Global Boycott of Procter & Gamble
Blood on your hands? Change your brands!
LATEST: Over 80 protests planned for Saturday's global boycott
On this page:
Campaign overview
'Policy shift' is meaningless
Our position
So why do they do it?
P&G spurned by RSPCA
IAMS - the suffering behind the 'science'
Other P&G pages on this site:
Global Boycott P&G Day
P&G action
Sunny Delight
IAMS vivisection - full report
Non-animal testing companies and products
See also:
P&G Petition at www.ethical-business.com/petitions.asp?pet_id=111. Please sign our online petition pledging to boycott Procter & Gamble products until they cease testing on animals.
In Defense of Animals' (US) website at www.pandgkills.com.
Campaign Overview
Sunny Delight may be sweet but behind the advertising lies a company that kills thousands of animals every year.
Our longest running campaign is the building of a consumer boycott against P&G. This is now a worldwide campaign. The international pressure on P&G to stop testing on animals is growing - other companies have changed their policies under this kind of consumer pressure.
Procter & Gamble are one of the largest manufacturers of household cleaning and personal hygiene products in the world. They produce more than 300 brands in over 140 countries, with a global turnover of over $35 billion.
Why boycott P&G products?
An estimated 50,000 animals die at the hands of Procter & Gamble every year.
Procter & Gamble UK is a member of BIBRA Toxicology international (British Industrial Biological Research Association) an animal research laboratory which carries out contract testing for many different companies.
Secretly-filmed video evidence of P&G sponsored experiments at Huntingdon Life Sciences (a major multi-national contract animal testing company) shows the brutal treatment and killing of 48 monkeys.
Procter & Gamble say that:
They only test new chemical compounds and ingredients that have not been tested on animals before.
Animal experiments are necessary in order to ensure that these compounds/ingredients are safe for public use or misuse (e.g. accidental ingestion by children)
They spend millions every year on alternative, non-animal, testing methods, and are 'committed to eliminating the use of animals for safty testing as soon as good science permits.'
Legislation in certain countries demands animal testing of their products and/or ingredients, hence, in order to exploit all world markets they continue these barbaric practices.
But P&G are being economical with the truth:
The secretly filmed video shows P&G killing 48 monkeys to test a nasal decongestant already in human use.
Over 500 companies produce like-for-like products which are safe for consumers, that are no longer or have never been tested on animals.
Physiological differences between species means animal testing can be dangerously misleading as an accurate indication of human reactions, hence dangerous drugs like eraldin, suprofen, opren, thalidomide, troglitazone, and many more are inflicted on human patients.
Animal tests have failed to show the dangerous effects that P&G's own commercial products have caused, e.g Oil of Ulay New Skin Discovery and Max Factor Active Response Cream which caused high eye and skin irritation, despite the fact that, as Dr White a consultant at St. John's Institute of Dermatology at St. Thomas's Hospital, London pointed out: "They did every test they could have done. They tested it on animals and every other way they could think of.....but none of the tests predicted the problems."
Medical staff use information gained from human experience in deciding how to treat cases of accidental poisoning.
Procter & Gamble spends more on advertising in 7 days than it has done in 11 years on developing humane testing methods.
Do we really need these new variations on washing powders and cosmetics that are constantly "new and improved"? and can it ever be right to carry out these cruel and fatal tests on living, breathing, emotional, intelligent and sentient creatures?
What you can do...
The campaign needs you in order to make this a success and we estimate that we are already costing P&G £5 million a year as a result of the boycott.
Take part in this year's Global Boycott of P&G Day, when there will be scores of events taking place all over the UK and the world. Click here for full details.
Stop buying all of Procter & Gambles products, this includes Sunny Delight and Pringles in addition to the more obvious products such as Pantene Pro-v and Oil of Ulay.
Send P&G an email postcard registering your objection to their continued practice of animal testing.
Send Sunny Delight an email complaint telling Procter & Gamble just what you think of their chemical cocktail.
Write to Mr Gary Cunningham (P&G's UK Public Affairs Director), Procter & Gamble UK, Cobalt 3, Silverfox Way, Colbalt Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE27 0QN.
Here most of the P&G products we are asking people to boycott and below that a list.
