Written by Alisa Mullins
When cosmetics giant Revlon held its annual meeting in Edison, New Jersey, yesterday, PETA was there to put the cosmetics giant's bigwigs on the spot. They didn't need any "smoky rose" blush to add a little color to their cheeks when a PETA representative stood up and made the following statement:
For more than two decades, Revlon portrayed itself to PETA and to millions of consumers as a company whose products were not tested on animals. During all this time, Revlon enjoyed and benefited from PETA's support and our promotion of Revlon products to women around the world. Revlon betrayed that trust. In 2012, PETA found out that Revlon has been selling its products in China, where tests on animals are required for cosmetics. When we questioned the company about this, Revlon repeatedly refused to answer our questions about whether it has been secretly paying for tests on animals. Your commitment to profit is obvious. Your commitment to consumers who care about cruelty-free products has been revealed as a sham. On behalf of PETA and our more than 3 million members and supporters, I ask Revlon to end sales in China in order to spare animals who continue to be killed in cruel tests. Will Revlon make this commitment?
The answer was what we expected: Revlon sells its products in countries that require tests on animals for its products—and has no plans to stop.
PETA turned to this innovative way to be heard by the company—purchasing just enough Revlon stock to allow us to attend shareholder meetings—after our repeated requests for information went unanswered. Next year, after we've held stock for a year, we'll be eligible to introduce a shareholder resolution calling on Revlon to renew its commitment to cruelty-free products.
What You Can Do
Refuse to buy Revlon products until the company pulls out of China like Paul Mitchell, Nature’s Gate, and other companies have. Visit our "Beauty Without Bunnies" page to find a list of companies that don't test on animals and to order a free copy of our first-ever global Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide to take with your every time you shop.
Written by Michelle Kretzer
Cats can finally breathe a little easier today. After an intensive PETA campaign, Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) has announced that it will stop abusing cats for intubation training exercises in its Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) course. WUSTL was the last PALS facility PETA knows of that was still attempting to train health-care professionals to intubate human infants by having them ram hard plastic tubes down cats' delicate windpipes as many as 15 times in a row. The procedure often causes swelling and bleeding in the throat and can even cause collapsed lungs and death. Every other one of the more than 1,000 PALS facilities in the country uses superior, lifelike infant simulators, which replicate human anatomy.
WUSTL's change of heart is a victory five years in the making. PETA supporters sent more than 75,000 e-mails, barraged the school with phone calls, and protested on campus and at fundraisers. We placed ads decrying the cruelty to cats in St. Louis newspapers and even on top of gas pumps near the school. Local activists with the Alliance for Medical Progress regularly held eye-catching demonstrations on campus. Comic artist Dan Piraro, a former WUSTL student, created a cartoon to protest the cruelty. Our good friend Bob Barker offered to buy the school human-infant simulators if it would stop abusing cats.
Finally, PETA got our hands on undercover video footage of a cat laboratory and released it to the public. And little more than a month after we did so, WUSTL ended the archaic exercises. Thank you to everyone who protested, sent e-mails, and supported this campaign. Now, please help us save cats suffering at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
The following originally appeared on Girlie Girl Army.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure was hit with a tidal wave of backlash when it announced that it was pulling $680,000 in grants to Planned Parenthood that had covered breast-cancer screenings for underprivileged women. As the people behind all the pink went red in the face, Komen decided that the only way to bail out the sinking ship was for CEO Nancy Brinker to resign. Theoretically, she did. But she's still there, in a new position: chair of the Komen Board Executive Committee. No one has replaced her as CEO, and she still holds the title on Komen's website. According to recent news reports, in addition to still seemingly being at the helm of the organization, she just landed a tidy little raise—64 percent, to be precise—bringing her salary to nearly $685,000. Quite an interesting number. And surprisingly, she seems to have done it without much of a flap.
Komen had to backpedal and reinstate Planned Parenthood's grants. But even so, the organization spent a measly 11 percent of its $420 million in annual donations on screening. And it allotted 15 percent for research. So are women actually going pink "for the cure" or for other things—such as Brinker's reported five-star accommodations, private flights, and luncheons with lobster flown in from Maine?
