Lush Prize for Lobbying - 2015
Research Paper

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

1	
  

1

Executive Summary

The use of animals in laboratories is often entrenched by legal requirements or aregulatory reluctance to accept the scientific superiority of non-animal testing
methods. Political lobbying is an essential part of the campaign to end animal
testing.
The definition of the Lush Prize for Lobbying1 is:“Scientific innovation needs to go hand-in-hand with policy change to ensure that
end-users of new testing approaches – industry and regulators – are receptive andresponsive to the new methods.
Such change requires a multifaceted, global approach, including science-based
lobbying at the national level or supra-national level to:•

Entrench non-animal testing methods in national, EU or OECD programmesof test guidelines•

Revise existing guidelines to reflect best practices, including the removal ofanimal tests, or•Achieve a mandatory requirement for non-animal testing in legislation,
regulatory policies, testing guidance, etc.”

This paper examines some of the key issues relating to animal testing in several
countries that are of particular relevance to the Lush Prize, which focuses on toxicity
testing for consumer products and ingredients. These key issues relate to cosmetics
testing and chemical testing. Recent lobbying initiatives are discussed, as well as
several recent successes. This is a crucial time for lobbying on these issues andimportant results have been achieved, such as the European Union (EU) ban onmarketing animal testing cosmetics, which is making waves around the world.
Also included is a list of organisations around the world that are active in lobbying
either locally, nationally or internationally, on animal experimentation.
In addition, the paper ends with a list of organisations that merit particularconsideration for the Lush Prize because of their outstanding work in the field:
1
Humane Research Australia: For its political work in support of ending animal
testing for cosmetics.
(HRA won the Public Awareness Prize in 2014)
2
Eurogroup for Animals: For their contribution to the acceptance of the need toreplace animal tests and their policy papers on several areas of animal testing.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1

Lobbying Prize. Lush Prize. www.lushprize.org/awards/lobbying-prize. Accessed 02.6.15

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

2	
  

3
Animalia: For their work to increase the general public and decision-makers'
awareness of animal protection issues and instigation of public debate on animal
protection.
4Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V.: For their campaign to put pressure on
responsible authorities, politicians and companies, for example on the issues ofdissection and Botox testing.
5
Humane Society International India: For their campaign which led to India's
Drug Controller General to call for the last remaining animal tests to be eliminatedfrom India’s cosmetics standard and their Be Cruelty-Free campaign.
6
PETA India: For their major role in the successful campaign to ban the testingof cosmetics on animals in the country.
(PETA India won the Lobbying Prize in 2012 for its campaign to end animal testing ofcosmetics)
7
Irish Anti-Vivisection Society (IAVS): For lobbying the Department of Healthwhich has led to the reform of the most severe procedures, and acceptance anddevelopment of research and testing techniques not involving animals.
8
EQUIVITA Antivivisection Scientific Committee: For lobbying the Minister of
Health to provide input to research on addictions and not let slip the ban on the
animal testing of recreational drugs such as alcohol, drugs and tobacco (due in2017).
9
Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE): For their ongoing strategic lobbying
which has been instrumental in New Zealand legislative reform.
(SAFE won the Public Awareness Prize in 2013)10
NZ Anti-Vivisection Society: For their political work over the past three
decades, including the presentation of petitions to Parliament, and submissions togovernment and regulatory authorities.
(NZAVS won the Lobbying Prize in 2014)11
Djurrättsalliansen: For their campaign to end primate experiments and team ofinvestigators from Djurrättsalliansen to go through the applications sent in to theseven ethical committees that approve the experiments with animals.
12
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: For their political lobbyingon the Chemical Safety Improvement Act and role as Secretariat of the International
Council on Animal Protection at OECD (ICAPO).
(ICAPO won the Lobbying Prize in 2013)
13
The American Anti-Vivisection Society: For their leadership role as Chair of
the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC).

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

3	
  

2

Introduction

Many scientists rely on animal experiments, and regulatory agencies mandate datacollected from them because that is what tradition and laws dictate, ignoring the
failure of animal tests to predict what is safe or effective in people, and failing torecognise the advances made in non-animal testing methodologies. However, agreat deal of progress has been achieved over the past twenty years or so inchanging legislation to encourage non-animal testing methods. These changes not
only meet the expectations and demands of a public concerned about animal
protection but, given the unreliability of experiments on animals, provide safer
methods of testing new products for the consumer market.
Countries that require cosmetics to pass animal tests before being allowed on themarket are being robustly challenged to implement effective non-animal testing
methods and end animal use entirely. This is being done using a combination of
public awareness and lobbying campaigns, as well as training of scientists andregulators. In 2013, the EU took the landmark step of banning the importation of all
cosmetics tested on animals (anywhere in the world) after March 11th 2013. The
marketing law was fully implemented, making the selling of animal-tested cosmetics
in Europe illegal, even if the testing was carried out on animals outside. This was anincredible achievement that was a culmination of a vigorous and long-standing publiccampaign against animal-tested cosmetics. The EU Cosmetics Directive(76/768/EEC) has been described as “a major balancing act between research andanimal protection” and a “quantum leap forwards from the 1986 regulations”2. The
European Parliament agreed on the principle that non-animal alternatives must be
used wherever they are scientifically suitable.
In 2009, animal tests for cosmetics were made illegal in Europe, yet still products
tested elsewhere could be imported. This landmark decision by the EU hadrepercussions around the world. Israel and India followed suit and introducing similar
legislation. The sales ban made it ultimately clear that animal testing is unnecessary(and wrong), and cosmetics companies were forced to re-evaluate animal testing
policies, if they wanted to sell products to the EU’s 500 million consumers. The banalso sparked a surge in investment in non-animal tests and a number of animal tests
have now been completely replaced with superior, cheaper and more effective nonanimal methods.
Both Israel and Norway have now officially banned animal testing for cosmetics. In
Israel, a similar marketing ban was implemented in 2013 which prohibits the import,
marketing and sale of any cosmetics, toiletries or detergents whose manufacturing
process involves animal testing3, having first banned the use of animals to test
personal care and household products in 2007. India became the first Asian nation toban animal testing for cosmetics, with the Drug Controller General of India
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2

