If you go into one room of your house I can guarantee at least one to three products in that room used animal testing to manufacture them. Animal testing has been one hell of a hot topic in the recent years and has sparked multiple debates as to whether or not we should ban the practice. Many feel as though its no different than when we eat animals and see no need to abolish the practice. But others see it as prolonged torture on a creature that could not give consent to what’s happening to it. And I side with the latter of the two. Only so much progress has gone into legally making the practice illegal and even though many people rally to get rid of animal testing it still isn’t gone. With new testing methods coming out, that have taken years to perfect, we as a united people have no excuse to keep this immoral practice in the cosmetics industry.

Animal testing in history was developed solely as a way to test chemicals in crisis times. The practice has developed as a regular practice among cosmetics companies since it’s a cheap way to test their products quickly. From an economic stand point animal testing is great since it helps make more of a profit but from a moral stand point animal testing is pretty bad since you’re putting random chemicals into the body of an innocent creature. It’s pretty much like if they used child labor to harvest the vegetables you used in your salad. A great business move since the labor is cheap but its morally bad since children were put into harsh work conditions. Companies use the excuse that switching testing methods will halt production lines and impede profits since no new products are being released. But switching testing methods will help create cruelty free products and provide more accurate results on how chemicals interact with the human body. New toxicology testing methods have been in the works for years and they can provide us with insight into if there really are harmful chemicals in cosmetic products already out on the market. If companies switched over to being “vegan” not only would they stop an immoral practice but they can attempt to make their products safer with more accurate testing methods.

In recent years many animal activists have attempted to get bills passed in order to ban animal testing. But due to no “official” ruling of what “cruelty free” products are there’s no definitive way to ban this practice. Cruelty free in many people’s eyes just means no animal by products are in the final product and the product wasn’t tested on animals. Law makers still haven’t put a definition on cruelty free so a law can’t be made and parameters can’t be established defining what is and isn’t animal cruelty. Some people say a law is unnecessary since animal testing is no different than eating a quarter pounder steak. They think that eating meat is on the same level of cruelty as animal testing. When in reality any animal that is slaughtered for food is killed as humanely as possible. For example, farmers choose to bleed chickens out instead of hacking of their heads violently. Animal testing can be categorized as prolonged torture since the animal is being kept alive and sentenced to alien substances being put into its body without consent. A law is necessary for the banning of this practice because from any angle I look at it there is nothing humane about putting foreign chemicals on innocent bunnies in the name of product development.

Europe in the last decade decreed that all chemicals on a list they put out needed to be tested again if they were being used in any of the products of companies. Almost overnight majority of companies all over the continent switched over from animal testing to chemical and toxicology tests. It was the only logical way to test all the listed chemicals in a short amount of time, if they had used animal testing the sheer number of animals that each company would have to buy would have resulted in millions of company funds lost. The big question is if Europe can get rid of majority animal testing why can’t we do the same? European companies switched over because they saw that animal testing can become expensive and isn’t as efficient as chemical tests. Getting rid of animal testing can possibly benefit the advancement of science. By getting rid of an unethical and outdated system, scientists have a chance to develop accurate tests that can help us see an in-depth depiction of what cosmetics are doing to our bodies.

In the recent years of social media many people have attained a huge following and have been dubbed “influencers”. Within the YouTube beauty community, it’s not uncommon for beauty gurus to tell their followers which brands to boycott. These brands don’t necessarily put out bad products they just use animal testing. Big time YouTuber Kristen Leanne shows us how smaller “vegan” companies that are bought out by bigger companies that do use animal testing aren’t really vegan. Leanne has brought it upon herself to educate about how many items around your house might’ve used animal testing and how a big company would rather test on animals as an appeal to sell products in other countries like China. NARS is known for their high-end makeup but recently they put out an article explaining why they’ve decided to take cruelty free off their packaging. In an effort to spread sales overseas in Asia they decided to start manufacturing over there, and Asia is notorious for animal testing. NARS’ decision shows how companies are willing to overlook the morality of a practice solely for capitalistic reasons. Right after this announcement hit, bloggers took to all platforms of social media to say that NARS should be boycotted. Consumers are tired of products and companies that support animal cruelty. The public wants vegan products and are willing to throw away hundreds of dollars of makeup if a company ignores its customers and values it once stood for. If animal testing had been banned maybe the company would’ve thought twice about morals and its consumers before making a sketchy business decision.

