Stuart Little, Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Curious George: These are just a few of the many childhood characters that also happen to be the most common test animals for cosmetic products. Imagine Bugs Bunny with red, bloodshot eyes and a patch of shaved fur oozing from infection; imagine Stuart Little suffering from bloody rashes. The years of using animals to test cosmetics needs to come to an end. Cosmetics such as makeup, hair products, lotion, deodorant, nail polish, and perfume, use animal tests in every step of their production. At one time, there was reason to start, but technology is so advanced that there are more accurate and harmless alternatives to almost every animal test needed to ensure safety of the consumer. Not only is it abusive to force animals to be submitted to burns, scrapes, and infection, but also it is not ethical to end the lives of thousands of animals each year for our own luxury. Although laws with some regulation have been put into place, a cosmetic laboratory has the freedom to test whatever they want as long as the FDA isn't there. The European Union, Companies like Lush and Burt's Bees already thrive while pledging to not test on animals, so why can't the United States follow suit?

Animal testing has been a source of human exploration since the days of scientists Aristotle and Erasistratus, who examined animal anatomy and tested surgeries on animals before humans, in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Animal testing for use of cosmetic safety only started around the early 20th century when a woman's mascara caused her to go blind. In 1933, the woman, simply known as 'Mrs. Brown', bought the product "Lash Lure", which contained paraphenylenediamine, a toxic coal tar dye. When she applied it to her lashes, it transferred to her eyes and started to eat away at her eyes, similar to acid. Other customers received up to 3rd degree burns as a result of use. The book "American Chambers of Horrors" by Ruth deForest Lamb was written in 1936 and detailed the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) lack of regulation on companies that produced beauty products that ended up being lethal. Dr. T. Felix Gouraud Oriental Cream or Magical Beautifier claimed to "purify, as well as beautify the skin" and "has stood the test of 59 years, and is so harmless we taste it to be sure it is properly made". In reality, it caused a woman to "develop[ed] dark rings around her eyes and neck, followed by bluish black gums and loose teeth,"(Sigurdson). It was discovered that the cream, which had been on the market for decades, had given the woman mercury poisoning. In 1937, a pharmaceutical company developed a treatment for streptococcal infections and included diethylene glycol (DEG) to turn the then powder-form medicine into liquid form. The chemist involved didn't know that DEG was poisonous to humans, so "he simply added raspberry flavoring and marketed the product as 'Elixir Sulfanilamide'," which ended up causing a mass poisoning across the United States (Scutti 1). More than 100 people died, which brought the attention of politicians and legislators. As a result, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act passed in 1938, which replaced the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and allowed the US Food and Drug Administration to oversee the added safety of cosmetics. With only two pages devoted to cosmetics, the bill limited the FDA's power to regulate cosmetics completely. "Under the law, cosmetic products and ingredients do not need FDA premarket approval," but they can remove products that "contain unsafe ingredients" or have "misleading labeling" (FDA). Today, cosmetics can still contain harmful ingredients, which is why cosmetics companies turned to animal testing in order to ensure products would stay on the shelf.

Mistreatment of animals in testing facilities is a major reason why the US should ban cosmetic animal testing. The tests themselves subject the animal to intense pain and suffering. No painkillers or analgesics are provided, which means the animals feel every cut, burn, infection, and scrape. 

There are a variety of tests that laboratories carry out on animals, most with more drawbacks than strengths. The universal test for eye irritancy/corrosion, or "the reversible/ irreversible damage of the skin following the application of a test substance for up to 4 hours" is called the Draize Eye Test, created by FDA scientist Dr. John Draize (Macfarlane 1). The test involves placing a substance in one eye of a restrained rabbit while scientists assess the animal "after one hour and then at 24-hour intervals for up to 21 days" (AAVS). Then, they are observed and their cornea, conjunctiva, and iris conditions are recorded. The drawbacks of this kind of test are extensive. A rabbit eye "differs significantly from that of a human" and "produce a smaller volume of tears than humans" causing the results to be inconsistent with human reaction and the test to be more excruciating for the subject, considering that the substance remains in the eye longer (AAVS). In addition, struggling animals produce hormones that distort the end results of any test. 

