Just recently I was looking through a magazine called "PETA" (Peoples for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and was shocked to realise that I have several cleaning agents in my house that are produced by firms that test them on animals. One firm in particular is Procter and Gamble. An extract from a PETA leaflet reads: ...
'Each year, thousands of animals die in Procter and Gamble laboratories - victims of painful product tests. Procter and Gamble claim to be committed to eliminating tests on animals, but, after a decade of empty promises, the household, personal care and pharmaceutical product manufacturer continues to poison and kill animals.
'To test products, workers typically force chemicals down animals throats and into their eyes and rub them onto the animals shaved and abraded skin. The animals are left in misery in their cages or forced into restraining devices; usually they are not sedated or given any painkillers at all. Some animals have broken their necks or backs trying to escape.
'More than 550 companies, including large corporations like Gillette and Revlon, ensure their customers' safety by using more accurate non-animal tests. Yet P&G have refused to stop animal tests, even for products that are not required by law to be tested on animals, such as household cleaning agents. Moreover, even though the UK has banned the testing of finished cosmetics products on animals, P&G still conduct animal experiments in other countries on finished products and ingredients that are sold in the UK.
'Animal tests are not accurate and data from them cannot be extrapolated to human use because of the enormous differences in metabolism and physiology among rats, rabbits, ferrets, dogs and humans. The stressful laboratory conditions and often sloppy handling methods can impair immune function and also alter heart and pulse rates of animals in laboratories.
'There are modern, non-animal test methods used by other companies - let's get P&G to use them.'
Two of the firms mentioned by PETA who do not test their cleaning agents and skin and hair products on animals are Tesco and Safeway (and Boots of course). There is also Ecover which is made from plant extracts and works very well, especially if you have a sensitive skin where household cleaners are concerned.
I have a petition produced by PETA. If anyone would like to sign it will they please let me know, although you do have to boycott P&G products if you do.
written by June Diaper
Procter and Gamble were given the opportunity to reply to this article and have emailed us the following statement: -
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to your article. We are anxious and willing to communicate the progress we've made in developing alternative test methods and the reduction of animal testing here at P&G.
P&G is committed to the ultimate elimination of animal testing. Since 1984, we've reduced our animal testing for non-drug products by 85%. It's our policy to continue to develop, validate and use new alternative methods so we can continue to reduce our need to do animal testing and someday eliminate it.
We don't use animals for quality control checks of ingredients or products nor do we re-test products on the market we know to be safe. We don't conduct animal testing at all for many of our non-drug consumer products.
Until there are sufficient alternatives, we must conduct a minimal amount of animal testing to ensure our products are safe for our employees who manufacture them, consumers who buy them and ultimately the environment. We are also able to provide safety information to Poison Control Centers nationwide so they can tell parents what to do if a child accidentally ingests or gets into something they shouldn't.
We always treat the animals we must use with care and respect. When we must use animals, we ensure each animal is given the best professional veterinary care. All P&G animal facilities meet the highest professional standards and comply with all government regulations on the care and use of animals in research.
Advancing Alternatives
In 1997, P&G invested $12 million to develop and use alternative test methods bringing our total investment in alternatives to more than $67 million.
In 1989, we established the International Program for Animal Alternatives. Annually this program provides $450,000 in grants to nine international scientists to support the development or validation of alternative methods for toxicology and drug development.
P&G is leading the development of the new Alternatives to Animal Testing Website (Altweb), a comprehensive, global resource for scientists worldwide to get information on alternatives. Our partners include the Humane Society of the U.S., the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at John Hopkins, the National Institutes of Health's Office for Protection from Research Risks, the USDA Animal Welfare Information Center and the FDA Office of Science. The Website can be accessed on the Internet at:
http://www.sph.jhu.edu/~altweb
Our efforts in alternatives research have been recognised by many respected groups, including the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal testing, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Procter and Gamble Company
1 Procter and Gamble
Plaza
Cincinnati
Ohio 45201
EDITORS NOTE: Articles submitted for inclusion in this magazine are not necessarily the opinion of the Parochial Church Council.
Return to the October 1998 Features page
return to Home page and main index
page last updated 4 OCTOBER 1998