Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
1
IR/PS CSR Case 07-08

The Coalition for Consumer
Information on Cosmetics & The
Leaping Bunny Logo

By: Stephen Crowe

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Jennifer Cheng, MPIA 2008
Corporate Social Responsibility
Winter 2007

Abstract:
This paper investigates the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics’ (CCIC)
Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals and its Leaping Bunny logo. Both devices seek
to simplify the numerous claims relating to animal testing for consumer products and cosmetics,
and establish a standardized definition of these practices as well as a commitment against them.
CCIC formed in 1996 and the logo made its debut in 1998; today more than one-hundredcompanies have adopted the Corporate Standard, with some going beyond and adopting the logo
as well.

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
2

Table of Contents
I. Animals in Society .................................................................................................................3
II. Animal Testing & The Animal Testing Industry................................................................4
III. Cosmetics, Personal Care Products, Household Products & Testing...............................8
IV. CCIC & The Bunny..........................................................................................................11
V. Targets & Effectiveness .....................................................................................................12
VI. Final Remarks...................................................................................................................16
VII. Discussion Questions .......................................................................................................18
VIII. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................19

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
3

I. Animals in Society
The relationship between man and animal is as old as humanity itself. Animals provided
clothing for our ancestors, food for their families, and were instrumental in establishingagriculture, thus providing the basis for civilization itself. Centuries of social practice and thehuman superiority complex have always drawn a line between the value and role of animals andhumans. Certain animals, namely dogs and cats, have been fortunate to attain the elevated statusof human companions (and in many cases even royalty), but the majority of animals are still seen
as lesser creatures and objects to be used rather than individuals with rights. Today they are stillused for their traditional inputs of agriculture and clothing, but have taken on the exploitative,
industrialized role of commercial goods and test subjects. We must remember that the line
between human and animal is nebulous; war, slavery, genocide, cruelty, and abuse demonstratehumanity’s capacity for savagery and draw into question the superiority on which we base ourtreatment of animals.
As civilization has progressed, man’s awareness of his world and his impact on it havechanged accordingly, as have his moral and ethical standards. Predilection for environmental
protection, organic food, corporate regulation, and consumer product labeling are all examples of
our increasing awareness and willingness—or at least recognized need—to take responsibility
for our actions. It is in this context that the developed world has begun to reevaluate and affectchange in its treatment of animals, one of the most integral elements of society. Through thisessay I will attempt to illuminate the efforts of the Coalition for Consumer Information on
Cosmetics (CICC) to create a corporate standard and labeling system that standardizes theCopyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
4
definition of animal testing for consumer and cosmetics products, and attempts to regulate
against it.

II. Animal Testing & The Animal Testing Industry
The primary purpose behind using animals as test subjects lies in the desire to evaluate
products or procedures that are intended to be used by humans. A portion of animal testing
involves products that are intended for animals themselves, or to study animal behavior(unrelated to behavioral studies that are intended for extrapolation to humans) but these areminor parts of the overall practice. Animal testing of all kinds can be broken down into five
primary categories under which specific types of tests fall.
Pure Research• Mutagenesis• Chemical/Radiation Effects• Behavioral• Breeding – Evolution & Genetics
Applied Science• Genetics & Disease• Naturally Occurring Disease• Xenotransplantation
Military Testing• Weapons Testing

Drug Testing• Metabolics• Toxicity• Drug Efficacy• Reproductive Function, Embryonic Toxicity,
Carcinogenic Potential• Medical Devices
Cosmetics, Personal & Household Products (CPH)• Final Product/Ingredients Tests• Irritancy Tests• Safety Issues• Toxicity

Of these categories, drug testing and medical research often garner the greatest amountsof support from the public, as they can be thought of as necessary evils for the advancement ofmankind. Within the United States, much of the animal testing within this field is not performed
voluntarily by pharmaceutical or biotech companies, but is mandated by the Food and Drug
Administration. Development of new drugs is heavily regulated by the FDA. The Food, Drug,and Cosmetics Act permits the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation to require extensive toxicity

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
5
testing on animals before being allowed to enter the clinical trial phase.1 Common required tests
include:

