Hubbry Logo
Save RalphSave RalphMain
Open search
Save Ralph
Community hub
Save Ralph
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Save Ralph
Save Ralph
Save Ralph
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Save Ralph
Promotional release poster
Directed bySpencer Susser
Written bySpencer Susser
Produced by
  • Spencer Susser
  • Jeff Vespa
  • Lisa Arianna
  • Alldayeveryday
Starring
CinematographyTristan Oliver
Edited bySpencer Susser
Animation byTobias Fouracre
Production
companies
Distributed byHumane Society International
Release date
  • April 6, 2021 (2021-04-06)
Running time
4 minutes
Countries
  • Australia
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
LanguageEnglish

Save Ralph is an Australian-American-British stop motion animated mockumentary short film written and directed by Spencer Susser. It stars Taika Waititi, Ricky Gervais, Zac Efron, Olivia Munn, Pom Klementieff, Tricia Helfer, and Rodrigo Santoro. The plot follows an interview with Ralph (Waititi), a rabbit who details his life as he is used for animal testing and the damages it has caused to his body. Produced by Jeff Vespa, the 4-minute short film was released by Humane Society International on April 6, 2021, to critical acclaim. It is an international co-production of Australia, United States and United Kingdom.

Plot

[edit]

Ralph is a rabbit. Speaking with Humane Society International for a documentary, he talks about his life as a "tester" for cosmetic products. Ralph tells the production crew how he is blind in one eye, partially deaf and has chemical burns on his back that are still tender and sting if he breathes or moves a certain way. While preparing for work, Ralph explains with a sad tone how he does not necessarily care about his life, as he feels sacrificing his body to help humans is worth it. At a laboratory, Ralph's rabbit friends beg for the production crew to free them from their trials as Ralph is injected with an unknown chemical into his only working eye. Now completely blind and visibly in pain, Ralph says his final remarks; without animal testing, he would be out in a field "like a normal rabbit". As the video ends, Ralph gives a worried thumbs-up towards the camera, painfully claiming "It's all good".

Voice cast

[edit]
Taika Waititi and George Lopez voice Ralph in the English and Spanish dubs, respectively.

In the Spanish and French dubs, George Lopez and Pom Klementieff lend their voices as Ralph respectively. Additionally, Santoro, Wilmer Valderrama, Denis Villeneuve, and Rosario Dawson also appear in the Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Vietnamese iterations.[1][2]

Production

[edit]

The animated project Save Ralph was announced on March 24, 2021, "conceived as part of the #SaveRalph campaign", in an effort from Humane Society International to ban animal testing around the world.[3] That same day, a teaser video for the short film was released, with actor Taika Waititi sharing the official promotional poster for the film and writing on Twitter that the project was "a cool thing that is coming soon. If you don't watch it and love it then you hate animals and we can't be friends anymore. #SaveRalph".[4][5]

The models of each character were hand-made and created by puppet maker Andy Gent from Arch Model Studio based in United Kingdom, who said that the process of creating Ralph took over four months and covering him in fur took five weeks.[6] On producing the short film, Jeff Vespa said he wanted to create a project where people would want to watch and learn about the dangers of animal testing, deciding an animated film would be the best approach. In casting an actor to portray Ralph, Spencer said the first person he contacted was Waititi, who quickly agreed to star.[7] Filming for the short took place over 50 days, with each day accounting for the making of approximately four seconds of the film.[6]

Reception

[edit]

Upon its release, Save Ralph was met with critical acclaim. From /Film, Ben Pearson praised the high level of detail in the short and compared the characters' designs to those in the 2009 film Fantastic Mr. Fox, writing that the film was "disturbing and heartbreaking and manipulative and powerful, all at the same time."[8] Josh Weiss, writing for Syfy Wire, gave positive remarks to the voice acting and humor, stating that "Waititi once again proves that he is among the most prolific entertainers working today".[2] For Animation Magazine, Mercedes Milligan complimented the story's main message and referred to the short itself as "powerful".[9]

