Dear Mr. Lafley,

I'd like to purchase Procter & Gamble products, but I do not feel confident using goods determined safe in animal tests. Animal testing generates misleading data that can jeopardize human safety.

Francis Collins, director of NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute, says animal toxicity tests are "expensive, time-consuming, use animals in large numbers, and don't always work." A National Academy of Sciences report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century, calls for non- animal methodology. According to the National Research Council, in vitro strategy "would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face."

As you may know, the European Union voted to phase-out all animal experimentation for cosmetics. Several countries, including the UK, have already banned animal testing for cosmetics. I urge Procter & Gamble to lead the way in animal-free toxicity testing in the U.S.

Polls show a growing consumer contingent opposed to animal testing for cosmetic, cleaning, or pet-food items. Fortunately, hundreds of other companies manufacture safe products that do not rely upon poisoning, burning, blinding and killing animals.

It is indisputably cruel to pour toxins into the clipped-open eyes of animals or smear corrosives over an animal's shaved skin. Human safety data should not come from poisoning live beings or subjecting them to any form of confinement, pain and mutilation.

Please capitalize on strides in in-vitro technology and computer automation that let researchers gauge toxicity more reliably. I encourage P&G to institute a comprehensive animal-free testing policy for all non-drug products and ingredients. Until then, I'll avoid P&G brand labels and ask others to do the same.

Thank you,