Lush Lobbying Prize 2014
Background Paper

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper11

Executive Summary

Lobbying is an essential part of the campaign to end animal testing. The continued use ofanimals is often entrenched by legal requirements or regulatory reluctance to accept thescientific superiority of non-animal testing methods.
The Lush Prize, now in its third year, rewards initiatives in five areas of working for an end toanimal testing: three science categories, public awareness and lobbying.
The latter prize aims “to reward the work of exceptional individuals, groups or organisations
pushing for change, focusing on policy interventions promoting the use of alternatives”1.
The definition of the Lobbying Prize is:“Scientific innovation needs to go hand-in-hand with policy change to ensure that end-usersof new testing approaches – industry and regulators – are receptive and responsive to thenew methods.
Such change requires a multifaceted, global approach, including science-based lobbying at
the national level or supra-national level to:•••

Entrench non-animal testing methods in national, EU or OECD programmes of test
guidelines
Revise existing guidelines to reflect best practices, including the removal of animal
tests, orAchieve a mandatory requirement for non-animal testing in legislation, regulatory
policies, testing guidance, etc.”

This paper examines some of the key issues relating to animal testing in several countries
that are of particular relevance to the Lush Prize, which focuses on toxicity testing for
consumer products and ingredients. Those key issues relate to cosmetics testing andchemical testing. Recent lobbying initiatives are discussed as well as several recent
successes. This is a crucial time for lobbying on these issues and important results havebeen achieved, such as the EU ban on marketing animal testing cosmetics, which aremaking waves around the world.
Also included is a table of organisations around the world active in lobbying, either locally,nationally or internationally, on animal experimentation.

1 Lobbying Prize. Lush Prize. http://www.lushprize.org/awards/lobbying-prize/. Accessed 30.7.14

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper22Introduction

A great deal of progress has been achieved over the past twenty years in helping change
legislation to encourage non-animal testing methods. These changes not only meet the
expectations and demands of a public concerned about animal protection but, given theunreliability of experiments on animals, provide safer methods of testing new products forthe consumer market.
The biggest recent success has of course been the EU-wide ban on testing cosmetics onanimals and the marketing of any animal-tested cosmetics (even if those experiments wereconducted outside the EU). The marketing element of the ban came into force in March2013.
Israel also introduced a marketing ban in 20132, having first banned using animals to test
personal care and household products in 2007.
The Drug Controller General of India announced in June 2013 that the testing of cosmetics
and their ingredients on animals will no longer be permitted in India and NGOs are now
urging for a ban on the marketing of cosmetics or their ingredients tested on animals, in linewith the EU and Israel.
Countries that require cosmetics to pass animal tests before being allowed on the market
are being robustly challenged to implement effective non-animal testing methods and end
animal use entirely. This is being done by a skilful combination of public awareness andlobbying campaigns as well as training of scientists and regulators. China and Brazil havebeen in the spotlight for their mandatory animal testing, but from June 2014 China removed
that requirement for some products made in the country and in January 2014 the State ofSão Paulo became the first region in Brazil to sign a bill prohibiting cosmetics testing on
animals in the state.
In the USA, the Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced in 2014, to ban the testing ofcosmetics on animals and the sale of products that have been tested elsewhere. This could
be seen as a challenge to the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act which many
have stated would increase animal testing.
The use of animals in chemicals testing still remains high on the lobbying agenda for several
NGOs. In Europe, toxicity tests required under REACH (Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) usually involve the poisoning of guinea pigs,
rabbits, fish, birds, rats and mice3. Lobbying has helped to significantly reduce the number ofanimals used in testing for REACH, but scrutiny needs to be applied to limit animal use as
much as possible.

2 Import ban on animal-tested products goes into effect. Gabe Fisher, Times of Israel, 1.1.13. http://

www.timesofisrael.com/import-ban-on-animal-tested-products-goes-into-effect/
3 REACH. ECEAE. http://www.eceae.org/en/what-we-do/campaigns/reach. Accessed 15.8.12

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

3

Organisations opposed to animal testing are becoming increasingly skilled at lobbying at avariety of levels and are accepted by regulatory and legislative bodies as informed andreliable stakeholders.
NGOs have formed coalitions such as the International Council on Animal Protection inOECD Programmes, which was formed to incorporate alternative methods that can replace,reduce, and refine animal use in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment) guidelines and programmes.
The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) has a stakeholder seat on
several committees relating to the European Chemicals Agency.
PETA India has an official seat on committees which has been instrumental in their lobbying
to successfully ban cosmetics testing on animals.
As this paper notes later, forming a coalition shows a common cause which can have agreater impact on policy makers.

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

4

3

Lobbying

3.1

What is lobbying?

“Lobbying is the process of seeking to shape the public policy agenda in order to influence
government (and its institutions) and the legislative programme.”4
Public policy is dictated and influenced by a range of bodies and individuals, from local
government to the media, groups which are home to Key Decision Makers and Key Opinion
Formers.

3.2

What is effective lobbying?

Whilst each country has a different political system and governing operations, some lobbying
techniques are universal and just need adapting to meet conditions on the ground. Equally,“you will need to tailor your approach to accommodate the personal and political sensibilities
of a wide range of politicians”, even within an individual political body5.
There are several key factors to making lobbying effective:
1. Be credible: the message has to be based on evidence and withstand scrutiny andcriticism.
2. Understand what you want and how to achieve it: Have a short-term and long-term
strategy and fully understand what your objectives are.
3. Get involved at the earliest stage: This can be as early as political parties’ policy reviews
or responding to government consultations on policy proposals. Research shows that one infive MEPs believe that lobbyists do not provide information in a timely enough manner6.
4. Understand how policy is made at various levels (local, national, international): “it helps toensure that you arrive with the right arguments at the right time.”7

4 Lobbying: The art of political persuasion. Lionel Zetter. Harriman House, 2011

5 A Common Sense Guide to Effective Lobbying on Capitol Hill. Pete Levitas. Antitrust, Vol. 21, No. 2, Spring2007. The American Bar Association. http://www.dicksteinshapiro.com/files/Publication/
f5fbc125-8854-4218-9572-1c9a669aa557/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/
061e73e9-718e-4272-82d5-28c4bfdc491e/Spring07LevitasC%20%282%29.pdf
6 Quoted in Robert Mack 2005. Lobbying effectively in Brussels and Washington – Getting the right result.

Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 9, 4, 339-347. http://web.efzg.hr/dok/MAR/mfuduric/Lobbing%20in%20Bruxelles%20and%20Washington-getting%20the%20right%20result.pdf
7 A Guide to Effective Lobbying In Europe 2009. Burson-Marsteller, 2009. http://www.burson-marsteller.com/

Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=143

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

55. Prepare a list of key stakeholders: keep this updated so you know who to lobby. Few
people actually influence a decision, so strategic communication with them is far better thanmass briefings to people with little influence.
6. Establish relationships with Key Decision Makers and Key Opinion Formers: Being on
relevant consultation lists ensures that government seeks your input at an early opportunity.
This is known as ‘insider campaigning’. “This status as an insider will have been establishedthrough longevity, having developed a track record of being a trusted source of policy andopinion”8. (Outsider campaigning “involves attempting to influence decision-makers throughthe participation of the general public in lobbying action.”9)
7. Know your opponent’s arguments: formulate what their strategy would be and what you
need to put together a stronger case than theirs.
8. Use the media to impact both political and public opinion on your issue: a change in public
opinion often leads to a corresponding change in political opinion rather than the other way
around.
9. Form a coalition: this shows a common cause which can have a greater impact on policy
makers, who crave consensus. Managing the differing key messages and ‘rivalries’ amongst
coalition organisations can be difficult, so “ad hoc and temporary issue-specific coalitions
can be just as influential as longstanding partnerships.”10

8 Lobbying: The art of political persuasion. Lionel Zetter. Harriman House, 2011
9 A Guide to Effective Lobbying for Women’s Groups in Ireland. The National Women’s Council of Ireland, 2006.

http://www.womensaid.ie/download/pdf/nwci_effective_lobbying_for_womens_groups_in_ireland.pdf
10 A Guide to Effective Lobbying In Europe 2009. Burson-Marsteller, 2009. http://www.burson-marsteller.com/

Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/BM_Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=143

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

64

Key Issues

There are several key issues subject to ongoing lobbying campaigns relevant to the LushPrize:•••

Cosmetics animal testing
REACH
Individual species

4.1

Cosmetics animal testing

4.1.1

European Union

In Europe, the progress on banning animal testing for cosmetics has seen public awarenessand lobbying working together to ensure that the widespread public support for a ban has
underpinned political negotiations.
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 a ban on the testing
on finished cosmetic products in 2004 and a testing ban on ingredients since 2009. A
marketing ban followed, prohibiting the import and sale of products and ingredients tested onanimals outside Europe after March 2009, with the exception of testing for three‘toxicological endpoints’ which were considered harder to replace. In March 2013 a fullmarketing ban was introduced, meaning that cosmetics tested on animals can no longer besold in Europe, even if the testing happened outside the EU.
Implementation of the 2013 marketing deadline is the result of effective lobbying at Member
State and EU-level. The ban applies even though non-animal testing methods are not yet
available in all cases. The EC states11 that “this reflects a sector-specific political choice by
the European Parliament and the Council” and that a ban was not “dependent on theavailability of a full set of replacement methods.”
It has long been clear that setting a deadline for the marketing ban has acted as an incentive
for companies to work harder towards finding and implementing non-animal methods oftesting. The EC states12 that it did not delay the 2013 marketing ban as it “could seriously
diminish determination to swiftly develop alternative test methods”, noting that the proposed
ban has “been a key accelerator in relation to the development of alternative methods andhave sent a strong signal far beyond the cosmetics sector and far beyond Europe.”

11 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the animal testing andmarketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics. Brussels,
11.3.2013. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/com_at_2013_en.pdf
12 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the animal testing andmarketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics. Brussels,
11.3.2013. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/com_at_2013_en.pdf

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

7

4.1.2

Taking the EU ban to a global level

The EC considers the ban can be used as an opportunity for the EU “to set an example ofresponsible innovation in cosmetics with positive impact beyond Europe. Impacts go beyond
the cosmetics sector – the objective is to develop strategies that will lead to better and morepredictive, faster and cheaper tools to assess consumer safety of chemical substances.” It iseager to ensure that its new requirements are adopted by other countries around the world,being “convinced that the overall long-term objective to replace animal testing wherever
possible and to move to new ways of improved safety assessment will eventually be sharedby many of the Union´s trading partners, even though different regions may be at different
steps of the process and the approaches to achieve the objective may differ.” It is “convincedthat the issue of alternative test methods for cosmetics merits a prominent place on the EU's
trade and international cooperation agenda. It will endeavour to put these issues on theagenda of all relevant multi and bilateral meetings in the cosmetics field in 2013, notably with
the United States and China, but also in contacts with Brazil and India. The Commission willin this effort look for synergies with the international initiatives of industry and animal welfareorganisations”13.
Animal protection blogger Hans Gutbrod comments14 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
varied 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 of similar
measures in other countries, helped to bring about a broader change across Europe andbeyond. 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, in pursuing transformative change, one
powerful strategy may be going deep before you go wide”.
Two comparative initiatives by NGOs have taken the cruelty-free cosmetics message andthe success of the EU-level lobbying to audiences, industry and governments around theworld:
Humane Society International’s (HSI) Be Cruelty-Free campaign:“Be Cruelty-Free was born from the recognition that the global nature of the cosmetics
industry, coupled with differing regional regulatory requirements, necessitated a coordinated,
multinational strategy, if a worldwide end to animal testing for cosmetics was to be achieved.
In April 2012, HSI and its affiliates, in partnership with Lush and animal protection groups in
13 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the animal testing andmarketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics. Brussels,
11.3.2013. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/com_at_2013_en.pdf
14 EU Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics - What Can We Learn from Research? Hans Gutbrod, HRC 30.4.13

http://www.humanespot.org/content/eu-bans-animal-tested-cosmetics-what-can-we-learn-research

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

8Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the USA, launched Be
Cruelty-Free, with the goal of making cruelty-free cosmetics the global mainstream by
replicating the European animal testing and sales bans across all key global cosmetics
markets.”15
Initiatives have involved:• Participation in successful ban on cosmetics animal testing in India• Influencing the revision of national cosmetics safety assessment guidelines in Brazil• Provided funding for hands-on training to government regulators, and academia andindustry scientists in China• In South Korea, intensive political, regulatory and corporate engagement prompted
the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety to announce a significant policy shift to formallyrecognise non-animal test results for assuring the safety of sunscreens, anti-wrinkle
creams and other ‘functional’ cosmetics
Cruelty Free International, an initiative of the BUAV:
Also launched in 2012, CFI has partner organisations in 22 countries.
During 2013, CFI have:• Met with regulatory authorities in China with the aim of gaining acceptance in China
for alternatives to testing on animals• Given a keynote speech at Asia’s premier cosmetics industry event attended by theregion’s leading cosmetics industry and regulators Given a keynote speech to theNorth American Sustainable Cosmetics Summit in New York, highlighting the global
trends in ending animal testing for cosmetics• Presentation to Food and Drug Administration's hearings on US policy in cosmetics
regulation, urging it to follow Europe’s lead
• Funded non-animal alternatives in Vietnam, the only country of the 10 members of
the Association of South East Asian Nations to actively test cosmetics on animals.
CFI has provided a grant for a detailed scoping study by alternatives experts theInstitute for In Vitro Sciences• Met with Ministry of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Cosmetics
Association in South Korea
4.1.3

USA

In March 2014, Representative Jim Moran introduced the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R.
4148) to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals16. This aims to not only end animal testingfor cosmetics within the United States but also prohibit the sale of products that have beentested elsewhere, bringing the US in line with the European Union.