Save Ralph won the Grand Prix for Good award at the 69th Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in 2022. The award recognises creative work that benefits the world at large.[10][11]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Save Ralph

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Save Ralph is a 2021 stop-motion animated short film written and directed by Spencer Susser, produced by Humane Society International as part of its #SaveRalph campaign to end for worldwide. The film centers on , a laboratory voiced by , who is interviewed about his daily routine enduring toxicity tests, blinding , and other procedures for and lipstick safety assessments, presented in a satirical style that underscores the ethical concerns of such practices. Featuring a voice cast including as the interviewer, as Ralph's cousin Bobby, and as lab rabbit , the production employed dark humor and celebrity appeal to humanize the animals involved, with regional versions using local actors like for Latin American audiences. Released on , the film garnered over millions of views and contributed to legislative momentum, including bans on sales of animal-tested in four U.S. states and advocacy for the federal Humane Cosmetics Act. The short received critical acclaim for its and message, earning the Grand Prix for Good at the 2022 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, two , and a place on the shortlist for Best Animated Short Film, though it highlighted debates on the balance between and product safety validation through non-animal alternatives.

Production

Development and creation

Humane Society International commissioned Save Ralph in 2020 as a central element of its #SaveRalph global campaign to prohibit cosmetic animal testing worldwide, targeting countries where such practices continued despite regulatory progress elsewhere. The initiative responded to ongoing testing in jurisdictions lacking comprehensive bans, building on precedents like the European Union's prohibition on animal testing of finished cosmetic products effective September 11, 2004. Funding originated from HSI's advocacy resources, positioning the film as a tool to mobilize public and policymaker support for legislative change. Spencer Susser was brought on as writer and director, initiating work on the project in 2020 amid that influenced remote collaboration aspects. Produced by Jeff Vespa through entities including Alldayeveryday Productions and in partnership with HSI, the effort prioritized advocacy efficacy over commercial aims. Susser's vision centered on a format to humanize the animal testing experience, selecting stop-motion animation for its capacity to convey physical realism and emotional weight, as he noted the need for the protagonist to "feel real" in representing actual laboratory animals. This stylistic choice aimed to differentiate the film from conventional advocacy videos, enhancing its potential to drive empathy and action against industry practices.

Technical aspects and animation

Save Ralph employs stop-motion animation, utilizing handcrafted physical s for the anthropomorphic rabbit and supporting characters, alongside custom-built sets mimicking testing laboratories. This technique involves capturing thousands of individual frames by incrementally adjusting the models' positions, creating fluid motion that underscores the tangible, physical nature of the depicted experiments. The production, handled by London-based Arch Model Maker, focused on intricate detailing to convey realism in the animals' modeled injuries, such as scarred tissue and impaired features achieved through specialized puppet modifications rather than digital effects. The film's runtime totals approximately four minutes, enabling a concise yet impactful of its advocacy message within the constraints of a non-profit initiative funded by Humane Society International. Completed in early 2021 ahead of its release, the process prioritized efficiency, leveraging practical effects to simulate the aftermath of tests—like blindness and —on the models, thereby avoiding reliance on CGI while amplifying the advocacy's call for empirical alternatives to animal-based methods. This hands-on approach, as noted in production insights, fosters a visceral viewer connection to the causal consequences of testing practices, aligning technical choices with the goal of promoting innovation.

