A reader recently wrote an email taking Paula to task for reviewing products favorably when the company or brand behind them is known to conduct animal testing. This reader didn’t appreciate Paula praising a product when the very product in question may have been used for animal testing purposes, resulting in needless cruelty and death.
Without question, the issue of animal testing is complex and fraught with moral ambiguity. That is why Paula and her team made the decision years ago to not let a company’s animal testing status affect how products are reviewed. Instead, we chose to let consumers decide whether they want to support a company that engages in this practice or not. As fewer and fewer cosmetic companies continue to rely on animal testing, the neutral stance we’ve chosen has become less of an issue.
Despite this, the reader’s email nagged at me. She specified that we review many Olay products positively yet she won’t use this brand or any other owned by Olay’s parent company, Procter & Gamble. I have some friends who feel the same way, too. I decided to contact a P&G employee we’ve developed a professional relationship with. I wanted to hear firsthand what the company would say about this issue. Here is the response I received:
“P&G Beauty & Grooming’s position is we do not test our products on animals; nor do we ask suppliers to test them on our behalf. We do not test ingredients on animals, except in very rare cases when needed to meet government-mandated or safety obligations. Today, the vast majority of P&G’s cosmetic and grooming safety assessments (i.e., >99%) are conducted by using non-animal alternative methods. This is a direct result of our leadership efforts in developing alternative methods [to animal testing]. As a company, P&G has invested more than $250 million to date in helping to develop more than 50 proven alternative methods. And, we are committed to continuing our leadership in research to develop non-animal alternative methods which will ultimately result in the elimination of all animal testing.”
Given the breadth of P&G’s brand portfolio and the worldwide regulations they must abide by, it isn’t surprising that they may need to conduct a small amount of animal testing to meet regulatory, toxicology, or safety requirements. However, it seems they have abandoned animal testing as it relates to personal care products, which is great news.
I was surprised at how much money the company has invested in developing alternatives to animal testing. $250 million is an incredible sum! It’s clearly not one a corporation would offer if they weren’t interested in putting an end to animal suffering in the name of human beauty. My hat is off to them for their ongoing efforts, which no doubt will result in better products with stronger pre-market safety records.
As for consumers, including the woman whose email inspired this blog, the ball remains in your court. Are P&G’s efforts to phase out animal testing enough to convince you to shop their brands—or would you prefer to take an all-or-nothing approach and steer clear until they go on record stating that all company-sponsored animal testing has ceased? The choice is yours but it must be said that avoiding P&G products means you will not be using some of the best the cosmetics industry has to offer. Clearly, for many this issue isn’t as black and white as it once was.
