that corrodes).

The non-animal approaches themselves have been evolving. First-generation approaches, such as using the eyes or skin from dead animals, are increasingly being replaced by more sophisticated, human-oriented systems such as artificial skin engi-neered from human cells.

Despite the increasing sophistication of in vitro methods, fully replacing any given animal test is likely to require a combination of non-animal tests, given the complexity of whole organisms and their biological reactions to toxic chemicals.

THE FIVE KEY STEPSAny new testing method, whether for cosmetics or other products, generally proceeds through a series of steps before being used widely. Once the method is developed, it is then validated—an exercise that demonstrates whether or not the test works well for

its intended purpose. A successful validation can then be endorsed by a recognized authority. In the U.S., this is typically the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Meth-ods (ICCVAM).

Next, the method can be accepted by national or international authorities, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The final step to-ward replacement—implementation—recognizes that a new method, no matter how well validated, endorsed, and accepted, won’t help animals unless it’s adopted into practice. Cosmetics are loosely regulated by the FDA, which gives compa-nies the flexibility to use in-house tests that haven’t been formally validated, endorsed, or accepted by authorities.

TESTS, THEN AND NOWWhich non-animal tests have survived the gantlet of validation, endorsement, and acceptance? Let’s explore this from the perspective of the typical con-cerns regarding cosmetics safety, such as skin irrita-tion and “sensitization” (an allergic reaction) and eye irritation. Skin and eye irritation have histori-cally been assessed in rabbits with the correspond-ing Draize test, and sensitization has been assessed in various tests using guinea pigs and mice.

The field of skin irritation provides a good example of progress in replacing animal tests for cosmetics safety. Testing companies have developed synthetic skin models seeded with human cells that reflect the various cell types found in human skin. These models have been validated, endorsed, and accepted for skin irritation testing. A new test guideline has been issued recently for these meth-ods by the influential Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), of which

DEVELOP VALIDATE ENDORSE ACCEPT IMPLEMENT

TOXICITY TESTING

FOR COSMETICS HAS COME

A LONG WAY.

AV MAGAZINE 11

the U.S. is a member country. The guideline notes that the new method can be used as a stand-alone replacement or as a partial replacement as part of a multipronged testing strategy. Unfortunately, the stand-alone application is embraced more in Eu-rope than in the United States.

Skin corrosion, as distinct from irritation, has not been a major concern of the cosmetics indus-try, since those products are typically formulated to be mild. Nonetheless, various in vitro methods, including those used to assess skin irritation, have all but eliminated animal testing for this endpoint.

The field of skin sensitization is an excellent example of the successful application of under-standing the “adverse outcome pathway” of a toxic effect, in this case starting with the chemical pen-etrating the skin, binding to proteins, and so on, leading all the way to allergic contact dermatitis. A number of test methods have been developed to detect key steps in the triggering of this outcome. Their names reflect this mechanistic relevance to particular steps in the pathway (e.g., Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay). Some of these methods have been validated, endorsed, and accepted interna-tionally, currently as part of “integrated testing strategies” rather than as stand-alone applications.

Eye irritation is perhaps most closely associated with cosmetics testing by the public, given the no-toriety of the Draize Eye Irritancy Test in rabbits. Alternative methods for assessing eye irritation are currently a mix of first- and second-generation ap-proaches, with some primarily addressing different ends of the eye irritancy spectrum (low versus high). For example, the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Per-meability (BCOP) assay uses cows’ eyes obtained from slaughterhouses. The BCOP assay has been validated and accepted for identifying strong eye

irritants. The Reconstructed Human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) method uses engineered human tissue to assess eye irritation. A new OECD test guide-line for this method indicates that the test “is to be used in combination with other recommended alternatives, in order to replace the Draize rabbit eye test.”

Additional non-animal tests are available for assessing the types of toxicities mentioned above. Toxicities other than those noted above can also be a concern with cosmetics. With these as well, progress on in vitro methods is being made.

SCIENTIFIC SMARTSToxicity testing for cosmetics has come along way from its singular focus on exposing animals to a substance and seeing what happens. This progress has depended on advances in our understanding and application of biology. These advances are increasingly being used to model critical features of the biology of humans, which avoids the guesswork in extrapolating from animals to humans.

There is a growing number and diversity of new test methods for any given type of toxicity. Cosmetics companies should use integrated test strategies to pick and choose among the methods in order to tailor the safety assessments of their new cosmetics and ingredients. We’re no longer in the era of using a single off-the-shelf (animal) method. This puts pressure on cosmetics compa-nies to have the scientific smarts to sort out the testing landscape and design a testing regime that makes scientific sense and avoids animal use. The lack of strong regulatory oversight of cosmetics testing in the U.S. means that com-panies have broad latitude in tailoring their testing practices to company needs.

A number of scientific challenges remain. These include making additional progress in our understanding and modeling the relevant toxicities, continually updating integrated testing strategies in light of new developments in order to maximize reliance on new methods, and training company and regulatory toxi-cologists in the use, interpretation, and integration of the new methods into testing strategies.

These and other challenges are not trivial, but neither are they insurmount-able. Concerned stakeholders can look forward to continued progress toward the full replacement of animal use in cosmetics testing. AV

Martin Stephens, Ph.D., is the Senior Research Associate for the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. He serves on the Editorial Board of www.AltTox.org and is a consultant for the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation.

In 2000, the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation awarded MatTek’s then-president John Sheasgreen (far right) with the William Cave Award for his role in advancing the availability and use of non-animal test methods.

One of the companies developing and marketing non-animal test methods for chemicals, including those used in cosmetics, is Massachusetts-based MatTek Corporation. Founded in 1985 by two

chemical engineering professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it produces nine dif-ferent in vitro human tissue equivalents.

Among MatTek’s products is EpiDerm, derived from human cells to replicate skin, which can test for skin irritation and phototoxicity. EpiOcular, also derived from human cells, models the human cornea and can be used to replace the Draize eye irritancy test traditionally performed on rabbits. MatTek also has in vitro tests for oral, respiratory, intestinal, and immune cell applications.