Experiments on animals: did the EU cave in to lobbyists? Peter Wedderburn, Telegraph, 9.9.10
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100053008/experiments-on-animals-did-the-eucave-in-to-lobbyists
3
Import ban on animal-tested products goes into effect. Gabe Fisher, Times of Israel, 1.1.13.
www.timesofisrael.com/import-ban-on-animal-tested-products-goes-into-effect	
  Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper4	  announcing during June 2013 that the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on
animals will no longer be permitted in the country. Campaigners from several NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs) are now urging for a ban on the marketing ofcosmetics or their ingredients tested on animals. In other words, legislation that is inline with the EU and Israel.
In Southeast Asia, cosmetics legislation adopted by the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) mirrors EU law aside from the cosmetics testing ban.
ASEAN Heads of Delegation are now considering updating their rules to match. In
Vietnam, the government has ended the use of the cruel and controversial draize
rabbit eye test for cosmetics - an acute toxicity test which involves the applying of
substances into the eyes of conscious rabbits. In March 2015, a bill was launched in
Korea that will ban animal testing of cosmetics where accepted non-animalalternatives are available.
In China, the authorities have now abolished the requirement for animal testing formost cosmetics manufactured in the country, including shampoo, make up, manyskin care products and perfume. Cruelty-free companies can now seek to sell theseproducts in the country without animal testing - as long as they finish (package) theirproducts in China.
In Brazil, the Chamber of Deputies passed a bill requiring most cosmetics tests to be
carried out without the use of animals4. In January 2014, São Paulo became the firstregion in Brazil to sign a bill prohibiting cosmetics testing on animals in the state.
In the United States, a federal bill was recently introduced in 2014 - The Humane
Cosmetics Act. This bill aims to phase out the use of animal tests for cosmetics after
one year, and end the sale of cosmetics tested on animals in other countries after
three years. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has been pressured toprovide industry guidance on the use of alternatives to animal tests.
In New Zealand, during March 2015, the Government decided to ban animal tests forcosmetics and ingredients.
So, whilst companies can’t sell animal-tested cosmetics in Europe, they can continue
to test cosmetics on animals outside Europe and sell them in other markets. In otherwords, companies can still profit from cruelty to animals in many countries.
The use of animals in chemicals testing also remains high on the lobbying agenda
for NGOs working on the issue of animal testing. In Europe, particularly cruel toxicity
tests are now required under the ‘Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation andRestriction of Chemicals’ (REACH) legislation, which involves the poisoning ofguinea pigs, rabbits, fish, birds, rats and mice. Lobbying by NGOs has helped tosignificantly reduce the number of animals used in testing for REACH, yet scrutinyneeds to be applied to limit animal use as much as possible.

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/what-we-do/our-campaigns/ending-cruel-cosmetics/around-world

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

5	
  

3

Lobbying

3.1

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in thegovernment, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies5. It plays avital role in creating change, and is often a consequence of public awarenesscampaigns.
NGOs opposed to animal testing are becoming increasingly skilled at lobbying at avariety of levels and are accepted by regulatory and legislative bodies as informed
and reliable stakeholders. They have formed coalitions such as the International
Council on Animal Protection in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment) Programmes, which was formed to incorporate alternative methods
that can replace, reduce, and refine animal use. The European Coalition to End
Animal Experiments (ECEAE) is an effective lobbying organisation that has a
stakeholder seat on several committees relating to the European Chemicals Agency(ECHA). ECHA and the Member States evaluate information submitted by chemicalcompanies to examine the quality of registration dossiers and the testing proposals
and can order companies to carry out animal tests. PETA India also has an official
seat on committees which has been instrumental in their lobbying to successfully
ban cosmetics testing on animals.

4

Key Issues

4.1 Cosmetics
The European Union, consisting of 28 Member States, became the world’s first set ofcountries to ban cosmetics tests on animals. In 2003, the European Parliament voted
to ban animal testing for cosmetic purposes. The seventh amendment to the
Cosmetics Directive (Directive 76/768/EEC) banned testing on animals in Europe
from March 2009, and also banned the ‘marketing’ (i.e. import and sale) of products
and ingredients tested on animals outside Europe after that date. A postponement ofthe ‘marketing’ ban was provided for three animal tests (‘endpoints’) - toxicokinetics,
repeated dose, and reproductive toxicity until 2013, as it was considered at the timethat these tests were more difficult to replace.
In March 2013, the EU banned the sale of finished cosmetics and cosmetics
ingredients that have been tested on animals. This ban means that companies allover the world must replace animal tests for cosmetics if they want to sell cosmetics
in Europe.
There is no doubt that the new Directive is an improvement and the cosmetics ban
has been a driving force for the industry to develop and utilise humane tests for
products. The legislation, however, imposes a general ban only on the use of great
apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, in scientific tests however. The
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying	
  Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

6	  Commission wanted to extend this ban to include other primates such as macaques,
but MEPs disagreed. Another proposed requirement, insisting on the sharing of datafrom animal experiments, was also removed, presumably for reasons of commercial
advantage. The Directive sets out categories of pain, ranging from "mild" to "severe"- a classification system designed to prevent repeated suffering. The Directive
obliges national authorities to carry out regular inspections of laboratories that use
animals, with some of the visits being unannounced. Unfortunately, it is the NGOs
who continue to reveal what happens inside laboratories, often through carrying out
undercover investigations, rather than via Governmental bodies.
4.2 Household products - United Kingdom
Whilst there is no legal definition of a ‘household product’, most of us would
understand the term to mean products such as disinfectants, washing powder, air
fresheners, disinfectants, furniture polish, bleach, stain removers, glues and othercleaning products for baths, dishwashers, carpets, ovens and toilets. The UK public
spend around £1 billion a year on household products, with supermarket shelves andkitchen cupboards dominated by products from multinational giants.
In the UK, animal tests for household products are usually carried out for thechemical ingredients that go into these products. Thousands of mice, rats, rabbits,
guinea pigs and other animals suffer and die each year in the UK alone during
poisoning tests of household product ingredients.
In 2010, the UK Coalition Government pledged to ‘end the testing of householdproducts on animals’. In 2011, the Home Office Minister, Lynn Featherstone,
announced the same. The Government has so far failed to honour their pledge. The
proposed ban (that has not yet been implemented) only applies to finished products,
which means the chemical ingredients will still be tested on animals to satisfy
general chemicals legislation. In fact, the pledge has been watered down to the pointthat not a single animal test may be affected.
Several NGOs in the UK are currently calling on the UK Government to include
ingredients in its definition of a ‘household product’.
The UK Government also must follow the 2010 pledge with implementation andsubstantial progress with regards to other areas of safety testing, where thousandsof animals continue to suffer. Other areas that must be addressed are the current
cost-benefit analysis involved in the licensing of grants, and the need for new
products to be constantly marketed.
In accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, a Project Licenceis granted after the Secretary of State has weighed the likely adverse effects on the
animals against any benefits likely to accrue as a result of the project.
With regards to safety testing, the relevant benefit has been taken by the Home
Office to be the protection of humans, animals and the environment. Yet the benefits
likely to accrue from using the specific product or substance should be weighedagainst the harms caused to the animals in safety testing, harm that is often

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper7	  substantial. This principle has in fact already been applied in the case of cosmetics,
where the use of animals in safety testing has been banned throughout Europe.
If this principle were to be applied, no animal testing would be allowed for
substances with trivial purposes or little benefit to society such as householdproducts.
In 2012, the revised UK animal testing legislation stated that no Project Licenses will
be granted for the testing of household products on animals. However, the Home
Office Minister (when asked during Parliamentary Questions) stated that there is noauthoritative definition of ‘household product’ in UK or EU legislation. There is no
mention of any restriction on ingredients for household products.
There is clearly a lack of political will to end the use of animal testing in the
production and marketing of household products here in the UK.
4.3 EU Chemical Testing Programme
In October 2003, the European Commission presented its latest proposal for a new
EU regulatory framework for the testing of chemicals. This is part of the EU's plan totest thousands of substances that have been in everyday use for many years andhave been tested on animals before. Chemicals that were marketed prior to 1981 will
now have to undergo extensive safety testing.
Its new formula has been termed ‘REACH’, or the ‘Registration, Evaluation andAuthorisation of Chemicals’. It was established to give industry greater responsibility
for managing risks and providing information, thus shifting the burden of proof ofsafety from government to industry. REACH came into effect in 2007.
Under REACH, the European Commission plans to test at least 30,000 chemicals fortheir human and environmental safety. Chemical companies have up until 2018 toprove to the European Chemicals Agency that the chemicals they are manufacturing
or importing are safe to use. Around 13 million animals will be poisoned and killed by
cruel toxicity tests, including guinea pigs, rabbits, rats and mice. Thanks to campaign
groups such as Cruelty Free International (formerly BUAV) and PETA, the number ofanimals killed has been reduced (it would have been between 38-45 million without
their intervention). Still, it remains the biggest poisoning programme in European
history.
REACH means millions of animals will still be poisoned to death in cruel,unnecessary tests. Some positive amendments in REACH have included mandatory
data sharing (devised to avoid duplication of tests) and the promotion of non-animal
test methods. Legal experts are challenging certain animal tests and to have themremoved, saving still more lives.
NGOs such as BUAV and PETA are working hard to end specific tests under the
REACH legislation, including providing expert advice to companies ordered to carryout cruel tests by European Chemicals Agency, under REACH.
4.4 Individual species