15 Humane Society International’s Global Campaign to End Animal Testing. Troy Seidle. ATLA 41, 453–459, 201316 Cosmetics Regulation Reform in the United States. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. http://

pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/cosmetics/reform-the-safe-cosmetics-act. Accessed 24.7.14

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

9The bill would17:• Within one year of enactment, prohibit the testing of cosmetic ingredients and final
products on animals in the US• Prohibit the export and import of animal tested cosmetics within three years ofenactment
The Act has been backed by 133 companies and stakeholders in the cosmetics industry andRep. Moran specifically thanked three NGOs for their “tremendous efforts” in supporting it:
the Humane Society of the United States, Cruelty Free International, and the Coalition for
Consumer Information on Cosmetics18.
The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act 2013 was introduced early in March2013 and is a repeat of attempts to introduce similar legislation in 2010 and 2011. The law,promoted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, would give the Food and Drug
Administration authority to ensure that all personal care products are free of harmful
ingredients19.
Although the legislation is intended to ensure that cosmetic and personal care products aresafe, concern has been expressed for some time that would increase animal testing20.
Following concerns raised during previous versions of the legislation, the Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics has stated that it “supports uses of non-animal testing methods where available
and effective, and fully supports initiatives to fund research on alternative, non-animal healthand safety testing”21.
However, a peer-reviewed paper published in 201422 found that if the Safe Cosmetics andPersonal Care Products Act was passed:• Animal testing would surge: One million to 11.5 million animals would be subject totesting in the first 10 years• Costs to businesses would be tremendous: Under the SCPCPA, cosmetic
manufacturers and ingredient suppliers would likely pay $1.7 - $9 billion in 10 years
to perform animal tests on cosmetic ingredients

17 Text of the Humane Cosmetics Act. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4148/text. Accessed 24.7.14

18 Cosmetics Industry Leaders Back Moran Bill to End Animal Testing. 27.5.14. http://moran.house.gov/press-

release/cosmetics-industry-leaders-back-moran-bill-end-animal-testing
19 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Press Release, 21.3.13. Toxic Chemicals in Cosmetics, Shampoos, Targeted by

Congress
20 The Leaping Bunny Program Has Serious Concerns about the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

Act. Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics Press Release, 14.5.13. http://leapingbunny.org/
press11.php
21 FAQs For Cosmetics Companies About The Safe Cosmetics And Personal Care Products Act Of 2013. http://

safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=695#animal-testing. Accessed 24.7.14
22 Knight, J. & Rovida, C. Safety Evaluations under the Proposed US Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care

Products Act of 2013: Animal Use and Cost Estimates. ALTEX. 2014;31(2):177-208

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

10•

Regulators would be overwhelmed with implementation: The SCPCPA requires new
regulatory functions for the Food and Drug Administration to create priority lists for
ingredient testing as well as oversee pre-market evaluation of new ingredients

Co-author of the paper, Jean Knight, states23, “In reading the Act, I was surprised to see that
it would increase animal testing of cosmetics, since this is counter to the worldwide trend to
reduce animal testing. The Act’s language can’t be easily understood unless you have somebackground in toxicology, so this impact was flying under the radar. Many Leaping Bunny[cruelty-free] certified companies were actually supporting the Act, unaware of theimplications for animal testing. The article hopefully brings this information onto the radar sothat people can make informed decisions.”

4.1.4

China

China is the world’s fourth largest beauty market, worth an estimated US$22 billion
globally24.
Until recently China’s State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) required animal
toxicology test reports to be provided prior to licensing a new cosmetic ingredient25. This led
to some multi-national cosmetic companies which had not tested on animals for two
decades, such as Avon, Estée Lauder and Mary Kay, to animal test again in order to sell in
China26.
Due to pressure not only from NGOs but also companies which have avoided animal testingfor other markets, China began recognising test results that use alternatives to animal
testing.
In 2011 the first congress on alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics in China, supported
by major cosmetics companies27, was held. Scientists from the Institute for In Vitro Sciences
continue to offer expertise and guidance in replacing animal-based tests, with financial
support from PETA and HSI.

23 Study Finds Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act will result in an increase in animal testing.

Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, 27 January 2014. http://www.leapingbunny.org/press15.php
24 Be Cruelty-Free Campaign to End Cosmetics Animal Testing in China Launches with Pop Singer Wang Feifei,

NGOs and Industry. 28.6.13. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2013/06/bcf_china_launch_062813.html
25 Registration of New Cosmetic Ingredient with SFDA in China. Yunbo Shi, March 2012. Chemical Inspection

and Regulation Service (CIRS). http://www.cirs-reach.com/china_chemical_regulation/
SFDA_Registration_of_New_Cosmetic_Ingredient_in_China.html. Accessed 14.8.12
26 Avon, Mary Kay, Estée Lauder Paying for Tests on Animals. Michelle Kretzer, 16.2.12. http://www.peta.org/b/

thepetafiles/archive/2012/02/16/3-companies-booted-off-cruelty-free-list.aspx
27 First congress on alternatives to animal testing in China. 8 March 2011. http://www.premiumbeautynews.com/

en/First-congress-on-alternatives-to,2812?checklang=1

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

11

The BUAV-led Cruelty Free International established the ‘China Task Force’ with leading
companies, the cosmetics industry and regulators to gain acceptance in China for nonanimal testing methods.
From 30 June 2014 animal testing for ordinary cosmetics (including make-up, fragrances,skin, hair and nail care products) produced and sold inside China will no longer have to beanimal tested. ‘Special-use’ cosmetics, including hair dyes, deodorants and sunscreens, stillrequire animal testing as do foreign imported ordinary cosmetics28.
The next phase in the campaign is to see the rule change applied to foreign imported
cosmetics as well.
HSI’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign notes that although animal testing has not yet been bannedin China, the changes are “very important, because it demonstrates that the Chinese
government is receptive to moving away from animal testing. Change in China will inevitably
be incremental, rather than sweeping changes. But this is the very first time in more than 20
years that China has made a major change to its cosmetics regulation. Seen within the
global context of a general shift away from animal testing, it is important that we
acknowledge this as a first step in a multi-step journey towards ending cosmetics cruelty in
China”29.

4.1.5

India

In May 2014 India becomes South Asia’s first country to end cosmetics testing on animals30.
Following campaigns by a number of NGOs, the Drug Controller General of India announced
in June 2013 that the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients on animals will no longer bepermitted. The announcement was made during the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD 19
Cosmetics Sectional Committee meeting, on which PETA India has an official seat.
The test ban was finalised when the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (Second Amendment)2014 was notified through Gazette no: 346 (E), following completion of a 45 day public

28 China Implements Rule Change in First Step Towards Ending Animal Testing of Cosmetics. Humane SocietyInternational, 30 June 2014. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2014/06/china-implements-rulechange-063014.html
29 Fast Facts on China & Cosmetics Animal Testing. HSI. www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/bcf_china_fast_facts.pdf.

Accessed 30.7.14
30 Historic Milestone Celebrated as India Finalises Cosmetics Animal Testing Ban. Humane Society International,

23 May 2014. http://www.hsi.org/world/india/news/releases/2014/05/india-bans-cosmetics-animaltesting-052314.html

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

12consultation31. The ban states that no cosmetic which has been tested on animals in the
country will be allowed to be sold32.
However, the ban will not prevent companies from importing and selling animal-tested
cosmetics in India. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a draft proposal in June2014 to end the import of cosmetics newly tested on animals abroad33. At the time ofcompiling this report, the proposal was still undergoing public consultation.
More than 30 members of parliament, legislative assemblies and legislative councils backed
the HSI Be Cruelty-Free campaign, led by Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi along with otherpolicy makers and Bollywood celebrities34.
PETA India won the 2012 Lobbying Prize for its work on ending animal testing of cosmetics
in the country.

4.1.6

BrazilThe Brazilian cosmetics market is the fastest growing in the world35 but the country’s
national guidelines still recommends a series of tests on animals for the safety evaluation of
new cosmetics products and ingredients. The National Agency for Sanitary Surveillance(ANVISA) continues to rely heavily on toxicity tests using rabbits, guinea pigs and otheranimals to assess the safety of ingredients and even some finished products36.

