The cosmetic industry has relied heavily on the use of animal testing to test the safety of their products in the past.  Consumer product's safety and toxicity needs to be tested before they are allowed to be placed on the market. In former years, animals were the main test subjects used even though their results are not always accurate.  The most commonly used animals are mice, rats, and rabbits; however, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and a variety of other animals have been used before. Common tests include the Draize eye test, acute toxicity tests, and the LD50 test. These tests all require injecting an amount of the product into different orifices of an animal's body like their eyes and mouths. Many of these tests are too expensive and take a very long time to produce data. Along with the financial problem, an ethical problem arises as well.  Animal testing has been in use for over one hundred years but has not been scrutinized by the public until fairly recently. In recent years the public has began to analyze the use of animal testing due to its immoral quality. Many do not agree on the confinement and torture of millions of innocent creatures for an unnecessary product. Due to campaigns lashing out against the process of animal testing, many companies and nations have banned the use of it entirely.  One of the biggest accomplishments for animal rights activists was the European Union's ban on the sale of consumer products containing ingredients that were tested on animals.  Campaigns have also encouraged scientists to create alternatives that do not put animals lives at risk like post mortem cell cultures and virtual tests.  Using animals to test the safety of consumer products is no longer a necessary technique because it is outdated, inhumane, and alternatives now exist.  

Although animal testing is the primary technique used to test a product, it is not actually a good one for a number of reasons. Ethically, animal testing is very inhumane.  Most test subjects are bred specifically for the lab and do not see past the confines of their cage. After the animals are forced to ingest copious amounts of a product or suffer through chemicals physically burned into their eyes to blindness they are most likely killed by beheading, suffocating from a carbon dioxide, or the breaking of one's neck. One of the most common tests is the deadly lethal dose 50, or LD50 test.  This test is used to acquire the exact amount a product must be injected to kill 50% of the test subjects. Not only is this test inhumane but it is also extremely wasteful because many animals have to suffer just to find the correct dosage.  Even though animals are noticeably in a great amount of pain, no pain relief is administered because it could interact with the results (ProCon). 

Another very commonly known test is the Draize Eye test.  A product is administered to the test subjects eye to test eyes reaction to the product.  Rabbits, the most commonly used animal for this test, are physically restrained while their eyes are forced open with clips so that the product can fully sink into their eyes without the animal blinking it out. The eyes become noticeable irritated and many times blister over.  Sometimes the rabbits have to be restrained for several days with their eyes open. Many times animals go blind from this test (ProCon).

The acute oral toxicity test is used frequently to test how the body will react to inhalation of a product and how much of the product is actually needed to kill someone.  The rat is held down and an immense amount of a product is injected into their stomachs.  The rat will then experience a number of different symptoms such as seizures, paralysis, bleeding, etc. before he ultimately dies or is put to death after the experiment is over ("Product").  This poor treatment of living creatures is unacceptable, especially when there are many reasons results may end up invalid.  

Beyond an ethical reason, animals, specifically the mostly commonly used animals, mice and rats are tested even though their bodies are unalike to human's bodies.  Not only are mice and rat's bodies extremely smaller than the human body, they are also very physiologically different.  Since our bodies are dissimilar results from these tests cannot be trusted because an ingredient may not react the same way in a human than it does in the animal (Mone).  For example, in the late 1950's the over the counter sleeping pill, Thalidomide, was deemed safe through animal testing.  However, it later caused approximately 10,000 babies to be born with extreme deformities and taken off the market.  Scientists then tested the product on pregnant animals and no birth abnormalities occurred.  Aspirin is harmful to some animals but safely used for thousands of people daily.  Financially, animal tests are very expensive and results take far too long to receive.  Many of the alternatives available are actually less expensive and results take a less amount of time to produce (ProCon). 

