[skip navigation]
Procter and Gamble recently announced that it would end all animal tests on all "current beauty, fabric and home care, and paper products." That decision was initially hailed by some animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which tried to take credit for P&G’s decision.
In Defense of Animals suggested, however, that the whole thing might be a sham. In a response to P&G, IDA's Elliot Katz said,
It has been their [Procter & Gamble’s] competitive nature in the past that has led to enormous suffering, and it is inherent corporate greed that is allowing them to continue torturing animals on future products. There is always apprehension that such grand statements are made for public relations reasons as opposed to concern and compassion for the animals. Because they have been disingenuous in the past, there is reason to be leery now.
The sticking point seems to be Procter & Gamble’s apparent intention to test new ingredients and new products formed from old ingredients on animals. The proposed solution offered by some animal rights activists is typical of these groups' mentality. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection suggested in a press release that, "P&G [should] wash their hands of animal testing for good by using only combinations of the thousands of ingredients already proven safe, which do not necessitate further animal testing."