Author: Kristin Stone

Our campaign partners

                            

Our corporate partners

 

Modern non-animal tests represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer to ensure the safety of new cosmetic products and ingredients. These alternatives tests are often quicker, cheaper and more reliable than outdated animal tests, producing results that are more relevant to humans and better able to predict how cosmetic chemicals will react in the human body.

More than 40 non-animal tests have been validated for use. For example, there are a number of skin tests available that use human reconstructed skin, such as EpiDerm and EPISKIN, as wells as the “3T3 NRU” test for sunlight-induced “phototoxicity,” and the Bovine Cornea Opacity and Permeability test for eye corrosion.

The road to full replacement

Some simple animal tests can be replaced by a single cell culture alternative. However, replacement of more complex animal tests that need to take account of potential effects on the whole body requires an integrated testing strategy. This means instead of replacing them with one single test, a combination of molecular, genetic, cell and tissue tests are used. Scientists divide the human body according to its various cell types (brain, skin, lung, liver, etc.) and each of these cell types is then individually tested in tissue culture systems. Then, to reconstruct the whole body scenario again, cutting-edge computer models are used to relate the test results to expected real-world conditions for a living, breathing human being.

A complete list of validated and/or accepted alternative methods and testing strategies is available on the HSI partner site AltTox.org.

Validation & regulatory acceptance

Government authorities and companies will accept alternative testing methods only after they have been scientifically “validated.” The aim of validation is to show the test to be relevant for its intended purpose, such as identifying chemicals that can irritate the skin or eyes, and able to produce consistent results within and between laboratories. Criteria and processes for test method validation have been developed by regional Centres for the Validation of Alternative Methods (CVAMs) in Europe, the United States, Japan, Korea and Brazil, and at the global level through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Validation and regulatory acceptance is slow and expensive, sometimes taking more than 10 years and millions of dollars for a single alternative method. However, once an alternative method has been accepted as an official OECD Test Guideline, all OECD member countries and adherents to its policy on “mutual acceptance of data” are required to accept the results of the test without question.

Learn more about HSI’s work to modernize global guidelines for cosmetics, chemicals and drugs. And visit our Advancing Humane Science page.

Our campaign partners

Our corporate partners

 

 

The Asia Canine Protection Alliance is an international alliance of animal protection organisations formed by Humane Society International, Animals Asia Foundation, Soi Dog Foundation, and Change For Animals Foundation. We are committed to improving the welfare of dogs in the region by ending the illegal trade in dogs for human consumption—a trade which represents both a severe and prevalent animal welfare concern in the region, and a risk to human health by facilitating the transmission of rabies and other diseases, such as cholera and trichinellosis.

ACPA’s focus is to end the illegal trade of dogs from Thailand and Laos into Vietnam, where an estimated 5 million dogs are slaughtered every year for human consumption, by tackling both the supply of dogs from Thailand and Laos, and the demand for dogs for consumption in Vietnam. Conservative estimates suggest that every year, over 80,000 dogs continue to be traded from Thailand and Laos to help supply the demand for dog meat in Vietnam, and numerous investigations have documented the severe cruelty inherent in all stages of the dog meat trade- sourcing, transport, sale and slaughter.

Our mission is to provide the people and governments of Asia with the required support and expertise to eliminate rabies and other communicable diseases, by ending the trade in dogs for human consumption and providing humane and sustainable dog population management solutions.

The issue: the illegal trade in dogs for human consumption

Whilst dog meat is consumed in several regions of the world, including parts of Europe, Russia, Africa and Latin America, the availability of dog meat is most widespread in Asia, where the welfare concern is greatest due to the large numbers of dogs being taken from the street or sourced from farms, transported long distances and inhumanely slaughtered, to provide for the demand for dog meat.

After being sourced from the streets—either through catching roaming dogs or by stealing pets—the dogs are often transported long distances, often lasting for days, tightly packed into small cages with no food, water or rest. Many die from suffocation, dehydration or heatstroke long before they reach their final destination.

For those who survive, the grueling journey ends at a slaughterhouse, market or restaurant. The method by which dogs are slaughtered varies between countries, provinces, slaughterhouses and restaurants, but hanging, beating, and bleeding out from a cut to the throat or groin are all common ways of killing millions of dogs every year, often in full view of other dogs.

The dog meat trade—a human health risk?

