Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013

Background Paper

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20131

1 Executive Summary
The Lush Prize seeks to reward excellence and innovation by organisations working
to remind the public that animal testing is on-going, in order to rally support forlobbying activities and other interventions and to ensure that this issue remains highon the political agenda. The criteria for selecting potential winners of the Lush Prize Public Awareness category are:

1.1•

Raising public awareness of animal testing (ideally within consumer products
rather than pharmaceuticals)•

Projects which ran in 2012 or 2013•

Excellence and innovation by organisations working in this field
Key findings

Thousands of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) around the world campaign
for an end to some form of, or all, animal testing. Some of these organisations
campaign exclusively on the issue, others as part of a wider call for animal rights.
The variety of campaigns is huge: social media or internet-based campaigns;
grassroots activism to multinational million dollar organisations; from wealthiercountries with a long history of social justice movements to nations where theconcept of animal rights is a recent phenomenon.
Traditional forms of protest are joined with innovative ways of spreading themessage such as blogs, social networking sites and cruelty-free shopping guides
available on mobile phone applications.
Public awareness campaigns aim to draw attention to issues and bring about
behaviour and social change, changing behaviours rather than simply changing
opinions; encouraging public engagement to form a personal state of connection with
the issue.

1.2 Table of groups active in this sector
The core of this report is a table of NGOs active in the area of public awarenessraising and campaigning against animal testing. It covers dozens of organisations in
Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia and America.
Although there are thousands of organisations working in some way to createawareness of animal testing issues, our focus has been on those working to a larger
extent on a national or international level and whose campaigns specifically include

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20132

topics relevant to the Lush Prize (rather than wider issues such as pharmaceuticalresearch).

1.3 Conclusions and recommendations
This study analysed the public awareness work of dozens of NGOs around the world
to highlight, and act against, the use of animals in testing. The following
organisations have been short-listed because they are recognised for their
particularly effective work on these issues. This list has been drawn up from a
combination of nominations received and additional NGOs identified during research
for this report.
Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill (Coordination to Close Green Hill) – Italy
For engaging massive public support for the closure of a company breeding beagles
for laboratories; the seizing and re-homing by authorities of 2,700 dogs; encouraging
political movement leading to some cities declaring themselves ‘vivisection free’ andnational legislation to ban the breeding of dogs, cats and primates for testing and on
certain areas of animal experimentation.
NOAH, Menschen für Tiere – Germany
Unique use of visual advertising, photographic and video materials to reveal thereality of animal testing to consumers.
The Ghosts in Our Machine – Canada
Film based on the work of photographer Jo-Anne McArthur exploring humanrelationships with animals and their exploitation in laboratories, farms, etc., aroundthe world.
SAFE – New ZealandPartnered with HSI to launch ‘Be Cruelty Free’ in New Zealand to ban the sale ofanimal tested products.
Humane Society International (HSI)
For its launch of ‘Be Cruelty Free’, a global campaign in partnership with NGOs
worldwide, and awareness, scientific and lobbying activity in key countries such as
Brazil, India and China.
PETA India
For its major role in the successful campaign to ban the testing of cosmetics onanimals in the country.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20133

Project R&R works to end the use of chimpanzees in U.S. research and release
them to sanctuaries. NEAVS has provided sanctuary funding, including establishing
Lifetime Care Funds.
Andre Menache
Veterinary surgeon and scientific consultant for various NGOs campaigning against
animal testing, Menache is a prolific public speaker and author of many scientificpapers and reports.
Beagle Freedom Project
BFP has rescued over 60 beagles as well as other animals from labs in 3 countries
in the past 18 months, rehoming them and raising the issue of animal testing to the
public in innovated and compassionate ways.

2 Introduction
The animal protection movement has a long history in parts of Europe and the USA,with animal testing being a key issue for campaigners: e.g. the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS) was formed in 1883, and the British Union for the
Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in 1898, both inspired by the passing into British law
in 1876 of the first regulation of vivisection, the Cruelty to Animals Act. Today, thatmovement is growing rapidly around the world, across Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa
and South America.
Opinion polls show that a majority of consumers in many countries would prefer not
to have cosmetics and other personal products tested on animals, and in 2013 theEU finally banned the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics (a testing ban on
finished cosmetic products was introduced in 2004, followed by a ban on testing
ingredients in 2009). Israel introduced a testing ban in 2010 and India in 2013.
Countries such as China and Brazil, which currently require cosmetics to passanimal tests before being allowed on the market, are being robustly challenged to
implement effective non-animal testing methods and end animal use entirely.
There are still many challenges ahead, not only in widening the cruelty-freecosmetics message generally, but particularly in areas of toxicological research.
Effective partnership between NGOs, regulators and companies has been building
bridges and challenges are being met head on.

3 Public AwarenessThe guidelines for the Public Awareness prize are:Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20134

Public Awareness of ongoing testing
Despite years of campaigning, animal testing has yet to be consigned to thehistory books where it belongs. However, partial legislative victories have led tothe common misconception that animal testing, especially for cosmetics, nolonger takes place.
It is vital therefore that the public is reminded that this cruel and unscientificpractice does continue in many areas of the world. Support is essential for
public awareness activities to ensure that this issue remains high on thepolitical agenda. We are therefore seeking to reward excellence and innovation
by organisations working in this field.

3.1 What is public awareness?
Public awareness campaigns are designed with the main objectives of drawing the
public’s attention to particular issues and bringing about behavioural and socialchange.
Within the animal rights movement a number of key methods (usually more than one
at a time) have traditionally been used, including:
1. Public protests and information dissemination: mass marches and rallies,
presentation of petitions, or simply an information stall in a town centre.
2. Press releases and media stories: aiming to place information in mass-media
print and broadcast outlets. Reports covered in this way will be seen by somein the ‘audience’ as impartial and more trustworthy.
3. Direct action: everything from scaling a building in order to hang a banner, toa sit-in at a company’s headquarters to the liberation of animals.
4. Exposés: undercover investigations or thorough research (e.g. using freedomof information legislation) to obtain new evidenceor information.
5. Use of celebrities: celebrity endorsements can create more media coverage
and reach the larger audiences of those celebrities’ fans.
6. Internet and social media: can take even the smallest campaign global andreach millions of people quickly; e-campaigns utilise specialist software toallow supporters to send personalised e-mails to political representatives,company CEOs and other ‘targets’.
7. Conferences and seminars: assist in networking a range of stakeholders, todiscuss a variety of views and lead to new ideas, tactics and goals. Can
sometimes provide a greater air of professionalism, thereby reaching someaudiences (e.g. regulatory bodies, media) who may have previously not taken
the issue/NGO as seriously.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20135

All of these methods can raise the level of exposure to the public but this does notalways mean that awareness has been raised and it certainly does not always resultin changing opinions or behaviours (“attention does not necessarily result insupport”, according to Ronald D. Smith, Professor of Public Communication 1). Therecan be a temptation to believe that a few thousand ‘hits’ on a web page, or athousand ‘likes’ on Facebook, or even a story in a national newspaper, amounts to a
success. However, unless significant inroads are made on the way to achieving theoverall goal (e.g. a ban on testing cosmetics on animals), these individual factors are
no more than stepping stones.
For example, campaign strategist Chris Rose questions whether online campaigns
are actually increasing participation. He suggests that “high effort campaigning [e.g.
mobilising on the street or direct action, rather than signing online petitions or
involvement in social media campaigns] actually creates motivational capital in theform of social bonds. If mobilisation mechanisms are not just to become a form of
opinion polling, they need to have a bit of them that is difficult.” 2 He adds: “Even the
person stopping on a High Street and taking a minute to write out their name andaddress on a list, was probably putting in greater effort, and making a greatercommitment to confirm their view, than someone ‘liking’ an action on Facebook or
retweeting it on their smartphone.” 3
The impact that campaign events have both on public/media opinion and long term
effects on the wider movement (the ethics of campaigning) is important to take into
account when devising strategies. In his book Strategic Planning for Public
Relations, Professor Ronald D. Smith states:“in developing public relations strategies, give thought to the ethicalconsiderations that underlie publicity stunts•

Does the action have any intrinsic value, or is it mainly for show?