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Acute (short-term): 7 to 20 rats + dogs or primates
Subchronic (14-180 days) toxicity: rats + dogs or primates
Chronic (lifetime) toxicity: 120 rats + 32 dogs or primates
Cancer causing effects: 400 rats + 400 mice
Toxicity to reproductive systems- Segment I (reproductive toxicity in 2 generations): 2500 rats
- Segment II (birth defects): 900 rabbits + 1300 rats
- Segment III (peri- and post natal effects): rats
Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and pharmacological interactions, of active
ingredients
Specialty studies- Genetic toxicity: 80 hamsters/mice x 2 to 5 separate studies- Immune system toxicity: 32 rats
- Skin/eye/mucosal irritation: 3 rabbits per test

Medical testing on animals has few boundaries. Animals are repeatedly infected withdeadly viruses and bacteria, injected with chemicals and vaccines, have their organs removed
and replaced with the organs of other animals, used to demonstrate medical techniques, and arein a position to suffer abuse and pain throughout. Interestingly, animal tests have proven again
and again to poorly imitate human physiology and reaction. The FDA itself recently reported that
92 out of 100 drugs that successfully pass the animal testing stage fail during the human clinicalphase.2 Why such tests continue is difficult to hypothesize. Perhaps America’s overly-litigious
society forces the government and companies to cover all avenues of human injury; perhaps
adopting alternate testing methods is not an endeavor many are willing to take unless they areforced. What is certain is that an enormous industry exists around animal testing.
Vivisection is a sizeable industry. In the United States more than 1100 regulated testing
facilities and a further 4000 distributors, transport companies, dealers, etc. employ tens of

1
2

StopAnimalTests.com, “U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),” [www.stopanimaltests.com/us-fda.asp]
Ibid.

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
6
thousands of people. Testing is also carried out in Canada, Europe, and Japan.3 The specifictypes of animals subject to testing include mice, rats, dogs, cats, fish, primates, horses, pigs,
chickens, insects and more. In North America, Europe, and Japan it is estimated that between 50
and 115 million animals are involved in animal experimentation each year. Specific numbers are
impossible to obtain as mice, rats, and birds, which make up 80-90% of all animal test victims
are not covered by the US Animal Welfare Act and do not need to be counted.4 Nearly all
animals used die as a result of the experiments, or are euthanized. Obtaining animals forexperiments is done through a network of class A and B dealers. Class A, supplying 50% of test
subjects, sell animals that have been purpose bread for the animal testing industry.5 Class B
distributors supply “random source” animals and their sources are more questionable. They
purchase from auctions, and source animals from pounds and shelters that would otherwise
euthanize un-adoptable animals. There are allegations that these people have stolen animals fromowners, or take them from individuals who place “free to a good home” advertisements.6 Animal
rights groups are quick to point out these incidents, while institutions that use animals in testing
downplay such occurrences as much as possible and allude to “strict” regulations that they feelprevent such undesirable activity. 7 Testing equipment—and animals—are available from
distributors, most notably Animal Lab Magazine, which provides anything from mice to restraint
devices to tools and monitoring equipment.8

3

Animal Care Publications, “Facility Lists,” [www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications.html]
StopAnimalTests.com, “Animal Research Industry,” [www.stopanimaltests.com/AnimalResearchInd.asp]
5
California Biomedical Research Association, “Frequently Asked Questions The Role of Animals in Biomedical
Research,” [www.ca-biomed.org]
6
StopAnimalTests.com, “Animal Research Industry, [www.stopanimaltests.com/AnimalResearchInd.asp]
7
California Biomedical Research Association, “Frequently Asked Questions The Role of Animals in Biomedical
Research,” [www.ca-biomed.org]
8
StopAnimalTests.com
4Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
7
Within the United States measurable regulation of the animal testing industry does exist.
The majority is managed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its authority for
regulation originated with the US Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (7 USC, 2131-2156) Amended in
1970, 1976, 1985, 1990 and 2002)9 Some of its provisions include requirements that test animals
are provide anesthesia if they may be subjected to painful procedures, medical care is to beprovided by veterinarians, animals that experience chronic pain which cannot be relieved are tobe painlessly euthanized, and personnel conducting procedures are to be appropriately qualified.
The act applies to the following animals, with notable exceptions to exclude the food and leather
industries from regulation under this specific act:
“Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warm-blooded
animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition
purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred foruse in research; horses not used for research purposes; and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to,livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for
improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality offood or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding
purposes.”10