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper8	  Several organisations, such as Soko Tierschutz in Germany and BUAV, have carriedout groundbreaking lobbying work on the use of non-human primates andcompanion animals (i.e. dogs and cats) in experiments, animals who strike aparticular chord with the general public.
4.4. 1 Primates
Members of the European Parliament and European citizens have identified a strong
ethical, scientific and conservation case for phasing out the use of non-humanprimates in regulatory testing (required for products to be put on the market) and inacademic/fundamental research. For example, in 2002 the European Parliament
adopted this policy: “the need for the continued use of non-human primates in
research and testing should be critically evaluated in the light of scientific knowledge,
with the intention of reducing and eventually ending their use”6.
An end to the use of primates in research would likely receive widespread public
support: 80% of respondents to the European Commission’s public consultation on
the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC responded that the use of primates inlaboratories is ‘not acceptable’7. The awareness of primate suffering in laboratories
is high, particularly in Europe, thanks to several key undercover investigations suchas those carried out by NGOs BUAV and Soko Tierschutz, and is a source ofwidespread concern. In 2007, 433 Members of the European Parliament – themajority – signed Written Declaration 40, calling for the Commission, the Council of
Ministers and the Parliament to use the revision process of Directive 86/609/EEC to:(a) make ending the use of apes and wild-caught monkeys in scientific experiments
an urgent priority(b) establish a timetable for replacing the use of all primates in scientific experimentswith alternatives. Written Declaration 40/2007 had received unprecedented crossparty support, with every Member State represented. It included prominent
Europeans, including former government ministers.
All primate species show high levels of intelligence, are dextrous, good at problem
solving, behave cooperatively and have extensive social structures with componentsof culture. Rhesus macaque monkeys have proved themselves capable of learning
rudimentary arithmetic, to think using symbols and have demonstrated ‘theory ofmind’ – how to reason about what others think – a cognitive ability previously
considered paramount to human beings.
The extensive undercover investigation with support from BUAV at Tübingen Max
Planck Institute (MPI) for Biological Cybernetics in Germany by Soko Tierschutz was
followed closely by some excellent political lobbying by the organisation on the
ground in Germany. Extensive national and international media coverage followed,
along with online actions and large scale demonstrations, including ones in Stuttgart
and Tübingen involving thousands of people.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6

Report A5-0387/2002 adopted 13.11.2002
www.savetheprimates.org/primateban/primatestestingreport/political-and-public-support-forreplacement-of-primate-tests	  7Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper9	  On a national level, representatives of the Green Party in Germany positioned
themselves against invasive brain research on primates. On a local level it was
backed by the Green mayor of Tübingen. Soko Tierschutz created more politicalpressure and media attention by focusing on the election campaign of the mayor,
and also announced another big demonstration in Stuttgart, where the local
government has its quarters. Soko Tierschutz attended a meeting with the animal
welfare officer of Baden-Württemberg to discuss potential strategies for the future.
The Max Planck Institute Director, Prof. Nikos Logothetis, in 2015 made a publicstatement that he would discontinue the research on primates after the current
licenses expire. This was a direct consequence of the work by Soko Tierschutz.
Soko Tierschutz is continuing the campaign and focusing on rescuing some of the
primates still languishing inside Max Planck Institute. The NGO is now expecting two
prime-time programmes concerning primate research and will continue outreachaction to reach the general public.
4.4.2 Companion animals
Each year hundreds of cats and thousands of dogs are harmed in cruel animal
experiments in the UK. The BUAV has carried out some groundbreaking work
regarding their plight in laboratories. Their exposes, for example their 2013
investigation on the use of on four-week old puppies and eight-week old kittens in a
UK laboratory (MSD Health Laboratory), and campaigns have raised awareness on
the need to end their use in research. Their most recent ‘Our Best Friends’ campaign
calls on the UK Government to end the use of dogs and cats in scientific research,just as it has done for Great Apes. In 2014, as part of the same campaign, BUAV
recruited several high profile celebrities to lobby the UK government to make it
mandatory for cats, dogs and other animals used in animal testing laboratories to be
rehomed by the laboratories themselves.

5

NGOs Active in Lobbying on Animal Testing

5.1

Australia

5.1.1 Humane Research Australia(www.humaneresearch.org.au)
Humane Research Australia challenges the use of animals in research and teaching,and promotes the use of more humane and scientifically valid non-animalalternatives.
Campaigns include ‘Ban Primate experiments (petition), Through the Looking Glass(with template letter to demand more transparency), Be Cruelty-Free Australia (inpartnership with Humane Society International. Pledge, campaign Twitter, public
consultation, products list), Happy Endings (in association with Beagle Freedom
Australia, a network of groups and individuals who offer rehabilitation and sanctuary
to ex-laboratory animals and they have a database of people who can take in exlaboratory animals), Voices from the Labs (requesting testimonials from lab workers),

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper10	  Xenotransplantation (asking people to write to Government to demand an end to it),
Stopping the use of Pound Animals in Research (has campaigned against the use ofpound dogs in veterinary teaching since 2006), Ban the Importation of Primates for
Research (urging people to write to government to ban primate imports), Use of Calf
serum (a campaign against so-called ‘In Vitro’ methods) and Say No to Dissection(run a ‘Humane Education Loan Program’ (HELP), which aims to provide educatorsand students with up to date alternatives to animal use in teaching. They also
associate with Interniche and provide other resources for students).
Over the past twelve months Humane Research Australia have focused on:• Through the Looking Glass - seeking transparency in animal research•

HRA recently launched the campaign Ban Primate Experiments which they
believe should have a huge impact on not only primates but all animals usedin experiments•

Be Cruelty Free Australia Campaign (a partnership between HRA and HSI) In November 2014, Be Cruelty-Free Australia Worked with Liberal Senator
Ruston and all co-sponsoring parties to achieve the passing of a cross-party
Senate motion in support of ending animal testing for cosmetics. In
September 2014, Be Cruelty-Free Australia made a detailed submission to
the Australian Labour Party's Cosmetics and Animal Testing Policy
Consultation, calling for a ban on the importation, manufacture, and sale ofcosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals. In March 2014, Be
Cruelty-Free Australia worked with the Australian Greens Party to help launch
the End Cruel Cosmetics Bill.