Equally troubling is the type of "research" that Komen funds: archaic experiments on animals that for more than 40 years still haven't produced a cure. "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse," Richard Klausner, former head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has observed. "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." The same is true for the millions of rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals who have died in the name of cancer experimentation—because their genetic makeup is vastly different from ours. The NCI now uses human cancer cells, taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer. But while other organizations such as Komen waste funds on experiments that have proven time and again not to work, women with a family history of breast cancer, like Angelina Jolie, are so fearful that they are preemptively having their breasts removed.
As a woman, an animal advocate, and a granddaughter whose dear grandmother died of breast cancer at age 64, I am outraged by Komen's wastefulness and apparent disregard for underprivileged women. We deserve better than this.
A host of organizations dedicate their proceeds to offering screenings for underserved women and finding a cure through cutting-edge non-animal testing methods. Among them are the American Breast Cancer Foundation, the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the United Breast Cancer Research Society. PETA has compiled a complete list.
To end breast cancer, we have to think outside the pink.
Written by Jeff Mackey
The always wonderful Bob Barker has stepped up yet again to help PETA save animals from suffering—this time, the animals are nine cats at a medical school that his late wife was to attend before she decided to become Mrs. Barker, Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL).
Bob, who grew up in Missouri, has sent a letter to the school's chancellor, generously offering $75,000 to fund the purchase of new state-of-the-art pediatric simulators to be used in place of the cats who are currently forced to endure repeated intubation exercises.
This is the second time that he has spoken out for cats used in this archaic exercise. Following a plea from Bob, the University of Virginia recently announced that it was abandoning its cat intubation laboratory in favor of simulators.
Since this is World Week for Animals in Laboratories, it's the perfect time for WUSTL to take Bob up on his proposal (although, of course, there's never a wrong time to help animals in laboratories). And if that weren't enough, Bob also tells the school that he would be happy to find homes for all nine cats!
WUSTL's acceptance of Bob's offer would not only give these cats a future of love and security instead of pain and fear in a laboratory—as seen in an undercover video from a recent PALS course at the university—but also better prepare the trainees to help save children's lives. As Bob mentions in his letter, a recent study from neighboring Saint Louis University School of Medicine found that using a simulator in its PALS courses—which don't include any animal laboratories—substantially improved trainees' intubation skills.
Please join Bob Barker and PETA in urging WUSTL to modernize its medical training program today.
This year, we have something to celebrate as we commemorate World Week for Animals in Laboratories. After 30 years of pressure from PETA and other organizations, Harvard Medical School's New England Primate Research Center is shutting its doors. This milestone victory proves that even the mightiest can fall—or do better, move on, or modernize. And it illustrates why it is crucial that animal advocates keep working to end the suffering of animals in laboratories.
One group of animal rights advocates in Italy made headlines this week when they occupied a laboratory at the University of Milan and removed many of the mice and rabbits who were caged there. Closer to home, there are numerous easy actions that any of us can take to help animals in laboratories:
Please tweet this post to encourage your Twitter followers to get active for animals in laboratories, too. We can win the campaign to end the use of animals in laboratories, and we must. Millions of animals need us to.
As a global leader in the development of toxicology tests for chemicals, the MatTek Corporation has made quite a name for itself among government agencies and manufacturers of all types. But one thing you will never hear the company associated with is animal testing, which is why MatTek has scored a PETA award.
© Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals
"MatTek is extremely gratified to be recognized by PETA and appreciates PETA's support in its quest to produce new and improved in vitro test methods that reduce or eliminate animal testing," said Dr. Mitch Klausner, MatTek's vice president of scientific affairs. The chemical engineering professors from MIT who founded the company discovered that by creating in vitro (test tube) test methods using skin constructs made from human-derived cells, they could not only save companies money and spare animals but also provide better protection for humans.
Among the advanced testing methods that MatTek has created is Epiderm, a 3-dimensional model formed from human skin cells. Epiderm provides scientists with a superior indicator of how human skin will react to corrosive and irritating chemicals than the skin of live rabbits does. PETA and PETA UK have helped get Epiderm into use in laboratories around the world, saving tens of thousands of rabbits every year from having chemicals smeared onto their shaved, abraded backs to observe whether the substance burns through or irritates the skin. MatTek has also developed impressive 3-D, human-cell–derived tissue construct models to replace the use of animals in eye, inhalation, immune, and other tests.
Because MatTek is making toxicology testing humane, more reliable, faster, and less expensive, PETA is giving the company its inaugural Laurie and Carlee McGrath Award, in the amount of $5,000. The award was made possible by the McGrath Family Foundation, which generously supports PETA's work to replace animals in laboratories.