“Hundreds of top cosmetic, personal care, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies use our in vitro tests,” says Alex Armento, MatTek’s Director of Business Development. “They provide resources and support to develop and validate new non-animal, human cell-based tests.”

But ultimately, he says, “The main driver behind the increased acceptance and use of in vitro methods is our customers’ customer–the shampoo or laundry detergent consumer. The consumer drives what the manufacturers do.” — Jill Howard Church

PH

OTO

CO

UR

TESY

OF

AA

VS


Toward a Cruelty-Free World By Claire Mansfield

Over 30 countries–home to more than 1.7 billion consumers–have already implemented measures that prohibit animal testing of cosmetic products

and ingredients as well as the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics. The European Union (EU) im-plemented its ban on the sale of all animal-tested products on March 1, 2013. Israel has had a cos-metics animal testing ban since January 2013 and implemented a sales ban in January 2015. And, after intense campaigning by Humane Society International’s (HSI) Be Cruelty-Free campaign, India implemented a testing ban in May 2014 and quickly followed with a ban on the import of newly animal-tested cosmetics last October.

This past March, New Zealand took a major step toward joining this growing list of progressive nations by passing an amendment to its Animal Welfare Act (AWA), following a two-year cam-paign by Be Cruelty-Free New Zealand, a partner-ship with the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Soci-ety and HUHA (Helping You Helping Animals). Under the revised AWA, animal testing of finished cosmetics and ingredients intended exclusively for use in a cosmetic will be illegal in New Zealand.

In countries across the globe, consumer opinion has driven legislative efforts that would end cos-metics cruelty. Here’s what is happening by region and country:

SOUTH AMERICAThe Brazilian legislature is currently considering legislation regarding animal testing for cosmetics through bill PLC 70/2014 (formerly 6602/13). Unfortunately, the original bill adopted by the Chamber of Deputies proposed only to ban such testing for finished cosmetic products, which rarely occurs in Brazil. It also made a ban on animal test-ing for ingredients–which represent nearly all tests on animals in Brazil’s cosmetics sector–conditional on the availability of alternative test methods. This approach would have delayed the elimination of

cosmetics animal testing by years, even though companies can already innovate without using ani-mals by using existing safe ingredients.

A large coalition of animal protection groups and scientists have come together through Be Cruelty-Free Brazil to express their concerns about the bill and campaign for amendments, arguing that the original wording would have failed to save animals from cruel cosmetics tests.

As of the writing of this article, Senator Cris-tovam Buarque has proposed vital amendments to the bill that could close the book once and for all on animal testing for cosmetics in Brazil. The proposed amendments include an immediate ban on testing finished products on animals and would prohibit new animal testing of any cosmetic ingredients within three years of the law’s publica-tion. The sale of cosmetics subject to new animal testing would also be banned within three years, thus preventing multinational companies from cir-cumventing the ban by purchasing new ingredients that have been tested on animals in other countries after the legal cut-off date in Brazil.

Other South American countries are taking note of the momentum toward ending cosmetics cru-elty. Argentinian Senator Magdalena Odarda has introduced legislation that would end testing cos-metics ingredients on animals and the sale of newly animal-tested products, over two years. Also, Be Cruelty-Free is working with stakeholders in Chile to draft legislation there.

AUSTRALIAIn September, the Australian House introduced a cross-party motion in support of ending animal testing for cosmetics. This is the latest in a series of positive actions by Australian Members of Parliament to address the issue of ending cos-metics cruelty. The Australian Senate passed a similar cross-party motion in November last year, while Green party Senator Lee Rhiannon also introduced the End Cruel Cosmetics Bill in P

HO

TOS

CO

UR

TESY

OF:

CA

NA

DA

, MIC

HA

EL

BE

RN

AR

D/H

SI C

AN

AD

A; B

RA

ZIL

, FE

LIP

E D

I PIE

TRO

; NE

W Z

EA

LAN

D, J

O M

OO

RE

; TA

IWA

N,

TAIW

AN

SP

CA

; ALL

OTH

ER

PH

OTO

S, H

UM

AN

E S

OC

IETY

INTE

RN

ATIO

NA

L.

This year we’ve seen exciting progress in the fight to end cosmetics animal testing around the world. Although much work remains to be done, the achievements made toward ending the cruelty prove it’s within our grasp.

AV MAGAZINE 13

March 2014. National polls in Australia have indicated high levels of public support, showing 85 percent of Australians opposing animal testing for cosmetics.

CANADASuch sentiment is also high in Canada, where a recent poll showed 81 percent of Canadians support a national ban on animal testing of cosmetics and their ingredients. In June, Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen launched a bill to prohibit animal testing for cosmetics in Canada, as well as the sale of cosmetic products or ingredients that have been newly animal tested in other parts of the world. The bill, known as The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, is a product of intensive discussions with Be Cruelty-Free Canada, a partnership between HSI and the Animal Alliance of Canada.

TURKEYTurkey has amended its cosmetics regulation to implement a partial ban on animal testing and the sale of animal-tested cosmetics beginning in January 2016. The new regulation bans domestic ani-mal testing on finished products, as well as the domestic animal testing of cosmetic ingredients or formulations after the availability of a validated alternative. It also bans the marketing of finished cosmetic products as well as products containing cosmetic ingredients and formulations (domestic and imported) that have been animal tested after the availability of a validated alternative. Unfor-tunately, the Turkish regulations are based on the existence of alternative methods and therefore fall short of a full and robust ban on cosmetics cruelty.

Both the Turkish regulation and Korean proposal (below) are significant departures from the prec-edents set by the EU, Israel, and India, which have all banned animal testing for cosmetics regardless of the status of alternatives.

ASIAIn March, South Korean Congresswoman Moon Jeong-Lim launched a bill that would mark an initial milestone toward ending animal testing of cosmetics there. Although laudable as a first step, caution must be taken against comparing Korea’s bill with the total ban on cosmetics animal testing achieved in the European Union. Unlike the EU ban, the Korean bill would only ban animal testing where accepted non-animal alternatives are available. If an alternative is not available, the animal

THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO ENDING ANIMAL TESTING OF COSMETICS GLOBALLY REMAINS CHINA’S STRICT REGULATIONS REQUIRING SUCH TESTS.

