The Sign of Alternative Testing

Next time you reach for lipstick, eye shadow or even shampoo, you might see a strange symbol--a bunny leaping into stars.

In the next few months, more and more products will boast this new symbol. The rabbit icon represents a “Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals,” and it means that a company has agreed to no longer test its products on animals. More companies can make this new pledge because of alternative testing methods. And many basic ingredients were long ago originally tested on animals and proven safe.

The rabbit logo is the first concentrated effort to set a common standard by animal rights groups. Their individual efforts yielded two standards now seen on various products: “Cruelty Free,” which indicates humane animal testing, or “No Animal Testing.”

“We decided that it was time that animal organizations be a little more savvy,” said Sara Amundson, deputy director of the Doris Day Animal League, an animal rights group based in Washington, D.C., and one of several organizations involved in this effort.

To get the logo, she said, “a company agrees as of the date of compliance that it won’t conduct or commission animal testing on any ingredient formulation or finished product.” To use the logo, companies will pay a licensing fee to the animal rights coalition, which in turn will use the money to promote the campaign and do spot checks for compliance.

Hundreds of personal care companies have applied for the logo, and about 100 have received it, including the Body Shop International, John Paul Mitchell Systems, Kiss My Face and Urban Decay.

“I cannot believe the number of companies calling us expressing interest in getting on board,” Amundson said. Consumers also are interested in knowing whether products are animal-tested, according to surveys funded by animal rights groups.

Federal regulations do not require animal testing on cosmetics or most personal care products, but corporations are required to meet certain safety standards to protect consumers, said Michael Petrina, vice president for legislative relations for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. in Washington, D.C. “If companies put out unsafe ingredients, not only would they be immoral, they would be out of business.”

*

The market for personal care products is huge, with annual national sales of $25 billion to $30 billion, said Petrina. “Common everyday products like personal care products are more commonly used than drugs.” These products include deodorants, shampoos, conditioners, shaving creams, fragrances and cosmetics.

The perception, Petrina said, is that cosmetic companies do a lot of animal testing, when in fact they do not. “Cosmetic lines don’t test new shades of lipstick or eye shadow. You don’t need to retest old ingredients.” He added that most of the little animal testing still being done is on new formulations, especially on sunscreens and skin-cream products.

Industry and animal rights groups agree safety is the No. 1 priority. “Whatever the nature of the product, it’s going to be used by some segment of the population,” Petrina said. “There is a moral obligation to make sure that their products are safe.”

Amundson agreed, but said computer models, cell culture tests and other alternatives can replace animal testing. “Keep in mind that technology has just advanced leaps and bounds even in the 10 years that I have been [working] on this issue.”

All companies use skin patch tests on people before they release products, she said. “Whether you’re Gillette or the Body Shop, everybody uses patch tests.

“I think it’s utterly important that animal advocates are concerned about the safety of cosmetics,” she said. “We just believe that it’s not necessary to use animals for cosmetic testing.”

Petrina said the cosmetic industry is also very interested in getting out of animal testing, but that the science has not yet evolved to the point of eliminating it entirely. He noted, “The cosmetic industry contributed well over $110 million over the last 10 years in developing alternative methods and researching methods.”