Posts Tagged animal experimentation

The Responses From Bath and Body Works, Proctor & Gamble, Iams and Mars

Only a little while ago I was perusing the Internet to find a list of companies that test on animals. PETA’s seemedto be the most prominent, so I checked it out. For a while I bough into the whole “IamsCruelty” and “Mars Candy Kills”completely, but now I have beginning to doubt. (( Note: I don’t doubt animal testing or it’s horrors but who exactly is doing it and PETA’s possible “agenda” )) When I contacted Iams and Mars there response did not sound at all like what PETA had made them out to be (I’ll post what they said in a sec). Now, that on it’s own may not say much (I mean they could have made a mistake), but now Proctor and Gamble (makers of Herbal Essences) have said similar. Here is their response to my email informing them of Leaping Bunny (an organization that certifies companies that comply to an internationaly recodnised standard of cruelty free products called the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics or CCIC) and the following is their response:

Thank you for contacting us regarding our use of animal testing.  We
are glad to have the chance to share the facts about our product safety
testing program with you.

P&G has consistently refrained from making claims related to animal
research on our products and packaging, and in keeping with this policy,
we are phasing out that language from our packaging.  This does not
represent a change in our research and manufacturing process, but is simply
a matter of making our labels consistent with P&G policy.

We at P&G want to ultimately eliminate the need for all animal testing
of products and ingredients for human use.  We have already ended the
use of animals for evaluating the safety of all current non-food,
non-drug product formulations, except where required by regulations OR WHEN
evaluating the safety of foods, drugs, new technologies and
never-before-used ingredients, we always look first to existing safety data and then
to alternatives.  A minimal amount of animal research is used only when
we’re unable to verify safety any other way — let us stress that
resorting to animal research is the exception rather than the norm.  We’d
rather use alternatives; not only is the use of animals avoided, but
reliable alternatives generally cost less and take less time. 

We’re committed to the ultimate elimination of animal testing FOR
PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR HUMAN USE.  In order to reach this goal, we’re doing a
number of things.  We’ve invested almost $160 million in alternatives,
making us an industry leader.  We’re working with the FDA and
respected animal welfare groups, such as the Humane Society of the United
States, to work on reforming regulations and validating alternative methods
so that we can reach our goal.  These are just a couple of our efforts
in the area of alternatives.  To learn more, we invite you to visit our

For additional information about alternatives, you might visit the
following websites: Research for Animals & People) to Animal Testing site) Society of the United States site) for Medical Progress Educational

We hope this explanation of our position will serve to answer your
inquiry and assure you of our continuing attention to this matter.

The Consumer Relations Team

We should be encouraging these companies to contingue trying to end all testing! I mean Iams and P&G for example are making great strides toward ending animal testing. I think that the way PETA goes about it’s boycott (not to mention I don’t totaly trustPETA in the first place) causes harm to the reputations of companes that could be (often it seems to me) trying to improve. PETA seemes to do more complaining that they haven’t solved the problem than praising the company for making strides toward the final goal. There are many people who will stop buying from these companies entirley and never notice that they are off the “black list”. By they way, I have no problem with a list of companies that test (although I think it should be seperated into performs extreemed and unessisary tests, is attempting to elimenate animal expiriments and dose not test at all), but they should be messured by an agreed upone standard and checked up on by someone trustworthy. PETA’s list is not especialy up-to-date, there is no real official standard (like Leaping Bunny) and , as they themselves admit, they aren’t ever realy sure their white list is ever complying. Anyway, I will go into an entire post about animal testing at a later date. I contacted other companies as well. This one is from Bath and Body Works:

Dear Monica,

We appreciate you taking the time to write us in regards to our policies, services and products. We value your inquiry and your interest in Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Co.

Limited Brands, Inc. does not test its products on animals, nor does it request any of our third party manufacturers, or anyone else, to perform such tests on its behalf. We utilize ingredients in our formulations that are judged safe and we do not ask the supplier of those ingredients to perform any such tests on animals. Limited Brands, Inc. does not use any animal byproducts in its formulations where the animal is either slaughtered or harmed for the sole purpose of obtaining that material. We do condone the use of animal derived products where the animal is not harmed; for example, lanolin, milk, eggs, etc. Again, in keeping with our philosophy regarding the welfare of animals, Limited Brands, Inc. does not conduct animal testing, nor does it request suppliers to test on animals. I will forward your comments to our Executive Team about the Leaping Bunny Standard.

Thanks again for contacting us. We hope you will continue to enjoy your favorites from Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Co. If we can do anything else for you, please feel free to reply to this e-mail (please do not change the subject line) or call us at 1-800-395-1001.

Sincerely,Tami Henry



Tami Henry
Customer Relations Representative

While I’m at it … here’s a link to Mars’ polocy regarding animal testing on their website: …. below is what Iams emailed me in response to my plea for them to stop testing on animals:

Thank you for taking the time to write to us regarding our research and feeding studies. We are passionate about cats and dogs with a deep commitment to their health and welfare, so we understand how important this issue is to you.


For several years misleading and inaccurate information has been circulating and I appreciate this opportunity to provide you with the facts.


To ensure that our products are safe and wholesome, we have the responsibility to pet owners to feed our products to dogs and cats. Over 70% of the dogs and cats in our feeding studies live in consumers’ homes; however, some of our feeding studies require a controlled environment and are conducted at our own Pet Health and Nutrition Center or at an organization where pets are already residing-like animal shelters, or groups that train and provide assistance dogs.


The controlled studies are the veterinary equivalent of nutritional or medical studies acceptable on people. These studies are monitored by our own staff of veterinarians, behaviorists and independent experts. Our dogs and cats get the most advanced pet nutrition and health care as we develop formulas to help all cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives.


