Tag: Procter and Gamble

Chrissie Hynde Leaves Message for P&G Employees

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals somehow got list of about 13,000 Proctor & Gamble phone numbers and in July left all of them a voice mail message recorded by Chrissie Hynde.

In the voice mail message, Hynde said,

Don’t think these tests [performed by P&G-owned Iams] are necessary or required by law. They aren’t. Other companies test in other ways.

For some reason, Hynde left out her final solution to the animal testing problem,

The last resort is for someone to go in and actually take these guys out. Maybe it will have to be an out-and-out assassination. When no one will listen anymore, then individuals have to take the law into their own hands and it can get very ugly.

And trust me — Hynde and PETA are certainly experts when it comes to ugliness, both moral and otherwise.

Source:

Hello P&G? It’s Chrissie. The Enquirer (Cincinnati, Ohio), July 8, 2004.

ALF Claims It Contaminated Shampoo Bottles in New Zealand

The Frontline Information Service distributed a release from the Animal Liberation Front this week claiming that it had contaminated 38 bottles of Pantene Pro V shampoo in New Zealand. The bottles were contaminated with ammonia and hydrogen peroxide and were randomly mixed with uncontaminated bottles.

According to its communique taking credit for the act, the ALF said,

This action was done to coincide with World Week for Laboratory Animals and aimed specifically at Procter and Gamble, manufacturers of the shampoo. Why? An estimated 50,000 animals suffer and die at the hands of Procter & Gamble every year in unscientific ‘product testing’.

This action is dedicated to Barry Horne, whose life’s work brought attention to the suffering of animals in laboratories everywhere, and whose actions inspired people who care about animals to act on their behalf, even if it means risking your freedom for theirs.

The dedication to Barry Horne is apropos since what Horne did was risk other people’s lives for his own insane ideology. Contaminating a consumer product is the sort of cowardly act typical of the Animal Liberation Front.

Source:

NZ Animal Liberation Front Contaminate Bottles of Shampoo. Frontline Information Service, April 24, 2002.

Procter and Gamble Slammed for Agreement with the Pasteur Institute

After recently announcing
that it would end most animal tests, Procter and Gamble was slammed by
animal rights activists for signing a five-year agreement with France’s
Pasteur Institute. The Pasteur Institute is a world class microbiological
research center located in Paris. Procter and Gamble said the agreement
was for the development of products designed at improving household hygiene.

The Pasteur Institute is best
known for its research on infectious diseases and as a representative
of Illinois Animal Action put it, “This [agreement] means more animal
tests.”

Procter and Gamble Abandons Animal Testing, But Activists Still Not Satisfied

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.”