•

Will it be offensive? To whom?

•

If it is offensive, does this matter to your organisation?

•

Does the publicity stunt trivialise an otherwise serious topic?” 4

3.2 Effective public awareness
Rather than discuss each of the usual tactics used by animal NGOs in more detail,we have focused here on some key elements about raising public awareness ingeneral.

1 Ronald D. Smith. Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Routledge, 2012
2 Is Online Increasing Participation in Campaigns? Chris Rose. Presentation at the World PR Forum.
3 Is ‘Online’ Increasing the Number of People Engaged in Campaigns? 23.10.12.
4 Smith defines a publicity stunt as “merely a gimmick planned mainly to gain publicity, having little value beyond
that”, as opposed to a 'special event' which is a staged activity “to gain the attention and acceptance of key
publics.”

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20136

3.2.1

Changing behaviours rather than changing opinions:

Opinion polls have been widely used by NGOs to show public support for an end toanimal testing, particularly for cosmetics (and some are referenced later in thispaper). However, campaign strategist Chris Rose warns that campaigners should
focus on outcomes (changing behaviours), not changing opinion.
In his paper ‘Beware the Siren Songs of Opinion Polling’, 5 Rose states:“Campaigns drawn into trying to navigate by what the polls say, or seduced into trying to
win by changing ‘public opinion’, risk running aground and becoming stuck fast.
[…] The best strategic safeguard is to have a critical path based on events and activities
which evidence shows will lead to outcomes, and not to deviate from it. As a rulecampaigners should research, develop, test and then implement a plan, and not wait for
public opinion.
[…] So plan your campaign around changing outcomes, without needing to change
opinion polls, and in the end you will probably in fact change ‘opinion’.
[…] For campaigns, the importance of behaviours is that they are intrinsic to realoutcomes. To get less pollution, for instance, people must change what they do, notwhat they say. Which is why the approach I advocate is always to try to work back fromthe outcome you want, in order to plan a communications campaign. If not, countless
pitfalls may ensnare you, of which the circular relationship between media, polling andpollsters is but one.
[…] To chase the chimera of changing opinion rather than changing outcomes, risks
leading you round in circles”.
3.2.2

3.2.2

Public engagement:

Making people aware of an issue is only the first step to change: public awarenessneeds to lead to public engagement (a personal state of connection with the issue).
Those people need to be encouraged into taking action of some sort, whether tochange their individual habits, practices or purchases; encourage others to also takeaction; or to lobby for legislative change.
Lorenzonia et al (2007),6 in a study of public attitudes to climate change, consider
one of the most easily identified barriers to engagement to be “a lack of basic
knowledge about causes, impacts and solutions to climate change. While there isinformation available (to those who wish to seek it), it is not necessarily taken up ortranslated into knowledge or action, for various reasons”, includinga lack ofknowledge about where to find information and a lack of desire to seek information.
One reason for the success of the EU ban on animal testing of cosmetics is thatNGOs and some cosmetics companies have made it easier for the public to engage
and implement change: making them aware of issues (through investigations, media
5 Beware the Siren Songs of Opinion Polling June 2013. See also Campaign Strategy Newsletter 86 – June
2013. Rose is also author of the book How to Win Campaigns, published by Routledge in 2010, an essential
book for campaign managers.
6 Lorenzonia, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among
the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 445–459.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20137

coverage, street stalls, protests, etc.); providing information in attractive and easilyaccessible ways (e.g. cruelty-free guides in booklet form, on websites and as mobile
phone apps); and making high-quality, attractive, cruelty-free products easily
available (e.g. high-street stores such as Lush and encouraging mainstream brands
to sign up to recognised cruelty-free protocols and label products with the BUAV’s
Cruelty Free International bunny logo).
3.2.3

Visual representations:

According to the website ‘New Tactics in Human Rights’ 7: “No matter what audience
you are trying to reach, visual representations of the problem you are addressing can
be a very strong asset”. It provides an example of Greenpeace Lebanon mapping“environmental violations along the country’s coast in order to educate the generalpublic about the problem of toxic industrial waste and to pressure the government toinstitute policies to remedy the problem”. This “turned dry, technical information into acompelling picture — making facts understandable to members of the public while
attracting and holding their interest in its work, and at the same time moving them totake action to remedy the problem”.
GIS mapping (computerised mapping for geographical information systems), used aspart of the Lebanon campaign, is also being used to illustrate and combat otherhuman rights problems, such as sex trafficking. The website concludes: “When we
can see the extent of a problem, we are better equipped to respond to it”.
Greenpeace provides many examples of effective use of visuals. Its recent
publication Down to Zero reports on the NGOs campaign in Indonesia andelsewhere to stop deforestation for pulp and paper and palm oil products. The
Greenpeace campaign was to make governments enforce their own policies and tochange the supply chain of major multinational corporations. Visuals such as spoof
TV ads and print adverts raised public awareness and embarrassed multinationals
such as Unilever.
In March 2010 Greenpeace produced a campaign film, ‘Give the Orang-utan a
Break’. It was part of its campaign linking Nestlé, makers of KitKat chocolate bars, torainforest destruction by the Sinar Mas paper group. Down to Zero reports:“Our campaign launches with a provocative video in which an office worker bites into
a KitKat containing a dead orang-utan’s finger. Nestlé had the video removed from
YouTube and threatened to delete all related comments on its Facebook page. This
backfired spectacularly, as Greenpeace supporters rushed to re-upload the film andoverwhelmed the company with emails and Facebook comments.” 8The film was watched over 1.5 million times and eight weeks after its launch, Nestléannounced a zero deforestation policy that eliminated deforestation from its supply
chain.

7 Visual mapping to create public awareness and pressure for policy change.
8 Down to Zero: How Greenpeace is ending deforestation in Indonesia. 2003 - 2013 and beyond. Greenpeace
South East Asia – Indonesia. 2013.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 2013

8

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “If there’s one lesson I’ddraw from what we did it is to be creative and fun. All campaigns need humour. To
get Mattel to stop buying their packaging from companies destroying the rainforests
we produced a short film of a camp Ken splitting up from Barbie. It went viral very
quickly with 1.75 million views.”9
Despite the success of viral videos and fun, creative visuals, the animal rights
movement appears to have been slower than environmental organisations in using
them. Visuals do play an important role within public awareness campaigns by antivivisection organisations, but they tend to be more traditional documentary-style(graphic images, sad-voiced narration) longer films. A lot can be learned from thesuccessful public awareness campaigns of other movements. (Good examples of
unique, creative video and other visuals highlighting animal protection issues can beseen on the website of the German organisation NOAH, Menschen für Tiere www.noah.de).

4 Campaigns are not in isolation
The focus of this report is on public awareness campaigns. However, many suchcampaigns include political lobbying as part of their key strategies. Lobbying is the
subject of a separate Lush Prize and research paper. Although there is much crossover between public awareness and lobbying and both will often be conducted by thesame NGOs as part of an overarching campaign strategy, the two tactics are
separated as much as possible for the purpose of these research papers.

5 Key campaign issues
In terms of animal testing issues relevant to the Lush Prize, public awarenesscampaigns have, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly focused on animal testing forcosmetics. Other campaigns have targeted areas such as the testing of householdproducts (e.g. cleaning products), and specific species, mainly dogs, cats andprimates.