5.1.2 Animal Liberation Victoria(www.alv.org.au and www.animal-liberation.org.au)
Various animal protection issues: animal testing; duck shooting; zoos, circuses,
rodeos; puppy farms; veganism.
5.1.3 Animals Australia(www.animalsaustralia.org)
Various animal protection issues: animal testing; factory farming; greyhound racing.
Promote a Pledge for people to sign saying they will not purchase animal tested
products, contact companies such as P&G, donate to animal-friendly charities andavoid dissection.
5.1.4 Medical Advances Without Animals (MAWA)(www.mawa-trust.org.au)
The aim of the Medical Advances Without Animals Trust (MAWA) is to advance
medical science to improve human health and therapeutic outcomes without using
animals or animal products.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper11	
  5.1.5 Anti-Vivisection Union SA Inc(www.arrc.org.au)
Out of date website but offers some information on hatching projects.
5.1.6 Choose Cruelty Free
(www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au)
Produces the Choose Cruelty Free List. They survey and accredit cruelty-freecompanies selling cosmetics, toiletries and household cleaning products toAustralian consumers, online and/or retail.
5.1.7 Earth April International (EAI)(http://EarthApril.GoodEasy.info)
Earth April is an ecological network.
5.2

Austria5.2.1 Internationaler Bund der Tierversuchsgegner (Rights for Animals)(www.tierversuchsgegner.at)
In May 2015, Internationaler Bund der Tierversuchsgegner urged supporters tocontact the Austrian MEPs and urge them to you to support the concerns of the"Stop Vivisection" Citizens' Initiative.
5.2.2 Verein gegen Tierfabriken (Association against Animal Factories)(https://www.vgt.at/index_en.php)
Verein gegen Tierfabriken reported on a 2015 poll on animal testing, and they makedemands in EU legislation.
(www.vgt.at/actionalert/tierversuche/forderungen/20120515ForderungenTierversuch
e.pdf).
5.2.3 Save My Life
(www.savemylife.at)
Save my life act as mediators, offering a rehoming service for animals in labs.
5.3

Belgium

5.3.1 Eurogroup for Animals(http://eurogroupforanimals.org)
Various animal protection issues: animal testing; farmed animals; wildlife; companion
animals; EU & animal welfare.
Eurogroup feature latest news articles (e.g. http://eurogroupforanimals.org/news/allmember-states-now-use-non-animal-methods-for-biotoxin-testing/ andhttp://eurogroupforanimals.org/news/change-in-eu-chemicals-legislation-to-savemillions-of-lab-animals/)

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper12	  In the case of cosmetics and safety testing of chemicals and food, Eurogroup has
contributed to the acceptance of the need to replace animal tests with non-animalalternatives.
Eurogroup produced policy papers on Endocrine disrupters, pesticides, cosmetics,
nanotechnology, biotechnology, protection for lab animals, chemicals andalternatives.
5.3.2 GAIA - Voice of the Voiceless(www.gaia.be/en)
Various animal protection issues: animal testing; factory farming; foie gras; fur trade.
Member of ECEAE.
GAIA demands an ambitious policy in favour of alternative methods to animal
experimentation, which would spare countless thousands of animals a lifetime ofsuffering in the name of science.
5.3.3 Bite Back(www.biteback.org)
Various animal protection issues: animal testing; veganism; zoos; animal circuses.
Held a Scientific Database on vivisection (www.dierproeveninformatie.nl).
5.4

Brazil

5.4.1 ANDA - Agência de Notícias dos Direitos dos Animais(www.anda.jor.br).
AND feature articles and news on animal rights issues from around the world.
5.4.2 Brazilian Society of Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments (SBMAlt)
The Brazilian Industry Association of Toiletries, Perfumes and Cosmetics (ABIHPEC)
in partnership with SBMAlt promote a discussion and alignment relative to theBrazilian regulatory environment and its future prospects.
5.5

China

5.5.1 Humane Society International(www.hsi.org/world/china)
In 2013, the Be Cruelty Free campaign was launched in China with Chinese NGOs
and academic scientists. HSI works with Chinese regulators to increase access toand acceptance of superior non-animal test methods. They launched a $80,000
partnership with the Institute for In Vitro Sciences to provide Chinese scientists withhands-on training using advanced non-animal methods.
5.5.2 Chinese Animal Protection Network(www.capn-online.info/en.php)
First Chinese network for animal protection, focussing on different animal issues

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper13	  such as scientific research, lab animal rights, vegetarianism, networking of advocacy
groups/individuals. Much work of CAPN is done in collaboration of Earth April
International (EAI).
5.5.3 Capital Animal Welfare Association
CAWA works with HSI on the Be Cruelty Free campaign in China.
5.5.4 Animal Protection Network(http://dongbaowang.org/BCFChina)
Be Cruelty Free partner.
5.6

Czech Republic

5.6.1 Svoboda zvírat (Freedom for Animals)(www.svobodazvirat.cz)
Svoboda zvírat has been a member of ECEAE since 2006 and Cruelty Free
International since 2012.
Svoboda zvírat grants the Humane Cosmetics Standard and the Humane Household
Products Standard international certificates to Czech companies fulfilling given
criteria.
Current campaigns include:
Project Fashion Victims(www.pokusynazviratech.cz/obeti-krasy)
Aims to complete cessation of testing for cosmetics and household products on
animals.
Paralyzing Beauty (www.pokusynazviratech.cz/obeti-krasy/botox.htm), to terminate
botox testing on animals. They have leaflets which are offered for distribution and aprotest letter to Ipsen.
Closest Relatives(www.pokusynazviratech.cz/projekty/humanni-vzdelavani/122-258-materialy.htm)
which seeks to end experiments on primates. In June 2014, they protested Air
France.
5.7

Denmark

5.7.1 Anima(www.anima.dk)
Animal lead campaigns that establish dialogue. Among other things, they work tostop the use of monkeys in research. Also campaign against Iams and Eukanuba tostop their animal research and for an end to animal testing for botox.
Anima supported the campaign regarding banning animal testing in cosmetics in the
EU and carry out talks to schoolchildren and students about the issue.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

14	
  

5.8

Finland5.8.1 Animalia(www.animalia.fi)
Finland’s largest animal protection organisation.
Animalia maintains a list of non-animal testing for cosmetics and actively
communicate to increase the general public and decision-makers' awareness ofanimal protection issues and problems. They also instigate public debate on animal
protection.
Animalia is working to promote non-animal methods in Finland and the EU. Animalia
also fund the University of Tampere’s Centre for Alternative Methods to animal
testing.
ECEAE member.
5.9

France5.9.1 ALARM : Association pour la Libération Animale de la Région Marseillaise(http://alarm-asso.fr)
ALARM is a new pressure group against vivisection and especially against Frenchlaboratories using animals in Marseille which are expanding, and creating more
breeding facilities (primate breeding centres, for example). ALARM have been doing
global work against vivisection and promoting new scientific methods that are
cruelty-free.
In February 2014, ALARM launched a petition for the campaign in 5 different
languages(www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/987/665/543).
5.9.2 STOP aux animaux dans les labos!
(www.international-campaigns.org/stop-animaux-labos)
STOP was launched in 2008 by a collective of abolitionist international campaigns.
They run a ‘Conscientious Objection’ campaign against dissection.
5.9.3 One Voice(www.one-voice.fr)
One Voice is asking people to campaign for companion animals to obtain aprotection status.
5.9.4 The Anti-Vivisection Coalition France (CAV)(http://cav.asso.fr/en)
CAV links to Antidote Europe, ECEAE, Dr Hadwen Trust, BUAV, Safer Medicines
and PCRM.
5.9.5 Destination Enfer - Campaign for the Abolition of Vivisection

