P&G test on animals as a convenient way to push more chemical ingredients onto the market, so they can claim that their latest shampoo, soap powder or face cream is “New, Improved”. This gives the impression that the new products are better than the old ones and therefore more desirable. It’s all about making as much money as possible. Every year P&G patent 20,000 new chemical compounds.
If P&G were to stick to the thousands of chemicals already available they could stop testing on animals immediately. It is simply greed that drives them to constantly develop and test new chemicals.
How many different shampoos and soap powders do we really need?
WHY BOYCOTT P&G?
- Why are animal rights groups targeting P&G when so many other companies test on animals too?
- How can I help animals when I boycott P&G?
WHAT P&G SAY ABOUT TESTING ON ANIMALS
- P&G say that they only test on animals as a last resort and only when required by law. Doesn’t this mean that they have to test on animals?
- P&G say they have spent over $190 million on developing alternatives, doesn’t that show how committed they are to stopping animal testing?
- With regard to Iams, P&G say that they only carry out research on animals that would be equivalent to research involving humans, so how can Iams be doing laboratory experiments on animals?
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT TO BUY?
- What about other companies that test on animals?
- My favourite company say they do not test on animals, but they are not on your recommended list, why not?
- What is a ‘fixed cut-off date’?
- What is a ‘five year rolling rule’?
- I want to go cruelty-free but it’s difficult to find the kind of products I like.
WHY BOYCOTT P&G?
1. Why are animal rights groups targeting P&G when so many other companies test on animals too?
P&G’s gargantuan scale makes them a hugely influential organisation. As one industry magazine puts it: ‘What P&G does, others emulate’. Although some smaller companies are also guilty of animal testing, with power comes responsibility, so P&G deserve particular criticism. Furthermore, by targeting and influencing P&G, animal rights groups hope to spark a domino effect throughout the industry.
2. How can I help animals when I boycott P&G?
P&G say that if people buy their products, then they are ‘voting’ for P&G as a company. By the same token, if you buy P&G products you are voting for cruel and unnecessary tests on animals. Conversely, if you boycott P&G, you are voting for a more compassionate future. A boycott is the most fundamental moral action that people can take to show disapproval and to reject an unethical company. This is an essential part of a progressive and changing society.
Procter & Gamble exist for one reason, and one reason only – to make as much money as possible. They test on animals to push new chemical ingredients on to the market, so they can claim that their new skin cream or washing powder is ‘new improved’. Money is the only language P&G understand. Ultimately, by boycotting P&G, you take away their reason for testing on animals. This is the key to saving the many thousands of animals who suffer and die every year in cruel and unnecessary tests conducted by this company.
Taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions is one of the most empowering and liberating things for a human being to do. The most significant thing we can do with our lives is to try to make the world a better place. We can all do that by exercising our choice in a conscientious and positive way - by boycotting P&G.
WHAT P&G SAY ABOUT TESTING ON ANIMALS
1. P&G say that they only test on animals as a last resort and only when required by law. Doesn’t this mean that they have to test on animals?
Procter & Gamble spend lots of money on clever PR to give the impression they care about animals. But their claims do not stand up to close scrutiny.
Firstly, there are many other companies that produce cosmetics, toiletries and household products (many of them organic and eco-friendly) without animal testing.
Secondly, documents submitted to the US Government by P&G reveal that they have repeated animal tests for a washing powder ingredient, even though the chemical had been found safe in a massive trial on human volunteers and had been in use for several years. These tests were not even a legal requirement.
Thirdly, P&G are pushing for additional animal tests for new, ultra-tiny ‘nanoparticles’ for use in cosmetics and toiletries. These toxic and lethal tests include inserting a needle into the animals’ windpipes, force-feeding huge doses of the material, and rubbing it into raw, damaged skin.
In pursuit of profits, P&G are endlessly searching for novel, hi-tech substances to add to its cosmetics and household products. "New and improved" labels are meant to persuade customers that existing products can't do the job properly. But the novel ingredients, including nanoparticles and powerful enzymes, can also harm our health - by causing allergies and other toxic effects.
P&G try to give the impression of safety by means of painful tests on animals such as guinea pigs and genetically modified mice. Given the option, most customers prefer to use products with established, safe ingredients, rather than risk their own health and cause hundreds of animals' deaths for unnecessary new ingredients.
2. P&G say they have spent over $190 million on developing alternatives, doesn’t that show how committed they are to stopping animal testing?
P&G could stop their animal testing immediately if they decided to use the thousands of existing ingredients that already have a proven safety record from being used by humans. The bottom line is that they put profits ahead of animals – it’s pure greed.