Whereas dogs used to often be eaten for reasons of poverty, increasingly dog meat has become a delicacy, and often consumed for its perceived medicinal properties. However, there is a growing body of evidence highlighting the significant risk the trade, slaughter, and consumption of dogs pose to human health. For example, the trade in dogs for meat has been linked to outbreaks of trichinellosis, cholera and rabies, and slaughtering, butchering, and even consuming, dogs increases people’s exposure to these diseases.

Over recent years in Vietnam, for example, there has been a number of large-scale cholera outbreaks directly linked to the dog meat trade. This has led to warnings from both the Central Bureau of Preventative Health and the World Health Organization (WHO) that the movement of dogs and consumption of dog meat facilitated the spread of the bacteria that causes cholera (Vibrio cholerae), with the WHO stating that eating dog meat was linked to a twenty-fold increase in the risk of contracting the disease.

What role does the dog meat trade have in spreading rabies?

Rabies is a viral disease spread from animals (usually dogs) to humans, which is nearly always fatal. It represents a serious public health and animal welfare problem around the world, but is most commonly found in Asia, where an estimated 39,000 people die of rabies every year.

With rabies remaining endemic in most countries in the region, many of the dogs traded for human consumption are likely to be infected with the disease. The national and international transportation of dogs used for meat means that infections are easily spread. Even in places such as Thailand where dog meat is rarely consumed, the demand for the meat in neighbouring countries provides an economic incentive for traders to transport dogs between provinces. In this way, the unregulated movement of dogs is likely to impede local efforts to eliminate rabies.

The presence of the rabies virus in dogs destined for human consumption has been revealed in studies carried out in slaughterhouses and markets within China, Vietnam and Indonesia; and the risk posed by the dog meat industry to human health is similarly reflected by the reported transmission of rabies to those involved in dog slaughter, butchery and consumption in the Philippines, China and Vietnam.

However, this information isn’t new—throughout Asia where the trade in dogs for meat occurs, it fails to comply with national animal disease prevention measures, and is in breach of rabies control and elimination recommendations by key human and animal health advisory organisations such as the WHO and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and the dog meat trade has specifically been cited as a contributing factor to recent rabies outbreaks in both China and Indonesia in various studies and by the WHO.

What is ACPA doing to end the illegal trade in dogs?

The dog meat trade is a highly contentious and emotive issue in most countries where it is popular, and as a result of mounting national and international concerns for animal welfare, rapidly increasing pet ownership in Asia, and a greater awareness of the human health risks associated with this industry, the opposition towards the production and consumption of dog meat has become increasingly vocal.

However, at present, insufficient resources are allocated to ending the illegal dog meat trade across the region by enforcing existing disease control regulations. This results in the continuation of an industry that causes a significant cost to human health and the suffering of millions of dogs every year.

The Asia Canine Protection Alliance is committed to ending the illegal dog meat trade, and we will do this by ending the supply of dogs and demand for dog meat, by:

• Working with and supporting the governments and local authorities of Thailand, Laos and Vietnam to enforce existing regulations, so as to help ensure these countries’ fulfil their pledge to eliminate rabies by 2020.
• Highlighting the human health risks associated with the trade in and slaughtering, butchery and consumption of dogs.
• Providing humane and sustainable dog population management solutions.
• Promoting responsible pet ownership.
• Encouraging a compassionate attitude towards dogs by highlighting the positive roles they play in society.

As of 2013, there has been increased global attention to the treatment of farm animals, especially the welfare of breeding pigs and egg-laying hens. 

Pigs are intelligent, highly social animals, yet many female breeding pigs in Latin America are treated as piglet-producing units at factory farms that use intensive confinement systems. These sows suffer through rapid cycles of impregnation, giving birth, and nursing. During their four-month pregnancies, many are kept in “gestation crates,” individual metal stalls, so small the animals can’t even turn around. This happens pregnancy after pregnancy for their entire lives, adding up to years of virtual immobilization.

Additionally, tens of millions of egg-laying hens are also confined in small, wire enclosures known as battery cages. Battery cages are so cramped that the hens cannot even fully stretch their wings. Battery cages prevent nearly all normal behavior, including nesting, perching, and dustbathing, all of which are critically important to the hen. These cages also deny the birds normal movement to such an extent that the hens may suffer from physical ailments, including bone, reproductive, and liver problems. 

