Indian Soap and Detergent Manufacturers Prohibited from Testing on Animals

For Immediate Release:
19 April 2016

Dr. Dipti Kapoor; [email protected]
Shambhavi Tiwari; [email protected]

Official Circular Issued by CPCSEA After Bureau of Indian Standards Committee Removes Animal Tests From Requirements

Delhi – Through a Right to Information request, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India has received a circular recently issued by the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) to manufacturers and industry associations that prohibits the use of animals in tests of soaps and detergents, effective immediately. The circular is the final step in the process initiated by PETA India in 2014, when the animal rights group successfully worked with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to remove tests on animals from the testing standards for household products such as soaps, detergents and other surface active agents – an effort supported by now–Union Minister Maneka Gandhi and other MPs.

“Consumers will be delighted to know the production of soaps and detergents manufactured in India will not involve harming rabbits, mice or guinea pigs”, says PETA India research associate Dr Dipti Kapoor. “However, as household products manufactured abroad can still be tested on animals, we continue to urge consumers only to buy from those companies listed as cruelty-free on PETA’s website.”

More than 2,000 companies around the world have banned all testing on animals in favour of effective, modern non-animal methods, but many still choose to subject animals to painful tests in which substances are dripped into their eyes, sprayed in their faces or forced down their throats. Before PETA India – whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to experiment on” – succeeded in ending household-product tests on animals in India, one mandatory test under the BIS requirements called for harsh chemicals to be rubbed onto guinea pigs’ sensitive skin. Because of the vast physiological differences between humans and the animals used in these tests, the results are often misleading.

For more information, please visit