Many of you may be well aware that Johnson & Johnson does in fact test on animals and are hated by many for the welfare of animals. I myself am totally and completely for it as well, but I feel like this needs to be said.
I wrote a letter to the company asking why they continued to test on animals regardless of the fact that there are much more accurate, cheaper, quicker, and more ethical methods. This is what they responded with:
Dear AaronG:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding animal testing. To help clarify Johnson & Johnson companies' position on this important issue, we are sending the enclosed 'Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Experimental Animals,' our 'Statement on Product Safety and Animal Testing,' and a brochure entitled 'Our Commitment to Ethical Animal care and Use.'
The ingredients in our companies nonprescription skin and hair care products have been proven safe historically, so instead of using laboratory animals to assess the safety of these formulations, the companies perform a number of predictive tests in humans. Any new ingredients, however, would require appropriate safety validation that might include laboratory animals.
Otherwise, as health care products manufacturers, Johnson & Johnson companies have a responsibility to assure the safety of its products for intended use and in the event of accidental misuse. The primary means of providing this assurance continues to be the judicious and ethical use of laboratory animals and in vitro (test tube) tests.
Johnson & Johnson companies use numerous in vitro or 'alternative' methods in testing new compounds and new product formulations. In fact, the companies presently use more than 160 different alternative tests in research. Ultimately, however, testing with a minimum number of animals is necessary to fully assure safety.
The companies use as few animals as possible, mostly mice and rats, and when safety is established, new product formulations are no longer tested. We use tests other than the classical LD-50 -- such as the 'limit dose method,' which requires one-fourth or fewer laboratory animals. We initially screen compounds for eye irritation using an alternative to animal testing, and for skin irritation studies we rely heavily on human volunteers or non-traditional tests that require fewer animals.
While there presently is not a single validated alternative test that can fully replace whole animal testing, Johnson & Johnson companies are committed to seeking alternatives through internal efforts as well as supporting studies at outside research facilities. As alternative forms are validated, please be assured that Johnson & Johnson companies will take the lead in implementing them in its testing programs. To learn more about our policies, we invite you to see more information on our website:
(The Johnson & Johnson website)
Sincerely,
Office of Corporate Communications
I just want to let everyone know that even if a company is not given the “animal-friendly” title, it does not mean that they should be boycotted, because they are merely telling the truth and trying to do their best as a company to provide flawless products for their customers. We should be promoting this behavior in business!
I would really like for everyone to keep this company’s response and policies in mind when choosing what products to use. Thank you all so much for giving this your time.