Since animals cannot defend themselves, they rely heavily on animal rights activists and campaigns to play a large role in influencing the government and companies to ban or limit animal testing on consumer products.  Probably one of the most known campaigns is the Cruelty Free campaign. Their sole mission is to end animal testing.  Along with pushing legislation, they openly protest animal testing and try to bring more public awareness to the issue.  One of their largest accomplishments was when the European Unions banned the import or sale of products that had previously been tested on animal.  A flash mob of people dressed as giant bunnies protested in front of the European Commission to openly advocate for the ban.  Afterwards, thousands of signatures were brought to the European Commissioners attention asking for his support (Cohen). This was a giant step towards ending animal testing because the European Union members consist of some of the largest cosmetic industries in the world. Arna Cohen, author of Do You Know How Your Mascara is Made? quotes the Humane Society International director of research and toxicology, Troy Seidle when stating, "With the European Union closing its doors to animal-tested cosmetics, the beginning of the end of global cosmetics cruelty is within our grasps" (Cohen).  Siedle's statement was corrected because this ban convinced many other nations to follow in the EU's footsteps. Shortly after, similar bans were announced in Israel, India, and South Korea.  Even China, a country that required all products be tested on animals before hitting the market announced that domestic cosmetic manufacturers did not have to partake in animal testing.  This step was most likely made so that China could still sell products in the European Union.   

A company built upon being "cruelty free" was LUSH cosmetics.  Not only do they refuse to buy ingredients from manufactures that test on animals, they also do a lot of protesting as well ("LUSH").  For example, a very controversial campaign consisted of a human model in a store window.  As people walked by they witnessed some of the horrific tests that scientists use on animals.  However, these tests were being preformed on woman, making the image even more disturbing.  People were shocked and disturbed as they passed the window seeing a woman in serious pain as the scientist continued to preform tests. It opened the publics eyes to the inhuman treatment of animals used to test the safety of consumer products.  People watched as a woman was strapped to a table and force fed large samples of products and blindfolded frightened for her life.  The video ends as the scientists gives the woman a lethal pill, killing her and placing her on the side of the road, like yesterdays trash. Although controversial, this campaign gave a new perspective to the harshness of animal testing.  It made people think of animals as actual living creatures, like humans, that do not deserve this foul treatment.  Not only did this campaign raise public awareness of the cruelty of animal testing but it also made more people want to get involved and sign a petition asking for a ban on these cruel tests (LUSH). Campaigns like these mentioned above are the reason that countries, and companies, around the world are taking a stand against animal testing. Companies who use animal testing are heavily criticized. Many people actually feel safer if a product uses alternatives to test the safety (Cohen).  From a public relations standpoint, animal testing is a nightmare for companies.  After being placed on an easy to access list, many customers will boycott the product, bombard the company with angry emails, and even be openly protested against. Therefore, many companies have gone cruelty free because they do not want to deal with the backlash of customers. 

After the 2013 ban in the EU, an evident change was unlikely because ingredients that were tested on animals prior to the ban would still be allowed to be in use (Vinardell).  However, one of the worlds biggest economic powers, China, originally required that products be tested on animals before they hit the market even though many alternatives now exist. They later stated that Chinese based companies were no longer required to test on animals, however, the requirement still applied to companies not located in China. Everyone wants to sell in China because of the rapidly growing market, making this new ban a little complicated for companies.  Many companies, like L'Oreal, Avon, and Estee Lauder, state that they will test on animals if necessary, like when it is required by law.  However, they hide this statement from the public so a majority of their customers believe they are completely "cruelty-free".  

In 2004 the European Union declared a ban on finished cosmetics products tested on animals.  However, a lot of large cosmetics manufactures pushed for an extension to this ban so they could continue to test the safety of their products on animals due to the lack of alternatives.  This extension was granted, making this ban largely unsuccessful.  However, now that more alternatives exist, the European Union is standing firm and the new ban placed in 2013 will no longer make any exceptions for products.  This was amazing news for animal rights activists because it is the first major advancement that has been actually documented in to law.   