31 Historic Milestone Celebrated as India Finalises Cosmetics Animal Testing Ban. Humane Society International,

23 May 2014. http://www.hsi.org/world/india/news/releases/2014/05/india-bans-cosmetics-animaltesting-052314.html
32 Govt bans animal-tested cosmetics. Rupali Mukherjee. The Times of India, 22 January 2014. http://

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-bans-animal-tested-cosmetics/articleshow/29218436.cms
33 More than 70,000 Be Cruelty-Free Petitioners Support India’s Proposed Import Ban on Animal Tested

Cosmetics. Humane Society International, 18 June 2014. http://www.hsi.org/world/india/news/releases/2014/06/
india-bcf-70k-petition-handover-061814.html
34 Historic Milestone Celebrated as India Finalises Cosmetics Animal Testing Ban. Humane Society International,

23 May 2014. http://www.hsi.org/world/india/news/releases/2014/05/india-bans-cosmetics-animaltesting-052314.html
35 HSI asks the Brazilian government ban on animal testing for cosmetics. 11.3.13. http://www.hsi.org/

portuguese/news/press_releases/2013/03/enquete_cosmeticos_portuguese_031113.html
36 Rabbits and rodents of HSI and ProAnima visit the Ministry of Health to ask that the government put an end toanimal testing for cosmetics in Brazil. 13.3.13. http://www.hsi.org/portuguese/news/press_releases/2013/03/
bcfw_anvisa_031313.html

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

13

Humane Society International (HSI) has been active on the issue through its Brazil office,conducting a number of public awareness campaigns involving celebrities37 and working with
scientists to establish non-animal testing methods38.
A major boost came in January 2014 when the Governor of the State of São Paulo signed abill prohibiting cosmetics testing on animals in the state, which hosts more than 700 of the
2,300 cosmetics companies in the country. It is the first state to issue a ban on cosmetics
animal testing. It also covers both finished products and ingredients39.
In June 2014 a bill was passed which will ban the use of animals in tests for cosmetics
where alternatives have already been established. Alternatives which have been approved
internationally will be accepted. Animal testing will still be allowed for novel ingredientsdeveloped for use in cosmetics, but, according to Cruelty-Free International “even this will be
prohibited after an alternative method has been established or in 5 years, whichever
happens first”40.
Although it seeks to prohibit animal testing of most cosmetic ingredients and products, acompromise agreement means it doesn’t include ‘ingredients with unknown effects’ or
prohibit the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics (meaning companies could still test theircosmetics on animals abroad and sell them back in Brazil).
The Be Cruelty-Free Brazil campaign, led by Humane Society International and supportedby ProAnima, ARCA Brasil and the Forum Nacional de Proteção e Defesa Animal, hasresulted41 in:••••More than 150 federal parliamentarians signing the Be Cruelty-Free pledge
Presenting the Conselho Nacional de Controle de Experimentação Animal with thefirst ever-technical report proposing a ban on animal testing for cosmetics
Celebrities Fernanda Tavares, Giselle Itie and Fiorella Mattheis starring in the Be
Cruelty-Free video appeal
Presenting the Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation with tens of thousandsof petition signatures from Brazilian citizens in favour of a ban

37 Brazilian Supermodel Fernanda Tavares Says "No" to Cosmetics Animal Testing. 18.12.13. http://www.hsi.org/

news/press_releases/2013/12/fernanda-tavares-cruelty-free-121813.html
38 HSI’s Work in Brazil to Promote Non-Animal Testing. HSI, 15.12.11. http://www.hsi.org/news/news/2011/12/

brazil_cosmetics_121511.html
39 São Paulo Bans Cosmetics Animal Testing. 24.1.14. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2014/01/

saopaulo-cosmetics-testing-ban-012414.html
40 Breaking News: Brazil bans most animal testing for cosmetics! Cruelty-Free International, 5 June 2014. http://

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/a/Breaking-News-Brazil-bans-most-animal-testing-for-cosmetics
41 Be Cruelty-Free Brazil Welcomes Historic Bill to Ban Cosmetics Animal Testing but Warns Urgent

Improvements Needed to Close Loopholes. Humane Society International, 5 June 2014. http://www.hsi.org/news/
press_releases/2014/06/brazil-bans-animal-cosmetics-testing-060514.html

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

14

HSI Brazil was shortlisted for the 2013 Lobbying prize for their work which led to theinclusion of animal-free testing methods in national cosmetic safety guidelines.
190,000 Brazilian’s signed a Cruelty-Free International petition supporting a testing ban42.

4.1.7

Other countries

New Zealand:
HSI and SAFE, working jointly through the Be Cruelty-Free project, have lobbied and raised
awareness about animal testing of cosmetics. In March 2014 Green Party MP Mojo Mathers
introduced a Supplementary Order Paper in Parliament seeking to ban cosmetics animal
testing as part of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill43. However, so far the governing
National Party has rejected the amendments on the grounds that “more time” is needed toconsider the implications44.
The Labour Party has joined the Greens in pledging to ban the marketing of animal tested
cosmetics in NZ45.
This follows a high-profile two year campaign by Be Cruelty-Free New Zealand, led by SAFE
and HSI. A letter to the Prime Minister John Key was signed by 28 cruelty-free cosmetics
companies; a nationwide advertising campaign urged Key to ‘Hop To It’; a 15,500-strong
petition was handed in to Parliament; and there was celebrity support from the likes of Kiwi
actress Michelle Langstone46.
Australia:
The Labor Party opened a public consultation in May 2014 on animal testing for cosmetics.
This follows Labor’s pledge during the last election to bring such testing to an end. The
Government is currently neutral on the issue47.
Vietnam:The Vietnamese Government announced, in May 2014, that it will ban the use of the cruelDraize rabbit eye test for cosmetics. According to Cruelty-Free International, they negotiatedthe ban at the conclusion of a training programme they funded at the Institute of Drug

42 Breaking News: Brazil bans most animal testing for cosmetics! Cruelty-Free International, 5 June 2014. http://

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/a/Breaking-News-Brazil-bans-most-animal-testing-for-cosmetics
43 NZ poised to ban cosmetic testing on animals. SAFE, 20 March 2014. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1403/

S00247/nz-poised-to-ban-cosmetic-testing-on-animals.htm
44 New Zealand delays progress on animal testing. Cruelty Free International, 27 June 2014. http://

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/a/New-Zealand-delays-progress-on-animal-testing
45 Cosmetics tested on animals would be banned under Labour. Isaac Davison. NZ Herald, 16 July 2014. http://

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11294596
46 Be Cruelty-Free New Zealand Welcomes Labour Pledge to Ban Cosmetics Animal Testing. Humane SocietyInternational/SAFE. 16 July 2014. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2014/07/bcf-new-zealand-labourparty-071614.html
47 Cruelty Free International backing Australian initiatives. Cruelty Free International, 8 May 2014. http://

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/a/Cruelty-Free-International-backing-Australian-initiatives

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

15Quality Control in Vietnam. The Department of Drug Administration and the Vietnam
Pharmacopeia also agreed to expand cooperation with CFI to move towards official
validation of the humane alternative methods48.