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper15	
  (www.destination-enfer.com/)
The main campaign is ‘Destination Hell’. Destination-enfer produces information
leaflets, demos and e-alerts.
5.9.6 Air Souffrance(www.airsouffrance.fr)
A campaign group against the transportation of animals for use in labs.
5.10

Germany

5.10.1 SOKO Tierschutz(www.soko-tierschutz.org/de)
Soko carried out extensive undercover investigation with BUAV at Tübingen Max
Planck Institute (MPI) for Biological Cybernetics and organised several subsequent
online actions, as well as demonstrations, including one in Stuttgart and Tübingen
involving thousands of people. They received extensive national media coverage.
There has been only one previous investigation in the animal testing sector in
Germany – at Covance labs in 2003 in Münster. Back then Friedrich Mülln, who isalso the founder of SOKO Tierschutz, worked in the facility for over 4 months anddocumented serious abuse of monkeys used for toxicological research. During the
Max Planck investigation, the investigator worked as part of the animal care staff forover half a year. Soko gathered around 100 hours of footage. The Tübingendemonstration gained over 1200 participants, and is the biggest animal rights
demonstration in Germany for decades.
On a national level, representatives of the Green Party positioned themselves
against invasive brain research on primates, and on a local level it was backed by
the Green mayor of Tübingen. Soko created more political pressure and media
attention by focusing on the election campaign of the mayor and also announced
another big demonstration in Stuttgart, where the local government has its quarters.
Soko organised info tables to further keep the topic on the agenda of the public andattended a meeting with the animal welfare officer of Baden-Württemberg in which
possible strategies for the future, the Green Party and other political actors werediscussed.
Soko is continuing the campaign and focusing on rescuing some of the primates.
5.10.2 Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)(http://cms.uni-konstanz.de/leist/caat-europe/)
Aims of CAAT-Europe:•

CAAT-EU brings together industry and academics to address the needs forhuman-relevant methods

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

16	
  

•
•
•
•
•

Use for strategic funds to fill gaps in the development and implementation ofalternative methods
Developing strategic projects with sponsors to promote humane science and'new toxicology'
Developing a joint education program between Johns Hopkins and the
University of Konstanz
Set up transatlantic consortia for international research projects on alternative
methods
Support ALTEX as the official journal of CAAT, EUSAAT, and t4

They want to gain visibility and give input as stakeholder in tox21c and 3R
5.10.3 LPT-Schließen(www.lpt-schliessen.org)
In January 2015, around about 50 supporters gathered at Neuwiedenthal S-Bahn toprotest against animal testing lab at LPT. LPT have also held lantern protests and ahome demonstration. In April 2015, LPT organised a demonstration in Hamburg andregularly target companies involved with the laboratory.
5.10.4 Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. (Doctors Against Animal Experiments)(www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en)Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. are a charitable organisation of several hundred
doctors and scientists who work in the medical field. Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V.
campaign to put pressure on responsible authorities, politicians and companies forexample on the issue of dissection (www.aerzte-gegentierversuche.de/en/support/campaigns/1504-eastern-europe-projects_) and Botox
testing.
Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. run a petition to create a centre to validate thereasons for animal research (www.tierrechte.de/petition-kompetenzzentrum-statttierversuche).
Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. toxicologists work to prevent animal testing under
REACH by submitting scientific evidence.
Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. initiate campaigns, influence legislation by politicallobbying, run a school project, support Eastern European universities in replacing
animal use in education and promote animal-free research by awarding prizes toname just a few of our activities on behalf of animals.
ECEAE member.
5.10.5 Bundesverband Tierschutz (Association of Animal Protection)(www.bv-tierschutz.de)
Bundesverband Tierschutz hosted a panel discussion(www.urania.de/programm/2015/z855/) and demonstration during world week for lab
animals.
5.10.6 NOAHLush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper17	
  (www.noah.de)
NOAH was founded to raise awareness on vivisection in the media and use uniquevisual advertising (photographic and video).
5.10.7 Menschen für Tierrechte(www.tierrechte.de)
Menschen für Tierrechte have an online campaign against Botox(www.tierrechte.de/online-aktion-qfirma-merz-schluss-mit-den-qualvollen-botoxtestsq). They advocate for a ban on experiments on monkeys as a first step toabolish all animal experiments.
Member of ECEAE.
5.10.8 Deutscher Tierschutzbund (German Animal Welfare Federation)(www.tierschutzbund.de)Founded in 1881 as the umbrella organisation of animal welfare societies inGermany. The staff of the German Animal Welfare Federation´s Animal Welfare
Academy in Munich provides the scientific basis for political lobbying. One of its
major working areas is the abolition of animal experiments. In order to make apractical contribution to this goal, the Animal Welfare Academy runs its own cell
culture laboratory performing non-animal methods research.
ECEAE member.
5.11

Hawaii5.11.1 Animal Rights Hawai'i
No information available.
5.12

India

5.12.1 Humane Society International(www.hsi.org/world/india)
Last year India introduced a nationwide ban on animal testing cosmetics for
ingredients and final products, following a high profile campaign by BeCrueltyFree
and others. Their campaign led to India's Drug Controller General to call for the lastremaining animal tests to be eliminated from India’s cosmetics standard. They got
companies, politicians, celebrities and others to call on India to Be Cruelty-Free.
Corporate partners include LUSH, Blue Cross, CPREEC and FIAPO.
5.12.2 PETA India(www.petaindia.com)
After efforts by PETA India, Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and others, the India
Ministry banned animal-tested cosmetics from being imported into India via a
notification in The Gazette of India. PETA’s lobbying and public awareness to help
achieve ban on animal testing of cosmetics. PETA are now working to prevent

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper18	  products animal tested elsewhere from being marketed in India.
5.12.3 Beauty without Cruelty (BWC)(www.bwcindia.org)
BWC’s ‘Veg Shopper’s Guide’ consists of products — cosmetics, toilet preparations
and even packaged foods free of animal ingredients and animal testing.
5.13

Ireland5.13.1 Irish Anti-Vivisection Society (IAVS)(www.irishantivivisection.org)
IAVS lobby the Department of Health, who licence vivisection in Ireland, for partial
reform prohibiting the most severe procedures, decreasing the number and speciesof animals used and acceptance and development of research and testing
techniques not involving animals.
IAVS’s expert Policy Advisor, Dr Dan Lyons, has been appointed by the Minister for
Health to the brand new statutory ‘National Committee for the Protection of Animals
Used for Scientific Purposes’ whose function it is to advise the Irish Medicines Board(IMB) – the body that has now replaced the Department of Health as the regulator ofanimal experimentation.
IAVS urge people to ask the Department of Health and IMB to establish aparticipatory public consultation process on the operation of the harm/benefit
assessment and dedicated Government funding for research into the replacement ofanimal tests and disease models.
IAVS have a petition to end primate experiments in Ireland, and an end to breedingthem. Also a botox campaign - Botulinum toxin producers in Ireland, such as Ipsen
and Merz, continue to perform animal LD50 tests, contradicting the spirit of laws
supposed to ensure that an animal test shall not be permitted if a scientificallysatisfactory non-animal method is available. However, in a positive development,
Ipsen has recently confirmed to the group GAIA, who are IAVS’ European Coalition(ECEAE) colleagues in Belgium, that it intends to end animal testing of theirbotulinum toxin products ‘Azzalure’ and ‘Dysport’ by the end of 2014.
ECEAE member.
5.14