5.1 5.1

EU cosmetics animal testing ban

The European campaign to ban cosmetics testing on animals has been probably thebest publicised campaign relating to any area of animal testing. This may be
because, in the main, the products tested are not essential: there are many products
and ingredients which have been on the market for decades (so the long term safetyor otherwise of them is known) and there is an almost limitless choice of productsthat have not been animal tested. In other words, using animals to test what areoften seen as non-essential products could no longer be justified.
9 Campaign Case Study: How Greenpeace Changed Corporate Behaviour Over Rainforest Destruction.
26.7.13.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 20139

High-profile campaigning, often with celebrity backing, resulted in consistent public
support for a ban on testing cosmetics on animals. Opinion polls reveal the extent of
this support:
In 1983, 78% of people in the UK considered it unacceptable “to use animals for testingand improving cosmetics”.10

Opinion polls conducted in 2001 and 2004 showed that 83% of women in the UK
would be in favour of a Europe-wide ban on the sale of cosmetics that are tested onanimals and 79% of people said they would be likely to swap to a brand that was notanimal tested.11 Polls for other European countries reveal similar results. 12
In the USA, a poll commissioned by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine(PCRM) in 2011 revealed that 72% of respondents agreed that testing cosmetics onanimals is unethical; 78% agreed that the development of alternatives to animal
testing for cosmetics testing is important; and 61% said that cosmetics and personalcare product companies should not be allowed to test products on animals. 13 These
numbers are up significantly from a 2003 Gallup Poll that found 38% of Americans
would support a complete ban on product testing on animals.
Due to this sustained campaigning the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on
animals was banned in the UK in 1998. The campaign on an EU level resulted in aban on the testing of finished cosmetic products in 2004 and a testing ban on
ingredients since 2009. A marketing ban followed, prohibiting the import and sale ofproducts and ingredients tested on animals outside Europe after March 2009, withthe exception of testing for three ‘toxicological endpoints’ which were consideredharder to replace. In March 2013 a full marketing ban was introduced in the EU(although some ingredients will still be animal tested to meet other legislativerequirements such as REACH chemical testing).
The issue was very much one of animal welfare, exposing the cruelty individual
animals were subjected to in order to test an ingredient for lipstick or shampoo, forexample. Parliamentary action was based on the ethics of the issue, with science
being made to follow: impending bans forced cosmetics companies to look for nonanimal testing methods.
Writing in support of the 2013 marketing ban, the Animal Welfare Intergroup said:
The European Commission “has thoroughly assessed the impacts of the marketingban and considers that there are overriding reasons to implement it. This is in linewith what many European citizens believe firmly: that the development of cosmetics
does not warrant animal testing.”14

10 Hans Gutbrod, HRC 30.4.13. EU Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics - What Can We Learn from Research?
11 Media release: Argos becomes BUAV Approved. BUAV, 13.2.10.
12 See section 2.1.5 of Stakeholder Consultation on the 2013 Implementation date of the Marketing Ban –Cosmetics Directive. Submission by the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments. 2011.
13 More Than a Makeup Trend: New Survey Shows 72 percent of Americans Oppose Testing Cosmetics
Products on Animals. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
14 Entry into force of a full EU ban on animal testing for cosmetics welcomed but loophole needs to be closed
Intergroup 12.3.13.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 2013

10

The campaign for an EU ban was very much based on an ethical public opposition toanimal testing. As PETA said in response to the March 2013 marketing ban: “Thesales ban is a spectacular achievement. It declares that testing cosmetics onanimals is wrong and – further – that profiting from that testing is wrong.” 15
Hans Gutbrod, a blogger with the Humane Research Council, believes that the UK“offers the most instructive case on the campaign to end animal testing” because of
its long-established anti-vivisection NGOs and 1998 success with a cosmetics
testing ban.16
Gutbrod states that public awareness campaigns mobilised support “on a significant
scale” and “translated sentiment into action”, with a 1999 IPSOS-MORI study findingthat 20% of people claimed they had signed a petition on an animal welfare issue.
He also notes that the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, anorganisation founded by the BUAV, collected 4 million signatures throughout Europe
against cosmetics testing on animals.
In his assessment of the EU ban, Gutbrod refers to cosmetics company The Body
Shop as an example of ‘providing attractive commercial alternatives’ and being aleader in ‘ethical consumerism’ in its specific offering of cruelty-free products. (The
Body Shop was also a major promoter of the campaign to end animal testing).
(With the sale of the Body Shop to L’Oreal, a company that still tests on animals,
there is debate about whether this is a company that should be supported – seefootnote17)
Finally, Gutbrod comments on ‘expanding from the best constituency’: The EU ban is
likely to have a global impact, “since global manufacturers will adapt to the rules of
the world’s single largest market. The EU thus has an impact far beyond its borders”.
Yet the data suggests that levels of concern about animal experimentation vary
within the EU and “engaged countries seem to have brought others along”. In thisway, “Britain’s ban on testing cosmetics on animals in 1998, as well as a number ofsimilar measures in other countries, helped to bring about a broader change acrossEurope and beyond. This particular trajectory of success may suggest that one
lesson is to consolidate gains in constituencies amenable to change, before taking
the policy gains to the next level, bringing along less active groups. Put differently, inpursuing transformative change, one powerful strategy may be going deep before
you go wide.”

15 PETA UK: Cosmetics and Animal Testing: A Historic Victory
16 Hans Gutbrod, HRC 30.4.13. EU Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics - What Can We Learn from Research?
17 Body Shop: The Body Shop is owned by L'Oreal which continues to conduct some animal testing forcosmetics ingredients and does not have a ‘fixed cut-off date’ (which prevents the use of ingredients tested onanimals after that date) (Why doesn’t the Group have a label “not tested on animals”?). Although Body Shop is
an approved cruelty-free retailer under the BUAV’s Humane Cosmetics Standard, the parent company L'Oreal
is not. Other cruelty-free accreditations, such as the Australian Choose Cruelty Free, will not accredit
companies unless all parent and subsidiaries are also accredited (Criteria for Accreditation. Choose CrueltyFree).

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 201311

5.2 Individual Species
Several campaigns have highlighted the use of specific species in animal testing.
These have generally been species seen by many members of the public as more‘intelligent’ or more capable of suffering or are seen as ‘pets’. The NGOs runningthese campaigns oppose experiments on all species but highlight these particularanimals as a way of creating awareness and action on vivisection issues generally.
Primates have received the attention of many animal NGOs; for example:•

BUAV campaign 'Stop the Baby Trade' - www.buav.org/ourcampaigns/primate-campaign - to end the international trade in nonhuman primates for research.

•

New England Anti-Vivisection Society ‘Project R&R’ (Release & Restitution
for Chimpanzees in U.S. Laboratories) - www.neavs.org/campaigns/randr a campaign to end the use of chimpanzees in invasive biomedical
research and provide them release and restitution in a sanctuary.

•

Animal Defenders International 'My Mate's a Primate' - www.adinternational.org/mmap - aims to end four ways in which primates are
threatened or exploited: as bushmeat; in entertainment; the pet trade; andin experiments.

Cats and dogs, kept in their millions as pets in Western countries, have also been
the centre of attention for anti-vivisection campaigners; for example:• BUAV’s ‘our best friends’ campaign – www.ourbestfriends.org – reveals

the types of experiments conducted on cats and dogs in UK labs and callson the Government to end the use of the animals in research in the UK.

• Close Green Hill campaign – www.fermaregreenhill.net – a successful

Italian campaign to close a major beagle breeding company, but which
also highlights animal testing generally and encourages the public tochange consumer behaviour

These campaigns are not solely about those specific species but are a way in which
public and media attention and support can be fostered for wider debate aboutanimal testing.
At the time of compiling this report, both Houses of the Italian Parliament voted infavour of a number of bans and restrictions on animal experiments. 18 There arefurther stages to pass but so far the changes include:•

Green Hill will definitely have to close soon.

•

A Ban on breeding dogs, cats and primates for vivisection.

18 Personal Communication with Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill, 31.7.13

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 2013

12•A Ban on experiments using primates, dogs and cats, except in limited
circumstances.

•Bans on warfare experiments; experiments with drugs, tobacco and alcohol;
animal research involving xenotransplantation (transplanting cells and tissues
across species).

