But it was a great appeal
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:
A firm called In Vitro International enlisted the aid of
the Doris Day Animal League and the Animal Welfare Institute in
late April as it awaited a ruling from the U.S. Department of
Transportation as to whether a non-animal test it developed to mea-
sure chemical corrosivity could be used as a substitute for the tradi-
tional skin burn test on rabbits. Literature apparently originating
with IVI, reprinted verbatim by AWI and colorfully amplified by
DDAL, suggested that “tens of thousands of rabbits” would be sub-
jected to the painful skin burn tests this summer so that U.S. chemi-
cal manufacturers could comply with a voluntary international
labeling standard recommended by the United Nations and ratified
by DOT, to take effect on October 1.
When DOT approved the IVI alternative test on April 30,
DDAL immmediately issued a press release claiming credit for the
“victory.” But as one leader in the alternatives field told ANIMAL
PEOPLE, the release was, “Not quite the whole story.” Checking
with a variety of animal protection and chemical industry lobbyists,
ANIMAL PEOPLE learned that most U.S. chemical manufactur-
ers performed the tests necessary to comply with the U.N. labeling
standard years ago––decades ago in some cases. Further, most of
the chemical industry including the powerful Chemical
Manufacturers Association supported the IVI application. No one
ANIMAL PEOPLE contacted could identify any substantive oppo-
sition. Apparently, the DOT approval was a foregone conclusion
(whether or not IVI knew it) before any of the alerts to activists
were ever issued––which is why several other animal protection
groups who knew about the application did not become involved.