Voice cast and contributions

The principal voice cast of Save Ralph centers on as Ralph, the laboratory rabbit who narrates his experiences as a tester in a style interview. Supporting roles feature as Bobby, a fellow rabbit; as the interviewer; as Marshmallow, another rabbit; ; and as Cottonballs, a . These actors' involvement, drawn from a multinational lineup, leveraged their established fame to extend the short film's visibility beyond niche advocacy audiences.
ActorRole
Taika WaititiRalph (rabbit)
Zac EfronBobby (rabbit)
Ricky GervaisInterviewer
Olivia MunnMarshmallow (rabbit)
Tricia HelferCottonballs (hamster)
Pom KlementieffLab animal
Celebrities contributed their voices voluntarily as endorsements aligned with animal welfare causes, rather than as compensated performances in a commercial production. For instance, Gervais and Munn have publicly advocated against animal exploitation in industries like cosmetics, enhancing the film's credibility within activist circles. Voice recordings occurred remotely in early 2021, facilitating participation from actors across different locations during ongoing COVID-19 restrictions. This approach minimized logistical barriers while harnessing star power to promote Humane Society International's campaign against animal testing.

Content

Plot summary

is presented as a mockumentary-style conducted with , a serving as a test subject in a . details his routine, starting with tests for products like , which induce . He then demonstrates eye irritation testing involving chemical drops, resulting in blindness in one eye and in one ear from prior procedures. Ralph introduces his living quarters with his family, including young rabbits, and proceeds to the lab where he interacts with colleagues: a afflicted with tumors from repeated dosing, a dog rendered blind through assessments, and a experiencing fur loss. Despite visible physical deformities such as chemical burns and organ damage, Ralph conveys enthusiasm for his role in ensuring product safety. The sequence culminates in Ralph advocating for the continuation of such testing practices while ironically aligning with a call for cruelty-free product alternatives.

Core themes and advocacy elements

The film centers on the advocacy position that animal testing for cosmetics represents unnecessary infliction of suffering on sentient beings, with Humane Society International estimating that approximately 500,000 animals endure and perish annually from such procedures globally before regulatory prohibitions took effect in many jurisdictions. This portrayal frames the practice as ethically indefensible given the availability of alternative testing methods and the non-essential nature of cosmetic products. Through its mockumentary format, Save Ralph deploys anthropomorphism—depicting the test subject rabbit Ralph as a relatable, articulate figure—to foster viewer identification with laboratory animals, amplifying emotional resonance over detached clinical description. Employing dark humor alongside graphic depictions of harm, such as blindness and organ damage inflicted on Ralph, the narrative draws implicit parallels to historical practices now universally condemned, underscoring that cosmetic testing persists despite bans in over 40 countries by 2021, including the entire , , , , and others. This advocacy element positions regulatory progress as evidence of viable alternatives, urging expansion to remaining markets where testing remains legal. The film's structure as a faux intentionally leverages these techniques to humanize victims, transforming abstract statistics into visceral personal stories to propel anti-testing sentiment. As the cornerstone of HSI's #SaveRalph initiative, launched in 2021, the production explicitly promotes global legislative bans on cosmetic while encouraging consumer selection of certified products to diminish market demand. The campaign targeted 16 nations comprising half the global cosmetics market, utilizing the film's viral reach—over 100 million views—to advocate for policy shifts akin to those achieving prohibitions in prior adopters. By conflating individual purchasing power with systemic change, it frames of tested products as a direct mechanism to eradicate the practice, emphasizing as a catalyst for industry-wide reform.

Release and Promotion

Premiere and distribution

Save Ralph world premiered on April 6, 2021, through a live online event hosted on YouTube, featuring the short film followed by a panel discussion with its creators. The release was orchestrated by Humane Society International (HSI) via its official YouTube channel and website, enabling immediate global access without geographic restrictions in markets where animal testing for cosmetics remained legal, such as China. This digital-first strategy aligned with HSI's advocacy goals, prioritizing widespread dissemination over commercial exhibition. Lacking a theatrical rollout typical of feature films, the four-minute stop-motion short was distributed freely online to amplify its message against cosmetic , leveraging video-sharing platforms for organic sharing and viral growth. HSI positioned the premiere to coincide with international pressure campaigns targeting jurisdictions without bans, facilitating petitions and drives in regions like where regulatory hurdles persisted. The film was later presented at the Lions International Festival of Creativity in June 2022, screened for advertising and creative industry audiences to influence policy discourse and corporate practices, rather than general public viewing. This selective event-based distribution complemented its primary online availability, focusing on targeted exposure to decision-makers without paid broadcasting or streaming partnerships.

