Question:
Thought some of you might be interested in this, seeing as P&G is the producer of Iams, and swiffer wet jets, and some other products we have discussed. This is their policy from their website. Apparently they admit to doing animal testing "when necessary" but they have also won humane awards... I think it's a topic worth discussing:

"Policy summary
We have a legal and ethical obligation to provide products which are safe for our consumers and the environment.
Procter & Gamble wants ultimately to eliminate the need for all animal testing of products and ingredients for human use. We use non-animal alternatives whenever possible.
We are proud to be a leader in the funding of research and validation of alternative test methods. We work to speed up the approval of reliable non-animal test methods and eliminate regulations that require unnecessary animal testing around the world.
At P&G, animal testing of non-food/non-drug ingredients and products is only carried out when required by law, or when there is no alternative test available to ensure the human safety of new ingredients or products.
Our commitment
We at P&G are proud of our leadership in the development and adoption of alternatives to animal testing. We are committed to making continued progress that can eliminate the need for animal testing in the future.
--Mr. A.G. Lafley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Animal welfare is important to Procter & Gamble. We are committed to the ultimate elimination of laboratory testing using animals for products intended for human use.
Procter & Gamble no longer uses animals in evaluating the safety of our non-food, non-drug consumer products except when required by law. This has eliminated animal testing for around 80% of P&G's products around the world. Animal research may still be necessary to evaluate the safety of novel ingredients and new-to-the-world product types for which no validated non-animal tests are currently available.
Whenever possible, we use research methods that do not require the use of animals, but it is not yet possible to replace all laboratory testing with non-animal alternatives. When animal use cannot be avoided, studies are carefully designed to maintain their scientific integrity while using the smallest number of animals.
We make every effort to see that the animals are treated with care and respect. All animal facilities used meet the highest professional standards and comply with all government regulations on the care and use of animals in research. All animal research the Company sponsors at universities and other laboratories is reviewed to make sure each animal is given professional veterinary care and the facilities comply with all government regulations on the care and use of animals in research.
We adopt new alternative methods as soon as they are scientifically and, when necessary, legally accepted. We are working with animal protection organizations and other companies to gain regulatory acceptance of alternatives on the fastest possible timing."


Answer:
Here is the site with their other articles as well. I'd like to hear what you guys think. It seems to me that companies aren't always the problem, but the law, if in fact the law not only doesn't prevent, but actually requires animal testing.
http://www.pg.com/about_pg/science_t...ory_main.jhtml


Answer:
If they are so commited to finding alternatives to animal testing, why do Covergirl and Max Factor still test on animals (considering that MANY large chains do not)?
I prefer to buy animal friendly products because they work better and I am not harming animals out of vanity.


Answer:
Couldn't they just stop making the products that 'require' animal testing? There are so many alternatives out there, would any of them really be missed? And if it was some kind of new drug, if you are not willing to try it yourself, I do not see why the animal should be forced to test it for you. If it's that scary, then don't make it. The human race is so dieseased, it's so hard for the weak to 'die out'. We try too hard to eliminate natural selection. Yet sometimes it is necessary. I wonder how many things we have missed out on, because we wouldn't let it happen?


Answer:
I really don't see why any of their products "require" animal testing. IMHO, it is a disclaimer for them to continue testing on animals. It's not like Covergirl and Max Factor are coming out with state-of-the-art cosmetics. They do come out with new products but so does Revlon, Bonne Bell, and Clinique (to name a few) and they don't test on animals.


Answer:
I wonder what alternative testing really means. It says on the site somewhere that they use a historical approach- I would think that means they would look at the times a similar product had been tested on an animals in the past, and assume the same results. If that was the case you wouldn't be 'required' to test on animals unless you invented something new. Maybe the companies who don't test on animals just alter existing products without really inventing anything new. In the case of cleaning products and cosmetics, that's fine with me. I think that we have enough different varieties of household products, most people will buy something because it has new packaging just as much as because it's a new formula. I mean, really, how many different ways to whiten your teeth do we need? They're probably sitting around saying "how much more bleaching agent can we put in without killing the guinea pig?"


Answer:
how many different ways to whiten your teeth do we need
Well, it would be nice if there were an actual way to whiten your teeth (something like 90% of tooth pastes that claim to have a whitener don't actually whiten your teeth at all, so.....)


Answer:
Originally Posted by Candycane
If they are so commited to finding alternatives to animal testing, why do Covergirl and Max Factor still test on animals (considering that MANY large chains do not)?
Very well said Candice. Procter & Gamble have been caught lying about their commitment to ending animal testing before. I wouldn't believe a word of what they say now. More eloquently, it's a load of bullox.
Cosmetics are not required by law to be tested on animals or otherwise. Loads of companies manufacture wonderful products that are never tested on animals. Testing is done mainly to protect the company from lawsuits, and it's cheaper to test on animals than to pursue the alternative methods.
In the Draize test for skin irritancy, the test substances are applied to shaved and abraded skin. (Skin is abraded by firmly pressing adhesive tape onto the animal's body and quickly stripping it off The process is repeated until several layers of skin have been exposed.)
During the test period, which usually lasts at least several days, the animals can suffer extreme pain. The eye irritancy test compounds often cause irreparable damage to the animals' eyes, leaving them ulcerated and bleeding. At the end of the test period, all of the animals are killed in order to determine the effects of the tested substances on internal organs.
That's something to contemplate as we put on our CoverGirl mascara that promises thicker fuller lashes. How many rabbits had to writhe in agony before it was considered safe enough for our eyes?


Answer:
there a two many products out there doing the same thing, most of which we don't need , there seems to be only one reason to put out new products and that is to earn more money . what would be a good idea to me , is to list products that we know a cruetly free , so that we can inform others and ourselfs.


Answer:
This site lists companies that do and don't test.
http://www.caringconsumer.com/searchcompany.html