ACTION ALERTS Protest at P&G! Across the U.S. Outside the U.S. RESOURCES Sample Letter Available Online Stickers and Poster Available ITEMS OF INTEREST Gag money rejected Rent-a-Researcher: Did a British university sell out to Procter & Gamble? Data row sparks research debate When access to data is a real bone of contention Doctor accuses drugs giant of 'unethical' secrecy How the drugs giant and a lone academic went to war Journal warned about P&G data Correspondence in Observer: December 11, 2005 Whistleblower wins drugs study inquiry P&G to buy Gillette for $57B IAMSKills.com Dr. Elliot Katz's Statement to P&G A P&G Shareholder's Statement

Each year, thousands of animals die in Procter & Gamble laboratories -- the victims of painful, archaic and entirely unnecessary product tests. Caustic chemicals are forced into the eyes of rabbits and applied to animals' shaved and raw skin.

Laboratory workers place the animals in restraining devices so they cannot struggle while the workers apply the chemicals, which burn into the animals' eyes and skin. P&G "scientists" do not sedate the animals or give them pain killers.

Animals sometimes break their necks or backs attempting to escape the pain. Those that survive are used in yet additional painful tests ... until they are finally killed. The victims include rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, ferrets and other animals.

P&G refuses to stop testing its products on animals, despite the fact that these tests are not required by any law, and despite the fact that more reliable and humane alternatives do exist.

Procter & Gamble spends millions of dollars to package itself as a responsible, caring company, and claims to be a leader in the development of alternatives to the use of animals in product testing.

But P&G refuses to put its money where its mouth is. In 2004 alone, P&G spent $3 billion on advertising. This stands in stark contrast to the $64 million that P&G claims to have spent on developing alternatives over a 14-year period!

Despite its repeated P.R. claims about being in the forefront of developing alternatives and reducing product testing on animals, P&G's priorities seem clear: in less than 5 days, P&G spends more on advertising than it claims to have spent in 14 years on alternatives to painful and lethal animal tests.

The fact is, P&G says one thing and does another. If they truly shared our goal of eliminating animal cruelty, P&G would not have lobbied to defeat a bill before the California legislature that would have banned the infamous Draize eye-irritancy test.

In reality, P&G relies on these archaic tests strictly for its own protection from liability lawsuits. The truth is that P&G could stop animal testing today without hindering anyone's safety. Until it stops its animal cruelty, the letters P&G will stand for nothing but Pain & Greed!