A. G Lafley, CEO
Procter & Gamble Co
1 Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati
OH 45202
USA.
Dear Mr. Lafley,
I was concerned to learn about the recent accusations towards Procter &
Gamble
in respect to a secret memo addressed to you by a senior US executive,
Barbara
Slatt (22nd of October 2002; The Independent). This memo revealed that P
& G
actively and aggressively lobbied EU decision-makers in order to lessen
the
impact of any possible EU cosmetics animal testing ban on its animal
testing
activities. Furthermore, the memo made clear that, in spite of the
official
statements of P & G about wanting to see an end to animal testing, the
company
intends to keep conducting testing on animals.
Although P & G could have seen the EU animal-testing ban as an
opportunity to
definitively replace animal testing by alternatives, stated as an
imperative
goal for the company, it planned to side step the EU ban by conducting
the
experiments outside Europe. This does not show any respect for animals
at all
as so often claimed, neither for people’s views that the testing on
animals is
unacceptable, whatever the country in which it is done.
Would the publicised will of P & G to use alternatives be only a matter
of
public relations?
As a biologist, I know that animal testing is pointless and dangerous
for
human health. Animal data, due to important differences in physiology
between
different species, is unreliable as a guide to human reactions. Allowing
products tested on animals to be put on the market, although the
reactions of
the products differ from a species to another one, and consequently that
the
safety of the products on human beings can’t be assessed in an accurate
manner, is criminal and opens up the way for the development of diseases
such
as cancers in human beings. Testing on animals is against the
precautionary
principle, and is consequently completely unethical.
As an individual respectful of sentient beings and opposing pain and
suffering
inflicted on animals on the false pretext of a necessary evil, how can I
consciously support a company that tests ingredients or products on
animals by
dripping them into rabbits' eyes or force feeding down a guinea-pig's
throat?
Inflicting suffering on animals in order to sell lipsticks and shampoo
is
unacceptable and unworthy of a company like yours.
P & G says it spends millions every year on alternative, non-animal,
testing
methods, and are 'committed to eliminating the use of animals for safety
testing as soon as good science permits. It is time, then, to put into
practice the P & G statements. Stopping animal testing for household,
cosmetics and toiletry products is not a matter of waiting for good
science to
develop.
Modern and accurate scientific toxicology methods do indeed exist, which
do
not involve the harm of animals (please refer, for example, to the
Scientific
Committee Pro Anima, www.proanima.asso.fr, which proposes a battery of
tests
to evaluate the safety of products for human beings).
There is no excuse anymore to continue the torture of an estimated
50,000
animals who die at the hands of Procter & Gamble every year. The only
obstacle
now to stopping the pain and distress inflicted to animals is P & G
policy.
For the reasons enunciated above, I urge you to definitively stop the
useless,
dangerous and shameful testing of substances on animals. Awaiting that
time,
and until I am certain of the enforcement of the replacement of animal
testing, my family and I will continue our boycott of P&G products. I
will
also continue to promote public awareness of the participation in a
cruel,
dangerous, scientifically and morally indefensible business as people
give
money to your company.
I strongly hope that P & G will join the hundreds of companies that
ensure
that their products are safe for consumers without any animal tests on
the
finished product or the ingredients.
Sincerely,