There are a variety of tests that animals are put through in order to ensure the safety of a product. The acute toxicity test is used to calculate the risk of absorption of a chemical. The original test used was called Lethal Dose 50, where around 100 animals, usually rats or mice, are used to find the "dosage of the tested chemical necessary to kill fifty percent of the test animals" or kill 50% of the animals (Gillespie 2). Newer approved tests have replaced the LD50, but they are still as deadly. "At the end of the test, the subjects are all killed "so that a necropsy can be performed to determine internal damage" (AAVS). Also, results of any of these tests are not completely accurate if applied to humans because of the "varying degrees of sensitivity to the chemicals, as well as differences in metabolism and absorption" (AAVS). 

Repeated dose toxicity tests involve the subject to have steadied prolonged exposure to chemicals. The substance is administered either orally or through the dermis of the animal repeatedly, and observation takes place for the next 28-90 days. At the end of study, the subjects are killed and an autopsy is ordered. Findings usually indicate "the liver is potentially the most frequently targeted organ by cosmetic ingredients when orally administered to experimental animals, followed by the kidney and the spleen" (Vinken 1). If the chemical is potent, which in most cases it is, the animal ends up suffering in the days leading up to its death. For example, liver failure symptoms include jaundice, abdominal pain and swelling, nausea, vomiting, and disorientation. Calculating and "scaling up the results of repeated dose toxicity tests from small, short-lived animals to humans is difficult", meaning the accuracy of the results can always be questioned. There are currently no verified alternatives to replace the repeated dose toxicity test.

Skin irritation/corrosivity tests are similar to eye irritation/corrosivity tests, as they are called Draize skin tests and do the same thing the eye tests do, just replacing the eye with skin. Both Draize tests are almost "exclusively performed on rabbits, who are traditionally locked into holding devices, with only their heads exposed, to prevent them from clawing at their eyes or from escaping"(Gillespie 4). In the end, the differences between human and rabbit skin are too broad, meaning the test "to determine skin irritation on humans is often inapplicable" (AVVS). Other tests such as dermal absorption, metabolism, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and developmental toxicity tests force animals to go through involuntary processes that eventually lead to their death. 

There are hundreds of different alternative testing for cosmetics that don't involved animals. In 2009, there were two "formally validated alternatives to the rabbit Draize test for skin corrosivity in place, namely the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) assay and the Human Skin Model Test using EpiSkin trademark , EpiDerm trademark  and SkinEthic trademark  reconstructed human epidermal equivalents. For skin irritation, EpiSkin trademark , EpiDerm trademark  and SkinEthic trademark  are validated as stand-alone test replacements for the rabbit Draize test" (Macfarlane). Each of these tests excludes the use of animals and are "more clinically relevant than data derived from an animal study or human skin patch test" (Macfarlane). The European Commission Joint Research Centre's also claimed that "EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests". There are alternatives to every test except for the inhalation test and carcinogenic test, but why should shampoo or mascara include ingredients that could cause harm or cancer in the first place? According to John Hurston, the executive vice president of government affairs at the Personal Care Products Committee, part of the reason why non-animal alternatives are slow to come to market with verification of accuracy is because the FDA "'hasn't approved many alternative testing methods that would satisfy their requirements on the safety of certain ingredients'"(Wischhover 1). 

The difference between can human and animal skin, even chimpanzee skin, would seem to be very small since both are mammals, but in fact the difference is very large. According to a study comparing rabbit and human skin irritancy levels by Llewellyn Phillips, "several chemicals considered unsafe by the rabbit test proved non-irritating to human skin" and the rabbit skin test "failed to separate the mild and moderate skin irritants" (Phillips). This means that a chemical that does not react to one animal could be completely potent to another. For example, humans use penicillin liberally to fight various infections, but if you gave penicillin to a guinea pig, it would be toxic and potentially deadly.

Not only can alternative tests be more accurate, but they are also cheaper and faster. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, "In Vitro International's Corrositex (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as 3 minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to four weeks. DakDak, an alternative test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreens, was reported to do in days what it takes animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals". The fast results of the tests insure a small price tag. 

Tests that involve blood, cells, or tissue are called in-vitro testing, and are on the rise in the cosmetics industry because of their high accuracy. Dr. Bjorn Ekwall, a Swedish cell scientist, developed a skin toxicity test using donated human tissue. Not only was the test 85% accurate, but it also was able to "target toxic effects on specific human organs, whether or not the toxic substance permeates the blood barrier" (Curit 3). Although the FDA has not approved this test, the scientific community stands behind it firmly. 