4.2

REACH

REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) is theEuropean Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use (EC 1907/2006) which
entered into force in 2007. Its aim is “to improve the protection of human health and theenvironment through the better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties ofchemical substances”.49
REACH requires manufacturers and importers to collate information on the properties of all
chemicals sold in the EU in annual quantities of more than one tonne, and to register the
information, along with toxicity data, in a central database run by the European Chemicals
Agency (ECHA) by 2018.
Many of the testing methods specified by REACH use animals. Toxicity tests usually involve
the poisoning of guinea pigs, rabbits, fish, birds, rats and mice50. The total numbers ofanimals who could be used in testing have been estimated to be as high as 54 million and tocost €9.5 billion51.
The ECHA tri-annual report published in June 2014 revealed, although the use of nonanimal alternatives has apparently increased since the last report in 2011, the number of
new animal tests conducted since 2009 has at least doubled from 1,849 to 4,88752.
According to the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE)53: “As the numberof substances registered has nearly doubled since this time, the report in fact shows littlechange in animal use by the chemical industry.”
The ECEAE state:

48 Vietnam agrees to ban cruel rabbit eye tests thanks to Cruelty Free International. 19 May 2014. http://

www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/a/Vietnam-agrees-to-ban-cruel-rabbit-eye-tests-thanks-to-Cruelty-FreeInternational
49 REACH. European Commission 6.6.12 (last updated). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm Accessed 15.8.12
50 REACH. http://www.eceae.org/en/what-we-do/campaigns/reach. ECEAE. Accessed 15.8.12
51 Opinion: Chemical regulators have overreached. Thomas Hartung & Costanza Rovida. Nature 460,

1080-1081. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7259/full/4601080a.html
52 The Use of Alternatives to Testing on Animals for the REACH Regulation. Second report under Article 117(3) of

the REACH Regulation. European Chemicals Agency, 2014. http://www.echa.europa.eu/documents/
10162/13639/alternatives_test_animals_2014_en.pdf
53 Animal tests double under REACH - more promotion and use of alternatives urgently needed. BUAV, 6 June

2014. http://www.buav.org/article/1571/animal-tests-double-under-reach---more-promotion-and-use-ofalternatives-urgently-needed

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

16•“There has been a doubling of the number of new animal tests done, an increase
from 1,849 to 4,887 animal tests, using an estimated minimum of 700,000 animals.
There has been a doubling of animal testing in most cases but a trebling (or more)
for some of the higher tier animal tests such as reproductive toxicity tests”•“There is still an unacceptably high number of new animal tests that were done
without going through the proper consultation process (the testing proposal process
in which both third parties and member states have an opportunity to provide input
before a decision on the test is made). ECHA found 293 such new animal tests”•“Some companies are still conducting new rabbit skin and eye irritation tests. There
were 188 new skin irritation tests and 363 new eye irritation tests. Although ECHA
report that there has been an increase in the number of registrations including in vitro
data, the proportion of dossiers using new animal data has not changed. There arealternatives for these two tests so any new animal test is completely unacceptable”

The BUAV and PETA have both criticised the relatively low number (7%) of skin sensitisation
tests that are done using validated in vitro tests54. They say that up to 200,000 animals may
be used ‘unnecessarily’ because guidance on alternative methods for this endpoint would
not be available until 2018.
The ECHA has also come under fire from the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (UKCSF),
which has accused the ECHA’s attitude of leading to unnecessary animal testing and calledon it to "review its messages and practices on acceptance of alternative methods to ensure it
is maintaining a positive stance”55.
Revealing the necessity for lobbying efforts to encourage regulatory bodies to greater
understand and accept non-animal testing methods, Forum member David Taylor of theRoyal Society of Chemistry said: “We still find clients who are very reluctant to undertake
alternatives to animal testing when registering a substance simply because of theuncertainty – they don’t know if ECHA will agree with it. However, they know that if they carryout the animal test, ECHA will say yes.”
Dr Katy Taylor of the BUAV, another Forum member, added that the issue was largely due tothe volume of substances being registered under REACH. “The problem is the sheer
number of chemicals because, for example, in the pharmaceuticals sector you have theopportunity to discuss your approach with the European Medicine Agency, which seems
more sensible. Before they do a test they tell the agency [EMA] what tests they’re carryingout and ask for its opinion,” she said.

54 REACH sees use of alternative test methods increasing. Leigh Stringer. Chemical Watch, 3 June 2014. http://chemicalwatch.com/20018/reach-sees-use-of-alternative-test-methods-increasing
55 Unnecessary animal testing continuing under REACH, says UK forum. Leigh Stringer. Chemical Watch, 25

July 2014. http://chemicalwatch.com/20697/unnecessary-animal-testing-continuing-under-reach-says-uk-forum

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

17

NGO focus on REACH has been far more on lobbying that general public awareness andhas helped to significantly reduce the number of animals used in testing. Lobbying efforts
resulted in a number of changes being made to REACH56:•••

Mandatory sharing of animal test data: Companies registering the same chemical are
obliged to share their data and, if animal testing is required by REACH, the tests will
only be done by one of the registrants. Duplicate animal testing should thus beprevented.
For some chemicals approval must be given by the ECHA before new animal tests
can be performed. The public and NGOs have 45 days during which to comment,challenge the need for the tests, or suggest alternatives.
Alternatives to animal testing are strongly promoted throughout the REACH text
which stresses that animal testing must only be undertaken as a last resort.

The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) is one NGO coalition that has
been particularly active on REACH. It has a stakeholder seat, shared with Eurogroup for
Animals, at the European Commission’s REACH committee, CARACAL. The Competent
Authorities for REACH and CLP (CARACAL) committee is an expert group that advises theEuropean Commission and the European Chemicals Agency57.
The ECEAE also has a stakeholder seat at the ECHA’s (European Chemicals Agency)
Biocides Products Committee (BPC), established in 2013, which has an important role in theapproval of biocidal products. The ECEAE will attend BPC meetings to verify that animal
tests are used only as a last resort and that existing data (where products have already beentested) is shared in order to avoid the need for new animal tests58.
The ECEAE’s scientific team comment on proposals submitted to REACH in an effort to
reduce the number of animals used in chemical testing. Following submissions by the
ECEAE, animal tests for substances have been either rejected by the European Chemicals
Agency (ECHA) or withdrawn by the company involved, saving thousands of animals59.
Although the ECEAE is led by the UK-based BUAV, other members have had a role inmoving forward the coalition’s campaign on REACH. For example, German NGO Animal
2000 pays the salary for a toxicologist to work for the ECEAE and provide evidence toreduce the number of animals that are used due to the REACH Directive60.
In June 2014, the BUAV’s Head of Science gave a presentation to ECHA staff on behalf ofthe ECEAE in which she explained that the ECEAE ‘was disappointed with the Agency’s
56 REACH – the new EU chemicals law: An RSPCA information paper. http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/

LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712121563&mode=prd. Accessed 15.8.12
57 ECEAE gains seat at CARACAL, the EU REACH advisory group. 12.11.12

http://www.buav.org/article/1132/eceae-gains-seat-at-caracal-the-eu-reach-advisory-group
58 BUAV attends first Biocides Products Committee meeting in Helsinki. 31.5.13

http://www.buav.org/article/1268/buav-attends-first-biocides-products-committee-meeting-in-helsinki
59 REACH. http://www.eceae.org/en/what-we-do/campaigns/reach Accessed 7.3.14

60 REACH - Toxicologist saves lives. Focus, Winter 2011/2012. http://www.animal2000.de/wp/kampagnen/reach/Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

