Makeup and cosmetics have been used since ancient times to enhance beauty and have

taken a rise in popularity as time has progressed. As makeup and cosmetics have become more in
demand, more companies have started to come into the market in order to satisfy consumer needs.
However, the terrifying truth that hides behind the luxurious beauty products is the act of these
companies using cruel animal testing.
Many well-known cosmetic companies such
as LOral, Estee Lauder, Maybelline, and
MAC practice animal testing where animals
are tortured and tested on for the sake of mass
producing beauty items that fulfill the vain
needs of the population. Over 200 thousand
animals suffer from cosmetic testing a year1.
Though animal testing is not required by law
in the United States for products, companies still exercise these unethical procedures. These
immoral practices can be avoided and stopped through the adoption of the Humane Cosmetics Act,
the action of the cosmetic companies to use alternative testing procedures, as well as the push of
the public for action against companies that still use animal testing for their products.
WHY IS ANIMAL TESTING AWARENESS NEEDED?
Animal testing for cosmetics is only a small portion of the horrifically large number of
animal testing overall. Cosmetic testing is not a secret; it is a real occurring problem that is realized
by much of the population, and the concept of animals being the victims of experimentation has
been no secret throughout history. According to a survey from The Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine Autumn 2011, 62% of survey takers responded that they were aware of

animal cosmetic testing2. However, the seriousness of this issue is that many people still are not
fully informed. More than 100 million animals are poisoned, burned, crippled, and abused in
laboratories for medical, cosmetic, and other types of testing. Testing is not illegal no matter how
cruel and unjustified it is, and although there are alternatives, such as organ-on-a-chip tests, many
companies choose not to utilize these methods.
One reason they do not change to more ethical and less harmful methods is because
companies find revenue when they sell their products to other countries like China, where it is
mandatory to test on animals. Another reason is the costs; Testing on animals such as mice or
rabbits is just more financially convenient along with cheaper supplies to use. It also takes less
time than to wait for scarce human volunteers. Because of the inexpensive price and quick testing,
alternatives such as using new science technology are not used.
Still, this does not excuse animal testing. Ninety five percent of experiment animals are
excluded from the single federal law that provides protection to animals3. As our society continues
to develop, people are starting to see the concern with animal tested cosmetics. Huge, famous
companies have been performing these tests and experiments that use animals behind the scenes
for a long time and ever since anti-animal cruelty movements have started to spread their agenda,
the demand for companies to halt this method by the public has also been on the rise.
WHERE DID ANIMAL TESTING ORIGINATE FROM?
Animal testing is defined as any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is
forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.4
The Cruelty Free International website states that animal experiments are when animals are
deliberately harmed in laboratories and usually killed at the end of the experiment. Experiments
can be and or can include injecting or force feeding animals with harmful substances, exposing

animals to radiation, surgically removing animals organs or tissues to deliberately cause damage,
forcing animals to inhale toxic gases, subjecting animals to frightening to create anxiety and
depression.
The Food and Drug Administration defines cosmetics as articles intended to be rubbed,
poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for
cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.5 Products that fall
into this category are makeup, skin products, nail polishes, shampoos, hair colors, toothpastes,
deodorants, and any other material used with the intent to be a component of a cosmetic product.
Testing on animals dates back to the second century when a Greek physician named Galen
of Pergamum researched in the fields of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology using
live animals as test subjects. As time progressed, however, using animals as test subjects has been
a practice that started to receive more and more negative reactions, so today scientists follow the
Three Rs in regards to using animals as test subjects.
The first R stands for Reduction, where the number of animals used in experiments are
reduced through improved experimental techniques and data analysis. The second is refinement,
in which experiments are refined so the animals are cared for and reduce their suffering by using
less invasive techniques, better medical care, and better living conditions. The third R is
replacement where experiments that would typically entail the use of animal testing, would be
tested using alternative techniques such as using cell cultures, computer models, human volunteers
and epidemiological studies6. Of course these Rs help to lessen the amount of animal testing in
laboratories, but does not end the testing which still results in animals being mistreated and
subjected to torturous tests and experiments.

