>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]