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Background Paper - August 201313

6 Who is active in the sector? NGOs active in raising public awareness about animal testing
The table below lists groups across the world currently active in the area of public awareness and campaigning against animal
testing. The list is certainly not comprehensive. Attempts have been made to include a range of organisations from grassroots,
volunteer-led groups to international, well-funded NGOs. Attention has also been paid to NGOs in ‘emerging’ countries where thedemand for consumer products is increasing. This research has been largely web-based and although effort has been put into
researching websites in many different languages, we are aware that not all NGOs will have websites, that information available on
websites will in some cases be limited and that there will be other effective NGOs which have been missed during our research.
Organisation
Campaign
Phone
Email / web
Australia
1
Animals Australia
Various animal protection: animal testing; factory farming; live export; rodeos; animal circuses; puppy mills; fur+61 39329 6333
enquiries@animalsaustralia.org / www.animalsaustralia.org
2
Animal Liberation Victoria
Various animal protection: animal testing; duck shooting; zoos, circuses, rodeos; puppy farms; veganism+61 39531 4367
enquiries@alv.org.au / www.alv.org.au

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201314

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201315

3
Choose Cruelty Free
“An independent, non-profit organisation which actively promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle.” Surveys and accredits companies not
testing on animals+61 39328 1377
admin@choosecrueltyfree.org.au / www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au
4
Animal Liberation
Various animal protection: animals for food; fashion, entertainment; science+61 29262 3221
sydneyhq@animal-lib.org.au / www.animal-lib.org.au
5
Replace Animals in Australian Testing
Based at University of Wollongong. Aims to "create a network of researchers and other individuals or groups interested in
advocating non-animal based research and in strengthening the Australian Government/NHMRC guidelines and their enforcement"+61 24221 3387
Dr Denise Russell: deniser@uow.edu.au / www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/raat/index.html
6
Humane Research Australia“Challenges the use of animals in research and promotes the use of more humane and scientifically-valid non animal
methodologies”+61 38823 5704
info@humaneresearch.org.au / www.humaneresearch.org.au

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201316

Austria
1
Verein gegen Tierfabriken (Association against Animal Factories)
Various animal protection: animal testing; animal farming; veganism; fur; hunting+43 1929 14 98
vgt@vgt.at / www.vgt.at
2Internationaler Bund der Tierversuchsgegner / Ein Recht fur Tiere (Rights for Animals)
Animal testing. Long term lobbying on issues such as REACH+43 1713 08230
tierversuchsgegner@chello.at / www.tierversuchsgegner.at

Belgium
1
Eurogroup for Animals
Various animal protection: animal testing; farmed animals; wildlife; companion animals; EU & animal welfare+32 2740 08 20
info@eurogroupforanimals.org / www.eurogroupforanimals.org
2
GAIA - Voice of the Voiceless
Various animal protection: animal testing; factory farming; foie gras; fur trade+32 2245 29 50
info@gaia.be / www.gaia.be

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

17

3
Bite Back
Various animal protection: animal testing; veganism; zoos; animal circuses+32 486/601 666
info@biteback.org / www.biteback.org

Brazil1
ANDA - Agência de Notícias dos Direitos dos Animais [News Agency of Animal Rights]
Articles and news on animal rights issues from around the world.
+55 11 9810119 16
faleconosco@anda.jor.br / www.anda.jor.br
2
ARCA Brasil
Various animal protection: animal testing; responsible ‘pet ownership’; farmed animal welfare; wildlife trade; animal circuses;
rodeos.
In 2013 partnered with HSI Be Cruelty Free campaign
adm@arcabrasil.org.br / www.arcabrasil.org.br
3
Humane Society International
Be Cruelty Free campaign+55 (21) 8342-4163
Helder Constantino:hconstantino@hsi.org / www.hsi.org/world/brazil

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201318

Canada1
Animal Alliance of Canada
Various animal protection: animal testing; farmed animals; seal hunting. Working with HSI as part of ‘Be Cruelty Free’+1 416-462-9541
contact@animalalliance.ca / www.animalalliance.ca
2
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Various animal protection: animal testing; companion animals; farmed animals; hunting; zoos
+1 613 224-8072
info@cfhs.ca / http://cfhs.ca
3
The Ghosts in Our Machine
A cinematic documentary on the work of photographer Jo-Anne McArthur as she “illuminates the lives of individual animals living
within and rescued from the machine of our modern world. […] Are non-human animals property to be owned and used, or are they
sentient beings deserving of rights?”
info@theghostsinourmachine.com / www.theghostsinourmachine.com

China
1
Capital Animal Welfare Association
Working with HSI to launch Be Cruelty Free campaign in China
China mobile: +86 13901132574
2

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

19

Animal Protection Network
Be Cruelty Free partner
http://dongbaowang.org/BCFChina
3
Humane Society International
2013 launched Be Cruelty Free campaign in China with Chinese NGOs and academic scientists. HSI launched an $80,000
partnership with the Institute for In Vitro Sciences to provide Chinese scientists with hands-on training using advanced non-animal
methods.
China mobile: + 86 13718914649
Peter Li, China Policies Specialist: pli@hsi.org

Croatia1
Animal Friends Croatia
Various animal protection: animal testing; vegetarianism; fur; hunting; animal circuses.
ECEAE member+385 1 4920226
prijatelji-zivotinja@inet.hr / www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/index.en.php

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201320

Czech Republic1
Svoboda zvírat [Freedom for Animals]
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; animal circuses. Grants the Humane Cosmetics Standard and the Humane
Household Products Standard international certificates to Czech companies fulfilling given criteria.
ECEAE member+420 377 444 084
info@svobodazvirat.cz / www.svobodazvirat.cz

Denmark
1
Anima
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; animal circuses; farmed animals+45 35 10 70 70
www.anima.dk

Finland1
Animalia
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; vegetarianism. Produces a list of non-animal tested cosmetics. ECEAE member+358 9720 6590
animalia@animalia.fi / www.animalia.fi
FranceLush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201321

1
One Voice
Various animal protection: animal testing; animal circuses; dolphinariums; bullfighting; hunting; farmed animals.
ECEAE member+33 3 88 35 67 30
www.one-voice.fr
2
The Anti-Vivisection Coalition France (CAV)International Toxicology Center switch to non-animal testing; Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; air transport of animals for labs
info@cav.asso.fr / www.cav.asso.fr/en
3
Destination Enfer - Campaign for the Abolition of Vivisection
Animal testing+33 6-70-99-41-70
presse@destination-enfer.com / www.destination-enfer.com
4
Le Graal
Arranges to rehome animals from laboratories to private homes or sanctuaries.
www.graal-defenseanimale.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201322

Germany1
Bundesverband Tierschutz (Association of Animal Protection)
Various animal protection: animal testing; animal circuses; zoos; animals for fur+49 2841 25244
bv-tierschutz@t-online.de / www.bv-tierschutz.de
2
NOAH
Various animal protection: animal testing; factory farming; animals used for entertainment
Unique use of visual advertising (photographic and video)+49 228 – 350 77 99
www.noah.de3Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. (Doctors Against Animal Experiments)“We are a charitable organisation of several hundred doctors and scientists who work in the medical field. We support theimmediate abolition of all animal experiments on ethical and scientific grounds.” ECEAE member. The NGO’s toxicologist works toprevent animal testing under REACH by submitting scientific evidence.
+ 49 89 - 35 99 349
info@aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de / www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de
4
Menschen für Tierrechte (People for Animal Rights)
Various animal protection: animal testing; factory farming; animal circuses; zoos; hunting; sexual abuse of animals.
ECEAE member+49 2 41 - 15 72 14
info@tierrechte.de / www.tierrechte.deIndia

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201323

1
Humane Society International
Be Cruelty-Free campaign for marketing ban on animal-tested cosmetics in India.
+91 9849094113
Alokparna Sengupta: asengupta@hsi.org / www.hsi.org/world/india/work/end_animal_testing/be_cruelty_free/be_cruelty_free.html
2People For Animals
Cruelty Free International partner. PFA members are board members of every Laboratory Ethics Committee.
+91 - 11 - 23357088
www.peopleforanimalsindia.org
3
PETA India
Lobbying and public awareness to help achieve ban on animal testing of cosmetics. Now working to prevent products animal tested
elsewhere from being marketed in India.
+91 22-4072 7382
Info@petaindia.org / www.petaindia.com
Ireland1
Irish Anti-Vivisection Society (IAVS)
General anti-vivisection campaigns.
Member of ECEAE.
+353 (0)1 2820154
info@irishantivivisection.org / www.irishantivivisection.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201324