Advocates and legislators around the world have been increasingly successful in getting measures passed to reduce or eliminate animal testing for cosmetics. Efforts in (left to right) Canada, Brazil, India, China, New Zealand, and Taiwan have been cause for celebration.


test would be allowed.The news is somewhat better in Taiwan, where

recent opinion polls show that nearly 70 percent of Taiwanese consumers want to see animal testing of cosmetics banned.

In April, following collaboration with Be Cruel-ty-Free experts, Taiwanese Legislator Wang Yu-Min launched a bill proposing to amend Taiwan’s Con-trol for Cosmetic Hygiene Act. This would ban animal testing for cosmetics as well as the sale of cosmetics that have been newly tested on animals abroad, following a three-year grace period, regard-less of the current state of alternative tests. This puts Taiwan’s bill on a par with the dual test/sales ban of the EU.

THE CHINA CHALLENGEThe biggest challenge to ending animal testing of cosmetics globally remains China’s strict regula-tions requiring such tests. This has traditionally meant that cruelty-free companies have been un-able to sell in China, and many multinational

companies have eschewed cruelty-free stances in favor of accessing the lucrative Chinese market. But change is coming.

In June 2014, China’s Food and Drug Adminis-tration (CFDA) introduced regulatory reform that removed the mandatory requirement for finished product animal testing for ordinary (non-special use) cosmetics manufactured in mainland China. However, to date, the effect of this rule change has been limited by the absence of guidance from the CFDA regarding acceptable methodology to meet the agency’s expectations, coupled with the ongoing lack of formal acceptance or process for adopting Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or other internationally recog-nized non-animal testing methods. Increasing the availability, uptake, and acceptance of existing and new in vitro and computational tools in toxicology remains a significant challenge in China that must be overcome, because it represents the single most important gateway to change.

The rule change also does not address the po-tential for post-market animal testing. When the CFDA relaxed domestic cosmetics animal testing rules last year, it made it clear that post-market surveillance would increase to compensate. The Chinese regulatory system is not a simple top-down affair with central control, but rather more a fragmented regionally autonomous system whereby local FDAs are at liberty to determine the nature of the testing they require on a case-by-case basis. While some opt simply for microbiological testing, others have confirmed that post-market animal testing has occurred. Unlike pre-market testing, companies are not notified if their products are selected for post-market testing, so they could remain entirely unaware of this. Currently, it’s still not possible to offer consumers a guarantee that a cosmetics company can remain cruelty-free in China.

Yet despite the challenges that remain in China, progress is being made. The EU, Israel, and India have set an important global precedent for cruelty-free cosmetics that has inspired worldwide momen-tum for change. As governments increasingly look to facilitate trade through greater harmonization, and consumers voice their preference for cruelty-free cosmetics, we can look forward to a time in the not-too-distant future when the whole world says no to cosmetics cruelty. AV

Claire Mansfield is Campaign Director for Humane Society International’s global #BeCrueltyFree Cam-paign to end cosmetics animal testing and the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics.

Change in ChinaAchieving greater acceptance of non-animal cosmetics testing in China relies on building better partnerships with the scientists and agencies involved in regulat-ing the Chinese cosmetics industry.

The Maryland-based Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS) has been a leader in introducing non-animal methods to Chinese scientists. In 2014, IIVS signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China’s National Institute for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC) to conduct training sessions there. The agreement preceded the opening of a new in vitro laboratory in Zhejiang that will teach new methods and approaches to scientists throughout China.

In addition to week-long in vitro training sessions in China, IIVS recently provided in-depth training for two scientists visiting from the Zhejiang Food and Drug Administration’s Institute for Food and Drug Control. The course focused on lab techniques using human-relevant test methods, and was designed to help the Chinese adopt more non-animal methods to evaluate and monitor products manufactured in the Zhejiang province.

“The response of Chinese scientists to our trainings is truly re-markable,” says Erin Hill, co-founder and President of IIVS. “The Chinese authorities seem willing to move forward with non-animal tests…[but] the cosmetics industry is rather new in China, and they need time to learn practices that other countries have utilized for awhile.” Hill says her expectation is that scientists trained by IIVS will go on to train other col-leagues in China.

—Jill Howard Church

PH

OTO

S C

OU

RTE

SY O

F IIV

S (

LEFT

) A

ND

MA

RG

O D

EM

ELL

O (

RIG

HT)

AV MAGAZINE 15

By Margo DeMello

What Makes Rabbits Specialin a completely dark room. They had no contact with other animals or humans, except when they were fed. I ended up with three of the rabbits, one of whom, Stimpy, lived with me for four years.

When Stimpy first arrived at my house he was curiously stooped, his head hanging lower than normal on his body, and he moved by creeping rather than hopping. During his time with me, he suffered from conjunctivitis and battled countless infections, perhaps because he went from a sterile environment to a nor-mal, less-than-sterile home. But Stimpy was neutered, learned to hop again, and enjoyed the company of rabbits, the joys of toys, and the delight of stretching his limbs for a few good years.

Each year, tens of thousands of rabbits in the U.S. alone live their lives and expe-

Margo with Munchkin, one of her many rescued rabbits.

IT’S NOT SURPRISING that rabbits are the “poster child” for the cruelty-free movement. Rabbits are among the most frequently used animals in chemical and product testing. In 2012, more than 205,000 rabbits were used for laboratory purposes, including medical research and breeding.

Putting aside the ethics of using any animals to test household goods, makeup, and other consumer products, and put-ting aside the barbarity of some of the tests themselves (such as the Draize Eye Irritancy Test), those of us who live with rabbits know how special these animals are. They are capable of emotions such as joy and sadness, jealousy and anger, and affection and greed. They have a decided preference for lazy afternoons, lolling with their friends, and bond closely with each other and with humans.