Currently, the act requires that all breeders (kennels), exhibitors, carriers, research
institutions (including Universities), dealers, exhibitors, and handlers or animals be registeredwith the USDA. The names and addresses of all registered entities are available to the public andlisted by state. All facilities are inspected at least once per year, and an annual report ofviolations is published and available to the public. Specific facilities are not names in the report,
but information may be requested from the US government through the Freedom of Information
Act. Of particular note is the disproportionate violations regarding living condition and care in

9

Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (7 U.S.C. 2131-2156) 1966. [www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm]
Animal Welfare Act, “Regulations” Section 1.1 Definitions[www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications/AWR/PART1.HTML]10

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
8
comparison to animal treatment and handling.11 While Animal Welfare Act Regulations fallshort in comprehensively addressing the total suffering of animals in the testing industry, they doprovide the critical element of revealing exactly who is carrying out animal tests and to which
companies they are connected. To enhance or ensure the ability of government regulators toprevent animal suffering, more stringent cruelty requirements are needed, more frequent audits
should occur, and the permissibility of specific experiments must be established. At present, aslong as a facility follows government regulations, there is no limit to the nature or type ofexperiments carried out, nor is there a limit on the number or species of animals involved.
Restriction on the types of animals used is an ideal method or reducing suffering in animal
testing as humans are likely to support the elimination of dogs, cats, primates, and other larger
animals from testing before they are willing to support the elimination of rodents.
We now turn our attention to the main issue in this paper: animal testing and thecosmetics and household product industry.

III. Cosmetics, Personal Care Products, Household Products & Testing
Animal testing for cosmetics (make-up, skin care), personal care products (dental care,
topical medicines, soap, hair care, etc) and household products (cleansers, laundry detergent, air
fresheners, etc) parallel the patterns of animal testing for drugs and medical applications as theprimary purpose has been safety and toxicity testing. Every time a product label reads “Harmful
if swallowed/inhaled,” “Tear-free,” or “Skin irritant,” we can be sure that these statements are a
result from animal testing experiments. Products are routinely forced into animal stomachs to see
how much it takes to kill the animal, applied to their skin/eyes to determine if irritation or burns

112005 Violation Summary [www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/violations/2005violations.pdf]

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
9
occur, or inhaled by animals and the results recorded. Such experiments defy all semblance ofmorality and logic as it is common sense that any cleaning product, no matter how eco-friendly,is likely to make a human sick if ingested, or that applying makeup and skin cream directly into
the eye is likely to cause significant irritation. In any case, as with drugs, products are tested onhumans in clinical trials before market release. Significant information exists on the potential
health and allergic reactions of thousands of potential cosmetics, personal care, and householdproduct ingredients, yet some companies continue to tests every variation of their news products
on animals. Household, personal care, and cosmetics products cannot be linked to potentiallyrevolutionary or life changing applications, as medical testing can, and their immediate and longterm usefulness is seriously questioned.
Backlash against animal testing for C.P.H. products first began in 1980. The 1970s had
seen the birth of the animal rights movement with Peter Singer’s 1973 book Animal Liberation.
The book had a profound influence on Henry Spira, who founded Animal Rights International(ARI) the following year. On 15 April 1980 ARI launched the first anti-vivisection campaign
against a cosmetics company when it took out an entire page in the New York Times displaying a
rabbit whose eyes had been damaged, several test tubes, and the headline “How many rabbits
does Revlon blind for beauty’s sake?”12 Until this campaign very few consumers had ever known
that everyday products from the local drugstore were tested on animals. It also marked the
beginning of the movement by C.P.N companies to search out alternate methods of testingproducts and phasing out animal tests.
Since 1980 a significant number of claims and labels have appeared on C.P.N products,
making claims regarding animal testing. Part of this push to end animal testing and inform

12Henry Spira, Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Spira]Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
10
consumers of new policies is due to increasing ethical standards of companies and those withinthem. Another potentially greater impetus for change comes from changing consumer
preferences. Polling demonstrates that there is a belief among consumers of C.P.N products thatanimal testing for these items is neither desirable nor seen as necessary. In 1995 only 31% ofAmericans thought cosmetics testing on animals was right. A different poll showed that 58% of
Americans felt using animals for cosmetics research should be prohibited, with another 23%
disapproving but not seeing the need for legislation.13 As companies introduced products thatwere not tested on animals, and companies formed whose corporate policies were always against
animal testing, the only simple means of information conveyance to the consumer—discounting
individual research done by the consumer before purchase—has been through labeling.
Numerous statements have appeared on C.P.N products over the past twenty years making avariety of claims, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Cruelty FreeNo Animal Testing
Not Tested on Animals
Never Tested on Animals
We Do not Test on Animals
This Product has not been Tested on Animals
Against Animal Testing
Product and Ingredients Not Tested on Animals

