Animal Cruelty has been a controversy in the twenty-first century. We have organizations that began to bring out his issue to spread awareness that if it is actually necessary to harm animals for the benefit if the product is safe on a human. For example, the makeup industry started out with many companies that branch out to use animals to test their products before distributing and manufacturing the final product. It is now a billion-dollar empire that creates products for everyone to make themselves feel good and look great. On social media, it is everywhere whether it is a new eyeshadow palette or a two-hundred-dollar brush that is promised to blend your foundation flawlessly. Since then, about half of the leading brands have switched to make their process cruelty free. So why do some companies still continue to test on animals? 

There is no excuse as to why makeup brands continuously use innocent lives in order to achieve their next best product sales, but looking from both perspectives it is said that there are acceptable reasons for testing, and that there are substitutions and alternate ways to get rid of it overall.

Animal testing began in the late 1800s and the first half of the 20th century sparked concerns over the use of humans and animals in research. It began with the medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime during World War 2 and the Tuskegee syphilis study (MacCallum). The British Parliament passed the first set of protections for animals in 1876, with the Cruelty to Animals Act, which after ninety years later the United States of America adopted regulations for animals used in research, with the passage of Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966.

When walking into the aisle of a drugstore or heading to the mall to go to a makeup counter, the one easy way to know if a product is cruelty-free is that there is a tiny bunny’s face on the back of the packaging. It shows that there are proud to not test on animals and that they never will unless that little sign is there. About 100,000 to 200,000 animals suffer through the pain and die just from cosmetics every year around the world (HSI). But a little more than 100 million are used each worldwide from overall testing (MacCallum).  Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats, and mice are used for these testing’s specifically. Usually, these testing for these cosmetics include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of rabbits as well as repeating oral force-feeding which can last for weeks or months to look for any signs of general illness or specific health hazards, such as cancer or birth defects from these soon to be products that will be brought into the market. From all of these tests it can cause intolerable pain and distress which can include blindness, swollen eyes, sore bleeding skin, internal bleeding, and organ damage, birth defects, irregular movement of the body, and as well as death (HSI) These animals are not given with pain relief as by the end of the test the animals are killed whether it is from decapitation or asphyxiation (without oxygen). Bones are sometimes broken when they are held down and forced to breath poisionus fumes or have lethal chemicals poured into their eyes.  The “3 R’s” which is a principle encouraged by researched to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine, or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible. The three R’s emphasize reduction, refinement, and replacement (MacCallum). These three principles can be used to improve the animals’ conditions. For example, scientists can reduce the amount of animals used in research while gaining the same amount of information. They can replace animals when it is possible to, like how the Use Committee and Animal Care groups do. Finally, researchers can refine their method by minimizing pain for animals and giving them better living conditions. 

Some will say that it is the law or that it is required for products to be tested, but on the contrary as the U.S Food and Drug Administration states that they do not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval which come from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Animal Testing & Cosmetics). However, they still remain the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing. Another reason why many say that it is acceptable to test on animals is that it is to protect the safety of people, animals, and the environment. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials. Testing on animals also serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly (Why Animals Are Used). 

The Animal Welface Act of 1966 is one of the laws that regulates animal care in research and exhibitions.  This act is enforced by the USDA and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. They aim to guarantee that allowing facilities to test substances on animals is a last resort, to be condoned only after other methods have failed or been deemed unsuitable. These committees are also responsible for providing the animals with medical care and good living conditions whilst undergoing experimentation (Sun). Over 160 drugs and vaccines were discovered by animal testing which have been developed and approved by the United States Food and Agriculture Administration.

Almost without an exception, companies have a choice about whether or not to test on animals. In the majority of cases, animal tests continue because some companies insist on developing and using “new” ingredients. So why can they not just use non-animal testing methods? There are many of the test requirements because there are many superior non-animal tests available. Animal testing also continues in the cosmetics industry because of convention, it has always been done like this, which is why animal tests are familiar even if they are flawed. Regulators, whose job it is to approve makeup products to be used, tend to be conservative in their approach and can delay approving a product if the manufacturer provides safety data based on unfamiliar non-animal test methods. 

Some companies claim that they have to test on animals because they sell their products in countries like China where animal testing is still required by law for companies importing into the country. The country recently softened this law by allowing local companies prove the safety of certain “ordinary” cosmetics by alternative meants, but that does not apply to foreign companies that want to export products there.  But this is not true as they have chosen to sell in China knowing that to do so will mean new animal testing (Jkissa). Cosmetic companies are responsible for providing safety assurances in whatever manner they deem appropriate. For example, a bath and body skincare brand that goes by the name of Lush believed in buying ingredients only from companies that do not use any of their commission to test on animals or testing products on humans. They even have their own Supplier Specific Boycott, which states that they will not buy any ingredient from any manufacturer or supplier that tests anything they produce on any animals for any reason.  This can be done without any new animal testing by relying on the roughly 20,000 established cosmetic ingredients that have already been evaluated for their safety, and through the use of a growing number of proven, non-animal test methods (Still Fighting Against Animal Testing). 