Victories

HSI welcomes important advances that have taken place both in Latin America and globally towards the elimination of gestation crates and battery cages:

• Shortly after a ban on gestation crates (for all except the first four weeks of pregnancy) came into effect throughout the whole European Union on January 1, Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world announced that gestation crates will be eliminated from its jointly-owned facilities in Mexico by 2022;
• Marriott International, with hotels throughout Latin America, committed to eliminating gestation crates and battery cages from its global pork and egg supply chain by 2018 and 2015, respectively;
• DineEquity, one of the world’s largest full-service restaurant companies and owner of Applebee’s and IHOP, committed to eliminating gestation crates from its global pork supply chain by 2020;
• Several restaurants in Brazil and Costa Rica adopted cage-free egg procurement policies.

Next steps

HSI will continue working closely with food retailers, corporations, and governments throughout Latin America to end the intensive confinement of farm animals in gestation crates and battery cages in the region.

You can stand up for farm animals every time you sit down to eat.  Take a look at our Guide to Meat-Free Meals to learn how you can help.

British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest is one of the last tracts of temperate rainforest on Earth. It is home to thousands of species of plants, birds, and animals—including black bears, grizzlies, and spirit bears. 
 
One might think that here, the bears could live and thrive in peace. But trophy hunters have set their sights on the vulnerable animals, shooting them with rifles and crossbows for entertainment. The unwitting bears are often gunned down near shorelines as they forage for food in the spring and fall, in some cases only days after bear viewing tourist operations have left. 

Ending the killing

Now, Coastal First Nations, conservationists and animal protection organizations are joining forces in a historic campaign to protect the bears of the Great Bear Rainforest.

Shockingly, sport hunting is permitted in the majority of BC’s parks and protected areas. In allowing these hunts, the BC government is acting in direct opposition to the views of the vast majority of BC residents. In fact, more than 78 percent of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunting of bears in the Great Bear Rainforest, according to a recent Ipsos-Reid poll conducted by HSI Canada.

It is appalling to think that even grizzly bears—who are protected from hunting in the U.S.—are routinely killed in the Great Bear Rainforest. Notably, of the 430 grizzly bears killed in BC in 2007, 87 percent were killed by trophy hunters. Black bears are also at risk. The BC Coast has one of greatest diversity of black bears subspecies in North America, ranging from the spirit bear (kermodei subspecies) to the Haida black bear, the largest on the BC Coast.

While hunting of white kermodes is already banned, the gene pool is still being affected by killing black bears who carry the recessive gene for the white phase. As well, trophy hunting of bears is impacting the gene pool by the constant selection of the largest, most robust individuals. For a species that only has young once every two to three years, trophy hunting can be devastating.

Tourism as an alternative

The good news is that bears are worth more alive than dead to coastal economies. One bear watching operation in Knight Inlet grossed more than $3 million alone in direct revenue in 2007—more than all trophy hunting revenue combined. The fact is, each bear killed is one less bear that tourists will pay top dollar to photograph, and viewers come back year after year to watch the same bears and their young as they grow up. Thus, only a total ban on trophy hunting will ensure that bear populations can support the high-end viewing operations that contribute valuable income to coastal communities.

A sea turtle farm opened in the Cayman Islands, an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, in 1968 to breed green sea turtles for local consumption. Today it is also a major tourist attraction, but it appears to have some significant animal welfare issues.

A myriad of problems

An undercover investigation by World Animal Protection (formerly WSPA) produced video footage and photographs that reveal thousands of sea turtles kept in shallow tanks full of dirty water. Visitors are permitted to handle them despite the health risks to both humans and animals. Deprived of the opportunity to migrate, swim and dive through the open ocean, a number have injuries of the type that could result from overcrowding and competition for food.

Take action now to help.

Despite these conditions, the park is a popular destination, especially for cruise ship passengers. Although it is clearly stated on the park’s website and in its education center, visitors may be unaware that the park slaughters turtles for consumption. Turtle meat has been removed from the menu of the park’s restaurant, but the meat and shells from these turtles are still sold locally and to tourists at other island restaurants. This helps to keep the taste and market for sea turtle meat and shell alive and thriving in the region.

Finally, documentation from the government of Costa Rica claims that some eggs used to set up the breeding program at the Cayman Turtle Farm when it first opened were taken illegally from a Costa Rican nature reserve.

