Do you know any companies that test on animals?
Here are the ones i found so far
Cruelty Endorsing Companies and Contact Info
The following companies manufacture products that ARE tested on animals.Listed in parentheses are examples of products manufactured by either the company listed or, if applicable, its parent company.Companies on this list may manufacture individual lines of products without animal testing (e.g., Clairol claims that its Herbal Essences line is not animal-tested). They have not, however, eliminated animal testing from their entire line of cosmetics and household products.
Feel free to send them petitions, hate mail, etc.
Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight), P.O. Box 1625, Horsham, PA 19044-6625;
609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.armhammer.com
Bic Corporation, 500 Bic Dr., Milford, CT 06460; 203-783-2000; www.bicworld.com
Chesebrough-Ponds (Fabergé, Ponds, Vaseline), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 800-743-8640; www.pondssquad.com
Church & Dwight (Aim, Arm & Hammer, Arrid, Brillo, Close-up, Lady’s
Choice, Mentadent, Nair, Orange Glo International, Pearl Drops), P.O. Box 1625, Horsham, PA 19044-6625; 609-683-5900; 800-524-1328; www.churchdwight.com
Clairol (Aussie, Daily Defense, Herbal Essences, Infusium 23, Procter & Gamble), 1 Blachley Rd., Stamford, CT 06922; 800-252-4765; www.clairol.com
Clorox (ArmorAll, Formula 409, Fresh Step, Glad, Liquid Plumber, Pine-Sol, Soft Scrub, S.O.S., Tilex), 1221 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94612; 510-271-7000;
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Hills Pet Nutrition, Mennen, Palmolive, SoftSoap, Speed Stick), 300 Park Ave., New York, NY 10022; 212-310-2000; 800-221-4607; www.colgate.com
Cover Girl (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.covergirl.com
Dial Corporation (Dry Idea, Purex, Renuzit, Right Guard, Soft & Dri), 15101 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 5028, Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2199; 800-528-0849; www.dialcorp.com
Johnson & Johnson (Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Listerine, Lubriderm, Neutrogena, Rembrandt, ROC), 1 Johnson & Johnson Plz., New Brunswick, NJ 08933; 732-524-0400; 800-526-3967; www.jnj.com
L’Oréal U.S.A. (Biotherm, Cacharel, Garnier, Giorgio Armani, Helena
Rubinstein, Lancôme, Matrix Essentials, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren
Fragrances, Redken, Soft Sheen, Vichy), 575 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10017;
Max Factor (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 513-983-1100; 800-543-1745; www.maxfactor.com
Olay Co./Oil of Olay (Procter & Gamble), P.O. Box 599, Cincinnati, OH 45201;
Oral-B (Procter & Gamble), 600 Clipper Dr., Belmont, CA 94002-4119;
Pantene (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202;
Physique (Procter & Gamble), One Procter & Gamble Plz., Cincinnati, OH 45202; 800-214-8957; www.physique.com
Playtex Products (Banana Boat), 300 Nyala Farms Rd., Westport, CT 06880; 203-341-4000; www.playtex.com
S.C. Johnson (Drano, Edge, Fantastik, Glade, OFF!, Oust, Pledge, Scrubbing Bubbles, Shout, Skintimate, Windex, Ziploc), 1525 Howe St., Racine, WI 53403;
Suave (Unilever), 800 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; 212-888-1260;
Do you know anymore?
Asked By: XxNirVanA-Rox!xX - 1/2/2009
According to American law, all companies are required by LAW to test on animals, or to piggy-back the testing done by another company or organization, before offering their products to the American public. Otherwise, they can be sued for public endangerment. Those companies who claim not to test on animals are, in actuality, either using other companies as a front to test for them, using the results other companies are giving, or have done a lot of tests in the past from which they're using results. Animal testing today is far less cruel than in the past, but since the government does not allow any alternative, what can a company do?
The professional large companies have found that the BEST way to make sure that the animals are given higher quality care, and to make sure that they don't get in trouble with animal rights people nearly as much, is to take their animal testing in hand and not outsource it or base it on some other company's tests. You know that it's been thoroughly done, so that you don't have to do it again, and you know that your company did the best they could for humane treatment.
Therefore... I don't punish companies who test on animals. They don't have a choice. I applaud those companies who hire professional groups so that hopefully they reduce the number of animals tested on, and when professional groups are used like that I am glad when they share their information which also reduces the amount of animals tested on. I HATE the companies which lie to the consumer, saying they don't test on animals or never tested on animals, while going behind your back and getting the information from sources that tend to waste animals like so many tissues and doing such a bad job of testing that the tests often have to be done and redone again and again.
Before you blacklist companies that test on animals, I suggest you get the law to change. Otherwise, there can be NO company that does not test on animals. They don't have a choice.
Add: Here's an interesting tidbit. I've seen a lot of people on this board talk about the health benefits of soy. This was found by testing on rats, they've yet to test it on people yet. This means that even vegetarian type diets were animal tested before they recommended them to the public, at least "health officials" recommending it. All pet food is, of course, tested on animals. All medicine is tested on animals. Just about EVERYTHING is tested on animals, because if the company doesn't, they are breaking law and are at risk of being sued for not taking necessary precautions before offering whatever it is to the public.
The laws need to be changed before we can expect any other change.
Add: Actually, the "tried and tested" formulas have to be retried and tested every so many years to show that they are still unreactive. They usually rely on the companies who have enough guts to do the tests to share their results... though sometimes they pay for the results under the table and still claim they don't support animal testing. I'd rather know the company invested enough money to only use as many animals as legally required than to know they snuck around like that.
And as long as people buy it, then the companies need to make it, or else they will go out of business and cease to exist. Which is why I'm very minimalistic when it comes to cosmetics. Ie, I use very unreactive shampoos, conditioners, soap, and lotion. I wear no makeup, hairspray, hairdye, fingernail polish, etc. It doesn't make much of a difference, but it's one more person saying "I don't need these things" and hopefully eventually they will listen.
Here's some info though. As far as cosmetics go, the FDA recommends testing because the manufacturers will be held legally responsible if something happens and they need to make sure it's safe for the consumers, but they don't require it anymore. I was mistaken about that. With other products they still require it. The FDA though is trying to find alternatives and recommend them. The whole stance is "use less animals..."
The second link is talking about recent developments that may signal the end of animal testing! It also goes into the 3 Rs of fighting it (replace the animal, reduce the number, reuse the data.)
My point though is that I am extremely annoyed at the companies who aren't honest, who are found to support animal testing while saying they don't, and because they go about it in the background they let the big companies take the fall. I'd rather have an expert doing the testing, and the big companies almost always have an expert, so that fewer animals are used. I don't think they should be punished for that.
Answered By: Minnow - 1/2/2009