Israel

5.14.1 Behind Closed Doors(www.invitro.org.il)
No information available.
5.14.2 Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection Society (ISAV)(www.isav.org.il)
ISAV have campaigned against animal experiments and breeding animals for labs in
Israel. They have carried out investigations in cooperation with Let the Animals Liveand Animal Log.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

19	
  

5.15

Italy

5.15.1 Fermare Green Hill
Leaders of campaign to successfully close Green Hill.
5.15.2 Stop Vivisection(www.stopvivisection.net)
Stop Vivisection runs a transport campaign and organised actions in February andJune 2015 to mark a week against animal transport.
5.15.3 Lega Anti Vivisezione (LAV) (Anti-Vivisection League)(www.lav.it)
Various animal protection: animal testing; vegetarianism; animal circuses; zoos;
hunting; fur.
Produces guide to cosmetics not animal tested.
In 1993, LAV obtained the first law in the world which recognises the right ofconscientious objection to vivisection for researchers and students.
ECEAE member.
5.15.4 Essera Animali(www.essereanimali.org)
Organise creative protests against animal exploitation.
5.15.5 Lega Internazionale Medici per l’Abolizione della Vivisezione (LIMAV)(www.lav.it)
5.15.6 EQUIVITA Antivivisection Scientific Committee, Italy(www.equivita.it/index.php/en)
EQUIVITA lobby the Minister of Health to provide input to research on addictions andnot let slip the ban on the animal testing of recreational drugs such as alcohol, drugs
and tobacco (due 2017). EQUIVITA supported the "Stop Vivisection" petition.
5.16

Japan

5.16.1 Japan Anti-Vivisection Association (JAVA)(www.java-animal.org/english)
JAVA request that the research institutions and cosmetic companies stop animal
testing and adopt humane alternative research methods that do not use animals.
JAVA are members of an Asian representative member of ICAPO (International
Council on Animal Protection in OEC programmes) - composed of major animal
protection groups around the world and has been working proactively to stop animal
testing, and also is the only citizens’ group being at the same time a supporting

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper20	  member of the Japanese Society for Alternative to Animal Experiments.
5.17

Korea

5.17.1 Korea Animal Rights Advocates (KARA)
www.animalrightskorea.org leads to their facebook page(www.facebook.com/karakoreaanimalrights).
5.17.2 Korean Society for Animal Freedom / Korean Animal Welfare Association(www.benicetobunnies.org)
With Cruelty Free International, Korean Society for Animal Freedom asked the
Korean government to phase out the testing of cosmetics on animals and after
intense negotiations this was achieved. Korea announced that the testing ofcosmetic products on animals in coming years will be prohibited, then it will consider
a ban on the testing of cosmetic ingredients - which is the same procedure as
adopted by the European Union.
5.18

Netherlands

5.18.1 Bite Back(www.biteback.org)
Bite Back run a database (www.dierproeveninformatie.nl). The aim is to provide
comprehensive information that matches their goals, open a whistleblower hotline,
create a fund to stimulate research on animals, organise debates and information
evenings.
5.18.2 Anti Dierproeven Coalitie (Anti Vivisection Coalition)(www.stopdierproeven.org/nl)
AVC host regular demonstrations and stalls, and carried out an investigation into dog
experiments at Maastricht University. AVC has also helped rehome animals nolonger used by labs, including primates.
5.18.3 Proefdiervrij(www.proefdiervrij.nl)
Proefdiervrij campaigns against animal testing for cosmetics, produces guide tocruelty-free cosmetics and funds non-animal medical research.
5.18.4 EDEV - Een DIER Een VRIEND(www.edev.nl)
EDEV urges manufacturers to stop the cruel experiments on mice for Botox and calls
for the EU to use replacement methods for the LD50 test for Botox.
ECEAE member.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper21	
  5.18.5 Respect Voor Dieren (Respect for Animals)(www.respectvoordieren.nl)
Campaign against Air France-KLM transportation of animals to labs.
5.19

New Zealand5.19.1 Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE)(www.safe.org.nz)
SAFE organised Cruelty Free Cosmetics week and is part of the Be Cruelty Free
campaign.
Worked to get a NZ ban on cosmetics testing on animals. SAFE began working on
the cosmetics campaign in 2011 and achieved a victory in March 2015. SAFE claim
to be New Zealand’s ‘most proactive animal charity’. They undertake high profile
campaigns and was a major contributor to the ‘Party Pills’ campaign, helping toachieve a world-first ban on the testing of recreational drugs on animals. They havespearheaded the campaign against cosmetics testing on animals since 2011,
teaming up with Humane Society International in 2013 as well as coordinating
cooperation across all political parties. A key component of SAFE’s work is strategic
lobbying, which this March 2015 resulted in a successful ban on cosmetics animal
testing. Now efforts will turn to an import ban to bring New Zealand into line with theEuropean Union.
SAFE encouraged people to lobby the Government by sending an e-card to PM
John Key calling for a NZ ban, which soon attracted thousands of signatures.
In 2012 New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act (AWA), came under review, presenting
SAFE with an opportunity to call for specific amendments to help animals, including
a ban on cosmetics testing. They created a website (animalwelfare.org.nz), which
made it easy for the public to support SAFE’s submission and make their own. SAFE
met with politicians, and recruited a top NZ lawyer to help write alternative legislation
which was presented to the Government.
SAFE encouraged the public to make submissions during the public consultation
period. Nearly 80% of submissions came via SAFE’s animalwelfare.org.nz. Later thewebsite became specifically aimed at cosmetics.
In 2013 SAFE teamed up with HSI and Lush, including working with Lush on in-store
promotions. They collected petition signatures and handed in 15,600 signatures at
Parliament in 2013 calling for a ban.
SAFE commissioned a poll that showed 89% of the public wanted a ban. This
enabled SAFE to lobby the Government further. They took out national newspaper
ads in conjunction with HSI and put up a 16 metre billboard in Wellington. SAFE
recruited celebrities to speak out and enlisted the support of 28 NZ cosmetic
companies.
SAFE held an annual cruelty free week encouraging the public to lobby theGovernment. Actions and promotions were held throughout, including a ‘Cruelty Free