ANIMAL COSMETIC TESTING EXISTS AND IS STILL USED:

The problem that occurs from animal testing is the inhumane treatment of these lab animals.
Animals commonly tested on for cosmetics are mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and occasionally
cats. Some of the procedures used during these tests are skin sensitization and eye
irritation/corrosion7. Skin sensitization was introduced in 1969 and is where the test substance is
injected or applied (on the skin of a guinea pig or an ear of the mouse) to test of allergic reactions
on skin. This test can cause the test subjects skin to become itchy, inflamed, ulcerated, or
otherwise painful as a result of an allergic reaction.
The

eye

irritation/corrosion

test

was

practiced as early as the 1940s and is where

a substance is applied to (usually one to three
rabbits) eyes or smeared onto their shaved
skin. This test is supposed to show potential
reversible and irreversible eye damage.
Some damages that test subjects go through
include inflamed skin, ulcers, bleeding,
bloody scabs, swollen eyelids, irritated and
cloudy eyes, or even blindness. Another test
is the acute oral toxicity test where
approximately seven rats have the test substance forced down their throats and are monitored to
see if they experience diarrhea, convulsions, bleeding, seizures, and other medical emergencies.
This tests is performed to determine the toxicity of a substance when consumed by seeing how

much of that substance causes half of the exposed animals to die within fourteen days of
exposure8.
Not only are these tests inhumane in themselves, the test animals are kept in bad conditions.
They are confined and kept in isolation; most of the time in cages that are smaller than is
recommended for the size and breed of animal. These conditions are known to create stress for the
animals due to their inability to go outdoors or move in general 9. Videos of laboratory animals
show their fear and anxiety from the torture they endure and see by their cowering in fear in their
confinements.
HOW WE CAN HELP:
There have been multiple plans for action against the use of animal testing in science
experiments. One of these plans is Harvard Med School announcing plans to shut down their
primate research center by the year 2015. Harvard has in the past been cited by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture for violations of animal welfare rules for their laboratory animals when four
monkeys had been killed unethically between June 2010 and February 2010. Their announcement
to phase out the use of animal test subjects was met with mixed reactions as animal rights activists
were happy with their decision, whereas other outside researchers were skeptical as the primate
center was used in the past for research on infectious diseases such as AIDS and Parkinsons.
Likewise, the National Institutes of Health also announced plans to retire the majority of
their chimpanzees used in research. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. stated, Their
likeness to humans has made them uniquely valuable for certain types of research, but also
demands greater justification for their use in response to their decision to keep fifty chimps for
research but retire the rest. The chimpanzees that are retired would join existing chimps in the
Federal Sanctuary System10.

On March 5th, 2014, the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 4148) was introduced to the 113th
Congress. The bill was sponsored by a representative for Virginias 8th congressional district,
Democrat James Jim Moran Jr. There were fifty six other co-sponsors of which fifty five were
Democrats and one was Republican. The bill was introduced but not enacted due to the changing
of the Congress11. Because the Humane Cosmetics Act was not able to progress further in the billmaking process, in 2015, another bill was introduced in the House. Reusing the name Humane
Cosmetics Act, H.R. 2858 passed through the Subcommittee on Health, and the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce to be introduced in the House on June 23rd 2015. Arizonas 2nd
Congressional District representative Republican Martha McSally sponsored this bill and one
hundred and fifty three other co-sponsors of which one hundred thirty seven Democrats and sixteen
Republicans.
The bills are almost identical in content with the purpose to phase out cosmetic animal
testing and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, and for other purposes12. It would make it
unlawful for anyone to test on animals in the cosmetic industry in the United States. The bills also
would make selling, and the offering of sale or transporting cosmetics in interstate commerce
illegal if any of the components or the final product were developed or manufactured through the
use of tests conducted on animals 13 . This bill has, at this moment, has passed through the
subcommittee on Health, as well as the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and is waiting
to be discussed by the House of Representatives.
This bill is similar to the one passed by the European Union on July 11, 2013. Europe has
long been a big producer as well as exporter of cosmetics and cosmetic goods. The Cosmetics
Directive was legislation that provided the framework for the banning and moving away from
cosmetic testing on animals. Provisions were added to this legislation later on and the whole

legislation was later changed to the Cosmetics Regulation which banned testing finished cosmetic
products as well as ingredients on animals, and also the marketing of finished cosmetic ingredients
and products that used animals for testing throughout the EU 14 . The passage of the Humane
Cosmetics Act would model the Cosmetics Regulation and make the United States a cruelty free
country.
But if animal testing is not allowed anymore, there will be no way to know if products are
safe for humans, right? No, this is not the case. Companies are only required to test new
ingredients. What does this mean? There is a list of verified ingredients that have been tested and
proved to be safe for commercial use. This is the method that cruelty free companies use when
deciding what products to use in their products; they only use ingredients on this list of verified
and safe ingredients. When a company needs to test a product for its ingredients, this means the
company is attempting to use an ingredient that has never been used by other companies before15.
This is due to companies wanting to find a new breakthrough ingredient that will further
distinguish them from other companies that manufacture and sell the same and similar products as
they do. The negative side to this, however, is the tests they have to perform on most times than
not, animal test subjects.
Another way cosmetic companies can phase out of animal testing is to use cells and other
advancements in medical technology. Human skin cultures can be created, bought, and sold for
skin irritation testing. Three dimensional cornea like tissue structures can be used in the place of
burning through the cornea of a rabbit in order to measure the time it takes for said burning. With
how fast technology and science is advancing today, there is no big argument for the use of animals
as test subjects anymore.

