Tag Archives: Procter and Gamble

P&G still tests on animals

Posted on by
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 by
12

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.