When rabbits are kept alone in a cage, whether in a backyard hutch or in a laboratory, it’s difficult if not impossible to see a rabbit’s true personality—there’s just not enough stimulation or physical space for the rabbit to fully let go, and the person keeping him or her rarely has enough time to really observe the animal’s behavior.

In 1991, I received a call from a North-ern California humane society. Animal control officers had found six male New Zealand rabbits in the basement of a lo-cal laboratory during a routine visit. One officer was so horrified by their living conditions that she charged the lab with animal cruelty, and was in tears when she called.

According to the officer, all six rabbits were living in individual steel metal boxes

rience their deaths in laboratory settings. Not all of those rabbits fare as badly as Stimpy and the other rabbits in the labo-ratory basement; some universities now use group housing with better condi-tions. But living with (or even meeting) normal rabbits shows what incredible animals they really are. Rabbits have meaningful lives worth living, without pain, and deserve the freedom to experi-ence their “rabbitness.” AV

Margo DeMello, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor in the Anthrozoology Masters program at Canisius College. She is also the Human-Animal Studies Program Director for the Animals and Society Institute, an author, and President of the House Rabbit Society (www.rabbit.org), an international rabbit advocacy organization.

Rabbits were domesticated about 1,500 years ago by French monks.

Because they were domesticated relatively recently, they still retain many wild behaviors.

There are 3—7 million companion rabbits in the United States; they are now the third most popular companion mammal.

They can live up to 15 years, when housed indoors and provided with proper care and medical attention.

Rabbits can give birth to up to 12 babies at one time, and can get pregnant the day they give birth. A young rabbit can easily bear 150 babies by the end of her first year of life.

Because rabbits are social animals, they thrive on the companionship of others of their kind, as well as cats, small animals, and friendly dogs.

Rabbits are playful, and like climbing (even though they are famously clumsy!), tossing things, rolling things, and snuggling with their favorite stuffed toy.

Rabbits do not vocalize except in very rare situations, so they communicate primarily with their body language.

When happy, rabbits will purr their teeth, flop on the ground, exposing their bellies, and will even do a crazy dance that rabbit people call “binkying.”

Rabbits 101


PERSPECTIVESCosmetics testing on animals is a subject that lots of people have opinions about. We asked some friends and colleagues to share their thoughtful and heartfelt views.

I was in kindergarten when I got my beloved rabbit, Little Hopper. From a young age, I learned that animals could display emotion and feel pain, just like humans. Through the years, my family added more animals, including my first guinea pig, Muffin. Muffin and Little Hopper became my furry children, whom I loved and adored with every fiber of my being. It was not long before my family had acquired animals ranging from rabbits and guinea pigs to rats, flying squirrels, and hamsters.

When I was nine years old, I took my love for animals to another level. In the fourth grade, our class service project was to collect items for the local animal shelter. I wanted to take the project a step further, and that year I sold crafts made by my mom, my sister, and me at my school craft fair. As the years progressed, my craft table came to be known as Dust Bunny’s Boutique, and has raised approximately $14,000 over the past nine years. Dust Bunny’s gives 100 percent of the proceeds to support the extremely important work of various animal rescues and sanctuaries.

Considering the love I have for animals, and the many rodents my family has had, it was not long before I discovered the cruelty and abuse these animals endure during animal testing and on fur farms and factory farms. I decided to go vegetarian, and became vegan by the eighth grade.

In high school, my sophomore research paper was about animal testing. I had known and pur-chased mostly cruelty-free brands prior to writing the paper, but after, I became completely dedicated to finding cruelty-free brands. It was much easier than I imagined, with so many options easily avail-able. Oftentimes I find myself sharing brands that are cruelty-free with anyone who inquires what they are or where to purchase them.

I believe most young women subconsciously are aware of animal testing that is conducted for every-

Abby Serfilippi received the 2015 Lisa Shapiro Youth Activist Award for her efforts on behalf of animals.

PH

OTO

OF

AB

BY

BY

GE

OF

FR

EY

SE

RF

ILIP

PI;

PH

OTO

S O

N O

PP

OS

ITE

PA

GE

CO

UR

TESY

OF

DE

NIS

E K

ELL

Y A

ND

TH

OM

AS

PO

NC

E

Leading by Kind ExampleABBY

SERFILIPPI

day brand names, but I do not believe they realize the extent of it, or care enough to do the research on cruelty-free brands. There are plenty of alterna-tives to animal testing, but animals need more ad-vocates to be their voice and raise awareness on the issue of animal testing.

Learning in-depth about the ways animals are used for testing truly made me think about how my beloved pets are no different than the animals who were (and still are) subjected to this inhumane torture for the sake of human benefit. If it were not for my pets, I would not have learned about the sickening cruelty of animal testing, and I certainly would not have become the animal activist I am today.

Abby Serfilippi, now a student at Siena College in New York, received the Lisa Shapiro Youth Activist Award at the 2015 National Animal Rights Con-ference. Visit her Dust Bunny’s Boutique page on Facebook.

AV MAGAZINE 17

PERSPECTIVES My professional career began in fashion. In my modeling days, cosmetics were a daily necessity. I often left my apartment in full makeup at 6 a.m. or sat through hours of hair and makeup applications for shows and photos shoots.

I chose products based on how they looked and lasted. And like many consumers at that time, I was lured by brands labeled “hypoallergenic” or “dermatologist-tested.” But I gave little thought as to what went into those products and how they were manufactured.

That was until the 1980s, when I purchased a new hair product that said “not tested on animals” on its label. I wondered, why test a shampoo on animals? And just what kind of tests were other product manufacturers conducting?

I began to research the methods used to test products on animals. It quickly became obvious to me that no animal should have to go through such torture so that I could wear the latest shade of eye shadow.

The images of helpless animals restrained and repeatedly having chemicals dropped into their eyes and burned into their skin was enough to bring me to another decision: either stop wearing makeup altogether or seek out products that were not tested on animals. But that wasn’t such an easy task in those days. Only a handful of cosmetic and per-sonal care companies carried the label “not tested on animals.” The most prominent brands were Paul Mitchell and The Body Shop.

