message
Hi all,
Below is an email reply from Johnson & Johnson. I’d like you all to read it and come to your own conclusions, but I for one, will continue to avoid purchasing Johnson & Johnson products.
Although I must say, despite the fact they DO still test on animals, its good to see that they are trying to come up with alternatives……
Oh, and does anybody feel that the ‘mostly mice and rats’ comment is a very shameful?? (I may email back and explain that these too, are innocent animals…..?!)
Thanks,
Em :)
——————————————————————————————————
customerservicec@cpcus.jnj.com to me
show details Oct 29 (7 days ago) Reply
Emma
UK
Dear Emma:
Thank you for contacting Johnson & Johnson. It is always important to hear from our customers and we appreciate the time you have taken to contact us.
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, and we are spending more than $92 million each year in using and developing non-animal tests. 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. During eye safety tests, our formulations are so mild and gentle that there is no need to restrain animals, 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 by 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:
http://www.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_te…
Again, thank you for your interest in Johnson & Johnson.
013052614A