Marketing campaign

The #SaveRalph marketing campaign, led by Humane Society International, linked the film's release to targeted advocacy for banning in across 16 countries accounting for roughly 50% of the global market. Petitions integrated with the #SaveRalph urged regulatory changes in these holdout nations, building on prior bans like the European Union's 2013 prohibition on selling animal-tested within its borders. Celebrity partnerships amplified reach, with figures such as , , and sharing dubbed versions of the film on to evoke discomfort with testing procedures and drive signatures exceeding 3 million, alongside calls for consumer boycotts of implicated brands. Over 100 influencers and actors leveraged their platforms for similar promotions, contributing to 440 million TikTok views and 100 million total online impressions. The strategy emphasized cosmetics-specific testing, avoiding conflation with medical necessities, and timed releases to coincide with legislative windows in priority markets, fostering viral momentum through and shares that highlighted the film's style to underscore ongoing industry practices.

Reception and Impact

Critical and public reception

Upon its April 2021 release, Save Ralph garnered acclaim from film critics for its meticulous stop-motion animation and Taika Waititi's charismatic, world-weary voice performance as the titular rabbit. Animation World Network described the short as delivering an "emotional punch," praising its craftsmanship in conveying the horrors of through a format. Creative Review highlighted how the film's stark visuals effectively spotlighted the "harsh realities" of laboratory conditions, crediting director Spencer Susser and Andy Gent for blending humor with heartbreak. Audience reception was similarly enthusiastic, with the short achieving over 100 million online views and 440 million impressions on within weeks, driven by its viral discomfort-inducing narrative and celebrity voices including Waititi, , and . User ratings averaged 8.4 out of 10 on from over 6,600 votes, with reviewers calling it a "simple but effective" PSA that provoked strong for test subjects. In animal rights communities, it fostered positive sentiment, spurring more than 3 million signatures on petitions to ban cosmetic globally. Views on its persuasive power were mixed, with high emotional resonance acknowledged but some questioning its simplification of pharmaceutical and safety testing protocols. While the film's graphic depictions elicited visceral reactions—described by viewers as "shaken to the core"—critics and online discussions noted potential for manipulative framing, as it focused on testing while glossing over regulatory contexts where animal models remain standard for human .

Awards and recognition

Save Ralph garnered recognition primarily within , , and -oriented awards circuits, reflecting acclaim for its creative execution and thematic advocacy against . At the Annecy International Animated Film Festival in 2022, the film won the Cristal for Best Commissioned Film, honoring its stop-motion animation and commissioned production quality. It also secured the Grand Prix for Good at the 2022 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, the top honor for nonprofit campaigns, acknowledging its effectiveness in public service messaging. In design and honors, Save Ralph received a Yellow Pencil from the D&AD Awards in 2022 for Animation Production Design, produced by Arch Film Studio, validating its technical craftsmanship in stop-motion techniques. The film earned the Annie Award for Best Sponsored in 2023, recognizing excellence in sponsored content . Despite these accolades, Save Ralph did not receive major cinematic awards such as an Academy Award nomination, attributable to its short format, focus, and competition in the Best Animated Short category; it was shortlisted for the 95th Oscars in 2022 but did not advance to nomination. It received a nomination for Best Public Service & Activism Video at the 26th Annual , further affirming its impact in digital spaces. No significant new awards have emerged post-2023, though its prior wins continue to be cited in animal rights campaigns for awareness-raising efficacy.