Redefining Beauty DENISE KELLY

Luckily, things changed for the better! Today, more consumers are aware that animal testing for cosmetic purposes is cruel and unnecessary. New, more ef-fective alternatives to animal testing provide consumers with better safety stan-dards, and spare animals from needless suffering.

We can now choose from thousands of high-quality, high-performance cos-metics and personal care products that are manufactured without testing on animals. Beauty without cruelty is within our reach.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting John Paul DeJoria, co-founder of the Paul Mitchell brand. Hearing him speak about what inspired him to adopt a “no animal testing” policy in the 80s made be think back. Not only did his shampoo make my hair nicer, but I felt a whole lot better knowing no animals were harmed in its making.

Denise Kelly is President & and Co-Founder of the Avian Welfare Coalition (www.avianwelfare.org).

Lobbying for AnimalsVivisection is an act that I personally abhor. It is not only barbaric and unethi-cal, but it is also unnecessary and has been proven to be quite unreliable. There are so many other viable options available that lead to safer and more effective results. The companies that perform these tests are well aware of these alterna-tives and are also aware what a lucrative business animal testing is, so what we need to do is motivate them to stop.

There are several ways that I try to combat this issue. One is by making com-passionate choices in the way I purchase. As consumers, we have a choice to either support the companies that test on animals or support those that don’t. We have the ability to send a message with our wallets, and let’s face it, money talks! In addition, I always take a few minutes to write an e-mail to these com-panies, express my thoughts on their policies, and let them know I have taken my business elsewhere.

I am constantly checking labels at the store against the Leaping Bunny list; I even have an app on my phone that scans the barcode to check if the product is cruelty free. It’s a great way to start up a conversation with other shoppers. It never fails when I’m out shopping with my Mom and I pull out my phone, it

THOMAS PONCE

John Paul Mitchell Systems co-founder John Paul DeJoria (left) with Denise Kelly and Irwin Friedman


All my life, I have been a scientist. I began build-ing experiments in grade school and just never stopped. Today, I own White Rabbit Beauty, an online cosmetics store that sells only brands that don’t test on animals. It may seem an unlikely path, but White Rabbit turned out to be on the way.

That grade-school path led me to college at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where I roomed with a postdoc working in a labo-ratory. Meeting her at the lab one day, I saw first-hand the animal experiments under way. It was a nightmare that I subsequently suppressed for years, until 2003, when I rescued a caged, battered, red tabby, now named Plano. Plano wasn’t a laboratory animal, but he triggered a flashback to that research laboratory.

That was a seminal moment. I couldn’t look the other way again. My first small step was to buy only cosmetics that weren’t tested on animals. In 2003, it was nearly impossible to find such products in stores. I learned I should look for brands certified by Leaping Bunny, but where were they? That’s when I took a bigger step, creating White Rabbit Beauty in 2004 to sell only Leaping Bunny-certified products.

The scientist is always a part of me, which has led to interesting challenges. Most Leaping Bunny brands are also “natural” brands. The natural prod-ucts industry has a marketing message that every-thing is toxic except natural products. The science doesn’t support this, but marketing in any industry is about sales, not science. For me, though, science rules, especially when animals are at stake.

Confronting this mismatch between message and science is critically important for animals, because

Moments of TruthJEAN

KNIGHT

gives me the chance to talk to them about making cruelty-free choices. One of the other ways I try to raise awareness is through my school projects.

I have written several essays for class about vivisection and the horrors these animals go through in labs, I have done perspective poetry and stories from the point of view of the animal, and for my science fair project I did “Alternatives to vivisection and the impact vivisection has on our society.” Anytime I see a chance to address the disconnect that I feel people have towards animals and these practices, I try and help make that reconnection.

Another effective way that I choose to get involved is by lobbying. Legisla-tors have the power to change the laws surrounding animal testing, and if we can combat it here in the U.S. with a ban, we can close the door to companies that sell products and/or ingredients tested on animals. I have written letters to my Congressmen and expressed to them the importance of supporting legisla-tion that opposes testing on animals, like the Humane Cosmetics Act. I believe it is so important for all of us, regardless of our age, to keep reaching out to

our legislators and let them know what laws we want to see supported. Through my Lobby For Animals website (www.lobbyforanimals.org), I have a ton of information that can help people get more involved.

We as consumers and citizens truly do hold the power to end these appalling procedures. We can choose to not contribute to them by buying responsibly, educating ourselves, teaching others, and by getting involved at the legislative level. It doesn’t matter how old you are–you just need to be proactive.

Thomas Ponce, age 14, is the Founder of Lobby For Animals.

PH

OTO

S C

OU

RTE

SY O

F (L

EFT

TO

RIG

HT)

: BE

CK

Y R

UP

PE

L P

HO

TOG

RA

PH

Y, C

HR

IS D

ER

ER

AN

D M

INE

RA

L F

US

ION

Jean Knight and Plano

the message has led to calls for more cosmetics testing, including animal tests. Most natural brands initially supported the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, not realizing that the measure would have involved animal testing. When pre-sented with the animal numbers, many were frozen by the conflict and chose to look the other way, as I did once years ago. But encouragingly, others stood with the animals and withdrew support for the message and the legislative campaign.

As we each have our own moment of truth, we swell the number of people who reject animal testing and seek a better way. This is totally unscientific, but I feel it will reach the tipping point soon.

Jean Knight has a BSCE from MIT and an MSCE from Stanford University, with specialties in environmental engineering and water resources. Learn more about White Rabbit Beauty at www.whiterabbitbeauty.com.

AV MAGAZINE 19

Traditionally, men have not been the main target demographic for personal care prod-ucts. This is partly because women have been the largest

consumers of these products, but it is also because the focus of

these products has often been geared toward enhancing or preserving beauty.

Men are taught to be unconcerned with how they look, or to at least

project that image outwardly. TV shows, sporting events, and movies are filled with men rolling in mud, jumping off and on moving vehicles, get-ting sprayed with beer, and worse–that stuff’s gotta get cleaned off somehow. Thankfully, male attitudes toward personal care have started to change over the last 15 years as this stigma fades.

