ATTN: Opponents of Animal Testing

[amnesiac]

I'm a member of an animal rescue group and got this bulletin today; I thought those of you opposed to animal testing might be interested in this.

Dear Animal Avengers---As you may know, we in the rescue community have been boycotting Proctor & Gamble for a number of years due to their continued testing of animals for their products. The latest wrench to be thrown in the mix is that P&G recently acquired the Iams and Eukanuba pet food companies.
I urge you to boycott these companies and all other P&G products until such time as P&G has ceased all animal testing. PETA has been applying pressure on P&G to no avail for some time. This latest acquisition is a veiled attempt to trick people into buying P&G products. As many of you know, Iams and Eukanuba are good premium foods, and prior to the acquisition, many rescuers and their friends used these products without hesitation. In a capitalist economy, the one power we all have is the power of our
wallet. I urge you not to encourage the unnecessary testing of animals by buying P&G products. You can check out the PETA website for a more extensive list, but what follows is a partial list of popular P&G products:
Iams, Eukanuba (pet food products)
Tide, Cheer (laundry detergent)
Pampers
Herbal Essence, Nice 'n Easy (hair products)
Bounty
Olay, Noxzema (skin care products)
Dawn, Cascade (dishwashing liquids)
Always, Tampax
Charmin
Crest
Folgers
Pringles
Sunny Delight
There are plenty of products out there made by companies that have responsible and humane policies. Please do not support animal testing.
Please do not buy P&G products.

I never realized how many brands that P&G encompassed. I don't use most of those products anyway but I'm sure some of you might like to know about their acquisition of those pet food companies.

...just waiting for the smart ass remark of "well they NEED to do animal testing with pet food"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Think I need some Pringles... yum!

 

[Dudd]

This latest acquisition is a veiled attempt to trick people into buying P&G products. As many of you know, Iams and Eukanuba are good premium foods, and prior to the acquisition, many rescuers and their friends used these products without hesitation.

I'm sure that the idea of additional profit had nothing to do with this purchase, and it was all done to trick a group of animal activists who otherwise wouldn't buy P&G goods. I agree with Hayabusarider, I think I need some Pringles too.

 

[TheBDB]

Buying Proctor and Gamble products does not mean you support animal testing.

 

[amnesiac]

Originally posted by: Dudd

This latest acquisition is a veiled attempt to trick people into buying P&G products. As many of you know, Iams and Eukanuba are good premium foods, and prior to the acquisition, many rescuers and their friends used these products without hesitation.

I'm sure that the idea of additional profit had nothing to do with this purchase, and it was all done to trick a group of animal activists who otherwise wouldn't buy P&G goods. I agree with Hayabusarider, I think I need some Pringles too.

Cripes, people, I just wanted to pass on this bulletin to let those few who might be boycotting P&G products for their animal testing policy know that now P&G is in the pet food business. You don't have to be an ass about it.

 

[jjessico]

10-4 man, hardcore subversive evil at work here. Trickery. One day they will come out to everyone's house who bought the stuff and yell "hahah gotcha".


That or they bought the companies to make money. Yeah that's it.

Jason

 

[Spac3d]

I'm not opposed.

 

[Whisper]

Yeah...I have to say that I'd rather have profound scientific benefit at the expense of animal lives, than to regress scientific discovery (and possibly cause the loss of human life) in order to save all animals from potentially inhumane treatment.

And no, I don't find pringles to be a profound scientific benefit. Tasty, sure. But not very profound.

 

[theNEOone]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Think I need some Pringles... yum!

LOL

 

[SherEPunjab]

any evidence of what P&G actually does? I will not buy their products if they are violators.

non-medical Animal testing in 2003 is ridiculous. And yes, i'm prepared to pay higher costs for products.



Thanks for the heads up Amnesiac, but send me some evidence.

 

[LordMaul]

Charmin
Crest
Folgers
Pringles
Sunny Delight

OMG, poor little dogs are being forced to drink coffee, eat potato chips, drink orange juice, get their teeth brushed and wipe their asses with 2 ply soft and fluffy toilet paper! Oh no! Save the animals!