Take Action

Conservation programs in the Caribbean and elsewhere are working to protect wild sea turtles from threats on their nesting beaches, reduce pollution and interaction with the fishing industry, and, most importantly, ban international trade in sea turtle products. The Cayman Turtle Farm could join these efforts by improving animal welfare issues while continuing educational programs.

Please sign our petition to end the cruel practice of turtle farming. The Cayman Turtle Farm should not profit from the slaughter of sea turtles, especially if its animals languish in substandard conditions.

About the slaughter

• With more than one million seals killed in the last five years alone, Canada’s commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth.
• It’s a hunt for baby seals. Fully 97 percent of the seals killed in the past five years have been less than three months old, and most have been one month old or less.
• The seals are killed for their fur, most of which is exported for use in international fashion markets. The seal carcasses are normally left on the ice to rot.

Inherent cruelty

• Veterinary experts say Canada’s commercial seal hunt is inherently inhumane because sealers are unable to consitently and effectively employ humane slaughter techniques in the environment in which the slaughter occurs.
• In 2001, an independent veterinary panel studied the commercial seal hunt and concluded in 42 percent of seals examined, there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to even guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning.
• A 2007 study by an international panel of veterinary and zoology experts found a widespread disregard for regulations by Canadian sealers, a failure to monitor the seal hunt by Canadian authorities, high wounding rates in seals that were shot or clubbed, wounded seals left to suffer for protracted periods of time, and sealers failing to ensure animals were dead in 66 percent of cases. The report concluded that both methods of killing seals in Canada–clubbing and shooting–should be prohibited.

An unsustainable kill

• The last time Canadian seal kill levels were as high–a half century ago–the harp seal population was quickly reduced by as much as two thirds.
• Harp seals rely on sea ice to give birth to and nurse their pups, and global warming is fast diminishing ice cover in the Northwest Atlantic. In recent years, hundreds of thousands of seal pups have died when the sea ice melted before they were old enough to survive in open water.
• Independed scientists warn Canada’s commercial seal hunt manamgement plan poses a threat to the survival of seal populations, particularly in light of the impacts of global warming.

A needless slaughter

• The Canadian government estimates between 5000 and 6000 Canadians derive some income from hunting seals. However, sealers are commercial fishermen and they earn, on average, less than 5 percent of their annual incomes from sealing–the remainder comes from fisheries.
• In Newfoundland, where the vast majority of sealers live, income from the seal hunt accounts for less than one percent of the province’s economy.
• Animal protection groups, economists and a number of sealers support a federal buyout of the commercial sealing industry, a program in which sealers would be compensated for their licenses and alternative economic opportunities developed in their communities.
• Humane Society International takes no issue with subsistence seal hunting undertaken by aboriginal people. Our concern is exclusively with commercial seal hunting.

Public opposition

• Nearly 70 percent of Canadians holding an opinion are opposed to the commercial seal hunt, and even higher numbers oppose specific aspects of it, such as killing seal pups (Environics Research, 2005).
• Two thirds of Canadians holding an opinion support foreign nations banning seal products trade, and 67 percent oppose their government speanding public money to lobby foreign governments on behalf of the sealing industry (Pollara 2007).
• Fully 79 percent of American voters oppose Canada’s seal hunt. Close to 80 percent of people in the UK, the Netherlands and France who are aware of the Canadian seal hunt oppose it (Penn, Schoen & Berland, 2002; MORI 2002).

Government response

• In 2013, Taiwan passed a landmark ban on trade in marine mammal products, including seal skins, with an exemption for products of traditional indigenous hunts.
• In 2009, the European Union banned its trade in products of commercial seal hunts, effectively removing a primary market for Canadian seal products.
• In 2009, the Russian government prohibited Russia’s commercial seal slaughter.
• In 2009, the US Senate unanimously approved a resolution calling on Canada to end its commercial seal slaughter and on the EU to pass a total ban on trade in seal products. In 2007, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Canadian seal hunt and urging the Canadian government to end it. 
• In recent years, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama and Slovenia have either ended their trade in seal products, or announced their intentions to do so. The US banned its trade in seal products in 1972.
• In 2006, the Council of Europe passed a resolution calling upon its 46 member states to “promote initiatives aimed at prohibiting trade in seal products.”
• South Africa has prohibited commercial seal hunting for more than a decade.

With the help of our hundreds of thousands of caring supporters, the HSI/HSUS Protect Seals campaign grows ever closer to ending Canada’s commercial seal slaughter forever. Some recent victories:

April 2018: India banned the import of seal fur and skins.