18current laissez-faire attitude to animal welfare’ and how NGOS had had high expectations
that animal testing under REACH would be kept to a minimum by industry and the Agency61.
Another coalition working on chemical testing issues is the International Council on Animal
Protection in OECD Programmes (ICAPO), comprising of 11 NGOs from North America,
Europe and Japan. It has held official status as 'invited experts' at certain OECD
programmes since 200262.
ICAPO works to incorporate non-animal testing methods into the activities of the OECD, aneconomic alliance of the world's industrialised countries. The OECD co-ordinates thedevelopment of standardised chemical testing guidelines, which are then adopted by themember countries. It also co-ordinates the development of chemical testing programmes,
such as its current programme on endocrine disruptors.
ICAPO has financially supported the attendance of IIVS (the Institute for In Vitro Sciences)and other experts to numerous OECD expert meetings, including those focused on the
adoption of in vitro methods for skin irritation, eye irritation, carcinogenicity, genetic toxicity,and for (Q)SAR methods. Their internal experts also attend other expert meetings related to
endocrine disruption, inhalation toxicity, and nanomaterials, for example.
ICAPO contributes to a majority of test guidelines and guidance documents, ensuring thatthose that involve animals use the minimum number of animals and are written to ameliorate
some of the most cruel laboratory procedures.
This coalition was the main winner of the lobbying award in the 2013 Lush Prize. The
second winner was Forska Utan Djurförsök (the Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal
Experiments63), for its work with Swedish regulators to replace animal testing and lobbying
for Sweden to establish a centre for alternatives to animal testing.
Since January 2013 the Fund has been represented on the Board of Agriculture's National
Committee for the protection of animals used in experiments and was appointed by thegovernment as member of the newly formed Central Animal Research Ethical Review Board.
The Central board serves as the appeal board in respect to the local ethics committees thatapproves or rejects applications to use animals in research. It will also be responsible forretrospective assessments of animal experiments, as required in the EU Directive (2010/63/
EU) on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

4.3

Individual species

61 BUAV’s Dr Katy Taylor presents at European Chemicals Agency on behalf of the European Coalition. BUAV,

13 June 2014. http://www.buav.org/article/1577/buavs-dr-katy-taylor-presents-at-european-chemicals-agency-onbehalf-of-the-european-coalition
62 ICAPO. http://www.icapo.org/ Accessed 7.3.14
63

www.forskautandjurforsok.se

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

19Whilst several NGOs have highlighted the plight of specific species in labs, usually to gainawareness and support for wider anti-vivisection campaigns, most of these have not had
much, or any, lobbying aspects.
Given that dogs and cats are such popular companion animals in many countries, it is no
surprise that they are also high profile species for anti-vivisection campaigners.
Across the United States, nearly 65,000 dogs (most of them beagles) are used in labs. The
Beagle Freedom Project was founded in 2010 to rehome dogs from labs after they are nolonger being used in experiments. They have since rehomed many beagles, cats, rabbits
and other animals, with a hugely successful and popular public awareness campaign.
BFP’s lobbying work has resulted, in May 2014, Minnesota becoming the first state in the
U.S. and first political body in the world to mandate that dogs and cats in labs be adopted
when the research is over. “If a dog or cat is used in a tax-payer funded research experimentand is healthy at its end the lab must offer them up to public adoption through a rescue
organization like Beagle Freedom Project. No federal or state laws offer any protection tothese animals when the research is over and the standard operating procedure for most labs
was to summarily euthanize them.”64
The passing of this legislation took two legislative sessions, thousands of constituent emails,
letters, phone calls, and personal visits to the Capitol. “Complimenting this effort was the
public ambassador work performed by all the freed beagles living in Minnesota
demonstrating they are not test subjects, but wonderful family companions.” Public andmedia awareness events helped to get this law passed.
This legislation is currently being pursued in California and New York and more states in2015

64 The Beagle Freedom LAW! Beagle Freedom Project, 20 May 2014. http://www.beaglefreedomproject.org/

the_beagle_freedom_law

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

205Regulatory acceptance of non-animal tests

5.1

Introduction

Validation is a normal procedure in all fields of science, once a test is developed. The
validation process is intended to provide confidence in the results and to define where thetest may or may not be applied65.
Although non-animal tests have been used for some time, regulatory acceptance hassometimes been a problem and animal tests may be used to ‘validate’ them (despite theaccepted problem of species difference). Scientists from the Center for Alternatives toAnimal Testing (CAAT) have stated66: “One of the arguments is that animal experiments may
not be suitable as a gold standard as they do not correlate well enough with human data.”
A recent book on 3Rs in toxicity testing provides a useful outline of the regulatory
acceptance of non-animal test methods67:•“Validation needed to be followed by a declaration of regulatory acceptance by therelevant government agencies, as a way of encouraging industry to use the validated
tests and submit data based on them”•“Most of the assessments of validation status and regulatory acceptance haveoccurred since 2000, following the establishment of key alternatives centres and thedevelopment of the principles and procedures of validation and regulatory
acceptance”•“The bulk of this effort has been invested in replacement alternatives (full or partial),
with acute systemic toxicity and skin sensitization being notable exceptions. This
activity has been driven, in part, by the ban on animal testing for cosmetic
ingredients, pursuant to the European Cosmetics Directive”•“Much of what we might term ‘toxicological space’ has been touched by alternative
methods. This is especially true for acute toxicity endpoints, where replacement
alternatives have become available for skin penetration, skin corrosion, skin irritation,and phototoxicity. However, the challenge of replacing animal use for chronic
endpoints is much more formidable”•“Validation and regulatory acceptance of new methods do not necessarily ensure full
implementation of those methods in all cases, so the degree of implementation and

65 Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Daneshiana M. & Thomas Hartung, T. Validation and quality control of replacement

alternatives – current status and future challenges. Toxicol. Res., 2012,1, 8-22
66 Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Daneshiana M. & Thomas Hartung, T. Validation and quality control of replacement

alternatives – current status and future challenges. Toxicol. Res., 2012,1, 8-22
67 Stephens, M.L. & Mak, N.S. History of the 3Rs in Toxicity Testing: From Russell and Burch to 21st Century

Toxicology. In: Reducing, Refining and Replacing the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing (Ed. Allen, D. & Waters,M.D.) RSC Publishing, 2014

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

21any barriers to implementation would need to be addressed in a more definitive
analysis of the impact of alternative methods on toxicology”
According to CAAT68: “The field of cosmetics is a good example for progress inestablishment and validation of alternative methods: replacement methods for sometoxicological domains have been validated. [...] refinement/reduction methods are alsoavailable for acute oral toxicity [...]. Many of these tests have been accepted by the OECD,and some have substituted the corresponding animal experiments to a large extent.”

5.2

Examples of recent lobbying of regulators

Organisations such as CAAT (Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing) and IIVS (Institutefor In Vitro Sciences) conduct lobbying work, persuading regulatory bodies to accept nonanimal tests, as part of their scientific outreach around the world.
Examples of recent work include:
5.2.1

CAAT69CAAT’s policy program aims:• to serve as a voice of humane science to policy makers• to create a legislative and policy culture that values the lives of animals;• to serve as information hub for policy makers on the availability and feasibility of alternative
approaches• to bring policy makers in contact with scientists that have progressed the field of Tox-21c
Recent achievements:• Facilitating contact between Members of European Parliament and thecorresponding national 3Rs scientists or regulators (e.g. Finland, Greece, Austria,
Monaco, Norway and Czech Republic).
• More than 100 face-to-face meetings with officials from the European Parliament
since the creation of the policy program (MEPs, policy advisers from the politicalgroups)
5.2.2

IIVS70The IIVS International Outreach Program (IOP) provides proactive training of regulators andindustry scientists, and works to alleviate barriers associated with the adoption of non-animal
methods. IIVS staff meet with scientists, regulators and other key stakeholders withincountries to identify obstacles that stand in the way of implementing non-animal methods insafety assessment.

