P&G still tests on animals

some-pg-brands

Here is the New Oxford American Dictionary’s definition of “abuse:”

verb |əˈbyoōz| [ trans. ]                                                                                                                                   treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, esp. regularly or repeatedly

noun |əˈbyoōs| |əˈbjus| |əˈbjuːs|                                                                                       cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal

According to IDA, via Change.org,

Despite claims from corporate giant Procter & Gamble (P&G) that it tests products on animals only as a last resort and only when required by law, published scientific papers show that P&G took an already approved ingredient in Herbal Essences shampoo – butylparaben – and force-fed it in massive doses to pregnant animals.

Evidence uncovered by the British animal rights group Uncaged shows that P&G force-fed butylparaben – a preservative used for decades in personal care products – to pregnant rats to see if it harms their developing offspring.

The experiment killed 1,300 animals (100 pregnant mothers and their 1,200 newborns) subjecting the mothers to stressful force-feeding for approximately three weeks, after which they were killed in carbon dioxide gas chambers….

I’ll let you decide for yourself whether or not that constitutes abuse.  P&G insists on its website that animal research is only used “as a last resort” to “ensure materials are safe and effective.  However…

Information on the safety of butylparaben, one of a class of products known as parabens, has already been amply demonstrated at least twenty years earlier. Many of the animals used by P&G for this experiment received massive doses of butylparaben, which, according to the researcher in charge of the study “far exceeds human exposure estimates.”

These tests are not required by any law, and detailed information on this ingredient has been widely available for many years.

P&G has made some progress.  For instance, Iams, the companies pet food brand, has reportedly ended invasive studies on dogs and cats.  But it still keeps hundreds of dogs and cats in a laboratory for non-invasive nutritional studies.  P&G claims that the animals have a humane environment, but the company will not allow PETA representatives inside.  And, as we saw above, invasive tests on animals other than dogs and cats are still carried out.

So, in case you were wondering, Procter and Gamble still conducts cruel and unnecessary tests on animals.

If you object to P&G’s animal testing, the best thing you can do is boycott the company’s products.  Not all of them are tested on animals, but a certain amount of the profits will obviously go to animal testing.  And you may be surprised how many products are made by P&G.  Check the full list here or at P&G’s own site.

 

Links: Hurtful Essences, Iams Cruelty, P&G Kills.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s