Influence on policy and public awareness

The release of Save Ralph in April 2021 coincided with ongoing advocacy efforts by Humane Society International (HSI) to end , amplifying discussions in jurisdictions without bans, such as , where the film was explicitly tied to campaigns urging legislative action. In , remains legal for domestic sales, though industry groups like Cosmetics Alliance Canada acknowledged the film's role in spurring dialogue, with work on potential restrictions continuing as of 2021 without subsequent bans enacted. Similarly, China's regulatory update on May 1, 2021, exempted imported "general " (e.g., shampoos, lotions) from mandatory if alternative safety data is provided, reducing requirements amid broader global pressure for non-animal methods, though no evidence attributes this shift directly to the film. By 2025, no major international bans on have been verifiably caused by Save Ralph, with policy changes reflecting pre-existing trends toward alternatives like testing rather than isolated advocacy impacts. On public awareness, the film's viral reach—garnering millions of views shortly after —elevated visibility of testing practices, positioning it as a key tool in HSI's campaign to highlight alternatives' viability. Consumer surveys post-2021 indicate sustained growth in preferences for products, with 73.9% of respondents in a 2023 study expressing intent to purchase such items, driven by ethical concerns amid market expansion from $7.7 billion in 2025 projections. However, this aligns with longer-term trends, as earlier data showed 35% of consumers seeking labels by 2019, suggesting the film reinforced rather than initiated shifts, with limited longitudinal studies isolating its effects amid competing factors like regulatory easing and brand marketing. No comprehensive empirical data as of 2025 credits Save Ralph with transformative long-term behavioral changes beyond heightened short-term discourse.

Criticisms and Broader Context

Artistic and narrative critiques

Critics have pointed to the film's reliance on anthropomorphic animals, particularly the endearing portrayal of the , as a form of emotional manipulation that prioritizes sentimental appeal over substantive nuance in depicting . A viewer review likened this approach to "weepy" charity advertisements, arguing it guilt-trips audiences into emotional responses without addressing broader contexts like necessary . This technique, while effective for , risks reducing complex ethical and scientific debates to simplistic , potentially fostering outrage without encouraging critical examination of alternatives or regulatory frameworks. The structure, constrained to a four-minute runtime, has been faulted for oversimplifying conditions and ethical trade-offs inherent in testing protocols. One assessment contended that the topic "cannot be explained in two sentences or four minutes of ," highlighting how the story glosses over viable alternatives, limits on , and the spectrum of testing purposes beyond . By focusing narrowly on Ralph's personal hardships without acknowledging welfare standards or phased regulations in many jurisdictions, the format amplifies a one-sided victim , sidelining discussions of justified applications such as pharmaceutical safety validations. The ironic humor embedded in the —evident in Ralph's defense of his role amid visible afflictions—has drawn scrutiny for potentially diluting the subject matter's gravity. While intended to underscore , this tonal choice may trivialize real-world , appealing primarily to audiences predisposed to anti-testing sentiments while distancing stakeholders familiar with industry practices. Such elements reinforce a propagandistic bent, as noted in analyses framing the film as myth-making that leverages familiarity and emotional heuristics over balanced discourse.

Scientific debates on animal testing

In the context of cosmetics , animal testing has proven largely dispensable following the validation of alternatives in the 2010s, including reconstructed human models for and corneal equivalents for eye damage, which demonstrate predictivity rates exceeding 80% concordance with human outcomes in guideline studies. These methods, such as the EpiSkin adopted in 2010, address primary endpoints like acute local without requiring whole-organism exposure, enabling the European Union's 2013 ban on cosmetic animal testing while maintaining safety assurances for non-systemic effects. Empirical post-ban data from the EU indicate no surge in consumer adverse events attributable to untested ingredients, underscoring the sufficiency of these alternatives for low-risk product categories. However, extrapolating cosmetics-focused critiques to pharmaceutical development overlooks animal models' established role in detecting systemic toxicities, where systems falter on complex, multi-organ interactions. For instance, historical analyses reveal that has causally contributed to identifying rare but severe adverse effects, such as those evaded in early evaluations due to protocol omissions rather than model inadequacy; retrospective studies confirmed teratogenicity mirroring human when pregnant models were employed. FDA-mandated preclinical have historically filtered out approximately 50% of potential human toxicities before clinical trials, reducing post-market withdrawals compared to pre-regulatory eras lacking such screens, though concordance remains imperfect at 40-70% across species for idiosyncratic reactions. Emerging non-animal technologies like systems replicate tissue-level responses with human cells but exhibit limitations in scalability and endpoint complexity, failing to predict chronic or low-dose toxicities in up to 60% of cases involving immune or metabolic cascades, per validation trials against historical animal-human data. These platforms excel in isolated organ but underperform for holistic profiling, with empirical failure rates in preclinical higher than integrated animal models for endpoints like carcinogenicity or , necessitating hybrid approaches to mitigate under-detection risks. Full regulatory replacement remains constrained by gaps in validating rare event detection, as evidenced by ongoing FDA roadmaps prioritizing stepwise reduction over outright bans to preserve causal margins.

