Companies that test their products on animals needn't bother trying to ship them to Israel, because, starting New Year's Day, the country banned the import, sale, and marketing of animal-tested cosmetics, toiletries, and household cleaners. Previously, in 2007, the Israeli government had banned using animals to test personal-care and household products within the country. But with the new law, which was passed in 2010 and came into effect January 1, 2013, lawmakers have one-upped themselves, blocking products that have been tested on animals in other countries from even crossing Israel's border.

PETA and our affiliates are working to end the testing of cosmetics and household products on animals in countries around the world, and Israel has proved that a full ban on such vile products is not only possible but also ethically responsible. The EU had passed a similar ban, which was also scheduled to take effect in 2013, but lawmakers are now considering extending that deadline. PETA and PETA U.K. have been pushing hard to get the EU to uphold the original end date. In addition, PETA India is trying to get a similar ban implemented in that country, and the effort has a lot of momentum. PETA and PETA Asia have been helping Chinese scientists switch to in vitro cosmetics testing methods and are encouraging the Chinese government to accept the results in place of the animal tests that it currently requires. And in the U.S., PETA has been purchasing stock in companies that conduct animal tests so that we can propose shareholder resolutions to switch to humane testing methods.

But despite all the legal hullabaloo, we can at least designate our homes cruelty-free areas. It's easy to select personal-care and household products that weren't tested on animals by glancing at PETA's new global Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide, the latest complete list of companies that refuse to conduct or pay for any animal tests anywhere in the world. 

nationalpost / CC

A few months ago, we told you about a vote by the European Union (E.U.) to end the sale of seal products. Well, now is the time to do a little victory dance, because the ban has just been finalized! According to the AP, Canada exported about $5 million worth of seal products to the EU last year, so this ban is another big blow to the country's annual seal massacre.

Since most of Europe has denounced the shameful slaughter of baby seals loud and clear, you'd think that Canada's government would finally get a clue and take action to end the annual bloodbath, right?

Think again.

Sorry to say, but once again, instead of enacting the ban that good people around the world—including a great many in Canada—are demanding, the Canadian government continues to pour all its efforts into keeping the massacre going. Until the last minute, it was still lobbying the E.U. to change its mind.

Canadian bureaucrats can be pretty thickheaded, but we are determined to keep the pressure on them until they can't ignore it any longer. That means pushing the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic Games to get involved, buying American maple syrup instead of Canadian, and spreading the word to get other folks involved too!

Written by Jeff Mackey

When we heard that the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) is selling cheap outdoor ad space to nonsponsors, you can be sure that only a few seconds passed before we signed up to place a billboard during the 2010 Olympic Games.

VANOC claims that the soft economy has created sluggish ad sales, so it's scrambling to make back some of the millions of dollars it spent stockpiling billboard space. Could it be that corporations are reluctant to spend their advertising dollars to support the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games when the word "Canada" is now synonymous worldwide with "baby seal slaughter?"

One thing is for certain—if VANOC accepts our offer, our billboard will be slated to educate visitors from all over the world about Canada's Olympic Games shame.

Written by Karin Bennett

We’ve been getting a lot of questions on this since the European Parliament voted on it this week, so I thought I’d clear the air a bit.

I realize that it’s going to come as a huge shock to some but PETA is completely opposed to the ban. Obviously, the cruelty involved in the slaughter of dogs and cats is beyond hideous and has to be stopped, but we feel like this “ban” is really nothing more than a feel-good measure that is likely to harm more animals than it would help.

First off, the entire point of the proposed legislation, as it states very clearly, is to protect the fur industry. The language in the proposed legislation couldn’t be more clear on this fact: The bill is intended to and would in fact “facilitate the placing on the market of fur and fur products from species other than cats and dogs and prevent disturbance on the international market for fur and fur products in general.”

Even more insane to me is the fact that the proposed legislation would do absolutely nothing to actually stop the trade in dog and cat fur in Europe, since it would exempt fur from dogs and cats who have been killed for any other purpose, including meat. Millions of dogs and cats are killed for their meat and fur in China, where we did an investigation and found horrendous cruelty.