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

22	  Kisses’ demonstration February 2015. In 2015, in a rally outside Parliament SAFE
joined up with other groups, representing more than 90,000 people who took action.
The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill (AWAB) was developed to increase thecountry’s confidence in the laws protecting animals, announced amid a scandalaround the treatment of pigs exposed by SAFE.
SAFE had three animal testing goals for the AWAB:
To ban the testing of cosmetics on animals.
To ban the testing of recreational drugs on animals.
To require the use of alternatives to animal tests where they are available.
The first was written into law in 2015, applying immediately. The Psychoactive
Substances Act allowed for animal testing for recreational drugs. After extensive
campaigning, the Labour Party joined SAFE in pressuring the Government for a ban,which was implemented.
Green Party MP Mojo Mathers, introduced an amendment to the bill stating that if analternative to an animal test existed, it should be mandatory to use it. This
amendment was voted down, but many parties expressed interest in the principles
behind it.
For each of these amendments, SAFE engaged at every step of the process.
During the scoping process for the bill, SAFE identified cosmetics testing as a key
issue. They engaged government advisors, as well as MPs within each politicalparty.
When they declined to act on this issue, SAFE continued to mount pressure,encouraging the public to take action at key opportunities such as whenSupplementary Order Papers were introduced. Thousands of people wrote to every
political party asking for a ban on cosmetics testing on animals. This helped
pressure the Labour Party into adopting policy to support a ban. SAFE then engaged
the Select Committee. They presented a petition to add weight to our submission.
MP Mojo Mathers continued to work internally to convince the Committee.
SAFE followed up with more e-cards, and multiple actions to get media attention. As
the AWAB got closer to its final vote, SAFE increased pressure on the Government,
and they finally agreed to include a cosmetics testing ban.
In the future, SAFE hopes to build on these relationships to achieve more victories
for animals, including expanding the animal testing bans.
Green Party - SAFE provided suggestions for issues they could address andsupported this with extensive legal advice, ensuring the amendments were robust
and above any possible criticisms. SAFE also rallied public support for theamendments introduced by the Greens.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper23	  Labour Party - SAFE had long been pressuring the Labour Party to appoint an
animal welfare spokesperson and develop policies. In 2013, they appointed an
animal welfare spokesperson separate from agriculture. In 2014, the Labour Party
developed their policy, which stated that cosmetics should not be tested on animals.
National Party - the last major party to accept any changes to animal testinglegislation. SAFE is now leveraging this to encourage them to address animal testing
issues faster in the future, as well as appointing an animal welfare spokesperson.
5.19.2 NZ Anti-Vivisection Society (NZAVS)(www.nzavs.org.nz)
NZAVS focus on public education emphasising the scientific case against vivisection
and the dangers to human health from animal experiments. Over the past three
decades, NZAVS have presented petitions to Parliament, and worked on
submissions to government and regulatory authorities. NZAVS campaign to preventthe use of animals for the safety testing of recreational drugs under the recently
passed Psychoactive Substances Act.
5.20

Norway5.20.1 Dyrevern Alliansen (The Norwegian Animal Protection Alliance)(www.dyrevern.no/english)
Dyrevern Alliansen is primarily a political organisation, working with politicians andthe industry to improve animal welfare. Dyrevern Alliansen collaborates with animal
welfare and animal rights organisations. These organisations will be able to influence
the authorities through Dyrevern Alliansen. Dyrevern Alliansen have a research fund– the Norwegian Animal Research Fund which aims to fund research that promotes
the interests of animals. Between 2008-2012, more than 1 million NOK was given to
many different projects. One of these has been very successful in developing
alternatives to animal testing.
ECEAE member.
5.20.2 NOAH - for dyrs rettigheter (NOAH - for animal rights)(www.dyrsrettigheter.no)
NOAH is the contact organisation for InterNICHE. NOAH liaises with and participatesin various officially appointed consultative groups and committees related to animal
welfare, and has one member on the Norwegian Council for Animal Ethics. They run
the website www.kosmetikk.info.
5.21

Poland

5.21.1 VIVA! Poland(www.notest.pl)
ECEAE member.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

24	
  

5.22

Portugal

5.22.1 ANIMAL Association(www.animal.org.pt)
Founded in 1994 in Portugal, ANIMAL is a nationwide high-profile organisation whichworks on general EU animal protection issues.
ECEAE member.
5.23

Russia5.23.1 VITA Animal Rights Centre(www.vita.org.ru)
Several years of work resulted in universities in Russia abandoning animal
experiments and confirming the benefits of alternatives. VITA negotiated with thedirectors of the institutes, at press conferences, and gave speeches in auditoriums.
To date, 11 Russian universities have moved to humane education, which has saved
the lives of tens of thousands of animals.
5.24

Serbia5.24.1 Feniks (Phoenix, Society for the Protection of Animals and Development of
Civic Consciousness)(www.feniks.org.rs)
The activities of Feniks are based on legal protection and implementation ofprotective laws, education of fellow-citizens to raise public awareness and influence
on relevant institutions that deal with different animals protection issues.
ECEAE member.
5.24.2 ORCA – Organization for Respect and Care for Animals(www.orca.rs)
Through membership in ethical bodies, ORCA seeks to influence the application of
ethical principles in making decisions on approval of experiments on animals andconsistent implementation of the 3R rules regarding the use of experimental animals.
ORCA has representatives in ethical advice to safeguard the welfare of experimental
animals several faculties of the University of Belgrade and other scientific organisations.
5.25

Singapore

5.25.1 ACRES(www.acres.org.sg)
Cruelty free pocket shopping guide.
5.26

South Africa

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper25	
  5.26.1 Beauty Without Cruelty(www.bwcsa.co.za)
In December 2014, Beauty Without Cruelty launched a campaign to take legal action
against any company found to be falsely using the logo, or falsely claiming to beendorsed. Beauty Without Cruelty runs a progressive educational programme, aimed
at informing people about the suffering of animals and has initiated a number ofcampaigns, which focus on exposing animal abuse, specifically in the areas ofvivisection in South Africa.
5.27

Spain

5.27.1 Asociación Defensa Derechos Animal (ADDA)(www.addaong.org)
ECEAE member.
5.27.2 Igualdad Animal(www.igualdadanimal.org)
In June 2013, Igualdad Animal gave a presentation in the European Parliament on
the campaign ‘Stop Vivisection’.
5.27.3 Animanaturalis(www.animanaturalis.org/home/es)
Runs a dissection campaign.
In June 2013, Animanaturalis gave a presentation in the European Parliament on the
campaign. ‘Stop Vivisection’.
5.28

Sweden5.28.1 Djurrättsalliansen(www.djurrattsalliansen.se)
Runs a campaign to end primate experiments (www.stoppaprimatforsoken.nu) for aban on the use of primates in experiments in Sweden and the EU.
A team of investigators from Djurrättsalliansen from all over Sweden go through theapplications sent in to the seven ethical committees that approve the experimentswith animals. A licence from the Board of Agriculture both for using and for breedinglaboratory animals is needed and Djurrättsalliansen is also controlling that and havealready found out about illegal experiments being carried out on ferrets.
This year it is their 10th year anniversary as an organisation and since the start in2005 one of the main issues of the organisation has been animals used forexperiments.
5.28.2 Djurens Rätt (Animal Rights Sweden)(www.djurensratt.se)
Djurens Rätt is the largest animal rights organisation in Scandinavia, with amembership of about 35,000. Animal Rights Sweden is opposed to all experiments,

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper26	
  procedures, production methods and other uses of animals that cause them pain,
suffering and distress. They are launching a campaign urging the government toincrease funding for the development of alternatives to animal testing and to fund theupcoming 3R-center. They are therefore promoting a letter to the government asking
for more funding of alternatives.
ECEAE member.
5.28.3 The Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments(www.forskautandjurforsok.se/in-english)
Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments offer funding for projects in2015. Over 500 applications have been awarded funding and a total of 29 million
SEK has been used for funding research.
5.29

