>The finished formulations in our non-food and non-drug products are no
>longer tested on animals.
 
The key phrase here is "finished formulations".  This is (pardon the
phrase!) what's known as "weasel wording".  Just as a pet food manufacturer
can claim they don't use BHA or BHT if the ingredients come to them
*already* containing those questionable preservatives, so P&G can claim
they don't test the final product on animals.  This does NOT mean that the
ingredients were never tested on animals though.
 
>Even when we come across a totally new ingredient or technology we're
>able, in most cases, to use existing safety information and non-animal
>tests to prove safety.
 
Here the key words are "in most cases" and "existing safety information".
How do you think that existing safety information was compiled?  Someone
somewhere at some time tested that ingredient, probably on an animal, but
this way P&G can claim their hands are clean.
 
Yes, it's nice that they aren't repeating tests to confirm already known
safety data, but this is mainly because they realized that using other
people's safety data was more cost-effective.
 
Yes, I am happy that, whatever their reasons, they are using many fewer
animals in painful tests.  But I think we need to keep our eyes open and
ears alert to the Orwellian doublespeak that marketing people use to try
to fool or mislead us.
 
Love the weasel, but beware the Weasel Word!
 
--skyla
[Posted in FML issue 3002]