Procter & Gamble said yesterday that it would immediately end animal testing for 80 percent of its consumer products, from shampoo and color cosmetics to household cleansers and dish detergents.
Groups that had engaged in a lengthy battle to force the Procter & Gamble Company, maker of Crest toothpaste, Tide detergent and Pampers diapers, to end animal testing, had guarded praise for the company's announcement.
The ban includes all shampoo and hair-styling products as well as tissue and towel, skin care, household cleaners and laundry and dish-washing products. The remaining 20 percent of the products not covered by the ban include those that are required by law to be tested on animals, including drugs and certain food products.
For the products in the ban, ''science and technology have advanced to the point where we can confirm the safety of these finished products through nonanimal alternatives,'' said Larry Games, P.& G.'s vice president for global product safety.
Groups advocating the rights of animals were quick to point out, however, that P.& G.'s new policy applies only to existing products. The company acknowledged that it reserved the right to use animals to test certain new products that fell into the categories of goods included in the ban. That stipulation led advocates for the rights of animals to temper praise for the company's action.
''History is made in small steps, and today P.& G. has taken one of them,'' said Mary Beth Sweetland, the director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which is one of P.& G.'s staunchest critics.
P.& G. has been one of the last holdouts among multinational consumer and cosmetics concerns to abandon animal testing and has become a prominent target for animal rights groups.
P.& G. said its policy change, however, was prompted by the availability of new methods and the company's internal goals. But public pressure was clearly a factor, analysts and the advocates for animals said.
''I'm sure that had something to do with it,'' said Jeff Hallmark, a director of the Animal Rights Community, based in Cincinnati, P.& G.'s hometown, which had been at odds with the company for more than a decade.
What is more, he said, ''the majority of their competitors making similar products have all changed; they are just following a trend and are very late to follow the trend.''
An official of the Food and Drug Administration said P.& G. was not breaking any ground with its ban because the products included were those containing chemicals and other ingredients that have already had extensive animal testing. ''So there is really no necessity to do further testing to determine the safety of those ingredients,'' said Dr. Mack Holt, director of the F.D.A.'s office of animal care and use.
P.& G. said, however, that it had long been committed to finding effective alternatives to animal testing. The company said that in the last 15 years it had invested nearly $100 million to study and develop alternative research methods.
Analysts and the company said the shift would also help P.& G. increase its sluggish sales growth and decrease its cumbersome product-development. The company should see savings from replacing expensive animal testing with cheaper, faster methods.