Economic and regulatory perspectives

The global cosmetics industry, valued at approximately $336 billion in 2024, relies on safety testing protocols to mitigate liability risks from product-related adverse reactions, with animal testing serving as one established method despite available alternatives. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not mandate animal testing for cosmetics but accepts it as valid substantiation for safety claims, allowing manufacturers to import and sell products tested abroad to meet international market requirements, such as those previously enforced in China. This contrasts with the European Union, where a comprehensive ban prohibits the sale of cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world since March 11, 2013, under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, prompting U.S.-based firms to offshore testing to non-banned jurisdictions for global compliance while avoiding domestic bans on sales. Critics of advocacy films like Save Ralph argue that such portrayals overlook regulatory trade-offs, including the potential for slowed innovation if unvalidated alternatives replace animal models without equivalent predictive reliability for human outcomes, thereby increasing economic costs from product failures or litigation. Animal testing, while expensive—often exceeding $100,000 per study—provides causal data on toxicity that supports liability defenses in the U.S., where tort claims can exceed millions; abrupt bans risk shifting these burdens to consumers via higher prices or reduced product diversity, particularly in a market where non-animal methods like in vitro assays cost far less but may require FDA validation for equivalence. Perspectives emphasizing economic freedom and human prioritization, often aligned with conservative analyses, contend that absolute ethical prohibitions ignore sector-specific job dependencies in contract research organizations, though quantitative data on cosmetics-related employment losses remains limited due to the industry's pivot toward alternatives. Following the film's 2020 release, select cosmetics firms accelerated cruelty-free certifications to capture growing consumer demand for ethical labeling, enabling market differentiation without regulatory mandates; however, this shift has not eliminated offshoring for exporters targeting non-banned markets, preserving economic incentives for testing in regions like parts of . Regulatory inertia in the U.S., absent a federal sales ban, underscores ongoing tensions between ethical imperatives and practical validation needs, with FDA encouragement of alternatives failing to fully displace animal data in liability-sensitive contexts.

