Rather than list companies that still do animal testing ("do you still beat your wife?
"), it would be more useful and interesting to list those countries that require animal testing before drugs can be sold there, and the origins of those laws. The fact that the law in Britain, Europe and the United States requires drugs to be tested on at least two species of mammal
s before being approved for use on humans really absolves corporations that do it of any moral dilemmas. To put animal testing into perspective, approximately 20M animals die in British laboratories every year. British butchers slaughter 800M in the same time period. Corporations employing animal testing need to spend a considerable amount of money doing so, and take a considerable reputational risk.
For example, every drug must be tested to gauge its effects on a developing foetus. In Britain, this law was passed in the wake of the Thalidomide disaster, in which an untested drug was prescribed, resulting in horrific deformities in children. It was later found that the drug had the same effect on animal foetuses - if the tests had been done, thousands of children would not have suffered crippling physical handicaps.
The anti-corporate focus of the so-called animal liberation movement is reminiscent of old-fashioned extremist Marxists - but with the advantage that unlike the proletariat, animals cannot answer back to their self-proclaimed saviours. Certainly, nature is red in tooth and claw, and the "cruelty" inflicted on animals by other animals dwarves the alleged cruelty of the pharmaceutical industry. What shall be done about animals that must eat other animals to survive? What about animals genetically predisposed to compete over territory? Animals do not obey laws, or even understand the concept of a law other than instinct. Should cute, furry animals enjoy better protection than cockroaches and poisonous serpents? The utilitarian concept of minimizing pain, maximizing pleasure fails when arbitrary, subjective judgements are made about the capacity for each, and the credo "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" fails when the only economic value offered by prey to a predator is to be eaten, and the need of a predator is to kill or fight. It is therefore absurd to consider animals as morally equal to humans, and that they should enjoy equal human rights.
In conclusion, protesting against a corporation is futile when that corporation is coerced into a particular behavior by a government, and the actions of the animal rights movement fail to display consistency with their professed motives, given this fact. Animal suffering, while regrettable, is infintely preferable to human suffering.