The true meaning and message of these statements are nebulous. As there is no regulationof animal testing claims, these labels could mean that indeed the product and its ingredients were
not tested on animals, just the final product was not tested on animals but the ingredients were,or the company does not test on animals but contracts out to another one that does. Standardizing
this message was never attempted until the advent of the Coalition for Consumer Information on

13

Noah Lewis, “Testing Cosmetics on Animals: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone,” Harvard Law School, Spring
2004, 9-10.

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
11
Cosmetics in the mid-1990s and its Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals and Leaping
Bunny Logo.

IV. CCIC & The Bunny
The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics formed in 1996 as a coming
together of eight national animal rights non-profit groups. In the United States they are, theAmerican Anti-Vivisection Society, the American Humane Association, the Animal Protection
Institute, Beauty Without Cruelty USA, the Doris Day Animal league, The Humane Society of
the United States, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, and in Canada, the Animal
Alliance of Canada.14 Since inception, a further 11 European national animal rights groups,
including the British Union Against Vivisection, and 3 international groups have added theirsupport to the CCIC. The coalition is not incorporated and is supported by funding from its
coalition members. There is no CEO but a steering committee does exists, comprising
representative from various CCIC and non-CCIC groups. The most updated list available reads
as follows:15
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Tina Nelson – American Anti-Vivisection Society
Amy Ridings – American Humane Society
Ethel Thurston – Beauty Without Cruelty
Sara Amundson – Doris Day Animal League
Gina Alvino – Humane Society of the United States
Theo Capaldo – New England Anti-Vivisection Society
Ann Marie Giunti – People for the Ethical Treatment on Animals (PETA)

An agreed upon definition of no animal testing and an adoptable standard was created by
the CICC. A company that wishes to adhere to the Corporate Standard of Compassion for

14“About Us,” The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics [www.leapingbunny.org/about_us.htm]“Leaping Bunny (Corporate Standard for Compassion for Animals),” eco-labels.org, [www.ecolabels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=239&searchType=Label%20Index&searchValue=&refpage=labelIndex&refqstr=]15

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
12
Animals agrees to 1) Not test its products or the ingredients of its products on animals in any way
2) Not commission the testing of its products of the ingredients of its products to a researchfacility 3) Not purchase from suppliers ingredients or products that were tested on animals 4)
Agree to obtain from their suppliers, and submit their own assurance that their products andingredients are not tested on animals, on an annual basis.16 A cut-off period of several years isallowed, permitting companies to claim no animal testing several years after discontinuing thepractice. Companies are free to adopt the standard and continue to use their own variation of noanimal testing label, but they are not required to license the Leaping Bunny logo, theinternationally recognized symbol or adherence to the compact. They must, however, beapproved before by CCIC, submit agreement documents, and cannot simply add their name to alist. Licensing of the logo costs between $500 and $4000 and is graduated on the basis of acompanies annual revenue. If a company licenses the logo, then they additionally agree to submit
to an independent audit of their animal testing practices, policies, and record keeping at least
once every three years.17 Licensed groups benefit from being able to display the Bunny logo, as
well as receiving promotion in CCIC’s Compassionate Shopping Guide.
V. Targets & Effectiveness
The CCIC and its Leaping Bunny program have a dual goal: to reduce suffering andcruelty toward animals and to provide consumers with the ability to identify a product that that
truly was not tested on animals. The cut-off date provision means that products and companies
which have tested on animals in the past, but that have changed their practices, can adopt thecompact and logo. Faith in the validity of the logo is supported by company policies within the
16“Compassionate Shopping Guided,” Coalition for Consumer information on Cosmetics,[www.leapingbunny.org/pdf/ccicguide_full.pdf]
17“Leaping Bunny (Corporate Standard for Compassion for Animals),” eco-labels.org