Israel1Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection Society (ISAV)General anti-vivisection campaigns.
+972-76-5403257
Isav@isav.org.il / www.isav.org.il
2
Behind Closed Doors
Campaigns against animal experiments and breeding animals for labs in Israel.
Undercover investigations of Israeli laboratories in cooperation with Let the Animals Live and Animal Log.
+972 54-6462170
anat@invitro.org.il / www.invitro.org.il

Italy
1
Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill (Coordination to Close Green Hill)
Campaign to close Green Hill beagle breeders. Protests with up to 10,000 people and rescue of dogs led (in 2012) to 2,700
beagles being seized by authorities and re-homed. Green Hill to be closed down. Public support for the campaign led to somecities banning construction of labs and legislation being passed to ban the breeding of, and testing on, dogs, cats and primates.
The campaign, and particularly images of the rescue of dogs, provided a major boost to the global anti-vivisection campaign.
+39 339-2144345
info@fermaregreenhill.net / www.fermaregreenhill.net

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201325

2
Lega Anti Vivisezione (LAV) (Anti-Vivisection League)
Various animal protection: animal testing; vegetarianism; animal circuses; zoos; hunting; fur
Produces guide to cosmetics not animal tested+39 6 446.13.25
info@lav.it / www.lav.it
3
Lega Internazionale Medici per l’Abolizione della Vivisezione (LIMAV) (International League of Doctors for the Abolition ofVivisection)“The purpose of the Organisation is to improve public health through the abolition of all animal experiments”+39 2 6427882
info@limav.org / www.limav.org
4
Stop Vivisection
A Citizens Initiative to end animal experiments. Committee includes scientists, activists and politicians. June 2013: Arranged
presentations in the European Parliament as part of the campaign.
representative.stopvivisection@gmail.com / www.stopvivisection.eu

Japan
1
Japan Anti-Vivisection Association (JAVA)Lobbies for end of animal testing as Asian representative member of ICAPO (International
Council on Animal Protection in OEC programmes); Publishes guide to cruelty-free cosmetics; Campaign partner of Cruelty Free
International+81 (3) 5456-9311
java@java-animal.org / www.java-animal.org/english

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

26

Korea, Republic of
1
Korea Animal Rights Advocates (KARA)
Various animal protection: animal testing; anti-dog meat; companion animals; clothing trade; hunting; factory farming.
Partnered with HSI on Be Cruelty Free campaign. Produces guide to cosmetics and household products not animal tested.
+82 2-3482-0999
admin@animalrightskorea.org / www.animalrightskorea.org (English website) / info@ekara.org / www.ekara.org (Korean website)
2
Korean Society for Animal Freedom / Korean Animal Welfare Association
Various animal protection: animal testing; pets; farmed animals; illegal animal slaughter programme; animal use in sports andentertainment.
benicetobunnies.org website educates public on animal testing and gathers signatures for their campaign ‘No to cosmetics testingon animals’.
+82 2-2292-6337
admin@animals.or.kr / hjl@animals.or.kr / www.animals.or.kr / Campaign website: www.benicetobunnies.org

Netherlands
1
Bite Back
Various animal protection: animal testing; veganism; zoos; animal circuses+31 6 34132082
nl@biteback.org / www.biteback.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201327

2
EDEV - Een DIER Een VRIEND (An Animal Friend)
Various animal protection: animal testing; dolphinariums; fur.
ECEAE member
EDEV runs the Humane Cosmetics Standard in the Netherlands.
+31 )70 383 3699
campagnes@edev.nl / www.edev.nl
3
Proefdiervrij
Campaigned against animal testing for cosmetics; produces guide to cruelty-free cosmetics; funds non-animal medical research.
+31 70 306 2468
www.proefdiervrij.nl
4Anti Dierproeven Coalitie (Anti Animal-Cruelty Coalition)
Grassroots anti-vivisection campaigns. Has helped rehome animals no longer used by labs (including primates). In 2013 carried out
an open rescue at a centre breeding dogs for labs, rescuing 6 beagles.
+31 479/85 15 19
info@stopdierproeven.org / www.stopdierproeven.org
5
Respect Voor Dieren (Respect for Animals)
Various animal protection: animal testing; vegetarianism/veganism; fur.
info@respectvoordieren.nl / www.respectvoordieren.nl

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201328

New Zealand1
Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE)
Various animal protection: animal testing; factory farming; rodeos; poisoning.
Produces guide to cruelty-free cosmetics; organising Cruelty Free Cosmetics week; is part of the Be Cruelty Free campaign.
+64 3 379 9711
info@safe.org.nz / www.safe.org.nz / www.safeshopper.org.nz

Norway1
Dyrevern Alliansen (Norwegian Animal Protection Alliance)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; factory farming.
Produces guide to cruelty-free cosmetics; developed and marketed a free app listing cruelty-free products; ECEAE member+47 22 20 16 50
post@dyrevern.no / www.dyrevern.no/english
2
NOAH - for dyrs rettigheter (NOAH - for animal rights)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; veganism; animal circuses; zoos
List of cruelty-free cosmetics and info campaign at www.kosmetikk.info+47 22114163
support@dyrsrettigheter.no / www.dyrsrettigheter.no / www.kosmetikk.info

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201329

Poland1
VIVA! Poland
List of cruelty-free cosmetics and info on anti-vivisection campaigns
www.notest.pl

Portugal
1
ANIMAL Association
List of cruelty-free cosmetics; ECEAE member+351 96 132 08 18
info@animal.org.pt / www.animal.org.pt

Russia1
VITA Animal Rights Centre
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; animal circuses; vegetarianism.
List of cruelty-free cosmetics
vita@vita.org.ru / www.vita.org.ru

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201330

Serbia1
Feniks (Phoenix, Society for the Protection of Animals and Development of Civic Consciousness)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; companion animals.
ECEAE member+381 64 253 71 15
drustvo.feniks@yahoo.com / www.feniks.org.rs
2
ORCA – Organization for Respect and Care for Animals
Various animal protection: animal testing; farm animal welfare; zoos; companion animals; developing regulations; education
orcabeograd@yahoo.com / www.orca.org.rs

Singapore
1
Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES)
Various animal protection: animal testing; zoos; fur; wildlife crime; wildlife rescue+65 6892 9821
info@acres.org.sg / www.acres.org.sg

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201331

South Africa
1
Beauty without Cruelty
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur/wool/leather; veganism; hunting; ritual killings+27 21 438 2282
chairperson@bwcsa.co.za / www.bwcsa.co.za

Spain
1
Asociación Defensa Derechos Animal (ADDA) (Association for the defence of animal rights)
Various animal protection: animal testing; zoos; animal circuses; fur; bullfighting/fiestas; factory farming; hunting.
ECEAE member+34 93 459 1601
adda@addaong.org / www.addaong.org
2
Igualdad Animal (Animal Equality)
Various animal protection: animal testing; zoos; animal circuses; fur; bullfighting/fiestas; veganism.
Conducts undercover investigations and animal rescues.
June 2013: Animal Equality gave a presentation in the European Parliament on the campaign ‘Stop Vivisection’.
+34 915 222 218
info@igualdadanimal.org / www.igualdadanimal.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

32

3
Animanaturalis
Various animal protection: animal testing; zoos; animal circuses; fur; bullfighting/fiestas; vegetarianism.
June 2013: Animanaturalis gave a presentation in the European Parliament on the campaign ‘Stop Vivisection’.
www.animanaturalis.org/home/es

Sweden1
Djurrättsalliansen (Animal Rights Alliance)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; bestiality; veganism.
Ongoing campaign against primate testing.
www.djurrattsalliansen.se
2
Djurens Rätt (Animal Rights Sweden)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; hunting; factory farming.
ECEAE member+46 8-555914 00
info@djurensratt.se / www.djurensratt.se

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201333

Switzerland
1
Ligue suisse contre la vivisection (LSCV) (Swiss League Against Vivisection)
Supports development of non-animal testing methods and takes legal action to prevent animal tests. Publishes list of cruelty-freecosmetics.
+41 (0)22 349 73 37
admin@lscv.ch / www.lscv.ch
2Zürcher Tierschutz Association (Zurich Animal Protection Association)
Various animal protection: animal testing; fur; farm animal welfare.
Funds non-animal testing; has a representative on the Zurich Animal Experiments Committee and the Federal Animal Experiments
Committee.
+41 44 261 97 14
info@zuerchertierschutz.ch / www.zuerchertierschutz.ch

