Ugpo, Samantha Franzylle Louise T.

BSN 1B

Position Paper

Animal Cruelty: Should the Use of Animals in Cosmetic Testing be Continued or Banned
And Perpetrators Be Hold Accountable?

Animal testing has been a long-standing practice in the cosmetics industry, used to assess
the safety and efficacy of various products. However, this practice raises significant ethical
concerns due to the suffering it inflicts on animals. Traditionally, cosmetic testing involves
applying products or ingredients to the skin or eyes of animals, often rabbits, mice, or guinea pigs.
These tests can cause irritation, bleeding, blindness, and even death. This paper argues that the use
of animals in cosmetic testing is an unnecessary and cruel practice that should be banned. There
are now safe and effective alternative methods available that do not involve harming animals.

Proponents of animal testing argue that it is necessary to ensure the safety of cosmetic
products for human use. They also point out that some alternative testing methods are not yet fully
validated or may not be as reliable as animal tests. The cosmetic industry has a responsibility to
ensure the safety of its products. Consumers should be confident that the cosmetics they use will
not cause them harm. Additionally, some alternative testing methods, such as cell cultures or
computer modelling, are still under development and may not be suitable for all types of cosmetic
ingredients. While safety is paramount, there is growing evidence that alternative testing methods
can be just as effective as animal testing. Many countries have already banned or restricted the
use of animals in cosmetic testing, demonstrating that safe cosmetics can be developed without
animal cruelty. The Humane Society International (HSI, 2024) points out that many common
cosmetic ingredients, such as shampoos and lotions, do not require animal testing to ensure safety.
Additionally, advances in technology have led to the development of sophisticated alternative
testing methods, such as 3D human tissue models and in silico (computer) modeling (National
Institutes of Health, 2024). These methods can provide more accurate and human-relevant data
than traditional animal tests.

Animal testing in cosmetics inflicts significant physical and psychological distress on

animals. They are often confined to small cages for extended periods, subjected to painful
procedures like chemical applications, and experience constant threat and stress. Their entire lives
are spent in this unnatural and fearful environment. Beyond the cruelty, animal testing isn’t
completely reliable for human safety. Animals have different physiologies than us, leading to
misleading results. Tests also focus on isolated ingredients, not the full product, and don’t account
for how an animal’s stress might affect their response. Fortunately, advancements have provided
ethical and effective alternatives. Cell cultures allow scientists to study specific cellular responses
in a controlled environment. 3D human tissue models mimic human skin for a more realistic
picture of product interaction. In silico modeling uses computers to predict potential toxicity,
identifying risks early. These alternatives offer several benefits: they are ethical, potentially more
accurate due to reduced species differences, and faster and cost-effective. By embracing these
alternatives, the cosmetics industry can move towards a future free of animal suffering and driven
by innovation. The public is increasingly aware of the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing
and is demanding change. Many countries have already banned or restricted the use of animals in
cosmetic testing, including the European Union, India, and Brazil. This demonstrates that it is
possible to develop safe and effective cosmetics without harming animals.

The continued use of animals in cosmetic testing raises serious ethical concerns about the
accountability of those involved. Cosmetic companies that commission these tests are directly
responsible for the inflicted suffering and have a moral obligation to explore alternatives.
However, a lack of transparency in testing practices makes it difficult for consumers to hold them
accountable. Furthermore, loopholes in regulations across different countries allow companies to
outsource testing where regulations are weaker. The Philippines currently lacks a law explicitly
banning animal testing for cosmetics. However, there are existing regulations that indirectly impact
the practice. The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 promotes humane treatment and regulates animal
use in research and testing, although specifics on cosmetics testing might be limited. The
Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) oversees animal welfare and issues
registrations for facilities conducting animal testing. While not a ban, BAI regulations can
influence how companies perform these tests. Finally, the growing trend of ethically-conscious
consumers in the Philippines is putting pressure on the cosmetics industry. This consumer demand
for cruelty-free products incentivizes companies to explore alternative testing methods. Although
a comprehensive ban isn’t in place yet, the Philippines demonstrates a potential path forward
through existing regulations, government oversight, and a growing movement for ethical practices
in the cosmetics industry. To address this, we need a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics,
along with stricter enforcement mechanisms. Consumers also have power by supporting cruelty-
free brands and demanding ethical products. Finally, raising public awareness about the inherent
cruelty of animal testing is crucial to encourage responsible consumer choices. By holding
companies accountable through legislation, consumer pressure, and public education, we can push
for a future where the cosmetics industry prioritizes both human safety and animal welfare.
 In summation, the use of animals in cosmetic testing is not only ethically reprehensible
but also scientifically outdated. With the growing availability of sophisticated alternative testing
methods, there is no excuse to inflict needless suffering on animals in the pursuit of beauty. A
global ban on animal testing in cosmetics is not just a moral imperative but also a necessary step
towards a future where scientific progress and animal welfare can co-exist. By advocating for a
ban on animal testing and supporting cruelty-free companies, consumers can be a powerful force
for change. This shift will not only spare countless animals from a lifetime of suffering but also
accelerate the development and adoption of more human-relevant and ethically sound testing
methods. Ultimately, this transition will benefit both animals and human health by promoting a
more humane and sustainable future for the cosmetics industry.

References :

Cruelty Free International. (2024). Draize Test.

https://blog.humanesociety.org/2022/03/its-time-to-move-past-the-cruel-inhumane-practice-of-
testing-cosmetics-on-animals.html

Humane Society International. (2024). A Guide to Cruelty-Free Cosmetics.

https://www.hsi.org/news-resources/cosmetics_qa/

National Institutes of Health. (2024). Alternative Methods to Animal Testing.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/alternatives

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (n.d.). Why Animal Testing Doesn’t Work.
https://www.peta.org/

Cruelty Free International. (n.d.). Prohibitions on cosmetics testing in the EU and

elsewhere. https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/leaping-bunny/prohibitions-cosmetics-testing-eu-
and-elsewhere

European Commission. (2009). The Cosmetics Regulation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32009R1223

Gourevitch, M., & Rochowicz, M. (2018). The International Landscape for Cosmetics
Testing Policies. Global Policy Studies Program, University of California, San Diego.
https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/gourevitch/gourevitch_research_crowe.pdf

Bureau of Animal Industry. (n.d.). Website: https://www.bai.gov.ph/

Philippine Animal Welfare Society. (n.d.). Website: https://paws.org.ph/

Republic of the Philippines. (1998). Republic Act No. 8485, An Act to Promote the
Humane Treatment of Animals. [Law]