68 Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Daneshiana M. & Thomas Hartung, T. Validation and quality control of replacement

alternatives – current status and future challenges. Toxicol. Res., 2012,1, 8-22
69 Pers. Corresp. 23 July 2014
70 Pers. Corresp. 18 July 2014

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

22

IIVS staff met with law makers in Japan and Taiwan to discuss the current international
regulatory status of in vitro methods and how they can be incorporated into a regulatory
framework.

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper23

6
Who is active in the sector? NGOs active in lobbying to end
animal testing
The table below lists groups across the world currently active in the area of lobbying against
animal testing. The list is certainly not comprehensive. Attempts have been made to include
a range of organisations, from grass-roots volunteer-led groups to international, well-funded
NGOs. Attention has also been paid to NGOs in ‘emerging’ countries where the demand 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 belimited and that there will be other effective NGOs which have been missed during ourresearch.

Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web+61 39328
1377

admin@choosecrueltyfree.org.auAustralia
12

3

ChooseCrueltyFree“An independent, non-profit
organisation which actively
promotes a cruelty-freelifestyle.” Surveys andaccredits companies not
testing on animals

www.choosecrueltyfree.org.
auReplace
Animals inAustralian
Testing

Based at University of+61 24221
Wollongong. Aims to "create 3387
a network of researchers andother individuals or groupsinterested in advocating nonanimal based research andin strengthening theAustralian Government/
NHMRC guidelines and theirenforcement"

Dr Denise Russell:deniser@uow.edu.au

HumaneResearch
Australia“Challenges the use ofanimals in research andpromotes the use of morehumane and scientificallyvalid non animal
methodologies”

info@humaneresearch.org.
au+61 38823
5704

www.uow.edu.au/arts/
research/raat/index.html

www.humaneresearch.org.auAustria

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

24

1Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web

Internationaler Bund
derTierversuchsgegner /Ein Recht
fur Tiere(Rights for
Animals)+43 1713
08230

tierversuchsgegner@chello.
atAnimal testing. Long term
lobbying on issues such as
REACH

www.tierversuchsgegner.at

Belgium
1

Eurogroup Various animal protection:+32 2740
for Animals animal testing; farmed
08 20
animals; wildlife; companion
animals; EU & animal welfare

info@eurogroupforanimals.
org
www.eurogroupforanimals.orgBrazil1

HumaneSociety
International

Be Cruelty Free campaign+55 (21)8342-4163

Helder Constantino:hconstantino@hsi.org
www.hsi.org/world/brazil

China
1

HumaneSociety
International2013 launched Be Cruelty
Free campaign in China with
Chinese NGOs andacademic scientists.
HSI launched an $80,000
partnership with the Institutefor In Vitro Sciences toprovide Chinese scientists
with hands-on training using
advanced non-animal
methods.

EuropeLush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

25

China
Peter Li, China Policies
mobile:Specialist: pli@hsi.org+ 86137189146
49

Organisati Campaign
on
1

2

Stop
Vivisection

European
Coalition to
End Animal
Experiments (ECEAE)

Phone

A Citizens Initiative to end
animal experiments.
Committee includes
scientists, activists andpoliticians.

Email / web
representative.stopvivisectio
n@gmail.com
www.stopvivisection.eu

A coalition of 19 European
NGOs active on all issues
relating to animal testing.
Particularly campaigning on
REACH+44 (0) 20
7700 4888

info@eceae.org
www.eceae.org/en

France1

The AntiVivisection
Coalition
France(CAV)International Toxicology
Center switch to non-animal
testing; Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty; air transportof animals for labs

info@cav.asso.fr
www.cav.asso.fr/en

Germany1

DeutscherTierschutzb
und e.V.
(German
Animal
WelfareAssociation)

Various animal protection:
animal testing; animal
circuses; factory farming;
hunting.
ECEAE member.
Lobbied actively to end
animal testing under REACH.

www.tierschutzbund.de2

Animal200
0Various animal protection:+49 89-5
animal testing; rodeos;46 90 50
bullfighting; hunting
Pays the salary of a
toxicologist who works onbehalf of ECEAE to oppose
animal testing under REACH.

www.animal2000.de

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

26

Organisati Campaign
on
3

Ärzte
gegen
Tierversuc
he e.V.
(Doctors
AgainstAnimalExperiment
s)

Phone

Email / web“We are a charitable+ 49 89 organisation of several
35 99 349
hundred doctors andscientists who work in the
medical field. We support theimmediate abolition of all
animal experiments on
ethical and scientificgrounds.”
ECEAE member
The NGO’s toxicologist works
to prevent animal testingunder REACH by submitting
scientific evidence.

info@aerzte-gegentierversuche.de

HumaneSociety
International

Be Cruelty-Free campaign
for marketing ban on animaltested cosmetics in India.

Alokparna Sengupta:
asengupta@hsi.org

2

People For
Animals

Cruelty Free International+91 - 11 partner.
23357088
PFA members are board
members of every Laboratory
Ethics Committee.

www.peopleforanimalsindia.
org

3

PETA India

Lobbying and publicawareness to help achieve
ban on animal testing ofcosmetics. Now working toprevent products animal
tested elsewhere from being
marketed in India.

Info@petaindia.org

www.aerzte-gegentierversuche.de

India
1

+91
984909411
3

www.hsi.org/world/india/
work/end_animal_testing/be_cruelty_free/
be_cruelty_free.html

IsraelLush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

27+91
22-40727382

www.petaindia.com

1Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web

Israeli
Society fortheAbolition ofVivisection
Society(ISAV)+972
76-540325
7

Isav@isav.org.il

General anti-vivisection
campaigns. Successfully
lobbied against Ministry of
Health’s ban on cruelty-free
products using ‘bunny’ logo

www.isav.org.il

Japan
1

Japan AntiVivisection
Association(JAVA)

Lobbying for end of animal+81 (3)
testing as Asian5456-9311
representative member of
ICAPO (International Council
on Animal Protection in OEC
programmes); Publishes
guide to cruelty-freecosmetics; Campaign partnerof Cruelty Free International

java@java-animal.org

Various animal protection:+82
animal testing; pets; farmed
2-2292-633
animals; illegal animal
7
slaughter programme; animal
use in sports andentertainment.
benicetobunnies.org website
educates public on animal
testing and gathers
signatures for their campaign‘No to cosmetics testing on
animals’. Signatures will be
used in persuading
government organisations toban animal testing anddissuade companies fromtesting on animals in
producing cosmetic products.

admin@animals.or.kr /hjl@animals.or.kr

www.java-animal.org/
englishKorea,
Republicof1

KoreanSociety for
AnimalFreedom /KoreanAnimal
WelfareAssociation

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

28

www.animals.or.kr
Campaign website:www.benicetobunnies.org

Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web+64 3 379
9711

info@safe.org.nz

New
Zealand1

2

Save
Animals
From
Exploitation (SAFE)

Various animal protection:
animal testing; factory
farming; rodeos; poisoning.

