posted December 01, 2006 08:25 AM         

visit this website!

Each year, thousands of animals die in Procter & Gamble laboratories -- the victims of painful, archaic and entirely unnecessary product tests. Caustic chemicals are forced into the eyes of rabbits and applied to animals' shaved and raw skin.

Laboratory workers place the animals in restraining devices so they cannot struggle while the workers apply the chemicals, which burn into the animals' eyes and skin. P&G "scientists" do not sedate the animals or give them pain killers.

Animals sometimes break their necks or backs attempting to escape the pain. Those that survive are used in yet additional painful tests ... until they are finally killed. The victims include rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, ferrets and other animals.

P&G refuses to stop testing its products on animals, despite the fact that these tests are not required by any law, and despite the fact that more reliable and humane alternatives do exist.

Procter & Gamble spends millions of dollars to package itself as a responsible, caring company, and claims to be a leader in the development of alternatives to the use of animals in product testing.

But P&G refuses to put its money where its mouth is. 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 alternatives 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.

The fact is, P&G says one thing and does another. If they truly shared our goal of eliminating animal cruelty, P&G would not have lobbied to defeat a bill before the California legislature that would have banned the infamous Draize eye-irritancy test.

posted December 05, 2006 12:04 AM         

I will now do my best to find an alternative. The organic diapers are really expensive and abrasive unfortunately. I could deal with the cost part if it weren't for the fact they are uncmfy on baby's tooshie. Cloth is not an option for me

posted December 05, 2006 08:56 PM         

However, I must say that I do love the new Pampers.

posted December 05, 2006 10:54 PM         

Years ago, I wrote to this company, and they assured me they had discontinued testing on animals, but that they had in the past...

I was dismayed because they were cosmetic products I used... ie; wholly unnecessary, and not what I would consider anything to hurt anyone over. Not that animals should be hurt for any reason, including people.
I deal with P&G at work. I'll be asking more about policies again.

In terms of diapers.. I have been researching more alternatives, yet I am lazy....

If you're interested, here's what I found; http://www.parentingbynature.com/fuzzi_bunz.htm
http://www.gdiapers.com/gdiapers101

posted December 06, 2006 01:41 AM         

Thanks pixie for the information. I'm going there now!

posted December 06, 2006 08:00 AM         

Use humans, indeed!

MM

posted December 06, 2006 08:15 AM         

Pixelpixie... how cool that you've already spoken with the company in the past. It would be great if you could give us an update if you get one. I haven't checked out your links yet, but I'm on it.

(Psst... how ya doin', Mama?!)

Thanks again zenwarner. I, too, have a lot of P&G products in my home. It's difficult to escape them... they're everywhere!