Several companies that have otherwise committed to cruelty-free products leave their options open. For example, L’Oréal and Avon both have statements on their websites declaring that they do not test on animals (Jkissa).  Occasionally they state that some products may be required by law in a few countries to undergo additional safety testing, including animal testing. In these instances, Avon will first attempt to persuade the requesting authority to accept non-animal test data (Avon Products, Inc)

“The study of animals is a vital part of the research process” (Why Animals Are Used). Many basic cell processes are the same in all animals, and the bodies of animals are like humans in the way that they perform many vital functions such as breathing, digestions, movement , sight, hearing, and reproduction. Comparing different species and studying the differences and similarities between them is one way to gain insight. The science of cosmetics safety testing has progressed greatly in recent years, and there are now dozens of proven non-animal test methods that are accepted by government regulators of cosmetics. More than forty non-animal safety tests have been validated for use, and these modern alternatives can offer results that are more relevant to people, often more cheaply and quickly to do so (HSI). That’s because advanced non animal tests represent the highest end and latest techniques that science has to offer, which replaces the outdated animal tests that have been around for many decades and have not stood the test of time. Examples include 3-Dimensional human skin models, which can fully replace the use of rabbits for skin irritation testing, and cell culture tests for sunlight-induced “photo”-toxicity, genetic mutations, and other harmful effects. Tissue culture is a process where scientists take live tissue from a human or animals, and they test the chemical on that tissue. Computer modeling is where scientists use a computer program to test a chemical (Sun). But sometimes computer modeling does not show how a living body would react to a particular type of testing. Non-animal methods have been shown to be scientifically superior – and as it usually takes less time to complete, at a fraction of the cost of animal experiments (Still Fighting Against Animal Testing).

Animal testing is one topic that many people do not understand. Shany Sun wrote a scholarly journal about The Truth Behind Animal Testing and is pro-animal testing. Sun writes that animals are not treated cruelly in the majority of cases and the alternatives are not as desirable. The USDA surveys the total number of animals being used for research and how many of these animal’s experience pain. According to them, only 6 percent of animals being tested experience pain (Sun). But, it is widely acknowledged by scientists and ethicist that animals can experience pain and destress. Potential causes of harm include invasive procedures, disease, and deprivation of basic physiological needs. Other sources of harm for many animals include social deprivation and loss of the ability to fulfill natural behaviors, among other factors (MacCallum) Numerous studies have demonstrated that, even in response to gentle handling, animals can show marked changed in physiological and hormonal markers of stress. 

“Animals need not have the right to vote, marry, or file for divorce if they have the right to be treated with respect” (Mur).  From the Animal Experimentation that is a scholar journal with multiple articles redeeming why animal testing is a go or a no, Tom Regan uses that quote as he claims that believing that animals have rights is absurdity. Regan continues to explain how animals have less inherent value and that they have a significant less mental ability than we do. The morality of animal experimentation is rarely questioned by researchers, who generally choose to defend the practice dogmatically, rather than confront the obvious moral issue it raises. Animal experimenter’s language betrays their efforts to avoid morality. For example, they “sacrifice” animals rather than killing them, and knowing that the animal can be distress but just rarely acknowledge the fact that they can be in pain or suffering. Researchers often assert that laboratory experiments are “controlled’ because they can change one variable at a time. But this control, however, is illusory. Any animal model differs in myriad ways from human physiology and pathology (Andregg).

A few ways to help get end cosmetics animal testing is promoting modern science, championing the development of new non-animal tests and training regulators and companies in their use. Educating consumer and raising awareness about animal testing and how to shop cruelty free. Be a conscientious shopper and know what products that out in the market, Take the time to look at labels before making a purchase, check the company’s cruelty free status and animal rights websites for a list of approved companies. The money that is well earned to buy these products can be used as a “vote” to show the support in non-animal cruelty brands. 

The value of animal experimentation has been grossly exaggerated by those with a vested economic interest to preserve it. Animals have a heartbeat just as humans do and it does not justify for them to be used as temporary experiments for the benefit of major corporate companies for their wrong doing into new research. The other side believes that people who do not appreciate animal testing should not be benefitted to all the research it has help in the medical field and social science experiments to help us humans today. While there are many benefits that could potentially get rid of animal testing, there are still some adjustments and liability before animal testing can be banned in the United States. The European Union and eleven other countries like India, South Korea, and Australia have put a whole wide state ban on animal testing in the cosmetic industry. While the United States is not required to test on animals they are still able to do so which in turn could justify whether a company is allowed to do so if pleased. Animals are still used today for testing as they help makeup brands discover new ingredients and treatments for the benefit of humans and potentially earning more money they invest in animals for a new product placement. It is still a controversy to this day if animal experiments are acceptable or not and only time will tell until it will help us in the future or destroy our faith in humanity. 