Even though this ban is extremely beneficial, there are many loopholes in the 2013 European Union ban that need to be addressed.  Many cosmetics companies have specified that they will no longer test on animals in order to sell their products in Europe.  However, James Kanter author of E.U. Bans Cosmetics With Animal-Tested Ingredients quotes Colin Mackay, a spokesman for Cosmetics Europe, when explaining a predicament that might arise, "Consumers in Europe won't have access to new products because we can't ensure that some ingredients will be safe without access to suitable and adequate testing" (Kanter).  If alternative tests are not available for an ingredient, then countries in Europe, India, and others that have an active ban on animal testing, will not be able to sell the product. Many companies will most likely sell the same product but advertise different versions to different countries based on whether they have the ban or not. Another problem with the ban is that cosmetic companies can use ingredients that were tested on animals if these tests were done for a non cosmetic product.  This loophole makes it possible for consumer products to be placed on the market even if they have ingredients that were tested on animals, making the ban basically irrelevant.  Even though loopholes exist, the ban has saved millions of animals lives and is ultimately a win for animals.  

Alternatives need to be available in order to test the safety of a product.  With many cosmetics, especially ones used on the face, there is a risk that a product can be toxic and are side effects associated with their toxicity.  After a product is applied to ones face, ingredients have the ability to leak through the upper layer of the skin.  This can be very harmful because the product can then travel through the body and eventually end up in the liver, which helps one's body detox chemicals properly (Mone).  This chain of events could be fatal, therefore, creating a model to test the safety of a product is eminent.  In the past, scientists tested this process through animals.  However, not only is this morally problematic but animals are psychologically different from humans.

Cruelty Free campaigns have championed for the creation of alternatives to animal testing.  Due to protests, gained public awareness, and lobbying for change, alternatives have been forced to be created in order to keep products on the shelves.  Scientists can now grow any kind of human cell in the lab. Testing products on actual human cells will create more valid results without having to torture any animals in the process.  With technology growing more and more everyday, scientists have been able to create computer models of the human body that show how an ingredient will react when exposed to certain parts of the body. This technique is not only cost efficient but it also gives more accurate results even with the model being on a computer screen.  Skin cells created in the laboratory have the ability to mimic skin on parts of the body like the nose and lungs eliminating skin irritation tests on animals completely.   

Also because of growing technology, people can also volunteer for studies, in which they will be compensated, that are low risk and can give valid results as to the way a product will react to humans. Scientists have the equipment to monitor human volunteers and see how the product reacts to a real, living human.  Corneal samples can be collected from animal's post modem and used to test how a product will react if applied to the eye.  This test will give the exact same results without having to torture a living creature with the horrific Draize Eye test.

The Draize Eye test can be eliminated by the collection of corneas, mostly from chickens and cows, left over from the meat industry (Lotz). Scientists continue to research and create new alternatives everyday in order to end animal testing and create a more efficient and valid way to test the safety of products. More companies are moving towards alternatives because of public scrutiny. Cohen states, "Where alternative testing methods are no available, companies can create new cosmetics by choosing among the thousands of ingredients that have been tested in the past and proven to be safe" (Cohen 42).  Accompanied by the growing alternatives, a plethora of ingredients already exist making animal testing out dated.   

 If the alternatives exist that are actually more accurate than the use of animals, there is no reason that defenseless creatures should be harmed in order to keep products on the shelves. 

One a global scale, the United States is less involved in the animal testing issue.  Many believe this is the case because Americans are less informed compared to consumers in the EU and other parts of the world (Cohen).  

Many in the cosmetics industry believe that animal testing should continue because they think it is the only effective way to test the safety of products.  These believers think that ending animal testing will in turn stall innovation.  Since companies need to keep creating products to be successful, they believe this could be problematic.  If companies do not have the ability to innovate, they may simply change the scent and color of a product and introduce it as new to the market (Wishhover).  

Animal testing is an inhumane and outdated practice that should be eliminated considering there are a plethora of alternatives in place.  Countries across the world have banned animal testing and campaigners continue to push for the ultimate end to this barbaric practice.  Since the United States is a major global power, a ban on animal tested products here could be beneficial in convincing other countries to follow our lead.  In order for this to occur, US consumers need to become more informed and more engaged in this issue.  Animal testing is a cruel technique that leading nations need to come together to convince the rest of the world to stop torturing innocent, living creatures. 