UK
1
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV)Key issues include: primates in research; cruelty-free cosmetics; animal testing of household products in UK; REACH; Freedom of
information. Conducts undercover investigations. Co-ordinates the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments and Cruelty
Free International (global campaign to end animal testing for cosmetics).
+44(0)20 7700 4888
info@buav.org / www.buav.org / www.crueltyfreeinternational.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201334

2
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)
Part of Animal Defenders International (ADI).
Animals in space research; freedom of information; World Day for Laboratory Animals; Good Charities Guide (charities funding nonanimal medical research).
+44 (0)20 7630 3340
www.navs.org.uk
3
Animal Aid
Various animal protection: animal testing; veganism; horse racing; hunting; wildlife.
Vivisection campaigns focused on medical experiments (e.g. charities funding animal tests).
+44 (0)1732 364546
info@animalaid.org.uk / www.animalaid.org.uk
4
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA UK)
Various animal protection: animal testing; veganism; fur; circuses+44 (0)20 7837 6327
Info@peta.org.uk / www.peta.org.uk
5InterNICHE (International Network for Humane Education)
Network of students, teachers and campaigners working for fully humane education and training in medicine, veterinary medicine
and biological science. Produced award-winning video on alternatives, available in nearly 20 languages; book describing over 500
products designed for progressive life science education; offers global Alternatives Loan Systems - libraries of products available
for free loan, as well as literature, support and advice for teachers and students. Conferences, seminars and training.
+44 (0) 116 210 9652
coordinator@interniche.org / www.interniche.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

35

USA
1
Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC)
Coalition of 8 national animal protection groups. The CCIC “promotes a single comprehensive standard and an internationallyrecognised Leaping Bunny Logo”.
+1 888546-CCIC
info@LeapingBunny.org / www.leapingbunny.org
2
The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS)
Key issues include: Ban Pound Seizure; End Animal Cloning; Compassionate Shopping. In 2006, AAVS assumed the leadershiprole as Chair of the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). Free phone app with guide to over 200 cruelty-freecosmetics companies.
+1 800-729-2287
aavs@aavs.org / www.aavs.org
3
Humane Society International (HSI)
Launched ‘Be Cruelty Free’, a global campaign in partnership with NGOs worldwide. Active in key emerging countries such as
Brazil, India, China.
+1 202-452-1100
info@hsi.org / www.hsi.org
4
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)NEAVS is the U.S. Executive Office for Cruelty Free International. Founding member of the Coalition for Consumer Information on
Cosmetics.
+1 617-523-6020
info@neavs.org / www.neavs.org
5

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201336

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
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 programmes.
+1 202-686-2210
pcrm@pcrm.org / www.pcrm.org
6
Beagle Freedom ProjectStarted in 2010, the Project negotiates with labs to hand over animals for re-homing to suitable private homes. 120 dogs have so
far been saved in 14 rescues.
+ 1818-330-4040
shannon@beaglefreedomproject.org / www.beaglefreedomproject.org
7
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)
In addition to general anti-vivisection, campaigns include: fund to assist sanctuaries; cruelty-free product search; AnimalLaw.com
provides access to legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of animals.
+1 312 427-6065
navs@navs.org / www.navs.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201337

7 Public Awareness Prize Winners 2012
In the inaugural Lush Prize in 2012, three winners shared £50,000 of prize money for
their work raising public awareness about animal testing:•Japan Anti-Vivisection Association – Japan: Awarded £30,000 for theirsuccessful campaign to persuade cosmetics company Shiseido to abandon
animal testing. http://www.java-animal.org•

Decipher Films - Canada : Awarded £10,000 for their feature film ‘Maximum
Tolerated Dose’ on animal testing.http://maximumtolerateddose.org•

VITA Animal Rights Centre - Russia : Awarded £10,000 for their work onawareness raising with the Russian media. http://www.vita.org.ru

Also short-listed:•

Pro Anima – France: For their work on raising awareness of REACH andanimal testing in France. http://www.proanima.fr•

Humane Society International: For their Cruelty Free 2013 campaign toenforce the European 2013 cosmetics testing ban. http://www.hsi.org•

EQUIVITA Scientific Anti-vivisection Committee – Italy: For their work bringing
the attention of animal testing to the wider global justice community.
http://www.equivita.it•

NOAH, Menschen für Tiere e.V. – Germany: For the quality of their creative
adverts and interventions on animal testing. http://www.noah.de/wp•

Beagle Freedom Project – USA: For the high profile rescue of 40 beagles
from a laboratory in Spain. http://www.beaglefreedomproject.org•

Andrew Knight – UK: For producing the book ‘The Costs and Benefits ofAnimal Experiments’. http://www.andrewknight.info•

Animal Friends Croatia: For their work on awareness-raising in Croatia.
http://www.animal-friends-croatia.org

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201338

8 Shortlist of potential winners for the Public Awareness categoryof the 2013 Lush Prize

This section is based on nominees’ submissions.

8.1

Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill (Coordination to Close Green Hill) –Italy

Telephone: +39 339-2144345
E-mail: info@fermaregreenhill.net
Web: www.fermaregreenhill.net
The campaign began in April 2010 to prevent the expansion of Green Hill beagle
breeders, one of the largest suppliers of dogs to European vivisection labs (housing
up to 5,000 dogs). Once that was achieved, the aim became to close them down.
Dogs are often used for testing chemicals, as the ‘second species’ in toxicity tests
after experiments have already been carried out on mice or rats. 19
One month after the campaign was launched, Brescia and Verona airports stopped
shipments of all animals: both airports had been involved in transporting the beagles
to labs worldwide.
Protests organised by the group saw up to 10,000 people marching to call for the
closure of Green Hill. During one protest, puppies were rescued from the centre andpictures appeared in the media worldwide. The publicity generated led to opinion
polls finding that 87% of Italians opposed animal experiments.
Public support for the campaign led to some cities declaring themselves ‘vivisection
free’ and banning construction of labs in their area. Legislation was also submitted to
Parliament to ban the breeding of dogs, cats and primates for animal testing (a law
specifically designed to close down Green Hill) and to impose a ban on certain areasof experiments on animals.
The group’s focus has been not only to fight this particular breeder, but to givevisibility to the issue of vivisection and get results in the political arena, creating astrong popular support.

19 BUAV

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201339

In July 2012, judges determined that allegations of maltreatment of dogs warranted
further investigation.20 Rangers from Italy's forest service found dogs – adults andpuppies – at Green Hill were being kept in seriously overcrowded conditions in aseries of hangars. Dozens were found dead.21
In 2012, 2,700 beagles were seized by authorities and re-homed to private homes
and sanctuaries. In recognition of Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill’s leading role,
the group was given the very first dog to be removed and they helped re-home 550of the others.
The campaign, and particularly images of the rescue of dogs, provided a major boost
to the global anti-vivisection campaign.
Since Green Hill was emptied by the authorities, Italian labs have had to rely on
imports (no more dog breeders are present in the country as the same campaign
group closed down the Morini farm a few years before). The group managed to tracksome of the imports and start local campaigns against the airports and labs before
the dogs arrived. In March 2013 a lab in Rome handed over the 8 dogs they had
imported for experiments to a local animal rights organisation. 32 more beagles
arrived at a lab in Verona and the campaign led to the City Council calling for theirrelease.
In August 2012 the group persuaded Phoenix Air to stop transporting primates forlabs after it discovered 23 macaques were due to be imported from the Caribbean.
At the time of compiling this report, the Italian Parliament voted in favour of a numberof bans and restrictions on animal experiments.22 There are further stages to pass
but so far the changes include:

8.2•

Green Hill will definitely have to close soon.

•

A Ban on breeding dogs, cats and primates for vivisection.

•

A Ban on experiments using primates, dogs and cats, except in limited
circumstances.