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
13
C.P.H products industry and US laws, the influence of whistle-blowing animal rights groups andindependent monitoring of companies that have licensed the logo.
Actions on the part of companies that do test on animals, in conjunction with US laws
regarding animal testing is one of the stronger influences supporting the validity of the CCIC’s
compact and logo. The majority of C.P.H products that consumers in North America and Europe
consume come from a small group of companies. Of these, the best known are Procter &Gamble, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Colgate-Palmolive, and L’Oréal. These five companies
manufacture hundreds of the most common brands of makeup, toothpaste, shampoo, conditioners,
skin cream, household cleaners, and soaps that are purchased everyday. All of these companies
freely admit that they do indeed test their products on animals. Johnson & Johnson, P & G, andUnilever all provide easily accessible documents regarding their company’s policy toward
animal testing. They all acknowledge their desire and goal to eliminate animal testing for theirproducts, though some websites require deeper investigation to locate such information;
L’Oréal’s website states that it has had a policy of no product testing on animals since 1989, but
in its Corporate Social Responsibility report says—in addition to the massive investment inalternate testing methods—that this only refers to final products.18 Proctor & Gamble maintains
the most comprehensive information available describing its animal testing policies, its scientificadvances in developing alternative testing methods, and a partnership with the Humane Societyof the United States regarding its efforts to eliminate animal testing for product safety.19 Over the

18

L’Oréal 2005 Sustainable Development Report[www.loreal.com/_en/_ww/group_new/pdf/LOREAL_RDD_GB.pdf]
19“P&G and HSUS Create Partnership,” Research Involving Animals,[www.pg.com/science/ria_hs_partnership.jhtml]

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
14
past two decades P & G has spent more than $200 million eliminating animals from testingprocedures.20
What may be of concern to some is the possibility of a company signing the CCIC
compact or adopting the Bunny logo while it still tests on animals. The possibilities of this
scenario are low. While many of P & G, or Unilever’s products are not tested on animals, somestill are. Because the companies themselves are not animal-free, they have not attempted to label
singular products as not tested on animals. Here, the power of US law and the influence ofanimal rights groups come into play. Thanks to the registration requirements of the Animal
Welfare Act and the inspection visits by USDA auditors, it is known which companies own
testing facilities, and if they do not own or operate them themselves, it is possible to obtain thisinformation. The fact that that mice, rats, and birds are exempt from these monitoring schemes
does not significantly weaken this argument. In testing drugs, it is quite possible for minuteamounts of a substance to damage or kill a rat; however, the same is not often true with C.P.H
products. The substances in these items are more benign and greater quantities are need to affectan animal. Mice and rates are small. Their physical size prevents them from acting as viable test
subjects as the amounts of a substance needed for testing normally exceeds the size of the animal
itself.21 Therefore, we are left with larger animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, andmonkeys which are regulated by the US government. Not tested on animal labeling by a known
animal-testing company would immediately be seized up and publicized by animal rights groups.
Unlike government agencies, animal rights groups are not hindered by extensive
bureaucracy, nor do they have an incentive to maintain a status quo. Many of these groups suchas the Humane Society of the United States and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
20
21

Lewis, 8-9
Lewis, 4-5

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
15(PETA) have extensive networks of members and volunteers who are able to mount their own
investigations, protests, get issues noticed by the media, and mount legal challenges to practices
by corporations, individuals, and the government. PETA has been notoriously successful ininfiltrating laboratories, slaughter houses, factory farms, fur farms, and even shareholder
meetings to expose the cruel practices in all animal related industries. On their numerous
websites such as www.bloodyburberry.com, www.furisdead.com, and www.iamscruelty.com
they offer photographs, videos, resources, and merchandise relating to barbaric treatment ofanimals and dishonest statements and policies of companies. Groups like PETA constantly
monitor institutions making use of animals. A corporation claiming it does not test on animals, orlabeling its products as not tested on animals, when in fact it does, is exactly the type of behavior
that animal rights groups will attack. They attempt to expose company practices, publicize them,and hope to affect consumer and individual behavioral changes through shock or heightenedawareness.
Several animal rights groups publish shopping guides that give information oncompany’s that do and do not test C.P.H products in some way on animals. PETA maintains afairly strict list of do test and does not test companies. They list companies as “do test” if any
portion of a product is tested on an animal, or if it refuses to sign PETA’s statement of assurance
that no tests are carried out. Companies appearing on the “do not test” list have signed PETA’s
statement of assurance that they do not commission any non-required animal tests. Should acompany commission animal tests for pharmaceuticals, as required by US law, they are still
eligible for inclusion on the list.
A final element of support for the validity of the Bunny logo and standard is independent
monitoring of companies that have licensed the logo. Licensed companies agree to undergo anCopyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
16
independent audit at least once every three years. Funding for the audits is provided by CCIC’s
supporting members. Audits carried out more frequently than once every three years could may
overstretch the resources of CCIC. In 2001 six companies, Clear Conscience, Dr. Bronner's, EcoDent, Naturade, New Vision, and Seventh Generation were the first to be investigated. Audits
were performed by SGS International Certification Services, the world’s leading inspection,verification, testing and Certification Company. 22 All six companies passed their audits,
continuing to follow all of CCIC’s directives and prohibit all forms of animals testing. Since thistime CCIC’s website has not presented updated information on the monitoring program nor doesit provide information as to the specific costs associated with SGS’ services. Constantmonitoring by a hired firm may not ultimately be necessary to ensuring the compliance ofCorporate Standard/Bunny logo followers.