Rabbits are on a roll! Natural-products giant Nature's Gate just became the fourth company to pull out of the Chinese market until the country stops requiring tests on animals for cosmetics. After talks with PETA, Nature's Gate agreed that there is nothing pretty about tormenting animals in laboratories, and the company chose to forgo the large Chinese market, rather than sacrificing its commitment to being cruelty-free.
iStockphoto.com/SQUAMISH
PETA is proud to give Nature's Gate our Courage in Commerce Award for its dedication to offering a wide array of quality personal-care and beauty products without harming animals anywhere in the world.
And Nature's Gate is in good company: Paul Mitchell, Dermalogica, and Pangea Organics have all pulled their products out of China in order to save animals' lives, and many more companies, such as Urban Decay and NYX, have refused to sell in China until the animal testing requirements are lifted. As a result, these conscientious companies are being rewarded with even more customer support, and with the help of the scientists PETA is helping to fund, China is prepping to approve its first non-animal testing method.
Please join us in thanking Nature's Gate, and continue to support companies that don't test on animals by checking PETA's online list of companies that do and that don't test on animals. Order your own free copy of PETA's first-ever global cruelty-free shopping guide and take it with you every time you shop! Naturally.
Since PETA began campaigning to expose companies that conduct agonizing and deadly tests on animals, consumers have firmly supported cruelty-free businesses like those on PETA's list of companies that don't test on animals. Realizing this, some unscrupulous companies are concealing the whole truth from consumers about their animal testing policies, but you shouldn't buy their propaganda—or their products.
Recently, for instance, Shiseido announced that it would mostly stop testing on animals. While eliminating animal tests is welcome, the company added that it would continue to test ingredients on animals "where it is required by law." So money spent on Shiseido products will continue to fund cruel testing on animals in countries such as China, where animal testing is still required by the government (although PETA's working to change that, too)—meaning that the company has not eliminated animal testing entirely.
Mary Kay is another corporation that seems to be playing word games with its customers, claiming that it doesn't "conduct" animal testing. Yet while Mary Kay might not perform the tests itself, the company does pay the Chinese government to test its products on animals.
PETA has also repeatedly contacted a number of other companies that refuse to reveal their animal testing policies. These companies—which should not be considered cruelty-free until they make a clear statement on animal testing—include the following:
By refusing to support companies that test on animals, we leverage our collective buying power to send a distinct message that testing on animals for cosmetics is unacceptable. To make sure that you're shopping truly cruelty-free, please check the online listing of companies that do and that don't test on animals or order your free copy of PETA's first-ever global cruelty-free shopping guide!
Written by PETA
Update: The European Commission has confirmed that it will uphold the original March 2013 deadline for the ban on the sale, within the European Union (EU), of any cosmetics or cosmetics ingredients that have been tested on animals. This marketing ban means that companies all around the world that want to sell cosmetics in Europe will have to abandon animal testing for cosmetics that they want to sell in the EU. The decision follows vigorous campaigning by PETA and its international affiliates that included public protests, phone calls, and more than 20,000 e-mails. New Commissioner Tonio Borg met with PETA U.K. to deliver the news personally, and the organization has sent a huge bouquet of flowers to the commission in thanks.
Originally posted on September 22nd, 2011:
PETA friend and animal advocate extraordinaire Pamela Anderson has written to European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli urging him to honor the original 2013 deadline for banning the sale of cosmetics in the European Union that have been tested on animals. The European Commission is considering delaying the deadline for years—and perhaps indefinitely.
In her letter, Pamela states, "I love cosmetics, but there's no reason for animals to suffer for lip gloss and eye-liner; those cruel tests are from another era." She adds: "Today, there are effective and 100 percent humane non-animal testing methods. We also already know thousands of ingredients that have a long history of safe use. Hundreds of manufacturers have already been using them for years! Please, don't turn back the clock."
Please join Pamela in calling on the European Commission to stick to the 2013 deadline.
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.
If you have a general question for PETA and would like a response, please e-mail Info@peta.org. If you need to report cruelty to an animal, please click here. If you are reporting an animal in imminent danger and know where to find the animal and if the abuse is taking place right now, please call your local police department. If the police are unresponsive, please call PETA immediately at 757-622-7382 and press 2.
Follow PETA on Twitter!