Everyone loves bunnies, right? But do all bunnies deserve our love? For instance, what about those adorable bunny logos used as animal testing indicators? Are they really to be trusted?
I decided to do a little rabbit hunting, and you may be surprised at what I found. There are 3 common animal testing logos seen on many personal care products and cosmetics, but they each have a slightly different message. I’m not a scientist, but I’ve put together a chart with some bare basics information.
Bottom line is this. It is better to buy a product donning at least one of these logos than none at all. Any effort towards minimizing product testing on animals is a good thing. However, there are a few noteworthy differences between these three organizations.
Choose Cruelty Free is an independent, nonprofit organization that has certified over 250 brands. What I like about them is their refusal to accredit cruelty-free brands if they are owned or related to companies that do conduct animal testing . They guarantee that their brands along with their ingredient suppliers do not test on animals, and they require legally binding contracts stating so.
Although Choose Cruelty Free is based in Australia, you will see many products in the US with their stamp of approval. Their aesthetic may be a bunny, but their passion is a lion.
Leaping Bunny is an alliance of 8 animal protection groups working together to make shopping for cruelty-free products easier and more trustworthy. They have certified over 600 brands. Like Choose Cruelty Free, they also require companies to show proof that their ingredient suppliers do not test on animals. In addition, Leaping Bunny restricts its companies from distributing products in foreign markets that require animal testing.
PETA sponsors the program Beauty Without Bunnies, which has certified over 1900 brands. The fact that so many companies don the PETA logo indicates that its criteria are less strict that Leaping Bunny and Choose Cruelty Free. Applicants fill out a questionnaire and sign a statement of assurance, but no in-depth monitoring is performed. Most troubling to me, however, is that brands are not rejected if they claim they do not test animals “except when required by law.” That’s a pretty big loophole.