Reyes 1

Valeria Reyes

English 1302-213

Judith McCann

8 March 2022

Essay 2- Animal Testing on Cosmetics

It is sad how the society in this world does not care for the animals. In fact, many animals

are used for cruel things such as scientific experiments that could risk their lives. One debatable

topic researchers have different opinions and beliefs is on whether animal testing on cosmetics is

harmful or beneficial. Some think that there are more ways on how they could test cosmetics

without hurting animals. As a matter of fact, many researchers think that testing on animals is

morally incorrect, it can be harmful for the animal’s health, and avoiding animal testing on

cosmetics helps improve marketing in one way or another. Other researchers think that animal

testing is benefical because it can help the human health with out risking it, they try to take care of

animals without harming them, and sometimes it could be beneficial to the animals. This research

analysis presents the existing research that reports both the benefits of animal testing, such as

helping the human health without risk, and the detriments, such as the negative effects on the

animal’s health, ;as well as the increase in sales for brands that sell cosmetics that are not

animal-tested.

Animal Testing on Cosmetics is inmoral and Bad for Animal’s Health

To begin with, Many scientist believe that animal testing could be cruel. As a matter of fact,

animal testing on cosmetics has happened over years. According to the charts from the article

“Effect of Various Microorganisms Found in Cosmetics On the Normal and Injured Eye of The
 Reyes 2

Rabbit” it mentions how rabbits have been used for many experiments since 1973 (Chowchuvech

et al. 1006).In other words, it is astonishing how back then people did not care if animals were put

at risk. As mentioned in the article’s diagram, rabbits were put in different types of experiments that

would risk their lives and they did not have any precautions with them (Chowchuvech et al. 1007).

It is sad how back then scientists would not care for those rabbits that about 90% of them where

contaminated (Chowchuvech et al. 1007). On the other hand, Nowadays human beings are more

aware of how animal testing on cosmetics is very harmful. As a matter of fact, according to the

article “Alternative (non- animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-

2010.” stated that the EU Cosmetics prohibits placing cosmetics that are tested on animals on the

European market after the year 2013 (Alder et al. 367). This means that other countries are being

more aware of how testing cosmetics on animals can be really inhumane. In fact, according to the

article it mentions how there are many methods that avoid testing cosmetics on animals. A great

example of this can be the Alternative methods. These methods can help the skin, eyes irritation,

and metabolism without harming the animals (Alder et al. 372). Since many cosmetics can have

ingredients that can be harmful it can put the animal at risk (Kim et al.1).

Cosmetics increase in sales.

According to the article “Not tested on animals' ': How consumers react to cruelty free

cosmetics proposed by manufactures and retailers? Stated that many people prefer to buy products

that mention that it is “cruelty-free” and that it is not tested on animals (Grappe et al. 2). This means

that many consumers prefer to buy products that do not harm any animals. As a matter of fact, the

consumers that prefer buying products that are not animal tested are mostly eco-friendly and try to

take care of the animals (Grappe et al. 5).These people also try to support animal rights and have a
 Reyes 3

positive attitude towards products that are not animal tested. Also consumers try to buy cosmetics

that are not tested on animals because they have different beliefs and they think it is morally

incorrect. As a matter of fact, some people try to engage in the rights for animals by trying to fight

animal testing, this makes constumers look very responsible and aware of the things they are

buying. According to the article about 63.2% of the consumers decide to buy cosmetics that are not

tested on animals. This means that there is a lot of people that are against animal testing and prefer

to buy products that are not animal tested.

In addition, According to the article about 84% of the people in the United States pay more

attention to better living conditions for animals ( Grappe et al. 1). According to one of the articles

it mentioned that the United States also decided to ban cosmetic testing on animals. Furthermore,

an article mentioned that in many countries there might be some public policies brands and

consumers have to follow. In fact, in the year 2013 the European Union decided to banned animal

testing on cosmetics. Another thing that was banned in the European Union was the use of “claims

and logos that referred to the absence of thereof” (Grappe et al. 1). According to the Article some

people might be socially influenced by others when they buy products.

Helps out humans’ health

Moreover, Animal testing on cosmentics can help human beings by one way or another. A

great example of this can be that it could help out improve the humans’ health without putting them

at risk. For instance, sometimes scientists have to test certain products on animals just to make sure

it would not affect humans. According to one of the Articles, it mentions how scientists first decide

to test a certain chemical to animals rather than to humans to see the reaction of the animals. An

article also mentioned that sometimes it is a good idea to test cosmetics on animals ,but only if
 Reyes 4

suffering is minimized when scientists are working with animals. The article stated that sometimes

animal testing on cosmetics can be benefical for scientist because they can figure out things that

can help out the human’s health (Kabane and Baddel 1). In fact, in the article “Bioethics: a look at

animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK” stated that many scientists say that there has

been many important medical breakthoughs have been possible to make only on animals which

could benift human beings in one way or another (Kabane and Baddel 2). Sometimes scientists

believe that animal tests can help them find out if a certain product is effective or not effective for

people.

In conclusion, animal testing on cosmetics has been a pertty debatable topic over the years

that might have its pros and cons. As mentioned before, animal testing on cosmetics can affect the

animals health in one way or another. As a matter of fact, it can also be immoral using animals to

try to make experiments with them that can risk their life. On the opposite side, Animal testing is

beneficial to the people because they don’t put their lifes at risk.
 Reyes 5

Works Cited

Adler, Sarah. et al. “Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and

future prospects- 2010.” Arch Toxicol. 2011, pp. 367- 485.

https://link-springer-com.tamiu.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2.p

df

Chowchuvech, Endeliam et al. “Effect of various Microorganisms found in cosmetics on the

normal and injured eye of the rabbit.” American Journal of Ophthalmology. vol. 75, no. 6,

1973. pp.1004-1009. https://zh.booksc.eu/book/29667084/9501a4

Grappe, Cindy et al. “Not tested on animals: How consumers react to cruelty- free cosmetics

proposed by manufacturers and retailers.” Hal open science, 2021, pp.

1-27.https://hal-audencia.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03379593/file/Grappe_Lombart_Lo

uis_Durif.pdf

Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. “Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and

cosmetics in the UK.” Journal of Medical Ethics and History of medicine. vol.12,

no. 15, 2019, pp. 1-11.

https://wwncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7166243/pdf/JMEHM-12-15.pdf

Kim, Kyu-Bong et al. “Current opinion on risk assessment of cosmetics.” Journal of

Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. vol. 24, no. 4,

2021.com.tamiu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1080/10937404.2021.1907264?needAc

cess=true
 Reyes 6

Springer, J.A. et al. “Number of animals for sequential testing.” Food and Chemical Toxicology.

vol. 31, no. 2. pp 105-109, 1993.https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(93)90122-F