March 2017: Switzerland banned trade in commercial seal products.

October 2016: Canadian parliamentarians admitted that the export value of the commercial seal hunt has plummeted from $18 million in 2004 to just over $300,000, while prices for seal fur declined from more than $100 to less than $20.

June 2016: Our campaign to end commercial sealing by closing markets for their products and reducing prices for seal fur in Canada helped save 330,000 seals from the slaughter.

September 2015: The European Court of Justice rejected a final appeal brought by commercial sealing interests in a case seeking to annul the EU ban on commercial trade in seal products.

September 2015: The European Parliament voted overwhelming in favour (631 to 31) of strengthening the EU ban on commercial trade in seal products.

June 2015: Our campaign to end commercial sealing by closing markets for their products and reducing prices for seal fur in Canada helped save more than 360,000 seals from the slaughter.

April 2015: The Canadian Sealers Association announced it was scaling back its activities and restructuring in light of financial challenges.

April 2015: Carino Company Ltd., Canada’s largest seal fur processor, announced it would purchase no seal fur in 2015, and that it was rejecting an offer of $1 million in government financing for that purpose. The company cited a lack of demand while admitting to warehousing a stockpile of seal furs.

March 2015: EU Advocate General Kokott advised the European Court of Justice to reject an appeal brought by commercial sealing interests and some Inuit representatives. The appeal relates to a 2013 decision by the European General Court, which rejected the appellants’ request to find the legal basis and implementing measures for the EU ban on commercial seal product trade unlawful.

February 2015: The European Commission released a strong proposal to strengthen the European Union ban on seal product trade, closing previous loopholes and appearing to bring it into compliance with recommendations from the World Trade Organization.

January 2015: Armenia adopted a prohibition on commercial trade in harp seal fur.

December 2014: The Norwegian government voted to end subsidies to the Norwegian commercial sealing industry.

September 2014: The Swiss Council of States, the upper house of the Swiss federal legislature, approved a bill to prohibit seal product trade. The decision follows a 2012 vote by the Swiss National Council (the lower house of the federal legislature) in favour of banning seal products.

June 2014: Our campaign to end commercial sealing by closing markets for their products and reducing prices for seal fur in Canada helped save 340,000 seals from the slaughter.

May 2014: The World Trade Organization upheld the right of the European Union to ban trade in products of commercial sealing. The historic ruling was in regards to the Canadian and Norwegian appeal of a 2013 WTO Panel decision in favour of the European Union ban on seal product trade.

April 2014: Canadian Fisheries Minister Gail Shea publicly claims animal protection groups thwarted a trade agreement to sell seal meat in China.

November 2013: The World Trade Organization upheld the right of the European Union to ban trade in products of commercial seal hunts. The landmark decision was detailed in the WTO’s final report regarding the Canadian and Norwegian challenge of the EU ban.

October 2013: UBF Group Inc. was charged with conspiracy to commit a number of acts related to smuggling Canadian seal oil into the United States. An investigation by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found the California-based company was also allegedly illegally marketing more than 3.4 million seal oil capsules to customers located in the U.S., Canada and Vietnam.

October 2013: The Court of Justice of the European Union preserved the European Union’s ban on commercial seal product trade by dismissing an appeal by commercial sealing and fur trade interests and some Inuit representatives. The appeal sought to overturn the European General Court’s 2011 decision that the applicants’ action against the EU ban was inadmissible.

June 2013: A $5,000 reward provided by Humane Society International led to the identification and conviction of the individuals who viciously beat 50 nursing grey seals and their mothers to death in Prince Edward Island.

June 2013: Our campaign to end commercial sealing by closing markets for their products and reducing prices for seal fur in Canada helped save more than 300,000 seals from the slaughter.

April 2013: The European General Court dismissed a case brought by sealing industry groups and some Inuit representatives that sought to overturn the EU ban on seal product trade.

January 2013: Taiwan passed a landmark ban on trade in marine mammal products, including seal skins (with an exemption for products of traditional indigenous hunts).

April 2012: Our campaign to close global markets helped to save more than 300,000 baby seals this year. The Canadian government set a commercial quota of 400,000 harp seals, but to date, fewer than 70,000 have been killed because of the lack of demand for seal fur.