There are also in vitro methods where human cells and tissues are created and developed
to be used to be experimented on. A company called Ceetox has developed a method that allows
analysis of substance to see if they may conceive an allergic reaction. It uses 3D human tissue
models that can replicate human skin. This organ-on-a-chip strategy replaces many rabbits and
mice that were once victims for skin related tests16. These alternative techniques are good for
testing without the use of live animal test subjects, however the government does not place high
importance on these findings so, even though it has improved over the years, funding has been on
the lower side for these projects17.
Various cosmetic companies have already
started to stray away from animal testing. Brands such
as Anastasia Beverly Hills, Lush, Wet n Wild,
Hourglass, and Too Faced are cruelty-free and do not
test on animals. Cruelty Free International also
certifies companies who are animal cruelty free as
Leaping Bunny companies which are cosmetic
companies that meet the organizations criteria. Some
of these criteria include setting a fixed date in which
the company is no longer able to conduct or pay a
third party to perform animal tests and also are
prohibited from buying animal tested ingredients.
Leaping Bunny companies must also have a
monitoring system in order to ensure their suppliers

are in compliance with the cutoff date and also must have their monitoring system open to be
checked for their continued following of these regulations18.
This comes to our final plan for action: the people must act to have the policies changed.
We as citizens who value the life and the quality of life of these animals must act so they are not
mistreated, and misused for the purpose of cosmetic and materialistic needs. We need to write and
call our local authorities to get them to support legislation such as the Humane Cosmetics Act that
make animal testing illegal. We must write to cosmetic companies to become Leaping Bunny
companies and to stop the use of animals as test subjects. As citizens of our local counties,
communities, and this country, we have an obligation to tell those in charge that we will not stand
for this type of treatment.

References:
1
"About Cosmetics Animal Testing : Humane Society International." RSS. Humane Society
International, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html>.
2
"More Than a Makeup Trend: New Survey Shows 72 Percent of Americans Oppose Testing
Cosmetics Products on Animals." The Physicians Committee. N.p., 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Apr.
2016. <http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/cosmetics/americans-oppose-testingcosmetics-on-animals>.
3
"Top Five Shocking Animal Experimentation Facts (Video)." PETA. People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.peta.org/features/top-fiveshocking-animal-experimentation-facts/>.
4
"Cruelty Free International." What Is Animal Testing? Cruelty Free International, n.d. Web. 05
Apr. 2016. <https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing>.
5
"U.S. Food and Drug Administration." Cosmetics & U.S. Law. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ucm2005209.htm>.
6
Scutti, Susan. "Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History." Medical Daily. Medical Daily, 27
June 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2016. <http://www.medicaldaily.com/animal-testing-long-unprettyhistory-247217>.
7
"Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic." PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d.
Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animalsused-experimentation-factsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/>.
8
"Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals." RSS. The Humane Society of the United States, 5 Mar.
2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.

<http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/tips/common_cosmetics_tests_animals.
html?credit=web_id329654370>.
9
"Harm and Suffering | Animal Use in Research." Harm and Suffering | Animal Use in
Research. NEAVS, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. <http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering>.
10
Scutti, Susan. "Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History." Medical Daily. Medical Daily, 27
June 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2016. <http://www.medicaldaily.com/animal-testing-long-unprettyhistory-247217>.
11
"Humane Cosmetics Act (2014 - H.R. 4148)." GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4148>.
12
"H.R.2858 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Humane Cosmetics Act." Congress.gov. N.p., n.d.
Web. 03 Apr. 2016. <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2858>.
13
"Federal Bill to End Cosmetics Testing on Animals Introduced in Congress." RSS. The
Humane Society of the United States, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/02/federal_bill_to_end_cosmetics_tes
ting_introduced_in_Congress.html?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>.
14
"Ban on Animal Testing." - European Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
<http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing/index_en.htm>.
15
"About Cosmetics Animal Testing : Humane Society International." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03
Apr. 2016.
<http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html?referrer=htt
ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>.
16
"Alternatives to Animal Testing." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/>.
17
"Animals Used in Testing." National AntiVivisection Society. National AntiVivisection
Society, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2016. <http://www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-informed/sciencecorner/areas-of-science-that-use-animals/animals-in-testing/>.
18
"Cruelty Free International." EU Ban on Cosmetics Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/what-we-do/corporate-partnerships/eu-ban-cosmeticstesting>.
Image Credits:
Companies that test on animals: http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/companies-that-still-test-onanimals/
Lipstick: https://www.behance.net/gallery/16983641/Cosmetic-Testing-On-Animals-Poster-Infographics
Companies that do not test: http://www.veganbeautyreview.com/2014/10/crueltyfree-cosmeticsguide-reading-labels.html