IDA launched its campaign against Procter & Gamble 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the company's blinding, burning, maiming and killing of thousands of animals each year in product tests that are cruel, outdated and not required by law.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 Procter & Gamble 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 Procter & Gamble 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.

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 isimportant. 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: Human cell cultures test in vitro for both toxicity and eye irritancy and tests using tissue cultures and computer models are technologically advanced, as well as more reliable and cost-effective than animal tests.

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 (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 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

P & G Kills - Information about IDA's International Boycott Campaign against Procter & Gamble.