It used to be that searching for men’s personal care products beyond the bare necessities was a trip through a neon-lit desert. Even half a shelf in the shaving section of a supermarket was an oasis! But take a walk through any big-box retailer today and you will see dozens of anti-aging creams, cleansers, exfoli-ants, and moisturizers marketed specifically to men. What distinguishes these products from their female counterparts the next aisle over is unclear, but one difference is certain: these products often make no effort to be cruelty-free.

It’s that old problem again–stoicism. While companies manufacturing female and unisex personal care products have made great strides in eliminating unnec-essary animal testing procedures at every level of the testing process, the same

Just for Men. Please?

ROBERT SKVARLA

is not true for male-exclusive products. Apparently, attitudes about human beauty are changing, but sadly, attitudes about non-human suffering are still stuck in the Stone Age.

Men’s personal care products will make promises of enhanced vitality for the consumer, but com-pletely ignore the pain of animals used in the test-ing process.

That’s not to say there aren’t any good personal care products out there. Great companies offering alternatives–Bulldog Skincare for Men, Herban Lifestyle, and The Body Shop, to name some of the leaders on this front–are few, and they’re often inaccessible beyond the Internet.

As a man who regularly purchases personal care products, I have one simple message: This is unac-ceptable. The personal care industry can do better, and men, as consumers, need to push for changes in this market. It’s not enough to simply want for these things. As consumers, we have the power to demand more. And asking only for our personal gratification is silly. Do I want to look good? Yes. But not at the expense of an animal’s life. If men’s products want to “man up,” they need to get the animal testing out.

Robert Skvarla is the Membership Assistant for AAVS.

Beauty in All LifeMineral Fusion started making natural cosmetics in 2009 after our founders saw a lack of effective cosmet-ics available to the natural consumer. This group of founders included our current President, Tom Brown, and Senior Vice President of Marketing, Tim Schaef-fer, who both had experience working for natural

product companies. They set out to create a line of cosmetics that would perform as well as any conventional makeup brand, but that boasted natural, healthy formulations. It started as a small company with only five people and has grown to 25 employees in 2015.

Mineral Fusion initially created products to be sold nationally in Whole Foods Markets, and grew as a healthy alternative for customers seeking a more natural cosmetic option. The original line was relatively small, offering cosmetics and body care, but now provides a full range of more than 250 products of mineral-based personal care items. Each of our products is formulated to harness the skin-healthy benefits of minerals, and then infused with nourishing botanicals and natural actives–and we never test on animals.

Our office dog, Luke, wouldn’t tolerate animal testing. And neither would our consumers. We take our responsibility as the #1 cosmetics brand in the natural channel seriously, and that means going the extra mile to ensure that not only are our products safe and natural, but that they meet the expectations and needs of our consumers and their furry friends.

We are certified with Leaping Bunny because we feel that it is an important part of our mission, along with our formal partnership with the National Coali-tion Against Domestic Violence, to support a free and healthy life for all living things. We firmly believe this is a fundamental right and want our company to promote beauty in all aspects of life. AV

Office dog Luke

MINERAL FUSION


AAVS: Tell us a little about how you became involved in the Leaping Bunny program. AMY: My good friend Lisa told me about the work you were doing and I wanted to learn more, so we were introduced.

Take us back to the day of the video shoot. What was that experience like for you? The day of the video was really fun at the beginning; everyone was dressing up like different animals, except me, and playing around–super fun and adorable, almost like we were going to a costume party. Then as we started shooting, it became very real and sad. The idea of these animals being horribly treated for people’s vanities is so cruel. Humanizing these animals will hopefully allow people to relate more and see the point of this PSA.

What surprised you the most after learning more about product testing on animals for cosmetics? Before doing this PSA, I was really just looking out for prod-ucts that were more eco-friendly and less toxic for humans. This opened my eyes to how many products are tested on animals, ones I was not aware of. I also learned the way they would test them on animals, and that visual alone is horrifying.

Why is cruelty-free shopping important to you? Cruelty-free shopping is important to me because it’s my way of not condoning bad behavior from companies and not being

INTERVIEW

Amy SmartAmy Smart is a talented actress who has been on the Hollywood circuit for years, appearing in such well-known TV shows and films Varsity Blues, The Butterfly Effect, Justified, and the recently released Break Point. She is also a passionate advocate for animals and the environment,

having worked for Heal the Bay, a nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to cleaning up Southern California’s coastal waters, as well as Best Friends Animal Society and No-Kill Los Angeles (NKLA). Recently, Amy became acquainted with the Leaping Bunny program and starred in a public service announcement about animal testing in cosmetics, personal care, and household products. We asked her to share why these issues matter to her.

Amy Smart (center) is surrounded by fellow actors (clockwise from upper left) Katy Stoll, Cody Kopp, Jessie Klein, Nathan Turner, Heather Woodward, and Andria Kozica during the filming of the new Leaping Bunny public service announcement.

Actress

PH

OTO

BY

BR

YAN

SH

EF

FIE

LD P

HO

TOG

RA

PH

Y

AV MAGAZINE 21

a part of that cruelty. When it comes to any products, there are always good options that don’t have to torture animals.

What role do you think shoppers play in ending animal testing for cosmetics? As Ed Begley, Jr. always says, “Vote with your dollars.” What we buy is a direct message to the companies producing products. Hopefully we all take responsibility for what we buy and look a little bit deeper before buying another product tested on an animal. Lead by example.

What are some of your favorite Leaping Bunny-certified brands? DeVita, Dr. Bronner’s, Earth Friendly Products, EO Products, Jane Iredale, Jason, Mrs. Meyer’s, Nature’s Gate, Seventh Gen-eration, Method, Tata Harper, and Urban Decay.

Have your own shopping habits changed since working with the Leaping Bunny program? If so, in what ways? Yes, since working with Leaping Bunny, I felt I needed to do my research about everything I buy…so I decided to look up every product brand before purchasing it to see if it was cruelty free.

