Tag Archives: animal testing

P&G still tests on animals

Posted on
Reply

some-pg-brands

Here is the New Oxford American Dictionary’s definition of “abuse:”

verb |əˈbyoōz| [ trans. ]                                                                                                                                   treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, esp. regularly or repeatedly

noun |əˈbyoōs| |əˈbjus| |əˈbjuːs|                                                                                       cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal

According to IDA, via Change.org,

Despite claims from corporate giant Procter & Gamble (P&G) that it tests products on animals only as a last resort and only when required by law, published scientific papers show that P&G took an already approved ingredient in Herbal Essences shampoo – butylparaben – and force-fed it in massive doses to pregnant animals.

Evidence uncovered by the British animal rights group Uncaged shows that P&G force-fed butylparaben – a preservative used for decades in personal care products – to pregnant rats to see if it harms their developing offspring.

The experiment killed 1,300 animals (100 pregnant mothers and their 1,200 newborns) subjecting the mothers to stressful force-feeding for approximately three weeks, after which they were killed in carbon dioxide gas chambers….

I’ll let you decide for yourself whether or not that constitutes abuse.  P&G insists on its website that animal research is only used “as a last resort” to “ensure materials are safe and effective.  However…

Information on the safety of butylparaben, one of a class of products known as parabens, has already been amply demonstrated at least twenty years earlier. Many of the animals used by P&G for this experiment received massive doses of butylparaben, which, according to the researcher in charge of the study “far exceeds human exposure estimates.”

These tests are not required by any law, and detailed information on this ingredient has been widely available for many years.

P&G has made some progress.  For instance, Iams, the companies pet food brand, has reportedly ended invasive studies on dogs and cats.  But it still keeps hundreds of dogs and cats in a laboratory for non-invasive nutritional studies.  P&G claims that the animals have a humane environment, but the company will not allow PETA representatives inside.  And, as we saw above, invasive tests on animals other than dogs and cats are still carried out.

So, in case you were wondering, Procter and Gamble still conducts cruel and unnecessary tests on animals.

If you object to P&G’s animal testing, the best thing you can do is boycott the company’s products.  Not all of them are tested on animals, but a certain amount of the profits will obviously go to animal testing.  And you may be surprised how many products are made by P&G.  Check the full list here or at P&G’s own site.

 

Links: Hurtful Essences, Iams Cruelty, P&G Kills.

Against cosmetic animal testing? Get the facts on Procter & Gamble

Posted on
8

Procter and Gamble, makes numerous products, including Tide, Dawn, Duracell, Crest, Bounty, Gain, Charmin, Covergirl, to name a few.  Many of us could not imagine going a week without such household staples.  But people who object to animal testing will probably want to avoid them.

Each year, P&G subjects rats, guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, and other animals to a wide array of tests, including skin and eye irritancy, and toxicity.  P&G also conducts experiments with nanoparticles and genetic engineering.

The company claims to strongly support alternatives to animal testing, but its spending does not reflect this claim:  in five days, P&G spends more money on advertising than it claims to have spent in 14 on alternatives to painful and lethal experiments.

This is not a matter of consumer safety versus animal welfare.  As IDA points out,

The fact is that more than 600 companies manufacture safe and effective products that are comparable to Procter & Gamble’s without testing them on animals. Companies with smaller budgets than P&G have been able to develop alternatives to animals while showing a true commitment to eliminating animal testing.

Yes, consumer safety is important. However, safety testing need not involve the harming and killing of animals in order to be effective. The truth is that P&G could stop all animal testing today without hindering anyone’s safety.

Alternatives to the use of animals in product testing already exist.

By the way, cosmetic testing is not required by law in the United States.  In fact, the United Kingdom and the European Union, among others, have already banned cosmetic animal testing.  The U.S. is behind in this area, and the first step to correcting that is educating consumers.

These are the facts about Procter and Gamble’s animal testing policies.  How you react to this information is your choice.  You may want to boycott P&G’s products or fire off a polite but firm letter to the company.  Remember, as a consumer in a free market, you have an important influence.

For more info on P&G’s animal testing, visit P&G Kills.  If you are interested in boycotting P&G, a list of its products can be found here, and on the company’s website.

In addition, CaringConsumer.com offers a complete listing of cruelty free products.

 

EU phases out cosmetic animal testing

Posted on
Reply

Animal lovers are celebrating the enforcement of the European Union’s ban on using animals to test cosmetics for skin and eye irritancy, sensitivity to light, corrosivity, absorption through the skin and genetic and acute toxicity, whether or not there are alternatives available. This is a great victory for animal welfare and animal rights campaigners, but, unfortunately, it places the United States even farther behind the EU in that area. While vivisection for medical and “scientific” research will take longer to phase out, there is no reason we should not eliminate unneccesary and cruel cosmetic animal testing.

I’m sure many people would be surprised to know how many household products are tested on animals. It is not difficult to learn about the evils of vivisection, however. Even if you are not a supporter of PETA, you may be wondering what you can do to end this practice.

While public protests may not be your style, you can exercise your power as a conscientious consumer by avoiding animal-tested products. Visist CaringConsumer.org to view PETA’s list of companies that do and don’t test on animals, or check LeapingBunny.org for companies certified by Leaping Bunny as cruelty free. Two examples of cruelty-free products are Seventh Generation (cleaning products, detergent, etc.) and Mrs. Meyers Clean Day (cleaning products).

In order to fight animal research, you may want to consider not donating to charities that support vivisection. Certain prominent environmental organizations actually support animal testing for products like pesticides and insecticides; however, many of these groups are effective at campaigning for environmental issues, even if they ignore animal rights concerns. In addition, many medical research companies use vivisection. While some experiments are to test new theories, many, such as those that force chimpanzees to inhale tobacco smoke or alcohol, are unnecessary. Furthermore, animals’ bodies are different from humans,’ so research on animals is not always reliable.

Whether or not you believe that animal experimentation is acceptable under certain circumstances, it is a good idea to be educated about this issue.

To learn more about PETA’s campaign against animal testing, you can visit StopAnimalTests.com.