•Bans on: warfare experiments; experiments with drugs, tobacco and alcohol;
animal research involving xenotransplantation (transplanting cells and tissues
across species).
NOAH, Menschen für Tiere – Germany

Telephone: +49 228 350 77 99
Web: www.noah.de
20 Court orders temporary closure of Italian dog-breeding premises. Alison Abbott. 2.8.12.
21 The Great Italian Beagle Rescue. Michael Mountain, 2.8.12.
22 Personal Communication with Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill, 31.7.13

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201340

In 2012 NOAH replaced the QR codes (Quick Response codes that can be readusing smartphones, which link directly to text and websites) on cosmetics
companies' billboards with QR codes that lead to videos and information exposing
animal testing. Codes can be downloaded from NOAH’s website for individuals totake action.
A film of their project, 'Code', can be seen at:
http://uk.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/34479958/sxi:3357516
And an image at:
http://uk.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/34477148/sxi:3357516sxi:3357516

8.3 8.3

The Ghosts in Our Machine – Canada

E-mail: info@theghostsinourmachine.com
Website: www.theghostsinourmachine.com
The Ghosts in Our Machine is a film exploring our relationship with animals, focusing
on the work of photographer Jo-Anne McArthur. According to the website:“With the exception of our companion animals and a few wild and stray species within
our urban environments, we experience animals daily only as the food, clothing, animal
tested goods and entertainment we make of them. This moral dilemma is often hiddenfrom our view …
THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE illuminates the lives of individual animals living
within and rescued from the machine of our modern world. Through the heart andphotographic lens of acclaimed animal photographer Jo-Anne McArthur, we become
intimately familiar with a cast of non-human animals. The film follows McArthur over thecourse of a year as she photographs several animal stories in parts of Canada, the U.S.
and in Europe. Each story and photograph is a window into global animal industries:
Research; Food; Fashion and Entertainment. The question is posed: Are non-humananimals property to be owned and used, or are they sentient beings deserving ofrights?”Director Liz Marshall adds:“THE GHOSTS IN OUR MACHINE is a journey of discovery into what is a complex
social dilemma. In essence, humans have cleverly categorized non-human animals into
three parts: domesticated pets, wildlife, and the ones we don’t like to think about: theghosts in our machine. Why do we value wildlife and our companion animals but not thebillions of animals bred and used annually by global industries? It is this core questionthat prompted me to delve deeply to explore this subject matter. The film follows animal
photographer and activist Jo-Anne McArthur over the course of a year. I chose Jo-Anneas the protagonist because her mission is a sympathetic entry-point into the animalquestion, and her powerful photographs invite us to consider non-human animals as
individuals.”

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201341

The film includes animal research within its exploration of animal use, including:
McArthur’s pitch to her New York photo agency about her photographic lead story ofmonkey farms in Asia; rehabilitation of two beagles used in a medical teachingfacility; and a chimpanzee used for biomedical research, who lived in a small cage ina lab for many years.
The Ghosts in Our Machine was released in Canada in summer 2013 and will be
released in the USA later in the year. A European launch will follow.

8.4

SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) – New Zealand

PO Box 13 366, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand
Telephone: +64 3 379 9711
E-mail: info@safe.org.nz
Website: www.safe.org.nz and www.safeshopper.org.nz
SAFE campaigns on a number of animal rights issues and has partnered with HSI tolaunch ‘Be Cruelty Free’ in New Zealand to ban the sale of animal tested products.
The campaign has included encouraging people to send an e-card to Prime Minster
John Key calling on him to support a ban on cosmetic testing on animals and, in July
2013, Green Party MP Mojo Mathers handing in a 15,500-signature petition toparliament. The hand-in was attended by two TV stations, two major radio stations
and the two main newspapers.
In July 2013 SAFE ran its first ‘Cruelty Free Week’ aiming to bring awareness toconsumers about how many common cosmetics and household products are stillroutinely tested on animals. The campaign involved three make-up-free celebrities
on billboards and posters throughout the country and in Lush stores, asking people
to ‘get the bare facts’ on cosmetic testing. Stories were carried in major newspapers,a TV channel and three magazines. SAFE’s social media campaign also attracted ahuge amount of interest, with one post alone receiving nearly 70,000 views.
SAFE Shopper (www.safeshopper.org.nz) is SAFE’s online consumer initiative thatlists products not tested on animals, available in New Zealand. It has been runningsince 2011. The guide is available both online and in a wallet-sized, downloadable
booklet.
In 2012 the NZ Government announced its intention to regulate the sale ofpsychoactive substances, also known as party pills. New Zealand is the first country
in the world to do so. The vast majority of people were disgusted to learn through a
campaign run by SAFE, NZAVS (NZ Anti-Vivisection Society) and the SPCA that theGovernment intended to allow animal testing as part of the regulation process.
Together, the NGOs started the Leave Animals Out website
www.leaveanimalsout.org.nz which called for the public to make submissions on theissue. A separate petition attracted 70,000 signatures and was handed in to

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201342

Parliament in May 2013. SAFE is still pushing for animals to be ruled out of thesecruel tests.

8.5 Humane Society International (HSI)
2100 L St., NW Washington, D.C. 20037, USA
Telephone: +1 202-452-1100
E-mail: info@hsi.org
Website: www.hsi.org
Launched ‘Be Cruelty Free’, a global campaign in partnership with NGOs worldwide.
Active in key emerging countries such as Brazil, India, China.
To coincide with the EU ban on marketing animal tested cosmetics, HSI launch aweek of action, ‘Get rid of Cruelty’. Promoted globally, it focused on consumerawareness and, in countries such as Brazil, also called for the industry to abandon
domestic cosmetics animal testing.
HSI launched an animated video, ‘Bright Eyes’, the same week the European Union
implemented its ban on selling animal-tested cosmetics. The video shows animal
testing from the perspective of a rabbit called Warren who finds himself in alaboratory and subjected to painful eye tests.
Bright Eyes’ was first produced by Australian Be Cruelty-Free partner Choose
Cruelty Free, which donated its use to the campaign, and it has been translated into
multiple languages for simultaneous launches across Brazil, Canada, Europe, India,
Russia and South Korea.
HSI has launched the campaign across the world with the support of NGOs in eachcountry, backed by widespread celebrity endorsement.

8.6

PETA India

PO Box 28260 Juhu, Mumbai - 400 049
Telephone: +91 22-4072 7382
E-mail: Info@petaindia.org
Web: www.petaindia.com
PETA India played a major part in the successful campaign to ban the testing ofcosmetics on animals in the country. In addition to the important lobbying work thatwas part of this campaign (see Lobbying Research Paper for more information),public awareness initiatives were also involved.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

43

These included:
The British-Asian actress Sofia Hayat (whose latest film is Diary of a Butterfly and who
is associated with Bindass TV's Superdude) organised her birthday party to draw
attention to the testing of cosmetics on animals. She appeared in a pristine whiteswimsuit, with bunny ears and a fluffy tail, holding a placard that read, "Be Sweet to
Bunnies: Choose Cruelty-Free Cosmetics".
In 2012, the cast and crew of Farah Khan's Joker, directed by Shirish Kunder andstarring Akshay Kumar, Sonakshi Sinha and Chitrangda Singh, joined PETA in urging
the government to ban cosmetic testing on animals. Chitrangda posed on behalf of
PETA and Joker with the aliens from the film for the campaign. The ad was shot byphotographer Atul Kasbekar.
Sitting in a bathtub filled with blood-red water next to a backdrop that reads, "Don't Buy
While Animals Die. Choose Cruelty-Free Cosmetics", Gladrags model Rozlyn Khan
appeared in public with body wash and shampoo bottles filled with "blood". The event
was held on the eve of World Day for Animals in Laboratories.

PETA India has also held numerous protests against the testing of cosmetics onanimals and has encouraged consumers to only buy cruelty-free cosmetics in Delhi
and throughout India without the endorsement of celebrities but which still garneredtremendous media support.