VI. Final Remarks
The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics has attempted to devise a standard
that guarantees a product and the company that produced it did not involve animal testing ananyway. Alone, this standard and the monitoring of the CCIC do not provide overwhelming
support for the ability of the compact and the logo to prevent cruelty to animals. However, it iswith the combined efforts of the US government, animal rights groups, and consumers that thecompact and label gains significant strength. Preventing cruelty to animals is only part of CCIC’s
mission. Creating a standard that unites the numerous claims related to animal testing benefits
consumers by giving them an independent standard, rather than and in house label, on which tobase their purchase decision. The greatest challenge to CCIC and the Bunny logo is one of

22“News,” The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics,” [www.leapingbunny.org/news.htm]

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
17
visibility and recognition. Since none of the major C.P.H companies are animal test free andcannot adopt the logo, the average shopper is unlikely to come across it. If the logo wererequired in signing the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals, it is likely its visibility
would increase. Presently, only 40% of compact signatories have licensed the Bunny logo as
well. Adoption by the USDA or the Bunny logo as the official standard and label for no animal
testing would give it its strongest basis of support. Whatever the developments regarding thelogo, the greatest likelihood is that companies will eventually eliminate animal testing for C.P.E
products on their own.

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
18
VII. Discussion Questions

1. Discuss the arguments for and against animal testing in cosmetics. Why is it different for the
food or drug industry? Why would some large companies like L’Oreal, Proctor and Gamble andUnilever be unwilling or find it difficult to abolish animal testing altogether?
2. What does the CICC organization do that the US Animal Welfare Act of 1966 fails to address?
3. Go the Coalition for Consumer Information website. How many companies have ascribed toits mission? How many licensees does the organization have? Are there any well brands on thelist? How successful has the (CICC) been in abolishing animal testing in cosmetics and personalcare products?
4. The author states that only 40% of the CICC’s Compact signatory licensee the bunny logo.
What motivates some companies to use the logo and why would others choose not to?
5. What measures should the CICC take to increase its visibility? Should it require all of its
signatories to license its bunny logo? Embark on an aggressive consumer awareness campaign?
Or does it need to strengthen and consolidate its organization structure?

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
19

VIII. Bibliography

Animal Care Publication. 2005 Violation Summary.
[www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/violations/2005violations.pdf]
Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (7 U.S.C. 2131-2156) 1966.
[www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm]
Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). [www.leapingbunny.com]
eco-labels.org Leaping Bunny (Corporate Standard for Compassion for Animals).. [www.ecolabels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=239&searchType=Label%20Index&searchValue=&refpage=label
Index&refqstr=]
Lewis, Noah. “Testing Cosmetics on Animals: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone.” Harvard Law
School, Spring 2004
L’Oréal 2005 Sustainable Development Report[www.loreal.com/_en/_ww/group_new/pdf/LOREAL_RDD_GB.pdf]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. [www.peta.org]
Proctor & Gamble Website, Research Involving Animals. “P&G and HSUS Create Partnership.”[www.pg.com/science/ria_hs_partnership.jhtml]
StopAnimalTests.com. “U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”[www.stopanimaltests.com/us-fda.asp]
Wikipedia. “Henry Spria.” Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Spira]