Thursday, December 19, 2019

Procter and Gamble vs Peta - 588 Words

â€Å"What’s that?† you wonder as you look out your window. A small group of people is gathered on the sidewalk at the end of the wisteria gardens in front of the main headquarters of Procter Gamble. If you squint, you can see they’re holding signs, but the only text you can make out is the word â€Å"PETA† in big letters across the bottom. â€Å"Just great,† you think to yourself. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal-rights group more commonly know by the acronym PETA, raises more than $25 million a year from its 1.6 million members and supporters. PETA not only campaigns for animal rights but also funds less known animal-rights groups to engage in activism. PETA is extremely adept at organizing public campaigns and mobilizing†¦show more content†¦Their tactics, denounced as mob rule by some in the medical research community, included hate mail, malicious phone calls, death threats, fireworks, a pedophile smear campaign, car vandalism, arson attacks, and finally the theft of the remains of a relative of the farm owner from the churchyard cemetery. It is clear that PETA will do anything to achieve its goals. Procter Gamble (PG) does not use animals to test the safety of its cosmetics, shampoos, detergents, cleansers, and paper goods; it does, however, use animals to test the safety of new drugs, health-care products, and products intended for use on babies and children. Nonetheless, PG still draws protests from PETA in the form of PETA’s â€Å"Died† advertising campaign, based on PG’s best-selling laundry detergent Tide. The â€Å"Died† ad shows a woman holding a box of â€Å"Died† detergent with the words â€Å"Thousands of Animals Died for Your Laundry† boldly written on the box. PETA is urging consumers to boycott all PG products until the company ends all forms of animal testing. From PG’s perspective, eliminating animal testing altogether could compromise safety, as testing is critical to producing safe products for its customers. PG has to know, for example, that a product will not cause injury if children accidentally swallow it or get it into their eyes. Furthermore, in the event that a productShow MoreRelatedAnimal Testing : Cosmetic Manufacturers1375 Words   |  6 PagesMarla Donato from the Chicago Tribune states, two of the largest manufacturers Avon Products and Revlon recently announced a permanent end to all animal testing by their companies. Mary kay announced a temporary moratorium on practice, and Procter and gamble unveiled a $450,000 grant program to investigate alternative research methods (Donato par.1). If there is so much being done to end animal testing, why do some major companies still insist on using this method? The reason for this is simply

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.