1 Knox

Karly Knox

English 134-42

Erdiakoff

11-16-17

Pain is Beauty

Animal testing, specifically in cosmetics, is a cruel and inhumane method to test for

quality and safety in the industry. Many people still wallow in ignorance believing that animal

testing means simply giving a bunny a make-over, but the animals are actually subjected to

grueling torture hidden under the faade of toxicology testing. Huffington Post reports that the

European Union has already phased out animal testing for products sold there (Leader), so why

not the United States? I believe that consumers need to be educated, but not in the dramatic,

pouring-blood-on-people method that some extreme animal rights groups use. Instead, they

should use empathy to sway consumers to make ethical choices in the products they purchase

and companies they support.

Consumers always trust that makeup products that make it onto the shelves of stores are

one hundred percent safe to put on their skin. Most products must go through rigorous toxicology

and hazard assessments, utilizing live specimens. Animals from dogs to fish are forced to inhale

and swallow chemicals, have toxins dropped into their eyes to determine the amount needed to

cause them to go blind, and go through chemical burn tests (AltTox). A common saying that I

hear from sympathetic bystanders is better them than us. Millions of animals endure testing,

but experimental labs and their methods are usually not called into question even when makeup
 2 Knox

products turn out to be harmful. While animal testing provides a living, whole body to

experiment on, humans are extremely different, and studies have found animal testing to be

obsolete.

Research has and is currently being done with human cells for cosmetic testing. These up

and coming methods are creating more accurate representations of how products will affect the

body, inside and out. Skin cells are collected with consent from the waste product of plastic

surgeries and can be cultured and grafted, giving researchers the most accurate test subject

possible - actual human skin. The skin used is not connected to a live organism that can feel pain,

and it reflects the surface that these cosmetics will interact with. However, testing does not end at

skin. Chemicals absorbed through the skin and flow into our organs and internal systems require

more than just a surface level investigation.

Many of the In vitro methods, or test tube experiments, are better indicators of possible

side effects of cosmetic ingredients than animal body systems and organs because we are vastly

different creatures. Many of these methods are repeatable and cost less for the labs in the long

run. Programs quickly study side effects, create risk estimates based on knowledge that scientists

already have on human biology, and use a database of previous tests to determine the likelihood

of the tested products being hazardous to humans, no test subject needed, just a program

(Kybernetik). Many of these methods are continuously being funded by private parties to

promote non-animal testing methods, paving the way for a scientific upturn in what standard

toxicology testing looks like. These methods are most commonly found in the European Union
 3 Knox

and United Kingdom, but companies in the United States are making headway as well. In other

words, there is a growing number of people who are concerned about this issue and want to help.

Human testing can be conducted too, but consent and monetary compensation for

subjects are necessary. Unlike humans, animals have no voice to give consent to be tested on. To

be injected. To be chemically burned. Scientists argue that the Animal Welfare Act ensures the

subjects will be taken care of properly to reduce the chances of other factors getting in the way,

but about ninety-five percent of the animals used rodents, cold-blooded reptiles and birds are

not covered by the Act (Animal Welfare Institute). This allows all forms of chemical testing to

be conducted on animals without any legal concern. There is an abundant array of cruelty-free

methods, including In vitro, that provide more accurate and cost-efficient results; it is just a

matter of changing the standards in the United States.

A misconception in the cosmetics industry is that cruelty-free companies are usually

luxury and organic brands because you are paying for more high-quality ingredients and

compounds, but many cosmetics companies buy formulate from the same labs. The high price

tag is primarily for aesthetic and a brand name. Buying from small businesses or individual

compounders assures consumers that minimal processing and animal testing has occurred and

that there are fewer chemical additives and preservatives. On the flip side, local drugstores like

CVS and Walgreens (and Rite-Aid for you Californians) have brands of various price ranges to

choose from that are cruelty-free. Wet n Wild, Milani, and Physicians Formula are three brands

that are privately owned and produce only cruelty free products.
 4 Knox

Once someone makes the decision to go cruelty-free, regrettably, it is not as simple as

reading labels on products. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, the

unrestricted use of these phrases (cruelty-free and animal testing free) by cosmetic companies is

possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms (Center). This makes it difficult to

find the initiative to switch to cruelty-free cosmetics as it is not regulated by the government and

requires personal investigation. The lack of a defined yes, I make bunnies cry or no makes it

difficult for online sources to have a consistent list. If you browse Ulta or Sephoras shelves, a

variety of them will brandish a Leaping Bunny symbol, the current gold standard. Leaping

Bunny is a privately owned non-profit company that name brand cosmetics companies can

choose to be screened by to prove that they are cruelty-free, but not all brands who have the

symbol are one hundred percent animal-testing free and could be owned by a parent company

that conducts routine tests. To a consumer, I recommend cross referencing the Leaping Bunny

lists and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for the most up to date information

as well as reading reviews to help make ethical investments can be made that wont break the

bank. To the government, I recommend more regulation of controlled animal testing, allowing

people to definitively know what the sunscreen on their face has gone through to be approved.

The United States is currently lacking in the animal rights department, but independent

groups are working to bring more attention to the injustices committed against animals in labs

across the country. There is currently a movement to have The Humane Cosmetics Act (which

you can sign on the Human Societies website) created by Congressman Jim Moran which aims

to end animal testing for cosmetics after a one year phase in and follow with a three year phase

in period for a ban on the sale of any animal tested cosmetics (Cosmetics). My dogs, Caesar and
 5 Knox

Lucy, and every type of animal deserves to have nothing less than a glamourous life, and I

assume that every loving pet owner would feel the same. So, if you wouldnt test on mans best

friends, dont endorse products that do. Animal testing is inhumane to all that endure it and our

government should follow in the footsteps of the European Union, Norway, Israel and India and

ban it from cosmetics.

 6 Knox

Works Cited

Alternatives to Animal Testing. PETA,

www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.

Animal Welfare Act. Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Welfare Institute,

awionline.org/content/animal-welfare-act.

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Labeling Claims -. U S Food and Drug

Administration Home Page, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5 Nov. 2017,

www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Labeling/Claims/ucm2005202.htm.

Kybernetik, Max-Planck-Institut fr biologische. Alternative Methods. Alternative Methods,

hirnforschung.kyb.mpg.de/en/methods/alternative-methods.html.

Leader, Jessica. Animal Testing Of Cosmetics Officially Banned In European Union. The

Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 6 Feb. 2013,

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/cosmetic-testing-animals-skincare-makeup_n_263

2526.html.

Validated and Accepted Alternative Methods. AltTox.org, 20 Nov. 2016,

alttox.org/mapp/table-of-validated-and-accepted-alternative-methods/.