8.7 New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)
333 Washington St., Ste. 850, Boston, MA 02108-5100
Telephone: 617-523-6020
Email: info@neavs.org
Web: www.neavs.org
Founded in 1895, NEAVS works in several key areas to end the use of animals in
research:•

Legislation/policy change•

Scientific research•

Public outreach•

Education and medical training•

Rescue and sanctuary

A major campaign, initiated in 2004, is Project R&R: Release and Restitution for
Chimpanzees in U.S. Laboratories, which works for a nationwide focus to end theuse of chimpanzees in U.S. research and release them to sanctuary.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201344

Although opposed to all animal testing, focusing on chimpanzees ‘would break the
species barrier’. By making the chimpanzees' plight compelling to the public, media,
scientific bodies, legislators, and other organisations, NEAVS aim was to bring the
campaign to the forefront of priorities. The campaign (releasechimps.org), which has
been presented in in major US cities, highlights the plight of chimpanzees in labs,
their lack of scientific necessity, and their healing in sanctuaries. Lobbying was also
conducted around the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act (to end
chimpanzee research).
Based on its work, NEAVS was one of two animal organisations invited to testify to
the Institute of Medicine (IOM), charged with studying the status of chimpanzees in
research. The IOM concluded chimpanzees were not necessary in most areas ofresearch. NEAVS’ final publication in 2012, a study in which pathologists reviewed
autopsies of chimpanzees in or from labs, concluded that the vast majority sufferedlong-term, multi-organ diseases, leading NEAVS to call for review of the healthstatus of all chimpanzees held. NEAVS persisted in influencing NIH (National
Institutes of Health) by submitting detailed testimony to NIH's calls for publiccomment and other input, including bundling years of work and submitting it to an
NIH appointed council charged with developing recommendations to implement the
IOM report.
Throughout, NEAVS provided sanctuary funding, including establishing Lifetime Care
Funds. Vigorously advocating for chimpanzees NIH decided to retire from one lab toanother, NEAVS provided legal arguments for transferring them to sanctuary andwas the first to grant $100,000 once NIH reconsidered and sent them to sanctuary.
NEAVS' vision included awareness that once chimpanzee use in U.S. research
ended, NEAVS’ work wasn’t over. Instead, the campaign would have established acornerstone for arguments that the ethical and scientific facts that led to Project
R&R’s success apply to all animals in research. With strategic campaign choices andpassionate ethics, NEAVS continues its mission–to end and replace the use of all
animals with better science.

8.8

Andre Menache

E-mail: andre.menache@gmail.com
Andre Menache is a veterinary surgeon and scientific consultant for various NGOs
campaigning against animal testing. Founder and former president of the Israel
Antivivisection Society and former president of Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible
Medicine (UK), he currently provides scientific help to the following organisations:
Antidote Europe (France), Humane Research Australia, Anti dierproeven coalitie(Belgium), Equivita (Italy), Swedish Antivivisection Society, Save the Harlan Beagles(UK), National SPCA (South Africa), Behind Closed Doors (Israel), Fermare Greenhill(Italy), Animal Aid (UK), ARAN (Ireland), Ligue Suisse Contre la Vivisection(Switzerland), One Voice (France) and GAIA (Belgium). He has previously served on
the subcommittee on Alternatives of the National Council on Animal Experiments

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 2013

45

(Ministry of Health, Israel) and is currently a member of the Belgian national
Deontological Committee on animal research ethics.
The European Citizen's initiative, ‘Stop vivisection’, launched in 2012 by Sonia Alfano
MEP, invited Menache to be part of the Citizen's Committee. He sees the initiative asa ‘golden opportunity to inform the general public as to why animal experiments arebad science’.
His YouTube video ‘Good Science versus Bad Science’ contains subtitles in 10
different languages, ranging from Polish to Japanese to Spanish and has been
watched by tens of thousands.
Menache has co-organised several national and international meetings andconferences against animal experiments, most recently in Montreal in 2011, where
he presented a poster of a scientific study showing the effect of pesticide mixtures onhuman cell lines as a replacement technique to the use of animals in toxicity testing.
This study was subsequently published in science journal PLos One in 2012.
He is a prolific public speaker and in August 2012 joined Nick Jukes (InterNICHE) on
a university lecture tour of South Africa on the replacement of animals in educationand training, research and testing.
Author of many scientific reports and papers against animal experiments for both thegeneral public and scientific communities, recent examples include:
The PIP scandal: an analysis of the process of quality control that failed tosafeguard women from the health risks. Martindale V, Menache A. J R Soc
Med. 2013 May;106(5):173-7.
Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology.
International Journal of Medical Sciences (2013).
Trends in animal use and replacement in the 'Three Is' of industry. Menache
A. Altern Lab Anim. 2012 Dec;40(6):P20-1.
A preliminary investigation into the impact of a pesticide combination onhuman neuronal and glial cell lines in vitro. Coleman MD, O'Neil JD,
Woehrling EK, Ndunge OB, Hill EJ, Menache A, Reiss CJ. PLoS One.
2012;7(8):e42768. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
REACH, animal testing and the precautionary principle. Menache A, Nastrucci
C. Medicolegal and Bioethics 2012.
Animal models in an age of personalized medicine. Greek, Ray; Menache,Andre; Rice, Mark J. Source: Personalized Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1,
January 2012, pp. 47-64(18)
Are Animal Models Relevant in Modern Psychiatry? Menache A. PsychiatricTimes. Vol. 29 No. 3 February 28, 2012.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201346

8.9 Beagle Freedom Project4804 Laurel Canyon Blvd. #534, Valley Village, CA 91607
Telephone: 818-330-4040
E-mail: shannon@beaglefreedomproject.org
Web: www.beaglefreedomproject.org
Beagle Freedom Project (BFP) was formed in 2010 with the goal of rescuing dogs
from research (96% of whom are beagles) as a vehicle to educate the general public
about animal-testing, the importance of cruelty-free alternatives, and advancelegislative policy to help end vivisection.
Over the course of 2012 and the first half of 2013, BFP has successfully liberated of“research” animals from laboratories across the world, each action bringing
mainstream media attention to the plight of animals in laboratories. The entire social
media apparatus of BFP is dedicated to telling the stories of the rescued dogs andgiving a face to actual victims of vivisection.
With the ultimate objective of ending animal-testing, BFP is amassing a newgeneration of anti-animal testing activists. These new advocates have been createdwith a carefully crafted message for mainstream America. 60 million U.S. households
share their space and hearts with dogs, and there is no more quintessentially
American breed than that of the beagle. The liberated laboratory beagles serve as
the perfect ambassador to the general public, as they are instantly identifiable andeasy to feel empathy with. The rescue of these dogs is a soft, but poignant,approach that can shock an otherwise animal-testing-ignorant public into learning
more and making pro-active lifestyle changes.
In the last 18 months, BFP has freed and homed over 60 beagles, 2 mixed breed
dogs, 4 rabbits and 1 cat from 10 different laboratories in the U.S., and additionallyanimals from labs in Spain and Albania.
The 50 State Campaign aims to put freed beagles in each state so these dogs canact as ambassadors in educational forums or media coverage. The public sees their
sweet nature, the tattooed ears and realizes animal-testing is not an abstract
concept. As of July 2013 BFP has 121 freed beagles in 14 states.
BFP has written to all 383 US laboratories with dogs asking for participation in therelease program under the message ‘we owe them’, a campaign that lets the public
see the labs in their community, how many dogs are inside, and gives them aconstructive outlet to protest.
The Identity Campaign, launched in the spring of 2013, is a ‘viral video’ concept that
captures public imagination, sparks online video participation, and generates media
attention to the issue. In labs, dogs are only known by a Federal ID number tattooed
in their ears. To highlight this historically relevant imagery and create a voice for

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201347

these dogs, BFP has created temporary tattoos of the same design used on the
beagles and with the actual number of one dog. Many supporters across the U.S.
have put one on and recorded a short video clip explaining their solidarity with
nameless animals suffering in labs. Already this campaign has inspired creativity andthe clips (or photos) are being “shared” on a variety of social media platforms. A
social media meme that these dogs “have names and are not numbers” has taken
hold and BFP is finalising the construction of a website to host all of these videos atwww.identitycampaign.org.

Lush Public Awareness Prize 2013 – Research Paper - August 201348