>From:    Skyla Fay <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: P&G testing
 
Weasel words?  Nope.  Honesty...
 
>This does NOT mean that the ingredients were never tested on
>animals though.
 
Of course!  Those companies that claim to have never done animal testing
but use the same ingredients are far more dishonest.
 
P&G's consumer products have all had their ingreients tested on animals So
has every single one of their competitors.  But not likely ferrets for
those soaps, shampoos and lipstick.
 
>Someone somewhere at some time tested that ingredient, probably on an
>animal, but this way P&G can claim their hands are clean.
 
Not probably, almost "CERTAINLY" on an animal and then on humans.  Possibly
ferrets but not too likely since ferrets are more used for specific
pharmaceuticals.
 
But "animal friendly" companies have the same requirements so all they are
doing is the same thing but deceptively.  They claim no cruelty despite
leveraging of previous testing.  P&G is claiming to minimize animal
testing.  Who is being deceptive?
 
There was no doublespeak in the message as I read it.  If you though buy
into the talk from the cruelty free companies you are buying into the
doublespeak.
 
b&d
--
bill and diane killian
zen and the art of ferrets
http://www.zenferret.com/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
[Posted in FML issue 3003]