NZ AntiVivisection
Society(NZAVS)

Recent lobbying work
includes involvement incampaigns against animal
testing of legal highs andcosmetics+64-3-3790093

www.nzavs.org.nz

Various animal protection:
animal testing; zoos; animal
circuses; fur; bullfighting/fiestas; veganism.
Conducts undercoverinvestigations and animal
rescues.
June 2013: Animal Equality
gave a presentation in theEuropean Parliament on the
campaign ‘Stop Vivisection’.

+34 915222 218

info@igualdadanimal.org

www.safe.org.nz

Produces guide to crueltyfree cosmetics; organising
Cruelty Free Cosmetics
week; is part of the Be
Cruelty Free campaign.

www.safeshopper.org.nz

Spain
1

2

IgualdadAnimal(AnimalEquality)

Animanatur Various animal protection:
alis
animal testing; zoos; animal
circuses; fur; bullfighting/fiestas; vegetarianism.
June 2013: Animanaturalis
gave a presentation in theEuropean Parliament on the
campaign ‘Stop Vivisection’.

SwedenLush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

29

www.igualdadanimal.org

www.animanaturalis.org/
home/esOrganisati Campaignon1

ForskaUtan
Djurförsök /The
SwedishFund forResearch
Without
AnimalExperiment
s

Phone

Email / web

Promotes the development+46 8749
and validation of replacement 03 40
alternatives to animal
experiments. Grants areawarded annually toresearch, validation andinformation projects.

info@forskautandjurforsok.seLigue
suissecontre lavivisection(LSCV)(SwissLeagueAgainstVivisection)

Supports development of
non-animal testing methods
and takes legal action toprevent animal tests.
Publishes list of cruelty-freecosmetics.

+41 (0)22
349 73 37

admin@lscv.ch

ZurcherTierschutz
Association(ZurichAnimalProtection
Association)

Various animal protection:
animal testing; fur; farmanimal welfare.
Funds non-animal testing;has a representative on the
Zurich Animal Experiments
Committee and the Federal
Animal Experiments
Committee.

+41 44 261 info@zuerchertierschutz.ch
97 14
www.zuerchertierschutz.ch

www.forskautandjurforsok.s
e/in-english

Switzerlan
d
1

2

UK

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

30

www.lscv.ch

Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web

BritishUnion forthe
Abolition ofVivisection(BUAV)Key issues include: primatesin research; cruelty-freecosmetics; animal testing ofhousehold 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

2

National
AntiVivisection
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

3InterNICHE(Internation
al Networkfor
HumaneEducation)

Network of students,+44 (0) 116 coordinator@interniche.org
teachers and campaigners
210 9652
working for fully humane
www.interniche.org
education and training inmedicine, veterinary
medicine and biologicalscience. Produced awardwinning video on alternatives
available in nearly 20
languages; book describing
over 500 products designed
for progressive life scienceeducation; offers a global
Alternatives Loan Systems libraries of products available
for free loan, as well as
literature, support and advice
for teachers and students.
Conferences, seminars andtraining.

1

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

31

www.buav.org
www.crueltyfreeinternational.org

www.navs.org.uk

Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / webUSA
1

Coalitionfor
Consumer
Informationon
Cosmetics(CCIC)

Coalition of 8 national animal +1 888546- info@LeapingBunny.org
protection groups. The CCIC CCIC
“promotes a single
www.leapingbunny.org
comprehensive standard andan internationally recognised
Leaping Bunny Logo”.

2

The
American
AntiVivisection
Society(AAVS)Key issues include: Ban+1
aavs@aavs.org
Pound Seizure; End Animal
800-729-22
Cloning; Compassionate
87
www.aavs.org
Shopping.
In 2006, AAVS assumed theleadership role as Chair of
the Coalition for Consumer
Information on Cosmetics(CCIC).
Free phone app with guide toover 200 cruelty-freecosmetics companies.

3

HumaneSociety
Internation
al (HSI)

Launched ‘Be Cruelty Free’,a global campaign inpartnership with NGOs
worldwide. Active in key
emerging countries such as
Brazil, India, China.
Lobbying to end animal
testing in several countries+1
info@hsi.org
202-452-1100
www.hsi.org

4

PhysiciansCommittee
forResponsibl
e Medicine(PCRM)PCRM is Secretariat of theInternational 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 andprograms.

+1
pcrm@pcrm.org
202-686-22
10
www.pcrm.org

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

32

Organisati Campaign
on

Phone

Email / web

5

Center for
Alternatives to Animal
Testing(CAAT)

Promote humane science by +1
caat@jhsph.edu
supporting the creation,
410-614-49
development, validation, and 90
http://caat.jhsph.edu
use of alternatives to animals
in research, product safety
testing, and education. Seek
to effect change by working
with scientists in industry,
government, and academia.

6Internation
al Council
on Animal
Protection
in OECD
Programm
es (ICAPO)ICAPO works to incorporate
non-animal testing methods
into the activities of theOrganisation for Economic
Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), an
influential internationalorganisation that develops
guidelines and programmes
for the testing of chemicals.

+1
icapo@pcrm.org
202-686-22
10
www.icapo.org

7

BeagleFreedom
Project

The Project negotiates withlabs to hand over animals forre-homing to suitable private
homes. In its lobbying work,
BFP put forward the Beagle
Freedom Bill in November
2012, to mandate that
research facilities thatreceive tax-dollar support
would have to offer dogs andcats to non-profit rescue
organisations for public
adoption. From January to
May 2013 BFP ran thislegislative campaign in theState of Minnesota. The billpassed the committee with
unanimous support but did
not pass into law. For the
next legislative session BFP
will be advancing this same
bill again in Minnesota,
California and Michigan.

+
shannon@beaglefreedompr
1818-330-4 oject.org
040
www.beaglefreedomproject.
org

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

33

7

Lobbying Prize winners 2013

Two organisations shared the Public Awareness Prize in 2013:
The International Council on Animal Protection in OECD Programmes (£40,000)
http://www.icapo.org/
For their successful work with the OECD, now a world leader in the promotion of non-animal
methods, approaches and policies.
The Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments (£10,000)
http://www.forskautandjurforsok.se
For their work with Swedish regulators to replace animal testing.

Also shortlisted:
PETA India
www.petaindia.com
For its major role in the successful campaign to ban the testing of cosmetics on animals in
the country.
Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)
http://caat.jhsph.edu
For its lobbying for a legal implementation of 21st Century Toxicity in the US and the EU,
educating legislators and politicians about the urgent need for regulatory change, and theavailability of new methods.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
http://pcrm.org
For lobbying on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act to make it a requirement for the useof non-animal test methods where reasonably and practicably available.
PETA, Laboratory Investigations Department
www.peta.org
For its international work to advocate for the creation of policies that require and encourage
the replacement of crude animal experiments with modern non-animal teaching, researchand testing methods.
Stop Vivisectionwww.stopvivisection.eu
For running a European Citizens Initiative proposing a new Directive aimed at ending animal
experiments and making the use of data relevant to humans in biomedical and toxicologicalresearch compulsory, in the place of data obtained on animals.
Humane Society International - Brazil
www.hsi.org/portuguese/issues/cosmetic_product_testing/libertesedacrueldade/libertesedacrueldade.html

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

34

For its work with the Brazilian authorities and companies to gain acceptance and use ofproven non-animal methods and testing strategies and to update regulatory testing
requirements to replace or reduce animal testing.

Lush Lobbying Prize 2014 – Background Paper

35