Skip to Main Content
Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.

Important New Info for Caring Consumers

Written by PETA | September 21, 2011

PETA’s “do test” and “don’t test” lists have been an essential part of shopping for millions of people for nearly three decades—and in all those years, we’ve never made a change to the way we list companies: They either conduct (or pay someone to conduct) painful skin, eye, and other poisoning tests on animals, or they don’t

 
© Jessica Florence

Now, for the first time ever, we are launching a new category, called “Working for Regulatory Change.” This new category recognizes manufacturers that only conduct tests on animals that are required by law and work hard to develop and lobby for the validation of non-animal tests. The requirements for making the list are as tough as boot camp. In addition to refusing to conduct any tests on animals that are not required by law and devoting substantial support and human hours toward the acceptance of non-animal methods, companies must lift the veil of secrecy and talk openly with PETA about what tests they conduct on which species and how many animals are used. And they have to do it every year.  

With such tough standards to meet, it’s not too surprising that only one company is on the “Working for Regulatory Change” list so far: Colgate-Palmolive. Colgate has been transparent with the public and with PETA about what it does and why, and the company has had a moratorium on all tests on animals for its adult personal-care product line for more than a decade. In its last reporting year, Colgate conducted no tests on animals at all.

We’d never suggest buying products from companies that test on animals, but we also recognize that some companies have never spent one corporate dime on developing and validating non-animal test methods. We challenge these companies to follow Colgate’s example and stop hiding and start working for an end to all tests on animals.

 

 Written by Michelle Sherrow

Related Posts

Respond

Comments

Post a Comment

If your comment doesn't appear right away, please be patient as it may take some time to publish or may require moderation.

By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our collection, storage, use, and disclosure of your personal info in accordance with our privacy policy as well as to receiving e-mails from us.

  • Steve says:

    Whst aboit loreal, they have spent millions of $$ on their episkin! This is to stop animal testing! They also dont do any ivasive testing! How bout credit where credit is due!

  • Carla says:

    I’m with Samantha! I’m a born-again Christian, *and* an animal advocate. God *did* indeed give humankind “dominion” over animals, but that implies responsibility to take proper care of them!

  • Sarab B says:

    Love the Picture too cute,thank you for this new category.

  • anna says:

    I’m totally loving the rat picture, its soooooo cute xx

  • Samantha says:

    God put humans in charge of animals, He did not say we could use and abuse them as they are as His creatures.

  • marg.b. says:

    Tabitha leslie, your comment of 21 Sept. 2011 are not to be laughed at. Does your attitude toward the people in gaol make you any better than them, or are you just expecting that ‘someone else’ can carry out cruel testing on another human being. Judge yourself before you judge others. May life bring you peace and happiness.

  • marg.b. says:

    I firmly believe that it is, at least, as important to acknowledge to ethical stand that companies take,as it is to expose the cruel and unethical ones. I was dismayed though, at Judy and Julie’s comments condoning the idea to ‘test’ on prisoners!!! For whatever reason someone is in prison they are human ‘animals’ who feel pain and fear. Why would you condone cruelty to them??? It is because of attitudes like yours that prisoners NEED rights. Don not judge other peoples behaviour/attitude before you look within your own heart.

  • melissam says:

    The new catagory will be very helpful it’s important to recognize companies who are trying to change.

  • Allykat says:

    I’m very glad to hear that about Colgate! I’m a Dental Hygentist and I’ve always recommended Colgate because it really works the best to me and it was on your list of “good companies” Now this is another thing to love about them!!! Thanks so much for helping us out there that have a hard time keeping track of everything in our busy lives with lists to help <3 Animals!

  • Judy says:

    I never buy from P&G and choose to go with Colgate’s products instead. I let everyone know it too. I think the suggestion someone made to test on criminals is a wonderful idea.Unfortunately prisoners have RIGHTS that poor little animals don’t have so it will never be a reality.

  • Julie says:

    I agree with the two above comments Animal testing is unnecessary, unreliable and totally cruel and I do not buy from companies who test or have tests carried out on their behalf. All consumers need to wake up to what goes on and show these companies by how they spend their money.

  • Ashley says:

    OMG! That little squeaky in the picture is so adorable holding his little bunny toy! I love rats. I think they deserve a better name. If they had another name then maybe they would recieve better treatment.

  • Adri says:

    I think this new category is terrific and very informative. Thanks, Peta!

  • AP says:

    I never buy anything tested on animals. It’s cruel and unnecessary.

  • freeenetwork says:

    I agree with Kathy. I too will try not to buy products that have been tested on animals… however for some things this is a bit difficult (I mostly live in India) and companies that stand up against animal testing would be an emergency option.

  • Tabitha leslie says:

    There are so many easier means to have things tested on and not animals. Eh, let’s test products on the rapists and murderers in jail, or the ones non death row Lol

  • kathy says:

    Personally, I still won’t buy an item that has been tested on animals even if it is required by law since there are so many other options for consumers.

Connect With PETA

Subscribe