Many show support for animal testing being banned but some people question if a product will truly be cruelty free once animal testing is eliminated from production. A little-known fact about eyeshadow is that some sparkly shades of eyeshadow contain mica. Mica is essentially what makes the product shimmer and can be found in most third world countries. Companies generally buy from suppliers of the country without questioning how the mica was harvested. And the sad reality is that some companies use child labor to harvest the mica. Essentially this one ingredient in eyeshadow made the whole product a non-cruelty free product. Lawmakers have stated that setting a definition for cruelty free hasn’t been easy, due to situations like this. Even if laws are set to ban one unethical cruel practice, a product won’t be completely cruelty free. So, some argue what’s the point to banning animal testing if child labor is a big part of the product’s development? They say that no matter how many laws and actions are taken to combat animal cruelty a product will always have some form of cruelty be it child labor, harsh working conditions on workers, or animal testing. Eliminating one problem will only leave you with several more problems to take care of before a product is truly cruelty free.

I think it’s only fair to say that animals deserve respect. We live along side all these creatures and tend to forget that they have feelings to they just can’t use words to convey the feelings. We’ve developed an apathetic mindset towards animals in an effort to cope with how some animals are treated. For example, you probably don’t feel anything for the hamburger on your plate but when an ad for an animal shelter pops up showing tortured animals you would definitely feel pity for these creatures. The mindset we have created makes us categorize animals on how much pity we show for them based on their role in our lives. You would be heartbroken if you saw your dog get hurt but if you had to see pink slime from McDonalds you would be off put but not feel a twinge of pity for the cows turned into that. We tend to ignore ill treatment of animals when it benefits us like, puppy mills and slaughter houses, and will run to save animals that appeal to us like the ones in the shelter ads. It’s time to stand up for animals and take action against animal testing because this problem has been ignored for years and the idea of torturing animals for a profit doesn’t sit well with anyone who has good morals.

New testing methods have been developed but are still not quite perfect. Multiple sections of the ebook Alternatives to Animal Testing delve into the technical and legal aspects of animal testing. Roy M. Harrison starts off with an introduction detailing how we have developed testing to combat illness and disasters caused by chemicals. But testing for harmful chemicals “is difficult to justify predictive testing in humans unless a substance is intended for administration to humans” (Harrison 1). Which is why we have defaulted to testing to animals, to limit dangerous chemical tests on humans. The downfall to all this is that to prevent testing on one living being, we’ve put another living being under the stress and torture of being tested. Harrison strongly believes that it is imperative that society be educated about why alternative testing is still not quite as accepted by businesses. Many advocates of anti-animal testing believe that developing alternative testing methods is an easy chore for scientists. But the grim reality is that although there are alternative tests they have yet to be completely validated. If we want to step up and truly ban animal testing “proper test development is the key to successful validation, acceptance and application” because we can’t just use flimsy toxicology tests to put out potentially harmful products (Harrison 34). The main problem with toxicology (the science of harmful substances) is that its “described as an art, rather than a science”, among people in the science community (Harrison 34). And half of the time people in this field will feed animals chemicals just to see if its harmful. The reality of most chemicals all around us is that to a degree everything can be toxic to us. So, toxicology’s current testing methods must go through some higher development before we use any of their alternative methods in the field. Hopefully within the next few decades we will be able to develop alternative methods to get rid of animal testing in bigger businesses.

Animal testing within the realm of the cosmetics industry has been a long-winded problem for years. Many have stated in the past that there are few accurate alternatives but as science has progressed some scientists have finally made alternative tests that are years in the making. The issue of animal testing is not only that it’s not an accurate test but it’s an immoral practice that people are willing to turn a blind eye to. A lot of people question why others are making such a big deal about this issue. They say that even if you get rid of animal testing there are other immoral practices that go into making that product like child labor. Although they are right about products not truly being cruelty free its always better to take on big issues one at a time. If we could solve every problem at once world peace would’ve happened years ago. Others have also stated that no matter what you do a big company won’t bow to the pressure because profit overtakes morality. In the recent years many bloggers and others with big followings have started to boycott any company that has publicly stated they test on animals. With their millions of fans behind them the companies start to feel a decline in profits. Abusing animals is idea that hasn’t aged well and many people want companies to step it up and change. Animal testing needs to be stopped and being apathetic just makes you a part of the problem. If I were you I wouldn’t feel too great about some random scientist putting acid in my beloved dog’s eyes or pricking my cherished cat full of foreign chemicals. Torturing an animal is no joke and we should put an end to this issue once and for all. 
