Confronting Animal Rights Activism : Cosmetics: Advocates have racked up major victories against industry giants.

The most visible actions of animal rights activists this year have been their noisy protests outside fur salons around the country, thus far with debatable results. But meantime, with much less fanfare, they have been quietly scoring major victories in the cosmetics industry.

Eleven of the nation’s major cosmetics firms have stopped testing the safety of their new products on live animals in the past four months alone. Among them have been industry giants Avon, Revlon and Christian Dior.

The developments offer dramatic evidence of the growing influence of animal rights activists on the cosmetics industry, according to Dr. Frank Loew, dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. A longtime observer of the animal protection movement, Loew believes that the activists were not taken seriously when they began their campaign against cosmetics firms early this decade.

“A lot of people branded them as little old ladies in tennis shoes and as mindless anti-technology Luddites,” Loew said. “Now people in Congress are starting to listen to them. Consumers are starting to think: ‘I want a safe product, but wouldn’t it be nice to assure safety without inflicting pain and suffering on animals.’ ”

Buoyed by these recent developments, some animal rights groups are expanding their campaigns. To abandon testing is not enough, they say. Groups such as In Defense of Animals and the Rockville, Md.-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--commonly known as PETA--say cosmetics companies must also sever commercial relationships with firms that continue to conduct research on animals.

“If an ingredient has to be tested on an animal, it shouldn’t be part of a cosmetic product,” said Dr. Elliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals in Corte Madera, Calif. “If a company stops testing (on animals) and buys from a firm that continues to test, it’s not taking an ethical stand against research on animals; it’s really a public relations ploy.”

However, some animal rights activists oppose this expanded campaign. They say the extended campaign is counterproductive; many firms, they contend, will not abandon animal testing if groups continue to pressure them because of their business relationships.

The debate raises questions about the future cohesiveness of a movement that has just begun to successfully challenge decades-old safety practices. Meanwhile, many cosmetics firms insist that the public safety issue is unresolved, maintaining that there is still a need for animal testing.

Much of the controversy centers on two symbolic targets of this broader crusade--Avon in New York and a much smaller cosmetics company called Carme Inc. in Novato, Calif. At issue is the need for animal testing and the efficacy of alternative methods.

Ironically, many in the animal rights community once considered Carme to be a model cosmetics firm. Like John Paul Mitchell Systems in Beverly Hills and a few others, Carme had never done product safety testing on animals. In fact, Carme actually had promoted its products as “cruelty free” and incorporated the “no animal testing” message on its labels and in its advertising.

The new boycott reflects changing attitudes in some segments of the animal protectionist movement. PETA has said that it actually attempted to promote the Sleepy Hollow line of hair products marketed by Carme in the past. For example, the organization said Carme products were featured last year in PETA’s Christmas catalogue, which markets products that raise public consciousness on the testing issue.

The new boycott against Carme was launched because International Research & Development, a company that conducts medical research tests on animals, recently announced plans to acquire the cosmetics company. Some activists believe that Carme should have no affiliation with firms that conduct any kind of research on animals.

In a related move, some activists say they may launch a new boycott against Avon, which closed its animal testing labs in July. They say they may make Avon the target of a new round of protests because the cosmetics giant has not severed ties with certain suppliers, firms that test ingredients on animals before selling them to cosmetics firms.

The stance against Avon and Carme has angered a group of animal protection groups led by Henry Spira, widely considered to be the father of the U.S. campaign against cosmetics testing on animals. The group earlier this month condemned the expanded campaign in a joint resolution. The signatories--the presidents of the Humane Society and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among them--hope to get other animal rights groups to endorse the resolution.

“Resolved,” says the petition, “that we believe that it is counterproductive to engage in boycotts or other negative actions against responsive companies and that such tactics be used only against corporations or institutions which refuse to deal in a constructive manner with the animal protection movement.”

The dispute arises just as the animal protection movement appears to be gaining clout. PETA and some other animal rights groups said Avon responded to their boycott when it decided to drop its animal testing program in favor of alternative methods for ensuring product safety.

A large number of cosmetics firms adopted similar stands in subsequent weeks and months, publicly announcing their switch to alternative testing methods. For example, more cosmetics firms are using computers more extensively to determine human reaction to chemicals. In addition, more researchers are also measuring the safety of makeup products by conducting experiments on cloned cell cultures in test tubes and dishes, a method known as “in vitro” testing.

The alternatives are designed to replace methods such as the controversial Draize test, in which substances are injected into the eyes of rabbits to determine the degree of irritation. Animal rights activists also condemn the “LD 50” test, in which animals are force-fed substances to determine toxicity.

They also oppose skin irritation tests that involve applying substances to shaved portions of conscious animals. Amway, Shaklee, Noxell and Merle Norman Cosmetics are among the firms that have recently abandoned the practice of testing products on animals.

Henry Spira contends that the seeds for change were planted early this decade when he and other activists launched a campaign against Revlon and Avon. Those two industry giants and other cosmetics firms responded to the early protests by giving universities millions in research funding to find alternative methods of product safety testing.

Spira and Avon contend that Avon was already phasing out its testing program when PETA in March launched its worldwide boycott against the cosmetics giant.

“It’s like ordering the sun to rise and taking credit for it when it happens,” Spira said. “Now, they want to continue to bash companies like Avon. . . . To dump on companies that are responsive just to see how much you can get them to lose face is detrimental. We should see them as allies and get them to persuade other firms to rely on alternative (testing) methods.”

Avon spokesman John Cox said that company decided to cease testing when it concluded that an alternative testing method--an in vitro method developed by the Irvine-based National Testing Corp.--was satisfactory.

