From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:11:01 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I suppose my family and I formerly purchased roughly $250 worth 
rl> of Proctor and Gamble products each year.  For the past few years 
rl> or so, however, we've been making conscious decisions to buy 
rl> competitors' products instead.  If you were the CEO of P&G would 
rl> you want to hear our reasons for defecting to the competition via
rl> your toll-free customer service line?  Or, would you prefer to simply 
rl> have us "go away"?  

From article <mhulsey-131192153346@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Marty Hulsey):
mh> Russell, your actions here might be ill-informed.  Although P&G 
mh> does test its products on animals, you may be unaware that they 
mh> also spend a considerable amount of money funding extramural 
mh> proposals for the development of alternatives to animal testing.  
mh> To my knowledge, none of their competitors that you support have 
mh> such research programs.  

Several organizations have been funded by private industry for 
the express purpose of developing reliable alternatives to animal 
test procedures.  Of particular interest to US citizens is the 
Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins which 
was established in 1981 and is supported by many companies, 
including Johnson and Johnson, Mary Kay, Benetton, Chanel, 
Walgreens, Exxon, DuPont, Mobil, P&G, and Avon.  

According to PETA, the CTFA has contributed more than $5 million
to the development of alternatives to draize testing alone since 
1981.  The authors of a recent book on the animal rights movement
(Jaspers and Nelkin) claim that the Soap and Detergent Association
has also invested in a program aimed at eliminating draize testing.

It seems clear that neither past nor future developments have
depended on P&G participation.  While P&G ought to be commended for
taking some positive steps in the right direction, I prefer
to give my business to competitors who are fully committed.

mh> Consider that your support of P&G might 
mh> help fund the breakthrough that ultimately allows animal testing 
mh> of consumer products to be eliminated or reduced.  

What sort of "breakthroughs" did you have in mind?  Would they include:

- the "cam" test, the "ames" test, the "agarose diffusion method", 
  and "topkat"
- "Eytex", developed by Ropak Industries
- "Neutral Red Bioassay" and "EpiPack", developed by Clonetics Corporation
- "Neoderm", developed by Marrow-Tech
- "Testskin", developed by Organogenesis

References:

"Skin Stand-ins: Dermal substitutes promise to reduce animal testing",
_Scientific American_, September, 1990, p. 168.

Fentem, Julia and Balls, Michael.  "In Vitro Alternatives to Toxicity
Testing in Animals".  _Chemistry and Industry_, March 16, 1992, pp 207-
211.

Weiss, Rick.  "Test Tube Toxicology".  _Science News_, January 16, 1988,
pp 42-45.

Jasper, James and Nelkin, Dorothy.  _The Animal Rights Crusade_.
The Free Press: NY, 1992. pp 103-114.

"Animal Experiments - #4".  _PETA Fact Sheets_.  People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals: Washington, DC. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals