> it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly

> it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly unreasonable. I strongly disagree. A movie where a horse was accidentally impaled and subsequently euthanized due to that injury at any point during production or under contract should not get to make and advertise the claim "No Animals Were Harmed in the Making of This Film," and that claim be certified by an organization that's only purpose is to grant such a disclaimer, because the claim would then be patently false. Quite obviously, in very many and possibly most if not all cases, "No Animals Were Harmed" is a lie used in I would think all cases to prevent the production from losing money. Personally, I have no trouble spotting this as immoral behavior. IMO the American Humane Association should be shuttered, and any subsequent false of use of that label should come down to false advertising and cruelty to animals prosecutions. Making a movie, especially those with animals, takes a lot of people, so any idiot involved thinking secrets can be kept can attempt to keep them without the need of any fake oversight organization.