However, Susan Rich, director of PETA’s cosmetics campaign, said Avon and some other cosmetics firms had been predicting a phase-out of their animal testing operations for years.

“It was only after . . . we announced our worldwide boycott campaign that Avon stopped,” Rich said. “The proof is in the pudding, and this year there is evidence that boycotts work and that public pressure against these companies is great.”

Rich said companies such as Avon could be the targets of new boycotts if they do not sever ties with suppliers that maintain animal research programs. Avon acknowledges that some of its suppliers conduct tests on animals. However, the company says it began in July to encourage its ingredient makers to cease those tests. PETA is not satisfied, Rich said.

“We’ve communicated our concern to Avon and informed them that our members will be reluctant to buy their products until their suppliers stop testing,” Rich said. “We’ve encouraged them in a friendly manner, but after a while we will intensify our efforts. We’re planning action against companies that maintain a relationship with suppliers that test on animals.”

PETA is asking the industry’s trade group--the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. in Washington--to take a stand against supplier testing programs. PETA and other groups will try to bring attention to the new campaign by holding a demonstration at the trade association’s annual meeting in February, Rich said.

Rich said the expanded campaign is a natural extension of the original movement.

“You don’t give up something once you start it,” she said. “We’re not going to let companies get away with bumping the testing down to suppliers. They (cosmetics firms) need a push in the supplier ingredient area just as they needed one on the product level. . . . It’s a shame Spira is using his energies against us instead of working on behalf of animals.”

Although Spira and Rich disagree on the appropriateness of the expanded campaign against cosmetics companies, both express hope that the public will begin to question the need for using animals in testing programs involving other consumer products, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and biomedical research.

In all, industries and research laboratories use 17 million to 22 million animals annually, according to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. About 85% to 95% of the subjects are rodents, but dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals are also used.

Rich said some animal rights activists have focused much of their efforts on the cosmetics field partly because the public perceives the use of animals in biomedical and pharmaceutical research as essential to human life.

However, Tufts University’s Dr. Loew, who has studied the animal rights movement for 25 years, predicted that the public will continue to see a vast difference between the use of animals in consumer products testing and medical research.

“The notion of suffering being induced for a product associated with vanity is politically powerful,” Loew said. “Despite the fact that people buy a lot of cosmetics, cosmetics is not very important compared to AIDS research or testing for hip replacement techniques. The cosmetics industry is more vulnerable. They don’t want their reputation sullied. It’s an image-conscious industry. There’s not one cosmetics executive who isn’t aware and worried about the controversy.”

The movement is forcing cosmetics company executives to make tough choices. Some industry managers are concerned that a hasty abandonment of animal testing--a tried and traditional standard for assuring product safety--might leave companies liable in product safety lawsuits.

For example, executives at Paris-based L’Oreal, a boycott target of some animal rights groups, would like to eliminate the use of animals in product safety testing, said Connie Shelby, a company spokeswoman.

Shelby said L’Oreal, which continues to conduct research on animals, has helped finance the search for alternative methods of assuring product safety.

“As the effectiveness of alternatives are substantiated, we will adopt new methods,” Shelby said. “The alternatives available have not been determined to be adequate to ensure that products are safe for human use.”

L’Oreal and many other companies must test on animals to determine product safety under conditions of proper use and accidental use, said Irene Malbin, a spokeswoman for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn.

“If a child accidentally ingests a product,” Malbin said, “there must be data on the effects for use by people in hospital emergency rooms. . . . The activists say it’s possible to immediately go to alternatives. But the alternatives aren’t scientifically adequate in all cases.”

The trade association contends that only one-half of 1% of all animal testing is conducted in the research laboratories of cosmetics firms, a statistic that animal rights groups challenge. The trade group says there is no reliable alternative for the Draize test, the test in which cosmetics products are placed in the eyes of rabbits, a contention that animal protection activists also dispute.

Animal rights activists and some cosmetics firms contend that a variety of new alternative methods can be used to ensure product safety.

“I can’t imagine a more frivolous or unnecessary cruelty,” said Tina Brackenbush, PETA’s West Coast coordinator. “To torture an animal to produce deodorant or mascara is immoral.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not settled the debate. Hans Eireman, director of the FDA’s division of color and cosmetics, said tests on animals are generally more reliable than newer, alternative methods. Although the government encourages cosmetics firms to conduct safety research, it does not actually require the companies to test their products in any fashion, Eireman said. And, though the FDA requires safety research on substances that add coloring to cosmetics, it does not explicitly require testing on animals, Eireman said.

The debate over the need for cosmetics testing on animals is an emotionally charged affair that has created divisions within the industry and the medical profession. Two famous column-writing sisters also differ. Abigail Van Buren of “Dear Abby” has supported some animal rights positions, and Ann Landers has defended testers in the cosmetics community.

Invectives have been thrown by both sides. In a recent fund-raising letter to members, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. President E. Edward Kavanaugh said the industry is confronted by “zealots who cannot comprehend that a child’s life is more important than a dog’s, who see nothing wrong with making a child the ultimate guinea pig instead of an animal.”

On the other side, animal rights activists have demonstrated by carrying pickets calling firms “killers” and have distributed photos depicting bloodied bunnies allegedly after testing.

In the cross-fire are many cosmetics company executives, corporate officers who are under more and more pressure to abandon their low profiles or their animal testing programs, said Tufts University’s Dr. Loew. Vocal defenders of animal testing want these quiet executives to publicly defend the practice, and animal rights groups want them to close their animal testing labs.

“Major makers of cosmetics are well aware of the controversy,” Loew said. “There wasn’t much heat five years ago. It’s a difficult situation.”