P&G’s own scientific papers show that some of these proposed ‘alternatives’ are just slightly less cruel types of animal test, rather than truly humane, non-animal alternatives.
Even if we accept P&G’s claim at face value (and there’s no evidence to back it up), then this translates to just 0.6% of their total spending on research. Even more startling, the amount spent by P&G on developing alternatives is approximately 1/1000, or 0.1%, of the amount that it spends on advertising. So their claims are not quite so impressive when put in context.
3. With regard to Iams, P&G say that they only carry out research on animals that would be equivalent to research involving humans, so how can Iams be doing laboratory experiments on animals?
Firstly, P&G are only referring to cats and dogs with this policy, it doesn’t apply to other species of animals, who they kill in Iams experiments (though again they don’t volunteer this information!)
Secondly, we believe that this statement from P&G is seriously misleading anyway. P&G have admitted (though they don’t state this openly) that they keep cats and dogs for several months or years in caged laboratory environments, performing invasive and painful experiments on them. These aren’t animals who have just got sick and are getting treatments for their condition while being observed for research reasons. No responsible pet guardian would allow their animals to be used in the way P&G do. The use of animals in procedures who have been bred and caged in laboratory facilities for the purposes of experimentation has no acceptable ethical parallel in human studies.
HOW DO I KNOW WHAT TO BUY?
1. What about other companies that test on animals?
Now you’ve found out about P&G animal testing, it’s really important to find out about other cruel companies and boycott them as well. The best thing to do is obtain a copy of the Naturewatch Compassionate Shopping Guide, which is an 80 page guide to cruelty-free companies, shops and supermarkets who do not use animal tested ingredients after a fixed-cut-off-date. There is a list of some companies to avoid on this website – click here.
To send for your copy, make a donation of a minimum of £5 stating 'Compassionate Shopping Guide' in the 'any comments' box.
2. My favourite company say they do not test on animals, but they are not on your recommended list, why not?
Many companies can be deliberately misleading in their animal testing statements, cleverly wording customer letters in order to reassure a concerned public. Often they talk about the products when most of this type of animal testing is for chemical ingredients. Even a 'cruelty-free' label on a seemingly environmentally-friendly or animal-free product is no automatic guarantee that the ingredients have not been recently tested on animals by the company or whoever they buy their ingredients from. Sometimes this is wilful misinformation, other times its just ignorance about what being 'not animal tested' actually means. In order to be credibly cruelty-free, companies must ensure that they and their ingredient suppliers comply with a Fixed Cut Off Date from which point they do not test on animals.
3. What is a fixed cut-off date?
This means that a product manufacturer will not buy finished products or ingredients (from suppliers) that have been animal tested after a fixed date eg: 1987 (although a FCOD can be from any date). This rule draws a clear line under animal testing, and is the only method by which manufacturers can send a clear message to their suppliers and the rest of the industry that the company is not prepared to profit from animal tested ingredients. If a company does not use a fixed cut-off date for the ingredients it buys (even if it claims not to test on animals itself), it still profits from animal suffering because it is continuing to buy ingredients that have been animal tested and it helps to perpetuate the market for animal tested ingredients.
4. What is a five year rolling rule?
This means that the manufacturer only excludes ingredients that have been animal-tested within the last five years. This is not a fixed date, so an animal tested ingredient may be excluded one year (because it falls within the 'last five years' bracket), but included the following year (when it falls outside this bracket). By using this method, the manufacturer is making no clear commitment to reject animal testing and is still profiting from and perpetuating animal testing. The only difference here is that the company delays buying that ingredient for five years. This would make little difference to most suppliers and the industry as a whole, as they know that companies like this may not buy the ingredients today but they will buy the ingredients eventually. We do not endorse five year rolling rules.
5. I want to go cruelty-free but it’s difficult to find the kind of products I like.
Changing habits is always going to be a little bit tricky at first. P&G’s colossal advertising budget can make you think that there aren’t any other products out there! But, in fact, taking responsibility for your consumption is one of the most empowering and liberating things you can do. The most significant thing we can do with our lives is to try to make the world a better place. We can all do that by exercising our choice in a conscientious and positive way - by boycotting P&G.
There are lots of excellent ethical products out there. Many health food stores carry cruelty free products. Look for this label:
It’s also worth investing in a copy of the Naturewatch Compassionate Shopping Guide, which is an 80 page guide to cruelty-free companies, shops and supermarkets who do not use animal tested ingredients after a fixed-cut-off-date. To send for your copy, make a donation of a minimum of £5 stating 'Compassionate Shopping Guide' in the 'any comments' box.
