The Facts
A TIDE of Abuse
IDA launched its campaign against Procter & Gamble (P&G) in 1989. Our goal: to stop the company's blinding, burning, maiming and killing of thousands of animals each year in product tests that are cruel, outdated and not required by law.
At the beginning of our campaign, Procter & Gamble was still using dogs in product tests. Now its TIDE OF TORTURE continues on rabbits, ferrets, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice and rats.
And, while the company claims that it no longer uses dogs in product testing and that it has reduced the number of animals used by 90 percent, it refuses to back up any of its claims with facts. For example, Procter & Gamble refuses to release to the public information regarding the actual numbers and species of animals used, or the types of tests it forces these animals to endure.
Because P&G refuses to release any pertinent information to the public, the media, or even to its shareholders, we must seriously question the truth of any claims it makes regarding its use of animals in product testing, or its development and use of non-animal testing methods.
Therefore, until P&G makes a firm commitment to end all animal testing of its household and consumer goods, In Defense of Animals encourages consumers to boycott all of the company's products.
P&G's Dirty SECRETs
Procter & Gamble claims that "alternatives development makes good scientific, ethical, and business sense, and we're highly committed to this continuing effort." But the company's actions speak louder than its words.
In 1987 P&G fought a shareholders' resolution that would have eliminated product testing on animals for consumer and household products.
In 1989 P&G tried to launch a $17.5 million program to convince our legislators, school children and the public that tests designed to poison, blind, burn, mutilate and kill thousands of defenseless animals are absolutely necessary and humane. This program never got off the ground, primarily because of the intense pressure and opposition P&G received from animal advocates.
In 1990, Procter & Gamble lobbied against legislation to ban the Draize test in California.
In 1999, Procter & Gamble announced that they would halt animal testing on its current products. What they downplayed, however, was the fact that testing would continue on "new-to-the-world" products and products whose ingredients are changed or altered.
The fact remains that despite repeated demands from consumers, requests from its own shareholders, and ever-increasing public pressure, P&G refuses to stop its cruel and antiquated testing methods, preferring instead to continue to issue self-serving propaganda and meaningless rhetoric, while continuing to needlessly kill thousands of animals.
There's Nothing to GAIN
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.
Procter & Gamble claims to be a leader in the development and use of alternatives, but again its actions speaker louder than its words. In 1996 alone, P&G spent $5.1 billion on advertising. This stands in stark contrast to the $64 million that P&G claims to have spent on developing alternatives over a 14-year period!
Despite its repeated P.R. claims about being in the forefront of developing alteratives and reducing product testing on animals, P&G's priorities seem clear: in less than 5 days, P&G spends more on advertising than it claims to have spent in 14 years on alternatives to painful and lethal animal tests.
There are NO federal requirements that cosmetics and personal care products, i.e. toiletries, be tested on animals. The consumer product safety industry is regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which stated in 1984 that "It is important to keep in mind that neither the [Federal Hazardous Substances Act] nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests."
Again, the fact is that alternatives already exist, and more than 600 other companies use them exclusively. The companies that are truly committed to eliminating animal testing already use alternatives, while P&G just talks about it.
Many doctors have spoken out against product testing on animals:
"As an ophthalmologist, I find the Draize test particularly outdated. It is cruel and wasteful of animal lives. Less expensive alternatives are already available."
James R. Lee, M.D.
Winthrop, Massachusetts
"As an emergency room physician who has treated countless cases of accidental poisonings and exposures to dangerous products, I disagree with the contention that animal tests are necessary to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products. Animal tests do not protect consumers from unsafe products....I call upon Procter & Gamble to join the ever-growing list of responsible companies that have declared an immediate moratorium on animal-based product testing."
Daniel Hart, M.D., FACEP
Cosmetic Testing
Hidden Ingredient: Animal Suffering
Since cosmetic and household products and ingredients are not required to be tested on animals and since non-animal alternatives exist, it is difficult to understand why companies continue to conduct these cruel tests. Institutional inertia seems to be at work, caused in part by technicians, researchers, and industry legal departments who blindly cling to the customary but outdated methods of the past.
It is important to understand that some companies make misleading claims about this complicated issue. A company that tests on animals may claim it no longer uses the Draize test, when in fact a very similar, equally cruel test is being performed under a different name. Also, some companies publicize that they have put large amounts of money into efforts to find alternatives to animal testing. However, viable humane alternatives already exist and are being used by hundreds of companies to make safe and effective cosmetic and household products.
Cosmetics and household product companies kill millions of animals every year in pursuit of profit. Product tests are performed on items from shampoo to laundry detergents. The animals who suffer and die in these laboratories range from rabbits to mice. According to companies that perform such tests, they are done to establish the safety of products and ingredients. However, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)--which regulates products such as detergents and cleaners--does not require animal testing, nor does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require animal testing for cosmetics. In reality, many viable non-animal tests exist.
