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the company's blinding, burning, maiming and killing of thousands of animals each year in product tests that are cruel, outdated and not required by law.

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

P&G is often quoted as stating: "Sometimes, but only as a last resort, we must conduct research involving animals to ensure materials are safe and effective" and "We are passionate about continuing our progress in developing alternatives to research involving animals."

Of course these kinds of statements are standard industry spin and are - essentially - meaningless. As the few examples below show, thousands of animals still die at the hands of P&G every year in tests for trivial and totally unnecessary ingredients aimed at improving their profit margin.

Recent Procter & Gamble animal testing

Skin Irritancy Tests

Eighteen rats suffered liver damage in skin irritancy tests for chemicals to be used in hair care products and fabric softener. The chemical was applied to the rats who were then wrapped to prevent them from trying to lick themselves clean. It is believed that the injuries occurred both as a result of being wrapped too tightly and, during unwrapping, one rat died from such injuries before the end of the test. This happened despite an earlier P&G paper that highlights this as a potential problem.

Laundry Detergent Ingredients

P&G has repeatedly tested an ingredient called 'NOBS' on animals even though the chemical had been found safe in a massive trial on human volunteers and has been in use for several years. Painful and lethal skin allergy tests were carried out on guinea pigs as well as on mice. These tests were not a legal requirement and, once again, undermine P&G's claims that testing on animals is a "last resort."

Nanoparticles

P&G is engineering ultra-tiny nanoparticles that can penetrate skin and hair in ways that naturally occurring molecules don't. Their intention is to produce new types of cosmetics and hair products. inside every bottle of Oil Of Olay Complete UV Protection moisturizer is a little bit of nanotech. Not surprisingly, P&G is involved in animal testing of nanoparticles.

A study published in Dec, 2005, reveals how one thousand hamsters, mice, and rats were killed in a test where they were placed in sealed boxes and forced to breathe air contaminated with nanosoot particles, the idea being to see how much damage was caused to the animals' lungs. When the animals given the highest doses were killed and dissected their lungs were found to have doubled in weight. During the tests they suffered severe and persistent lung injury, which was left untreated - for several months in some cases.

Several animals died before the end of the experiment due to a lack of basic care, such as nine rats who were not given water. Hamsters became ill and died because they were moved into plastic cages, despite scientists knowing that this could harm them.

P&G is also pushing for a massive new animal-testing program to assess how poisonous different nanoparticles are. Despite this, P&G continues to claim that animal testing is a last resort.

Genetic Engineering

P&G is involved in genetically engineering mice to create new ways of testing ingredients for use in products such as laundry detergent, dishwashing liquid, bathroom cleaner, skin care, hair products, and other cosmetics.

Genetic engineering is known to cause serious animal welfare problems due to the large numbers of animals being involved, surgery and other invasive procedures are used in their creation, and genetic modification is likely to cause harmful deformities.

Mice have been genetically engineered to be more vulnerable to asthma and lung damage in order to test a P&G detergent enzyme called "subtilisin." The substance was repeatedly injected into the bodies and up the noses of the mice, causing their lungs to become damaged and filled with blood, followed
by pneumonia.

Pet Food

IAMS and Eukanuba are P&G brands of pet food.

In May, 2001, the United Kingdom's Uncaged exposed horrific accounts of cats and dogs used and killed in experiments for IAMS/Eukanuba with a front-page story in the national press. Their research uncovered scientific papers that describe IAMS-funded experiments on hundreds of previously healthy animals that caused the following: kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, liver damage, severe allergic reactions, stomach inflammation, diarrhea, skin disorders, lesions, and other painful conditions. Many of the animals died as a result of the experiments, or were killed and dismembered for tissue analysis.

In 2003, undercover video footage showed cats and dogs in laboratories in terrible conditions - dogs were debarked by having their voice boxes cut out; and cats and dogs were experimented on and killed. Documentary evidence from research establishments and IAMS/Eukanuba's own admissions reveal that they continue to kill other animals in cruel nutrition tests; and cats and dogs are still spending their entire lives in cages for (non-lethal) experiments.

Other P&G Animal Testing

• An acute toxicity test where dogs were force fed large amounts of a cleaning chemical by stomach tube
  
  
• Cancer and toxicity tests on rats and mice of optical brighteners and other laundry detergent ingredients
  
  
• Long-term poisoning tests in animals for coloring agents
  
  
• Mice have been repeatedly force fed a synthetic musk fragrance
  
  

For more information on P&G's cruel animal tests, visit UK-based Uncaged's Web site.

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

Cosmetics Testing Fact Sheet