From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:54:14 GMT


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> Rosemary, appearances can be deceiving.  You should be aware that 
mh> there are *no* standards or guidelines in force for labeling a 
mh> product "cruelty-free." What usually happens is that unscrupulous 
mh> manufacturers buy formulations or materials that are 
mh> animal-tested elsewhere.  

Russell Lawrence wrote:
rl> Avon and Revlon are among the many dozens of companies that no longer 
rl> do animal testing.  Are they "unscrupulous"?  If so, please explain why.

From article <mhulsey-181192105351@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> I have no proof, but I understand that they contract such work out 
mh> to other firms now.  

How did this wee bit of "understanding" happen to come your way,
Martin?  Please specify your sources.  

mh> I would be appreciative if you could clairify this.  How do you 
mh> verify that companies aren't really surreptitiously testing their 
mh> products or ingredients elsewhere?  

How could we prove that you've never, ever, committed some truly 
heinous criminal act?  Answer: We can't.  However, the logical burden 
of proof falls on the accuser, rather than the accused.  

Are you claiming that Revlon and Avon are involved in such chicanery?
If so, let's see your evidence.  

mh> Do you disagree that there are no existing standards for applying 
mh> the label "cruelty-free?"

No.  On the other hand, if company officials sign an affadavit stating
their position on animal testing, it seems to me we should take them
at their word unless there's proof to the contrary.

mh> According to "Partners in Discovery," a propaganda organ of the 
mh> NIH, "...federal regulations generally require information that 
mh> can only be obtained from animals, to determine the safety and 
mh> efficacy of a new medicine, medical procedure, or consumer 
mh> product...  It is important to recognize that most products 
mh> advertised as 'not tested on animals' contain ingredients that in 
mh> fact _have_ (emphasis theirs) been tested on animals-or a company 
mh> could not label a product as safe for human use." 

From Vogue magazine (November, 1990):

"Though neither the FDA nor the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission requires animal testing before a consumer product or 
cosmetic goes on the market, both agencies have historically used 
animal toxicity data as their standard for evaluating safety.  
While publicly stating that it doesn't think any single 
alternative test is developed sufficiently, for example, to 
replace the Draize eye irritancy test, the FDA has offered 
passive approval to companies such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee 
Lauder, which have conducted investigations of various 
alternatives and found them to be at least as accurate as the 
animal tests for their product lines." 

mh> If you watch TV, please note that Paul Mitchell's commercials 
mh> with Mariel Hemingway originally touted his products as 
mh> "cruelty-free," but no longer make this claim.  Why do you 
mh> suppose that they would discontinue this claim?  

rl> I saw a Paul Mitchell advertisement just a few days ago, and it very
rl> definitely used the expression "cruelty-free".  What's the scoop?

mh> I'm not sure.  They might have two versions of the ads- one for 
mh> New Orleans and one for Atlanta.  I'm sure about them 
mh> discontinuing the claim in the Atlanta market;  I saw the 
mh> "cruelty-free" version only once, and I've seen the 
mh> "cruelty-free-free" version many times.  I cannot suggest why 
mh> they would run different ads in different markets - seems 
mh> "unscrupulous" to me.  What do you think?  

I think you should furnish the source of your allegation concerning
Revlon and Avon.   After you post it, I'm going to fax copies to
both companies and ask them for a reply.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