Frequently Asked Questions about Animal Testing

Q: I have received a statement from P&G claiming that the company no longer tests on animals. How do we know this is not true?

A: P&G has always been highly furtive about its use of animals in product safety tests. During the time that IDA and other animal groups have waged campaigns against P&G, it has never once disclosed the number of animals it uses, nor shared any information about the tests it performs on animals. Because numbers have never been disclosed, we have never had a quantifiable way to gauge the progress that P&G claims to have made.

P&G's statement asserts it has "ended animal testing on all our finished consumer products except when required by law," thus giving the impression that it has ended all animal tests on consumer products. By limiting the statement to "finished products," however, the company has left the door open to continued animal tests on individual ingredients, which is in fact what P&G does.

A study published in December, 2005,[i] reveals how P&G funded experiments in which a thousand hamsters, mice, and rats were killed in a test where they were placed in sealed boxes and forced to breathe air contaminated with carbon black particles. The lungs of the animals given the highest doses were found to have doubled in weight when they were killed and dissected at the end of the test. These animals suffered severe and persistent lung injury, which was left untreated in many cases for several months.

P&G is involved in genetically engineering mice to create new ways of testing ingredients for use in products, such as laundry liquids, skin care, hair products, and other cosmetics. In these experiments, [ii] mice were genetically engineered to be more vulnerable to asthma and lung damage. The substance (a P&G-patent detergent enzyme called subtilisin) was repeatedly injected into the bodies as well as up the noses of the mice, causing their lungs to become damaged and filled with blood, followed by pneumonia.

P&G is involved in pushing for a massive new animal testing program to assess the safety of nanoparticles.[iii] These painful and lethal tests would include inserting a needle into the animals' windpipes, force-feeding a large dose of the material, and rubbing it into raw, damaged skin.

In 2002, P&G was exposed while secretly lobbying the European Government to try to block a European Union ban on animal testing for cosmetics while planning to circumvent any eventual law by testing on animals outside the EU.[iv] After years of talk from P&G about how it only used animals because of legal requirements, we had this smoking gun memo divulging its truly duplicitous position.

Q: What is the situation with the Iams Company and animal testing?

A: In 2001, IDA received information that the Iams Company, having been recently acquired by P&G, had been using dogs and cats in very painful and lethal experiments to test the nutritional quality of its foods. The information obtained was horrific and exposed experiments on cats and dogs that caused kidney failure, 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. P&G was unable to refute that these experiments had taken place since they were clearly published in scientific journals, indicating that Iams was a key sponsor. When IDA presented this information to Iams/P&G for an explanation, the company's response was to deny that these sorts of experiments were continuing, claiming they were a thing of the past.

IDA then attempted to get P&G to sign a Statement of Assurance to promise that no such procedures would ever take place again, and to adhere to certain humane standards of animal care. P&G failed to reply to IDA for many months, and finally came up with a statement of its own that was greatly watered down, but did appear to eschew certain inhumane practices.

Meanwhile, unknown to IDA, another animal rights group had installed an undercover investigator at one of Iams/P&G's contract laboratories for several months in 2003. That investigator was daily documenting horrible conditions for dogs and cats at this facility, exposing it as dark, filthy, and barren without so much as a toy or blanket for the animals' comfort. Dogs and cats were subjected to painful procedures without adequate veterinary care. It was an absolute abomination, the antithesis of Iams' declaration of humane conditions.

Though these events happened several years ago, we have no reason to believe that Iams no longer utilizes contract laboratories, over which it has only limited control regarding the conditions for animals. IDA and other animal organizations have long maintained that Iams must sever its ties with contract laboratories in order to make guaranteed claims about humane conditions for animals. And though Iams claims to uphold the highest standards within its own laboratories, they have refused to allow IDA, or to our knowledge, any other animal protection group, to tour its in-house facility.

[i] Elder, A. et al. (2005) 'Effects of Subchronically Inhaled Carbon Black in Three Species. I. Retention Kinetics, Lung Inflammation, and Histopathology'. Toxicological Sciences, 88 (2) 614-629.
[ii] Xue A. et al. (2005) 'HLA-DQ8 is a predisposing molecule for detergent enzyme subtilisin BPNV-induced hypersensitivity'. Clinical Immunology, 17: 302-315.
[iii] Oberdorster G. et al. (2005) 'Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy'. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2005, 2:8.
[iv] Woolf, M. 'Cosmetics company memo reveals plan to sidestep EU animal testing ban', The Independent, 4 November 2002.

Q: What is the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals®?

A: Launched in 1996 by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals® is an internationally recognized non-animal testing standard. Companies that adopt this standard pledge, as of the date of compliance, not to conduct or commission animal tests, and not to use any ingredient or formulation that is tested on animals. While many ingredients, formulations and finished products have been tested on animals in the past, the standard is designed to prevent future animal testing.

Q: What is the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics?

A: The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics -- made up of nine animal advocacy organizations, including IDA -- has created a uniform labeling standard for cosmetics and household products that have not been tested on animals.

A manufacturer or distributor may sign on to the coalition's Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals if its production, manufacturing, ingredient supply stream, and all other aspects of product development meet or exceed the standards established by the coalition.

Beginning on or before a date set by the cosmetic, personal care or household product company, the company agrees it shall not conduct nor commission animal testing of any of its products, formulations, and/or ingredients, and that it shall not purchase same from suppliers who conducted or commissioned animal testing on them.

Launched on November 19, 1996, the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals is expected to be widely adopted in this country. European protection groups, however, have agreed to the language of the standard for cosmetics only.

See our Procter & Gamble Fact Sheet and our Cosmetic Testing Fact Sheet for additional information not included in this FAQ.

Do you have any questions about Procter & Gamble, animal experimentation or cruelty-free living? Send them to us and we'll answer them on this page.