EDIT: Pampers

Hmm...they're forced to wear diapers, too? Alright, NOW I see why it's such a bad thing! Dogs in diapers - the horror!

 

[gopunk]

is the pet food stuff really that bad? i mean hey, i wouldn't mind being a human food tester for some fancy restaurant

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: LordMaul
Charmin
Crest
Folgers
Pringles
Sunny Delight

OMG, poor little dogs are being forced to drink coffee, eat potato chips, drink orange juice, get their teeth brushed and wipe their asses with 2 ply soft and fluffy toilet paper! Oh no! Save the animals!

EDIT: Pampers

Hmm...they're forced to wear diapers, too? Alright, NOW I see why it's such a bad thing! Dogs in diapers - the horror!

I take it you are rolling eyes at the stupidity of your own post.

Because, it was stupid.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Do you really think they are just going to feed the dogs? While the testing might not be on eating dog food, I think Amnesiac was trying to say that since the money was going back to the same parent company, maybe we should boycott it, not for its Iams line of products per se, but maybe its natural essences, or Tide products that hurt/kill animals.


but i'm getting ahead of myself, i'd like to see some evidence first.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Do you really think they are just going to feed the dogs? While the testing might not be on eating dog food, I think Amnesiac was trying to say that since the money was going back to the same parent company, maybe we should boycott it, not for its Iams line of products per se, but maybe its natural essences, or Tide products that hurt/kill animals.


but i'm getting ahead of myself, i'd like to see some evidence first.

ok my bad, i thought that was a list of products they do the testing for.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

sheesh...they make good stuff, I had no idea they made / owned all those names. Most of those names are the best / almost the best in each product category

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
any evidence of what P&G actually does? I will not buy their products if they are violators.

non-medical Animal testing in 2003 is ridiculous. And yes, i'm prepared to pay higher costs for products.



Thanks for the heads up Amnesiac, but send me some evidence.

The basic drill for testing soap and cosmetics is to slice off the animal's eyelids and see which substances blind it.

 

[Spoooon]

I'm not opposed to animal testing per se... just inhumane treatment. For example, pouring shampoo on animals' eyes to see if it is an irritant or will otherwise cause harm. I don't know if company's still do that, just the only quick example that I could think of.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog
sheesh...they make good stuff, I had no idea they made / owned all those names. Most of those names are the best / almost the best in each product category

yeah i know. Like, i've patronized Tide., i also use herbal essences shampoo, conditioners, and spray gels. I like the orgasm feeling it provides me....

But hey if they are doing this, then fine, I'll boycott them, but damnit i want to see some proof.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
any evidence of what P&G actually does? I will not buy their products if they are violators.

non-medical Animal testing in 2003 is ridiculous. And yes, i'm prepared to pay higher costs for products.



Thanks for the heads up Amnesiac, but send me some evidence.

The basic drill for testing soap and cosmetics is to slice off the animal's eyelids and see which substances blind it.

shut the hell up??

 

[silverpig]

Tampons are tested on animals?

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I'm not opposed to animal testing per se... just inhumane treatment. For example, pouring shampoo on animals' eyes to see if it is an irritant or will otherwise cause harm. I don't know if company's still do that, just the only quick example that I could think of.

but that's what animal testing would be spoooon. Its not like they sit them down on a desk, hand them a pencil and tell them to name all 50 states.

 

[jjessico]

Would you rather have it blind you or a lab rat?

Jason

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

The basic drill for testing soap and cosmetics is to slice off the animal's eyelids and see which substances blind it.

any links to substantiate this statement..if thats true, it certainly changes my view on things

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I'm not opposed to animal testing per se... just inhumane treatment. For example, pouring shampoo on animals' eyes to see if it is an irritant or will otherwise cause harm. I don't know if company's still do that, just the only quick example that I could think of.

but that's what animal testing would be spoooon. Its not like they sit them down on a desk, hand them a pencil and tell them to name all 50 states.

Why do we need to continue testing shampoo formulas? There are hundreds of different kinds, there is no point to continue doing that. Perfume? Other cosmetics? Cruel treatment for vanity's sake.

Medical testing... I'm kind of iffy on. While I don't like the idea of infecting an otherwise healthy animal with something just to see if we can cure it I understand the need for it.