References

  1. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/blog/hsis-save-ralph-lovable-spokesbunny-makes-case-ending-cosmetics-animal-testing
  2. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14220316/
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G393z8s8nFY
  4. https://variety.com/2021/artisans/news/save-ralph-campaign-video-1234968531/
  5. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/humane-society-internationals-save-ralph-animated-film-awarded-grand-prix-good-cannes-lions
  6. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14220316/awards/
  7. https://www.awn.com/animationworld/oscar-shortlisted-save-ralph-delivers-emotional-punch-about-animal-testing
  8. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/cosmetics/ban-animal-testing_en
  9. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/taika-waititi-ricky-gervais-zac-efron-olivia-munn-and-more-star-humane-society-internationals
  10. https://www.animationmagazine.net/2023/01/how-spencer-susser-and-his-team-put-the-spotlight-on-a-victimized-rabbit-in-the-oscar-short-listed-save-ralph/
  11. https://www.creativereview.co.uk/andy-gent-spencer-susser-save-ralph-humane-society-international-ad/
  12. https://stopmotioncinematographer.com/the-sentient-cinematography-of-save-ralph/
  13. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/save_ralph/cast-and-crew
  14. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14220316/fullcredits/
  15. https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/taika-waititi-humane-society-short-film
  16. https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/save-ralph/
  17. https://hsi.org.au/animal-welfare/animals-in-cosmetics-testing/
  18. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/issue/cosmetics-animal-testing-FAQ
  19. https://www.dandad.org/work/d-ad-awards-archive/save-ralph
  20. https://www.cefimpactmedia.org/case-study/save-ralph/
  21. http://marketinggazette.co.uk/2021/05/11/hsis-save-ralph-campaign-makes-its-way-to-achieving-campaign-targets/
  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCevdpoQGXk
  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxKbbCg36xY
  24. https://www.ctpost.com/business/article/Why-the-Save-Ralph-short-went-viral-16101586.php
  25. https://vegnews.com/ricky-gervais-zac-efron-end-animal-testing
  26. https://vero-asean.com/work/how-saveralph-raised-awareness-of-cosmetics-testing-on-animals-in-southeast-asia/
  27. https://marketinggazette.co.uk/2021/05/11/hsis-save-ralph-campaign-makes-its-way-to-achieving-campaign-targets/
  28. https://www.reddit.com/r/SkincareAddiction/comments/mm09c6/misc_shaken_to_the_core_after_watching_this_short/
  29. https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Save-Ralph-short-film-result-in-any-change-Did-they-stop-using-animals-for-testing
  30. https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/save-ralph-analysis-and-peer-review
  31. https://www.annecyfestival.com/about/archives/2022/award-winners
  32. https://www.looktothestars.org/news/20537-hsls-save-ralph-film-wins-grand-prix-for-good-at-cannes-lions-festival
  33. https://www.adforum.com/award-organization/6650183/showcase/2022/winners
  34. https://www.dandad.org/annual/2022/entry/professional/236329
  35. https://www.adforum.com/award-organization/6650374/showcase/2022/winners
  36. http://press.oscars.org/news/95th-oscarsr-shortlists-10-award-categories-announced
  37. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/save-ralph-nominated-best-public-service-activism-video-26th-annual-webby-awards
  38. https://www.vegnews.com/save-ralph-cannes-award-animal-testing
  39. https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/save-ralph-campaign-ban-animal-cosmetics-testing-in-canada
  40. https://www.cosmeticsalliance.ca/ca-responds-to-hsi-global-save-ralph-campaign-work-continues-to-develop-cosmetic-animal-testing-legislation-in-canada/
  41. https://www.exponent.com/article/new-chinese-cosmetics-regulation-now-force-animal-testing-no-longer-required-general
  42. https://ethicalelephant.com/understanding-china-animal-testing-laws/
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666784323000372
  44. https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/cruelty-free-cosmetics-market.asp
  45. https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/animal-testing-statistics/
  46. https://www.criticker.com/film/Save-Ralph/
  47. https://alittlebithuman.com/you-are-not-immune-to-propaganda/
  48. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14220316/reviews/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35842748/
  50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362058845_Alternative_in_vitro_models_used_in_the_main_safety_tests_of_cosmetic_products_and_new_challenges
  52. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/studies-thalidomides-effects-rodent-embryos-1962-2008
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6978558/
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24645/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9162452/
  56. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48864-3
  57. https://www.fda.gov/files/newsroom/published/roadmap_to_reducing_animal_testing_in_preclinical_safety_studies.pdf
  58. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/cosmetics-market-102614
  59. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/product-testing-cosmetics/animal-testing-cosmetics
  60. https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/leaping-bunny/prohibitions-cosmetics-testing-eu-and-elsewhere
  61. https://www.humaneworld.org/en/news/costs-animal-and-non-animal-testing
  62. https://hub.edubirdie.com/examples/the-effects-of-animal-testing-on-economics/
  63. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/resources-consumers-cosmetics/cosmetics-safety-qa-animal-testing
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.