The Tests
The Draize Eye Irritancy Test is used to evaluate the ability of a test substance to cause damage to the tissues of the eye. Liquid, flake, granule and powdered substances are placed into the eyes of conscious rabbits. In a typical test, six to nine rabbits are held in stocks from which only their heads protrude so that they cannot dislodge the substance with a paw. Rabbits do not have tear ducts to clean the irritants away and they cannot blink their eyes for relief because clips are holding their eyes open. The rabbits often scream when the substance is applied and sometimes break their necks or backs in their efforts to escape the pain. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration and blindness. When the test is done, the animals are killed or "recycled" into further tests, such as dermal toxicity tests.
Skin irritancy tests, such as the Draize 24-hour Patch Test and Dermal Toxicity tests, are conducted on rabbits, guinea pigs and other animals. The process involves placing chemicals on the animals' raw, shaved skin and covering the skin with adhesive plaster. The animals are immobilized in restraining devices to prevent them from struggling while laboratory workers apply the chemicals, which burn into the animals' skin.
Acute toxicity tests, commonly called Lethal Dose (LD) or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill part of a group of test animals. Animals are forced to ingest substances through stomach tubes, inhale substances as a vapor spray, have substances injected or have substances applied directly to exposed skin. Animals' reactions to toxicity tests include convulsions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum. Sub-acute tests can last 28-90 days or longer. In chronic tests, animals are dosed daily for up to two years. To avoid interference with results, no painkillers are used.
Animal tests do not predict antidotes for product toxicity and do not keep toxic substances off the market. The LD tests do not accurately measure human health hazards. They only determine that the product is toxic to the animal it was tested on. In 1986, the industry-funded Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing stated, "The Draize test does not adequately reflect the degree of irritancy in humans." Moreover, LD test results can be affected by the age and sex of animals tested, their housing and nutritional conditions, temperature, and the exact method used to administer the substance. Also, different species react differently to various substances.
Alternatives to Animal Testing Exist
Non-animal tests that are more reliable and less expensive do exist. Alternatives to animals include the following: use of cell cultures, corneal and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models.
Companies can also use ingredients or combinations of ingredients that have already been proven safe by the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, or use natural ingredients that are already known to be safe.
Since cosmetic and household products and ingredients are not required to be tested on animals and since alternatives exist, it is difficult to understand why companies continue to conduct these cruel tests. Institutional inertia seems to be at work, caused in part by technicians, researchers and industry legal departments that blindly cling to the customary but outdated methods of the past.
It is important to understand that some companies make misleading claims about this complicated issue. A company that tests on animals may claim it no longer uses the Draize test, when in fact a very similar, equally cruel test is being performed under a different name. Also, some companies publicize they have put large amounts of money into efforts to find alternatives to animal testing. However, humane alternatives already exist and are being used by hundreds of companies to make safe and effective cosmetic household products.
What you can do
P&G is a multi-billion dollar corporation that, despite the development of more advanced methodologies continues to blind, poison and kill animals unnecessarily to test deodorants, laundry detergents and other products. More than 500 other companies, including Estee Lauder, Amway, Revlon and The Body Shop, manufacture and develop safe products without animal testing.
1. Buy only cruelty-free products. Get in the habit of checking the backs of product labels to find out what company makes the product you are buying and look for statements that the product was not tested on animals. Use our free cruelty-free list to find out which companies do not test on animals, and buy only products from companies on that list. Encourage your friends and family members to do the same.
2. Become a P&G Coordinator today! Start by joining the P&G boycott. Refuse to buy P&G products. Help spread the word to others. Circulate educational brochures, available through IDA, to your family, friends, co-workers and others in your community. View the latest brochures and bumper stickers here. Contact IDA for copies to distribute.
3. Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers and weekly newspapers. Find a listing of all U.S. newspapers at: www.usnpl.com. Make sure to let us know if your letter gets printed. Below is a sample, though using your own words is strongly encouraged. For tips on effective letter-writing, visit: http://www.idausa.org/ir/activist/makenews.html#10.
4. Please write to Procter & Gamble CEO, A.G. Lafley, and let him know that until P&G ends all testing, you will boycott their products.
A.G. Lafley
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Procter & Gamble
1 Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, OH 45202
1-800-543-1745
513-983-9369 (fax)
www.PG.com
Use P&G's online comment form.
5. Encourage students to ask their school cafeterias to no longer sell Procter & Gamble products, such as Pringles or Sunny Delight, and to use only cruelty-free cleaning products. Creating a petition for students to sign is a great approach.
6. Call and write any companies that currently test products on animals. Let them know you will not purchase their products until they adopt corporate policies against animal testing. Most companies have toll-free 800 numbers that you can call at the company’s expense!
7. Write to your congressional representatives and ask them to support any legislation that would discourage companies from using animals for safety tests or that calls for alternatives to animal testing. Visit our online action center to look up your representatives at http://ga0.org/indefenseofanimals/home.html.