Switzerland

5.29.1 Ligue suisse contre la vivisection (LSCV)(www.lscv.ch)
All legal methods, e.g. lobbying members of parliament and organising nationwide
information and publicity campaigns, are used by Ligue to achieve the abolition ofanimal experimentation. They contribute financially to organisations who are involvedin the development of such methods and who refuse using animals.
Ligue have a ‘BIOTECH CAMPUS’ campaign, to create a center of excellence
dedicated to the development of new alternative methods.
Ligue takes legal action to prevent animal tests.
ECEAE member.
5.29.2 Zurcher Tierschutz Association (Zurich Animal Protection Association)(www.zuerchertierschutz.ch)
Zurcher has a representative on the Zurich Animal Experiments Committee and theFederal Animal Experiments Committee.
5.30

United Kingdom

5.30.1 Cruelty Free International (formerly BUAV)(https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org)
Key issues include: primates in research; cruelty-free cosmetics; animal testing ofhousehold products in UK; REACH; Freedom of information. Through undercoverinvestigations, political lobbying, the promotion of cruelty free products, legal andscience expertise, and media activities, the BUAV works to make the world a better
place for animals. They work lawfully and professionally, building relationships with
politicians, business leaders and other decision-makers. The BUAV also analyse
legislation and sit on decision-making panels around the globe, to act as the voice
for animals in laboratories. The BUAV is one of the world's leading authorities on
animal testing issues, and acts as secretariat to the European Coalition to End
Animal Experiments.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper27	
  5.30.2 Dr Hadwen Trust (DHT)(www.drhadwentrust.org)
DHT is the UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity. They support andassists scientists to implement existing techniques and develop new ones which are
more human-relevant and will replace animal experiments. They award grants toscientists in universities, hospitals and research organisations following a rigorous
and independent peer-reviewed selection procedure.
5.30.3 National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)(www.navs.org.uk)
Animals in space research; freedom of information; World Day for Laboratory
Animals; Good Charities Guide (charities funding non-animal medical research).
5.30.4 Animal Justice Project(www.animaljusticeproject.com)
A new international organisation campaigning against vivisection, launched in March
2015 in both UK and USA. Animal Justice Project has campaigned against the useof animals in recreational drugs and warfare research. They have held two events
which received extensive media coverage. They use the media to raise awarenesson the plight of animals inside laboratories.
5.30.5 InterNICHE (International Network for Humane Education)(www.interniche.org)
InterNICHE is an open and diverse network comprising students, teachers andanimal campaigners. The network focuses on animal use and alternatives withinbiological science, medical and veterinary medical education.
5.30.6 Animal Aid(www.animalaid.org.uk)
Animal Aid run vivisection campaigns focused on medical experiments (e.g. charities
funding animal tests).
5.30.7 PETA
(www.peta.org.uk)
5.31

USA

5.31.1 Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research and Experimentation (CAARE)(www.caareusa.org)
CAARE is a national non-profit organization dedicated to promoting research andtesting without using animals.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper28	
  5.31.2 Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association(www.hsvma.org)
5.31.3 Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC)(www.leapingbunny.org)
CCIC Leaping Bunny Program administers a cruelty-free standard and theinternationally recognized Leaping Bunny Logo for companies producing cosmetic,
personal care, and household products.
5.31.4 Humane Society International (HSI)(www.hsi.org)
5.31.5 White Coat Project(www.whitecoatwaste.com)
White Coat are ‘the eyes and ears’ of the American taxpayer inside the government’s
animal laboratories. They expose the waste, fraud and abuse.
5.31.6 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)(www.pcrm.org)
PCRM is Secretariat of the International Council on Animal Protection at OECD
(ICAPO), which was formed to incorporate alternative methods that can replace,reduce, and refine animal use in OECD guidelines and programs.
5.31.7 Beagle Freedom Project(www.beaglefreedomproject.org)
Beagle Freedom Project commenced during 2010, and negotiates with laboratories
to hand over animals for re-homing to suitable private homes. 120 dogs have so far
been saved in 14 rescues.
5.31.8 Bunny Alliance(www.thebunnyalliance.com)
5.31.9 Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN)(www.all-creatures.org/saen)
5.31.10The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)(www.neavs.org)
NEAVS is the U.S. Executive Office for Cruelty Free International and founding
member of the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper29	
  5.31.11
The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)(www.aavs.org)
Key issues include: Ban Pound Seizure; End Animal Cloning; Compassionate
Shopping.
In 2006, AAVS assumed the leadership role as Chair of the Coalition for Consumer
Information on Cosmetics (CCIC).
5.31.12Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)(http://caat.jhsph.edu/)
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) is part of theJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, with a European
branch (CAAT-Europe) located at the University of Kostanz, Germany(http://cms.uni-konstanz.de/leist/caat-europe/). They seek to effect change by
working with scientists in industry, government, and academia to find new ways toreplace animals with non-animal methods, reduce the numbers of animals
necessary, or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animals
involved.
5.32

Coalitions

5.32.1 The International Council on Animal Protection in OECD Programmes(www.icapo.org)
Since 2002, animal protection has had a formal voice at the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an influential internationalorganisation that develops guidelines and programmes for the testing of chemicals.
The OECD's testing-related activities historically have relied heavily on animal-based
methods. The International Council on Animal Protection in OECD Programmes(ICAPO) works to fully incorporate alternative methods that can replace, reduce, andrefine animal use in OECD activities, in the interest of animal protection, publichealth and sound science.
5.32.2 European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE)(www.eceae.org)
ECEAE is Europe's leading alliance campaigning on behalf of animals used inlaboratories. Drawing on political, legislative and scientific expertise, as well asworking with politicians, Commission officials and EU citizens, they campaign to end
testing for the millions of animals in European laboratories.
5.33

Individuals

5.33.1 Dr Andre Menache
Veterinarian Dr Andre Menache has held various posts, including that of President ofDoctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine (UK) and General Manager of theFederation of Animal Protection Societies in Israel. Today he provides scientificsupport to several grass roots organisations, such as Animal Aid and Animal Justice

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper

30	  Project in addition to his official position as Director of Antidote Europe, based in
France.
5.33.2 Dr Andrew KnightEver since helping launch Australia's campaign against the live sheep trade to theMiddle East in the early 1990s, Australian-British bioethicist Dr Andrew Knight has
been advocating on behalf of animals. He is a European Veterinary Specialist in
Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, a Professor of Animal Welfare and Ethics
at the University of Winchester, and a Senior Fellow of the UK Higher Education
Academy. He serves on the Advisory Board of the Animal Studies Journal, and the
Editorial Advisory Panel of the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal.
Excluding abstracts, Andrew has over 80 academic and 60 popular publications, anda series of YouTube videos, on animal issues. These explore animal cognitive
abilities and resultant moral implications, animal experimentation and alternatives,animal use in biomedical education, the animal welfare standards of veterinarians,
the contributions of animal agriculture to climate change, and vegetarian companion
animal diets, as well as recounting his varied travel adventures. He has delivered
over 110 presentations on animal issues at conferences and universities
internationally. His studies on animal experimentation and educational animal use
have attracted a series of conference awards, a PhD listed for academic excellencein 2010, and also formed the basis of his book, The Costs and Benefits of Animal
Experiments, published within the Palgrave Macmillan Series on Animal Ethics(hardback 2011, paperback 2013). Andrew's key publications and speaking topics
are provided at www.AndrewKnight.info.

Lush Prize for Lobbying, 2015 – Research Paper31