March 2012: Canada’s top seal fur buyer, NuTan Furs, Inc., announced that it would no longer process seal skins, and would instead shift its business to other (non-seal) products. The announcement caused a major shakeup in the sealing industry, leading to more speculation that it could be coming to an end.

February 2012: Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Beijing in February, and it was widely reported in Canadian media that he would lobby for an agreement for Canada to export seal meat to China. Our Chinese partners campaigned hard against this, and no deal was reached.

December 2011: Russia prohibited imports and exports of harp seal fur, closing one of the few remaining markets for the Canadian sealing industry. Sealing and government representatives reacted immediately, noting that Russia had in some years accounted for 90 percent of seal product exports from Canada. Many questioned the future viability of the commercial sealing industry in light of this development. Canada’s second largest seal fur buyer, Carino Company, Ltd., cancelled an order for 100,000 seal furs in 2012, reportedly because of the ban.

April 2011: HSI and The HSUS traveled to the ice floes off Canada’s east coast to bear witness to the commercial seal slaughter. We documented numerous apparent regulatory violations, exposing the cruelty of the commercial seal slaughter to the world. Our campaign begins now to ensure that the 2012 slaughter of baby seals in Canada never happens.

March 2011: HSI traveled to Beijing, China to meet with Chinese government authorities in response to statements made by the Canadian government that a deal had been struck to market edible seal products in China. Authorities assured HSI that no such deal exists, that they had heard the concerns of Chinese residents, and that no processing facility in Canada had been approved to import edible seal products into China.

February 2011: HSI documented the cruelty of Canada’s slaughter of grey seals on Hay Island, a part of the protected Scaterie Island Wilderness Area in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Reduced demand for seal fur this year ensured that nearly 2,000 baby seals survived that slaughter.

February 2011: Humane Society International sent renowned Chinese fashion designer Guo Pei a letter thanking her for rejecting the cruelty inherent in using seal fur. Guo had initially considered using seal fur in a dress design she was creating for Chinese celebrity Dong Qing; however, online messages of concern began pouring in from around the country from Chinese citizens outraged at the prospect of her using the skin of a baby seal. The renowned designer responded in just a few hours by making the responsible and compassionate decision not to use seal fur in her design, pledging never again to use animal fur in her work.

January 2011: Canadian Fisheries Minister Gail Shea announced that China had lifted a restriction on imports of prepared (cooked) edible seal products, which was reported by Canadian media as a victory for the sealing industry. Forty Chinese groups joined with HSI in issuing a statement in response. Local activists then attended a fur fashion show in Beijing at which Minister Shea was attempting to sell seal products, and distributed hundreds of letters formally requesting that she and her sealing industry colleagues leave China and stop attempting to sell seal products to unsuspecting consumers.

December 2010: In early December, HSI and our Taiwanese partner group EAST held a media conference in Taipei to expose the cruelty of Canada’s commercial seal hunt. Several government officials attended the event and confirmed to media that they would seriously consider moving forward with a ban on seal product trade. Many of the top retailers in Taiwan pledged to discontinue sales of seal oil. Twelve television stations covered the conference. HSI also held a media conference in Seoul, South Korea, with our partner group, the Korean Animal Welfare Association, to call for a ban on seal product trade. The media interest was tremendous, with leading news agencies in attendance.

November 2010: HSI held a landmark press conference in Beijing, China to expose the cruelty of the Canadian commercial seal hunt. Thirty leading media outlets from China attended and footage of the commercial seal hunt was broadcast nationally. The resulting media coverage sparked a national outcry in China, and multiple calls for a prohibition on seal products. The Patina Restaurant Group pledged to join the Protect Seals seafood boycott. With more than 40 restaurants in Los Angeles and New York, the Patina Group is one of the most influential restaurant groups in America.

October 2010: Humane Society International and The Humane Society of the United States applauded a landmark ruling by the president of the European General Court to dismiss an application by commercial sealing interests to suspend the European Union Regulation prohibiting seal product trade pending the outcome of a court case. The top two buyers of seal fur from the Canadian commercial seal slaughter were among the applicants in the case.

August 2010: The European Union ban on trade in products of commercial seal hunt entered into force, removing a primary market for Canada’s commercial sealing industry, and changing history for the seals.

May 2010: Footage of the 2010 commercial seal hunt was provided to government representatives in North America and Europe.

April 2010: HSI and The HSUS documented the 2010 commercial seal slaughter, filming more than 250 apparent violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations.