Animal rights campaigners boycott Procter and Gamble this weekend

Safety is P&G's 'No 1 priority'. Photo:raquelina

Over 150 events are planned to take place in town centres, high streets and supermarkets across the world tomorrow (17 May) as part of ‘Global Boycott Procter & Gamble Day’.

Campaigners will take to the streets to protest against the animal testing policies of Procter and Gamble (P&G), which produces a huge range of household name products, including cosmetics, pet food and cleaning products. Uncaged, a UK anti-vivisection organisation, is coordinating the protests.

Uncaged wants to draw consumers’ attention to the continued use of animals in safety tests. While P&G is quick to emphasise it has been at the forefront of developing alternatives to animal testing, it also admits that: 'Sometimes, when absolutely necessary, and when required to do so by law, we must conduct research to ensure materials are safe and effective,’ and confirmed that sometimes this means testing on animals: ‘Research involving animals is a last resort - it is the exception, and not the rule.’

The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) confirms that: ‘Animal testing still remains the only accepted method required by regulatory bodies for assuring the health and safety of workers developing new chemical ingredients (for whatever purpose).’

However CPTA claims that: ‘Animal testing of both cosmetic products and their ingredients has not taken place in the UK since 1997,’ but that: ‘Currently, a very small number of animals is used for the safety testing of cosmetic ingredients out of the total animals used in Europe.’

We asked P&G if CPTA was correct, and if so does that mean that P&G tests cosmetic ingredients in Europe, outside of the UK? P&G told us: ‘We no longer test our beauty products on animals; not here nor in any other country, nor do we ask suppliers to test them on our behalf.’ However P&G failed to tell us about the ingredients as asked.

We wanted to know why P&G couldn’t stick with existing ingedients that have a proven safety record, and therefore eliminate any requirement for animal testing. P&G told us: ‘In most cases, this is exactly what we do.’ It didn’t answer why in other cases it doesn’t.

P&G draws attention to its defence that: ‘The research is mostly safety evaluations required by law for our pharmaceutical products for the treatment of serious diseases. Whenever possible, we use computer models, synthetic materials, published scientific studies, and what our consumers tell us about the products they use.’ It fails to tackle the question in the same head-on way in reference to the safety evaluations that aren’t for pharmaceuticals.

P&G reveals that: ‘Less than 1 per cent of all the safety evaluations we do involve animal research', calling it a ‘tiny percentage’. But what does this ’tiny percentage’ equate to in actual numbers of animals each year? ‘We do not disclose this figure,’ says P&G.

We also wanted to know if P&G would continue introducing new ingredients that require testing on animals if it were required by law to state on the packaging that animal testing had been carried out. P&G skimmed over the issue saying: ‘P&G is a responsible company and complies fully with current legislation.’

Despite P&G’s attempt to direct the debate to areas of safety, and legal requirements, in the pharmaceutical industry, there is a lack of openness around animal testing for ingredients that end up in consumer products, making it hard to obtain a clear picture as to what tests are carried out on animals, and what for.

What we do know for sure is that there are companies that don’t, and never will test products or ingredients on animals, in this country or anywhere else. So if you’re not literally taking to the streets this weekend, you can still protest with your purse.