At our Pet Health and Nutrition Center , dogs are housed with a companion (because dogs are pack animals). Each kennel has a doggie-door that takes them to an outside run, so they have plenty of room to run and play. Each dog is provided with his or her own toys (rotated on a regular basis) and their very own comfortable bed to sleep on. There is also a dog park adjacent to the kennels where the dogs play and interact each day in play groups.


Our cats are housed in compatible play groups.  Each room is furnished with beds, toys (to stimulate play) and several perches, which allow the cats to observe things from a higher viewpoint. They also have a very large window, which has a platform for the cats to lie in the sun or just sit and watch the birds feeding at the outside bird feeders.


If you’re interested in reading more, please copy-and-paste the following URLs to your web browser.


Our Research Policy:;jsessionid=O1CKZFH2GEOQ5QFIAJ1YYCQ?li=en_US&pti=RP&articleID=2


Videos of dogs and cats at our facility:


Facility reports:


You can also read about our nutritional studies and our facilities from the viewpoint of an independent animal welfare organization by utilizing the following URL:


Thank you for taking the time to read this message. If you need further information or have specific questions, please contact us at 800-525-4267. We’re very happy to speak with you about this very important issue. 




Iams Team Member

Ironically, I just checked and Iams and Mars are not on the “Black List”, but PETA has yet to stop their campaign against them or even realy announce the progress they have made so far. That’s it for now …


Comments (6)

Animal Holocaust?

Now before anyone gets offended, please hear me out. I am not saying that the Holocaust was not a real and terrible thing. I am also not saying that anyone who eats meat is a Nazi or anything weird like that. I encourage you to simply look at the straight facts and come to your own decision. The only comparison I am making is that in the Holocaust, Jews and other discriminated groups such as homosexuals and gypsies were treated very similarly to how we treat animals today.

The Numbers:
The Holocaust killed about 5,820,960 Jews alone (not including non-jews and people who were displaced and/or permanently scared by the Holocaust). This number is according to by the way.

According to (who got the info from the USDA) in 2003 at least 9.1 billion ( if you want that with the zeroes, somthing like: 9,000,000,000land (fish are not counted)animals where killed for food. Keep in mind, that is per year. Broken down this is:

  • Chickens: 8.68 billion (down less than 1 percent from 2002)
  • Turkeys: 267 million (down less than 1 percent from 2002)
  • Ducks: 24.3 million (up 1 percent from 2002)
  • Cattle: 35.5 million (down 1 percent from 2002)
  • Calves: 1 million (down 4 percent from 2002)
  • Pigs: 101 million (up 1 percent from 2002)
  • Sheep and Lambs: 2.98 million (down 9 percent from 2002)
  • Transportation/Living Conditions:
    To get to the Nazi death camps people were separated from their families, crammed into train car like sardines and forced to stand in their own urine and defecation on the way to their death or slavery.
    Animals, after being separated from their parents at birth are shoved into tiny cages for their entire lives only to be moved into tiny trucks and trains to be taken to slaughter. Their entire lives they live standing in their own excretions in cramped conditions surrounded by the bodies of the fallen. Many animals do not even make it to slaughter and/or if they do most cannot walk off the ramp on their own two feet because of the extreme genetically forced growth that causes their legs to buckle and break. Not to mention various diseases and even tumors that are permitted by the FDA.

    In the Holocaust, the “lucky” ones were tattooed and sometimes branded then sent into slavery. The same is done in the cattle industry and the same was often done to African slaves. Until you have had a burning hot brand pressed onto your skin until you can smell flesh burning, don’t tell me branding doesn’t hurt. If you honestly think branding is kind I challenge you to hold a piece of metal in a candle flame till it’s red hot and hold it on your skin long enough to leave a permanent mark. (Don’t actually do that … it’ll hurt like heck)I’m sure anyone who has suffered a significant burn before can give you the details. From the mild burns I’ve experienced I would not want to be branded. Not to mention, branding is often done when the cattle are little and (assuming it’s a male cow) they are usually castrated at the same time (without anesthesia – you can ask a guy for an estimate of what that would feel like). From what I’ve heard, tattooing is not that pleasant either (not as bad as branding I’m sure), especially when it is done unwillingly.
    Also, Holocaust victims were regarded by their number, not as individuals (same as animals).

    Outlasting their “usefulness”:
    During the Holocaust, people who where kept as slaves where executed once they where no longer useful. The same is also true of animals. For example, dairy cows and chickens, once they have outlived their ability to produce milk or eggs (not to mention that their babies are removed from them to get these products. Baby male chicks are usually suffocated in garbage bags or slammed against the concrete till they die. Male cattle babies are often turned into veal – and treated horribly in order to make them more “tender” – … oh yes, and did I mention that chicken’s beeks – which have TONS of nerve ending in them so you could basically compare it to having their thumb hacked off – are snipped off again without anesthesia) are then sold to slaughter. They often go into things like chicken nuggets or other ground up meat so you cannot see the bruises on their battered bodies.

    During the Holocaust men, women and children often went to gas chambers or even the ovens (alive) to die. Animals, while they are supposed to be anesthetized, are often numbed improperly because of the mass numbers of animals the factory is handling (it isn’t all automated, humans are involved in the “disassembly” line and human errors do occur … in some of the worst factories these mistakes are intentionally overlooked because they would slow down production) and get their throats slit, go to the broiler or even get skinned alive, awake and painfully aware.

    The Nazis performed tests on human beings that they considered to be less than them (checkout more info on that). So today we do with animals. The tests are not (in most cases) required by law and are not entirely representative of the results on human subjects. Check the links below for more info.

    Recomended Reading:


    Comments (1)