What do you think celebrities should know about animal testing before they endorse personal care products? I think in general celebrities endorse personal care products for money and fame, and good PR. I do hope more celebrities will get educated about animals testing and start speaking up, be-cause it’s not all about the money. As we say in the PSA, “animal testing is archaic.” We don’t need to do it, so let’s rally together and put an end to unnecessary violence. It’s really about educat-ing people. Preaching turns people off; leading by example and teaching about it brings them in.

What other animal issues are important to you? I really support animal adoptions and rescue groups. I have been working with Best Friends Animal Society and NKLA. I also think fur needs to be banned. Again, we are not living in the Stone Age where it is needed to survive. It’s unnecessary cruelty. Also, I’m against CAFOs, concentrated animal-feeding operations.

Do you have any companion animals at home? Yes, we have a bulldog, Slim, and a Wheaten Terrier, Oscar. AV

New Leaping Bunny PSA!Leaping Bunny’s new public service announcement featuring Amy Smart was released publicly on December 14, and can be seen online at www.LeapingBunny.org/AmySmart. The video offers an engaging and poignant message about the importance of choosing cruelty-free products.

LEAPING BUNNY PROGRAM

LeapingBunny.orgNew and ImprovedConnectingCompassionate Consumers with Cruelty-Free Companies

Your Shopping Guide is Better than Ever!


WITH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT of members like you, AAVS has fur-thered the development of non-animal, alternative research models and testing methods for 35 years. We are proud to have contributed to an early replacement for the Draize rabbit eye test in 1981.

To fortify our commitment to reducing and replacing animal use by science and industry, AAVS established the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF) in 1994.

ARDF funds cutting-edge creations, including virtual organs, 3D models, com-puter simulations, sophisticated cell and tissue cultures, and other technologically

advanced tools. Modern alternatives yield more accurate data, providing a greater benefit to hu-mans while also sparing hundreds of thousands of animals from needless suffering and death.

With your help, AAVS and ARDF are able to effectively fund, develop, and promote non-animal methods in areas where animal models are currently the norm.

Please consider making a special gift today to support the development and pro-motion of alternatives. You may designate your gift using the enclosed envelope, or donate securely online at www.aavs.org/Alternatives. Thank you for joining this movement for humane science that helps animals instead of hurting them.

For information on planned giving, leadership gifts, recurring gifts, or other support, contact Chris Derer, Director of Development & Member Services, at 800-SAY-AAVS or [email protected]. When including AAVS in your estate plans or sending a donation, please use our legal title and office address: American Anti-Vivisection Society, 801 Old York Road, Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA 19046-1611. EIN: 23-0341990. AAVS is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization to which contributions are 100 percent tax-deductible under federal and state law.

GivingSUPPORT THE AAVS MISSION

In memory of Margaret Dawson. Her extraordinary dedication and service to AAVS for over 30 years was a gift. She will always be remembered for her kindness and grace.Sue LearyAmbler, PA

In memory of Wolfie, beloved dog, best friend, and protector.Robyn JenningsWauconda, IL

In memory of beloved friend Chuck Brumley.Karla BrieantPaul Smiths, NY

In memory of Sweets.Kim LangBuena Vista, VA

In memory of Christie and Kirby.Phyllis BarberSayville, NY

continued on following page >>

Alternatives Research

PH

OTO

CO

UR

TESY

OF

MAT

TEK

CO

RP

OR

ATIO

N

HIGHLY RATEDCHARITY NAVIGATOR, America’s largest independent charity evaluator, awarded AAVS its maximum four-star rating, based on our 2013 reporting. AAVS demonstrated: focus on our nonprofit mission, financial health, good governance practices, and account-ability. Visit charitynavigator.com and search for AAVS to view the complete report.

For four years running, AAVS has been recognized as a Top-Rated Charity by GreatNonprofits, a leading site to review nonprofits. We owe this honor to all the incredibly kind praise bestowed upon us by our loyal supporters. Thank you so much for recognizing AAVS’s important work and contributions to animal advocacy. Read the reviews at www.greatnonprofits.org.

TRIBUTESHONORING LOVED ONES

AV MAGAZINE 23

In memory of Rusty, our beloved cat.Gail McKinnonHyde Park, MA

In memory of Lucky LuLu Bell.James D. SpatesAustin, TX

In memory of Princess Moona.Joan ThompsonSummerville, SC

In memory of my father, Rudolph Frank (8/27/1912 - 7/28/1985) on the 30th anniversary of his death. A good friend to animals and to anti-vivisection. Never forgotten.Carol K. FrankPhiladelphia, PA

In loving memory of Blackie–Black Majesty–the most wonderful cat. Your 20 years, the last 13 with me, were all sweet-ness and courage. You struggled, ill, but live on forever!Ann W. SutterSan Rafael, CA

In memory of Bella, Grady, Vinnie, and Sophie, my dear furry loved ones. I miss you. Thanks for being in my life.Annette JohnsonFair Oaks, CA

In honor of Sam, a lab monkey.Belle C. HayesComptche, CA

In memory of Tina Nelson and Mona.Crystal SchaefferSouderton, PA

In honor of Smokey Joe and Fritz, best friends forever.Diana P. DaviesShirley, NY

In honor of Kizzie, my little fur person!Leta HueninkColorado Springs, CO

In memory of Maggie.Loretta CourtemarcheHuntington Beach, CA

In memory of Payton.Diane GerchChicago, IL

You can honor or memorialize a companion animal or animal lover by making a donation in his or her name. Gifts of any amount are greatly appreciated. A tribute accompanied by a gift of $50 or more will be published in AV Magazine. At your request, we will also notify the family of the individual you have remembered. All donations are used to continue AAVS’s mission of ending the use of animals in biomedical research, product testing, and education.

