Procter and Gamble vs Peta

588 Words Oct 14th, 2014 3 Pages
“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 “PETA” in big letters across the bottom. “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 (P&G) 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, P&G still draws protests from PETA in the form of PETA’s “Died” advertising campaign, based on P&G’s best-selling laundry detergent Tide. The “Died” ad shows a woman holding a box of “Died” detergent with the words “Thousands of Animals Died for Your Laundry” boldly written on the box. PETA is urging consumers to boycott all P&G products until the company ends all forms of animal testing.

From P&G’s perspective, eliminating animal testing altogether could compromise safety, as testing is critical to producing safe products for its customers. P&G 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 product

More about Procter and Gamble vs Peta