P&G say they have spent over $190 million on developing alternatives, doesn’t that show how committed they are to stopping animal testing?
P&G could stop their animal testing immediately if they decided to use the thousands of existing ingredients that already have a proven safety record from being used by humans. The bottom line is that they put profits ahead of animals – it’s pure greed. P&G’s own scientific papers show that some of these proposed ‘alternatives’ are just slightly less cruel types of animal test, rather than truly humane, non-animal alternatives. Even if we accept P&G’s claim at face value (and there’s no evidence to back it up), then this translates to just 0.6% of their total spending on research. Even more startling, the amount spent by P&G on developing alternatives is approximately 1/1000, or 0.1%, of the amount that it spends on advertising. So their claims are not quite so impressive when put in context.
Related Questions
- P&G say they have spent over $150 million on developing alternatives (since 1984), doesn’t that show how committed they are to stopping animal testing?
- P&G say they have spent over $190 million on developing alternatives, doesn’t that show how committed they are to stopping animal testing?
- Where are some resources an investigator can use to help find alternatives to live animal use or alternatives to painful procedures?