Our concerns really boil down to the fact that the ban will help the fur trade by giving consumers a false sense of security that it is safe to buy fur because they’ll believe it isn’t from dogs and cats. In the United States and other countries, similar bans on dog and cat fur simply haven’t worked; dog and cat fur is still sold, but it is relabelled as fur from other species. A ban like this won’t work any better than self-regulation, which, in the fur trade, means no regulation. The ban’s only practical effect will be to promote the acceptance of fur from other species of animals, including canine and feline species such as coyotes and lynx, who are just as abused as dogs and cats in the fur trade.

Essentially, this legislation will just grease the wheels of the fur industry so it can kill millions of animals for their skins while assuring consumers that none of them is like their family pets. And of course, it’s just as messed up to skin minks or foxes alive and wear their fur as it is to skin dogs or cats alive for their fur.

I hope this helps make our position a bit more clear. Where do you stand? Comments much appreciated.

I wrote about JM Coetzee a little while back, after he gave an amazing speech in Sydney about animal rights and the ethics of industrialized slaughter practices. But the Nobel Prize winner just came through for animals again by writing to the European Parliament on PETA's behalf to ask that they support a ban on bullfighting in Europe. You can read about Coetzee's letter here. The translation's a bit wobbly, but it's a great story. I figure the members of the European Parliament who are unaffected by the Running of the Nudes protest that PETA UK holds every year in Spain will respond to an entreaty from a leading figure in the world of letters. Something for everybody, you know?

Two-pronged attack against the bullfight: A Nobel Prizewinner and a Naked Race

Nine Inch Nails has a brand new album out this week: Year Zero has been getting a lot of love from the critics, and it's awesome to see Trent Reznor back in form. And, of course, we're all big fans of Trent here after he took time out of his schedule to narrate our exposé of the cat and dog fur trade in China. You can watch Trent's narration here, but I should warn you that the footage is tough to deal with.

You’ve probably heard some buzz about this album already, since Nine Inch Nails has been using this brilliant viral marketing campaign to get the word out about Year Zero. They are hiding USB drives containing the new songs in cities nationwide and using several mysterious websites (like AnotherVersionOfTheTruth.com and ThePriceOfTreason.net) to give fans some new material and the back story to the new album.

I’m always happy to support artists like Trent who use their celebrity to make a real difference. And it helps when they write kickass songs as well. I'm going to have Head Like a Hole stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

Which, in some ways, why in God's name was a comic-book store selling fur in the first place, but hooray for those early-adopting scene-hoppers over at peta2 for helping to persuade the chain to stop! It's nice to see that they actually do some real work in between hobnobbing with indie-rock icons and droning on about their latest trendy thrift-store "finds".

After peta2 launched their campaign on Monday morning to get the New England music store chain to stop selling animal figurines made from rabbit fur, more than 700 people sent e-mails to Newbury Comics. Within a day, the store's co-owner and founder, Mike Dreese, responded by saying that Newbury Comics has stopped selling products made of fur, and “the last few dozen leftover, unsold pieces [fur figurines] have been removed from our stores this morning.”

Hipsters can accomplish so much when they really put their minds to it. Amazing work, peta2, and everyone who wrote in to the company! Give yourselves a big pat on the back, then go out and buy the new Bright Eyes album as a treat.

Yeah, I know, it's kind of a no-brainer. But the relative cuteness of mermaids versus cavepeople was really hit home to me today when I received images from two different protests conducted by PETA UK yesterday. The first, from a demonstration in Edinburgh to encourage people to cut the fish out of their diets, gets 10 points out of 10 for being just as cute as can be. I frickin’ love those mermaid outfits.

But I don't think this next picture from an anti-Burberry protest (designed to make the point that fur is for cavepeople) would make the cut over at Cute Overload. Still, a pretty striking demonstration, in my opinion.

Anyway, the point of all this is please don't eat fish or wear fur. kthx.