In memory of Robert M. Schumo, Jr. His love of all animals was above and beyond!Margaret K. SchumoReading, PA

In honor of all my four-legged treasures, past and present.Binell MartinoNorth Rideville, OH

In memory of Harry Rose. Father taught me to love all creatures. He is so missed.Jessica RoszczewskiEllington, CT

In memory of Shep, the rescue dog who rescued me with his love and companionship.Kenneth Skoug, Jr.Harleysville, PA

In honor of my dog Willoughby, who enables me to love unconditionally.Malcolm McCormickCanton, NY

In memory of Cecil, the lion who was heartlessly killed by a hunter in Zimbabwe.Dorothy MarionPittsburgh, PA

In honor of Lucy, my sweet (and ornery) rat terrier. I love you to the moon and back, times 10!Nancy ReineckerWichita, KS

In memory of Tye, a Malamute/yellow Lab. My best friend!Donelda KalschManahawkin, NJ

In memory of Orange Ruffy & Christina Gray (cats).Edna ShuttleworthPigeon, MI

In memory of Mona, one of the great beauties. Thank you for being my special little pal. You’ll always be in my heart.Sue LearyAmbler, PA

In loving memory of Margaret Krafchik, the beloved mother of Frank Krafchik.Women’s Club of Germantown Jewish CenterPhiladelphia, PA

In memory of Audrey.Nancy KasmarAudubon, NJ

In memory of Harpo.Susan DanyoMechanicsburg, PA

In honor of my Lab, Sheba.Kilbee BrittainLos Angeles, CA

In memory of Issy and Boris Frost, our treasured ones.Andrew and Diana FrostNorman, OK In memory of the nine cats I have lost, mostly to cancer.Elizabeth P. HughesBaltimore, MD In memory of Richard Comeau–a truly compassionate man, forever in our hearts.Donald and Margaretha ComeauAyer, MA

I honor of Susan and Holly Parker, and Peggy Parker Grauman.Nancy Clinton ParkerHartford, CT In memory of my wonderful mother, who taught me to love all animals.Dorothy HoltzmanExton, PA

In honor of Jeannie the chimpanzee.Christa Maria BauzaSan Juan, PR


STOOL PIGEON. BLACK SHEEP. DARK HORSE. Lame duck. Paper tiger. Dirty rat. Red herring.

Animals have become much maligned in English vernacular and popular idioms. Although these negative expressions are generally figurative, the term

“guinea pig”—denoting a test subject—has a literal origin. Guinea pigs have been used for biological experimentation since at least the 17th century, and although their laboratory usage is less common today, it’s only because they have been re-placed by more rapidly bred rats and mice.

George Bernard Shaw is credited with creating the association between “guin-ea pig” and “test subject” in this passage from his 1913 study of Henrik Ibsen, The Quintessence of Ibsenism: “The...folly which sees in the child nothing more than the vivisector sees in a guinea pig: something to experiment on with a view to rearranging the world.”

Delving further into the animal’s etymology, the very name “guinea pig” is a curious misnomer; these small, stout creatures are neither in the pig family nor native to Guinea, a country in West Africa. Officially known as Cavia porcellus (Latin for “little pig”), guinea pigs belong to the cavy family of rodents. Their domestication dates back as far as 5000 B.C. in the Andean region of South America, where they are called cuy and are still commonly raised as food.

New World explorers and traders brought domestic cavies to the European continent in the 1500s. The animals’ somewhat porcine appearance led to their branding as “pigs” in England, while “guinea” may have been derived from the vessels on which the rodents were transported—slave ships called Guineamen. The name guinea pig was first recorded (as “ginny-pig”) in 1653, in a medical textbook written by William Harvey.

Queen Elizabeth I may have helped to popularize guinea pigs as household pets; her menagerie of exotic animals included several cavies. Later on in the 1800s, guinea pigs were groomed for presentation in official competitions similar to modern dog shows.

A docile disposition, colorful coat, expressive vocalizations, and adorable ap-pearance all contribute to the guinea pig’s status as a popular companion animal. They live five to seven years but need specific care, feeding, and housing. They are social, enjoying the company of other guinea pigs as well as people. A nation-al network of rescue groups helps find proper homes for these special animals.

Pig or no pig, a guinea pig should be no one’s test subject.

Members’ Corner

PH

OTO

S B

Y: T

OP,

MA

RS

HA

WE

AV

ER

/TH

E C

OZ

Y C

AV

Y; M

IDD

LE A

ND

BO

TTO

M, L

ISA

SH

AR

P/A

TLA

NTA

ME

TRO

GU

INE

A P

IG R

ES

CU

E

Chris DererDirector of Development & Member Services

OZZY, INDIE, AND BUGZY (from top) are just some of the many guinea pigs who have found forever homes thanks to the efforts of guinea pig rescue groups. Like other small animals, guinea pigs are often purchased from pet stores by people who may be unfamiliar with their needs, and end up being relinquished to animal shelters or rescue groups. A comprehensive resource for guinea pig adoption is www.guinealynx.info, which has infor-mation about proper care and a complete list of rescue groups by state and country.

AV MAGAZINE 25 www.LeapingBunny.org

LEAPING BUNNY PROGRAM

LOOK FOR THE LEAPING BUNNY

Did you know there is no law in the U.S. that regulates the definition of cruelty-free? Companies can make whatever claims they wish. The Leaping Bunny Program has certified over 600 companies that have agreed, in writing, to ban animal testing throughout their manufacturing process (including ingredients).

SEARCHOrder a Compassionate Shopping Guide (and an extra for your local retail store!) or download our cruelty-free app for smartphones.www.LeapingBunny.org/GuideRequestwww.LeapingBunny.org/App

WATCHWatch and share the new Leaping Bunny video starring Amy Smart.www.LeapingBunny.org/AmySmart

STAY IN TOUCHSign up for Leaping Bunny monthly e-mails for scoops on the finest cruelty-free products!www.LeapingBunny.org#subscribe

WITH THE HEART.HELEN KELLER

THE BEST AND MOST BEAUTIFULTHINGS IN THE WORLD

CANNOT BE SEEN OR

THEY MUST BE FELTEVEN TOUCHED.

The American Anti-Vivisection Society801 Old York Road, Suite 204Jenkintown, PA 19046-1611 U.S.A.

Non-Profit Org.U.S. PostagePAIDHamburg, PAPermit No. 102

av magazine issue 3, 2015

Documents