The Gillette Company has declared to the international animal welfare community that, since September 1995, they have used no animals in experiments of any kind. We wish that this announcement truly marked the end of Gillette's role as international animal testing dinosaur, and that there was just cause for celebration rather than protest.
The Co-ordinator of the Boycott Gillette Campaign states:
Undeniably, Gillette's suspension of animal testing for sixteen months has saved a signigicant number of animals from torture and death, and represents a first step towards cruelty-free marketing. However, while the company continues to refuse to sign any guarantee of a permanent ban on animal testing, such as those signed by Revlon, Avon and Benetton, the past sixteen months do not suggest a policy shift and the company may resume animal testing at any time. All we can conclude is that Gillette has not tested any product on animals in the past sixteen months because it has not needed to introduce any new ingredient which had not been previously tested.
Animal Liberation will continue to urge shoppers to boycott Gillette until the company demonstrates that it has undertaken a permanent abandonment of animal experiments.
After being the target of ten years of international animal rights' campaigning the Gillette Company finally announced, in November, that "during the 1996 reporting period, which ended September 30, 1996, no laboratory animals were used to test personal care or other consumer products of their ingredients." On the basis of this announcement Gillette is now considered by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to have entered stage 1 of a moratorium on animal testing.
However, before we congratulate Gillette and welcome the company to the "born-again" cruelty-free club, let us consider the significance of Gillette's present status.
The PETA-initiated campaign against Gillette's animal testing practices was launched in 1986 following the release of undercover video footage taken inside the company's Boston laboratories which documented the horrific nature of the tests. The undeniable graphic images showed blinded rabbits, restrained with eyes oozing from the harsh irritants applied or screaming in fear and pain as they were held by laboratory workers whilst their shaved skins were speared with harsh and toxic chemicals, or trembling and dying withoug comfort in their cages with skin blistered and flesh exposed. They were then packed into rubbish bags and unceremoniously disposed.
These scenes horrified the animal rights community, and as word spread, the general consumer.
This was not good publicity for Gillette. The company's initial knee-jerk reaction was to cease "in-house" testing and contract out to secret laboratories thus making surveillance difficult, and to decrease the number of animals used from 4,000-5,000 in 1986 to 2,686 animals reported in 1990.
These moves did not appease either animal rights people nor caring consumers, who began to boycott Gillette products in growing numbers. The 1990 figure still represented a staggering sum of animals subjected to painful procedures and, considering that well over 500 companies globally, covering Gillette's product range, were doing fine without animal tested ingredients, Gillette's tests were evidently redundant as well as cruel.
It is in the light of Gillette's past track record of animal abuse that we must view the company's present stance. Undoubtedly the past fourteen months represent the company's first real step towards eliminating animals from its testing repertoire and may mean that Gillette has finally seen the economic sense of cruelty-free marketing. Certainly Gillette's present stance has saved a significant number of animals from pain and death. However, while the company continues to refuse to sign any guarantee of a permanent ban on animal testing, the company may resume animal testing at any time.
One interpretation is that Gillette has not tested any products on animals recently because it has not needed to introduce any new ingredfient that had not been previously tested. Certainly four million signatures petitioning the European Commission to institute its proposed ban on animal tested cosmetics, and local action such as Melbourne University's Student Union boycott of Gillette products and the promise of a national boycott under Students Campaigning Against Multinationals (SCAM) have had some influence.
Hence, neither Animal Liberation nor PETA are about to relax their boycott campaign against Gillette, although as long as the moratorium is in place we will cease to aggressively campaign against the company. However, until Gillette's product testing policy becomes truly cruelty-free we urge all to demonstrate the power of consumer choice and refuse to buy Gillette products. Above article published in 'Animals Today', Vol 5, No. 1, February-April 1997.
Consult the "Choose Cruelty Free" brochure.
Available from:
P.O. Box 12005, A'Beckett Street Melbourne Vic 3000 or the Preferred Products list in this newsletter.
Scence at a Gillette protest in Melbourne in 1995
Last updated 23 July 1997
Return to Animal Liberation Home Page