Ace
Always
Ariel
Attends
Biactol
Bold
Bounty (kitchen roll)
Camay
Clearasil
Charmin
Daz
Denclen
Dreft
Fairy Liquid
Fairy Snow
Febreze
Flash
Giorgio Beverly Hills
Hugo Boss
Head & Shoulders
IAMS (pet food)
Lenor
Max Factor
Multon
Napisan
Oil of Olay
Pampers
Pantene Pro-V
Pringles
Secret
Sinex
Sunny Delight
Swiffer
Tampax
Tide
Vaporub
Viakal
VS (haircare)
Vortex
Wash n' Go
Zest
On June 30 1999 Procter & Gamble (P&G) issued a press release claiming it:
"will end the use of animal tests for its current beauty, fabric and home care, and paper products, except where required by law. This announcement covers roughly 80% of P&G's total portfolio, including color cosmetics, shampoos and hairstyling products, skin care products, tissue and towel products, laundry and dishwashing detergents, and household cleaners. This decision is effective immediately and in all countries where the company operates.Science and technology have advanced to the point where we can confirm the safety of these finished products through non-animal alternatives."
Mr Gary Cunningham, P&G's UK Public Affairs Director, wrote to Uncaged Campaigns stating:
"This means that in future animal testing will only be used when required by law or to evaluate the safety of new ingredients and new to the world products for which no validated non-animal tests exist."
To those unfamiliar with the complexities of corporate animal testing policies, the announcement might seem to signal a positive development. However, once we began to analyse P&G’s statement it became clear that its policy decision was unlikely to have any real impact on the level of its exploitation of animals.
The most glaring omission in the corporation’s press release was the lack of reference to the animal testing of ingredients as opposed to finished products. Unfortunately, this means that, in all probability, very few animals were affected by the decision as most animal testing is for new chemical ingredients. Therefore, Mr Cunningham’s use of the term "only" to describe these on-going areas of animal testing appears to be disingenuous, to say the least.
We did give P&G the opportunity to clarify some of the ambiguties in its announcement, and possibly allay some of our suspicions regarding the lack of any meaningful change underlying its statement. In a letter to Gary Cunningham, we explained:
"In order to evaluate the positive impact for animals that this policy change might have, I would be extremely grateful if you could provide me with figures for the numbers of animals used by P&G each year in this area of animal testing since 1984... I think that you will agree that without more information, it is hard for Uncaged Campaigns (or anyone else for that matter) to assess the true impact of P&G’s policy change. Specifically, I am concerned that the area of animal testing affected by the policy change may, in fact, represent a small proportion of P&G’s overall use of animals. The only way that P&G’s actions can be independently evaluated is for the company to provide overall animal use figures for every year since 1984... [T]his will enable the public to judge the true value of P&G’s cessation of animal testing for finished non-food and non-drug products. I hope that you will agree that this is a reasonable request for information on a matter which is of great public interest."
Significantly, P&G refused to provide us with any such figures. However, Mr Cunningham dropped a heavy hint that confirmed our interpretation:
"...the numbers [of animal experiments] involved for consumer product categories [the area of testing covered by P&G’s announcement] for the industry as a whole represent only a tiny fraction of the total number."
No wonder he shied away from publishing concrete figures!
The true significance of P&G’s recent announcement is that it provides evidence of the impact of the Global Boycott on the corporation’s public image. P&G’s attempts to deflect mounting criticism through this empty gesture demonstrate it is coming under increasing pressure.
You can write to Gary Cunningham at:
Procter & Gamble UK
Cobalt 3, Silverfox Way
Colbalt Business Park
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE27 0QN
Our position:
Uncaged Campaigns regards any steps made to reduce the numbers of animals used by P&G as a positive development. However, it is quite obvious to us that P&G’s announcement does not actually constitute such a step.
P&G’s announcement clearly tries to give the impression that its use of animal testing will be significantly reduced. This is very unlikely to be true. Our considered judgement is that P&G’s announcement has a great deal to do with public relations, and very little to do with respect for animals.
However, the fact that P&G have decided that it would be in its interests to make this empty gesture on the issue of animal testing attests to the impact of the Global Boycott of Procter & Gamble, and encourages us to maintain and intensify our crusade to stop the systematic abuse and destruction of animals by P&G and other corporations.
P&G’s corporate values prioritise profit over the wellbeing of animals. It is this warped value system that motivates P&G’s animal testing practices.
While P&G continues to violate animals, we will continue to resist them.
So why do they do it?
Using their own words Dan Lyons examines P&G's motives
Ultimately, the primary reason for P&G’s animal testing is the role that it plays within P&G’s overall corporate strategy. If we look at the types of animal testing that P&G will continue to conduct, this will help clarify this point.
Testing "when required by law or to evaluate the safety of new ingredients and new to the world products..." [P&G press release] clearly indicates the role of animal testing in the development of new chemicals for consumption in P&G products. The animal testing/novel ingredients connection was reiterated by Mindy Patton, responsible for Corporate Communications on the issue of animal research at P&G’s Cincinnati HQ, during a P&G Conference Call in March 1998 (we have a copy of the transcript). Patton pointed to P&G’s world leadership in developing "new to the world ingredients" as a major reason for P&G’s animal testing practices in contrast to companies who do not test on animals.
So, we can deduce that it is the use of novel ingredients which leads to P&G’s animal testing.
Even if, just for the sake of argument, we concede P&G’s ludicrous contention that it needs to test on animals to determine the safety of substances for human use or misuse, P&G is still left with the choice:
P&G develops new ingredients and therefore tests on animals
or
P&G only uses ingredients with an established safety record, thereby avoiding the "requirement" to test on animals.
Now, P&G has reached the conclusion that it is in its interest to develop more new chemical ingredients, presumably because it believes that consumers will be more likely to buy their "new improved" cosmetics and household products, thereby maximising sales and profits.
Which brings us to the core of the issue:
P&G tests on animals because it believes that the development of new products will help maximise their profits.
I presented this analysis to Gary Cunningham, P&G’s UK Director of Public Affairs. He offered the following observations:
"Nobody would deny that P&G looks to deliver appropriate returns for its shareholders. That is, after all, what business is about... Innovation is key to this... Innovation means finding new ingredients and finding new applications for existing ones. We do both... [I]t is with new-to-the-world materials and technologies that safety reassurance has to be sought. Here, some limited testing with animals will be required..."
To say that P&G’s ethics are appalling would be to underestimate our disgust with a company that believes that making money justifies the bloodshed of animals. That is why our struggle continues.
Dan Lyons
Victory! P&G spurned by RSPCA
Procter & Gamble's attempt to use the RSPCA to endorse it's new product Febreze (and falsely improve the company's public image) have been thwarted.
P&G and the RSPCA had been jointly conducting 'focus groups' to assess the public's reaction to this proposed collaboration. The first focus group involved RSPCA workers and volunteers. Some of them also happened to be Uncaged Campaigns supporters, and were understandably outraged that the RSPCA should be considering endorsing a major animal-testing company.
We spoke to the RSPCA on Thursday 26th August 2000, who said that feedback from these focus groups and letters and e-mails sent by concerned members of the public who had be alerted by Uncaged Campaigns had persuaded the RSPCA that they could not work with P&G to promote Febreze.
Thank you to everyone who contacted the RSPCA urging them to spurn P&G's advances.
Angela Roberts & Max Newton
IAMS - the suffering behind the science
You wouldn't think that a pet food company would cut up, make sick, and kill innocent animals.
THINK AGAIN.
Buried in obscure scientific publications are the details of experiments on at least 460 cats and dogs supported by the IAMS company - cats and dogs just like our cherished companions. These experiments were not designed to help the animals involved. These innocent victims were simply used as disposable objects - a means to an end. Behind the corporate PR lies a painful reality...
28 female cats had their abdomens cut open and solution injected repeatedly into their bowels.
(Nutrition Research: 1319-1328, September 2000)
24 young dogs were given kidney failure by the removal of one kidney and the damaging of the other. All the dogs were killed after being fed an experimental diet and their kidneys analysed.
(American Journal of Veterinary Research: 1357-1365, August 1991)
18 young Great Danes were fed on differing diets and at eighteen months of age. Their bones from their front and back right legs were cut out and then stressed until they broke. Pigs were also used in similar experiments.
(Proceedings of 1998 IAMS Nutrition Symposium: 29-40)
18 beagle puppies were dosed with a drug that damaged their kidneys. Blood samples were taken repeatedly and urine collected via a tube inserted into the puppies' bladders via their penises. All the dogs were killed and their kidneys' analysed.
(American Journal of Veterinary Research: 948-956, June 1996)
These are just a few examples. (For more see our full report.)
In September 1999, the IAMS company was taken over by another animal testing business, the giant multinational Procter & Gamble (P&G). With P&G's enormous advertising budget, IAMS is now trying to promote itself in the UK.
But we think you should know the truth. And now you do - please remember: if you buy from IAMS and P&G then you would be paying for the kinds of experiments listed above.
Uncaged Campaigns, www.uncaged.co.uk
|