Although legislation has been put in place to try and regulate how the cosmetics industry ensures the safety of their products, the government actually has less control than one would think. According to the FDA, they don't require animal testing, but they do "advise cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products" (US Food and Drug Administration). The FDA relies on the researchers and workers in the cosmetic facilities to follow the laws that they have instituted, but they do make unannounced visits. There is no minimum amount of times that the FDA must conduct an inspection. For instance, if a facility is violating a law or mislabeling a product, and no one reports it, the FDA would probably never find out until its next warranted visit. 

The first law that regulated cosmetics was the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. As stated earlier, the bill allowed the FDA to take products off the shelf if they violated labeling or ingredient rules and to take legal action against companies who break the law. The main drawback to this law is that the FDA does not have the power to pre-approve anything that goes on the market. This was the time when testing cosmetics on animals became a popular step to take before putting a product on the market. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson, and enacted standards "to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors" (Cohen 1). It is the only US law that regulates animal treatment in research, even though it is minimal. The AWA protects "rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, chimps, and monkeys", but excludes "mice, rats, birds, cold-blooded animals (reptiles, fish, amphibians), or animals farmed for food (cows, pigs, chickens)" which makes up almost 90% of all cosmetic tests (Cohen 3). The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for carrying out the AWA, while they have 115 inspectors to inspect almost 8,000 facilities. With so little inspectors, the USDA oftentimes follows up with facilities "only after activists have exposed violations to the media and Congress", leaving companies ample time to conduct illegal treatment of the test animals (NEAVS). In 1978, the FDA published Part 58 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in which the section "Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies" outlines the standard that laboratories, which deal with cosmetics and animals, should be held up to. The FDA enforces the regulations during their facility visits. 

According to PETA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at one time required "more animal-based chemical toxicity testing than any other federal agency". Now, they are stepping away from animal-based tests and towards in-vitro tests. In 2012, cosmetic company L'Oreal, who went cruelty-free in 1989, gave the EPA $1.2 million in private research funding "to determine if EPA's chemical toxicity forecaster (ToxCast) can be used in systemic toxicity tests and replace current methods that involve animals" (McDougall 1). Toxcast uses computational information to test for toxicity tests instead of live animals. 

First introduced in 2014, the Humane Cosmetics Act was a proposal in which the United States would "phase out animal-based testing for cosmetic products in favor of cutting-edge testing methods, and eventually prohibit the sale in the United States of cosmetics tested on animals in other countries, making sure that only safe and humane products enter the American market" (Animal Welfare Institute). Authored by lifetime animal supporter former Congressman Jim Moran, the bill was eventually introduced to Congress a second time in 2015 with bipartisan and industry support. It was sent to the subcommittee on Energy and Environment: Health, but was eventually dismissed because a member of the subcommittee put a secret hold on the bill. If the bill can be introduced with even more support in the future, then the US could completely stop cosmetic animal testing and set an example for other countries.

If India, Israel, Norway, South Korea, New Zealand, and all 28 countries in the European Union can afford to ban cosmetic animal testing, then the US surely can, too. The US is one of the most powerful countries on Earth, so if they passed the HCA, other countries would follow suit and cosmetic testing could come to a worldwide end. 

Some might think that just because human beings are the stronger animal, we can use other animals and decide how they die. Dr. Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurologist, is a vocal supporter of using animals for medical as well as cosmetic testing. He has said, "People talk about cosmetics being the ultimate evil. But beautifying oneself has been going on since we were cavemen. If it's proven to reduce suffering through animal tests, it's not wrong to use them. To say cosmetics is an absolute evil is absurd" (Jha 1). There is no doubt that animal testing has brought many breakthroughs via medical and cosmetic tests, but that was a time before there was advanced technology. Modern day testing alternatives for cosmetics have not only abandoned the use of animals, but also proved that they yield a majority of better results when compared to tests involving animals.

Overall, cosmetic animal testing needs to be banned in the United States because it is abusive, it creates unreliable results, there are little enforcements to make sure companies are abiding by laws, legislation protecting the animals is weak, there are more accurate alternatives, and other countries have already banned the usage animals for cosmetics testing. If other countries and cosmetics companies can thrive after pledging to end animal cruelty, why can't the United States?

