Cosmetic Animal Testing: How and Why the World is Moving Towards Alternative Solutions
Note: This argumentative research paper was first written in 2018. References are also linked at the end.
On April 15th, 1980, animal activist, Henry Spira asked the world, “How many rabbits has Revlon blinded for beauty’s sake?” Today, we can ask the same question to all the major cosmetic brands out there as well as the wellbeing of other animals being tested on such as guinea pigs, mice, and rats. Spira, however, never asked about the safety of the overall product, which is what people are most concerned about when thinking about purchasing a cosmetic product: how are consumers supposed to know whether the makeup they choose to put on their faces is safe? Historically speaking, the safety of our cosmetic products has been determined by conducting numerous tests on an undisclosed number of animals. Henry Spira may not have asked about the product’s safety, but his overarching outspoken support for animal welfare and his disagreement with the cosmetic industry’s practices in animal testing started a movement. Today, his activism, which has sequentially inspired countless others, has led the world to ask themselves: how high of a price are you willing to pay for beauty?
We began testing on animals for cosmetics out of necessity and it is now practiced widely throughout the U.S. In 1938, the United States Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are signed into law, which basically required cosmetic companies to provide evidence that their products were, indeed, safe. In response to this, cosmetic companies oblige by beginning to test on animals to ensure that products were safe before they were sent out to the marketplace. A few years later in 1944, the well-known Draize eye and skin irritancy tests came into fruition and these tests are still widely used as a standard in animal testing, for both the cosmetic and medicine industry (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d.). Advocacy towards stopping the use of animal testing began with animal activist, Henry Spira when he questioned Revlon, and it subsequently sparked interest with American citizens (Zurlo, Rudacille, & Goldberg, 2012). The overall animal rights movement, including the coalition against animal testing, only grew from there. Moreover, it led to changing attitudes and the increase of studies into alternative methods with the goal of ending animal exploitation, not only in the U.S but the world. Now, I’ll be exploring why we should follow other countries’ example and ban cosmetic animal testing in the U.S.
The opposing argument may say that testing on animals is necessary. Cosmetic testing was even mandatory in China before June of 2014 (Humane Society of the United States, n.d.). But the argument that is usually made towards the use of animal testing, opposed to against it, claims that it’s necessary in order to determine the toxicity of cosmetic products and their ingredients. The determination of toxicity of products and any potential chemical reactions that may come from it is important, but with new inventions of various “cell-culture-based studies”, testing on animals will no longer be needed, nor is it as efficacious in comparison (Mone, 2014). Another argument held by those who support animal testing states that it is effective because of how similar humans are to animals. While this statement may be true in a general sense, there are multiple reasons as to why animal tests can be, and in most cases are, highly fallible.
For starters, animals resemble humans in multiple ways, but it doesn’t translate when referring to their various ailments and illnesses. Animals are different both physiologically and genetically, causing differences “between animal diseases and human diseases” (Karaim, 2018). In addition to that, animal tests “don’t mirror toxicity in humans very well”, therefore making it inapplicable to humans and ultimately defeating the overall purpose of conducting tests on animals (Abbott, 2005). Lastly, the process of keeping tested animals in an enclosed “laboratory environment” dramatically affects the overall test results (Karaim, 2018). In addition to its unreliability, “Animal-based tests take too long and are too expensive” as they “often [require] several years and millions of dollars or more to carry out” (Mone, 2014). So, while the initial reasoning to start testing on animals is understandable, it is no longer required, especially since we’re on the horizon for more accurate and more humane alternatives.
Animal testing is highly flawed because animals aren’t good enough models to test products that are designed to be used by humans. A large number of guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, rats, and puppies are all tested for varying toxicity tests where pain and exploitation are purposefully inflicted on these animals. These animals are subjected to be shaved, force-fed, and injected among other traumatizing processes (Humane Society International, n.d.), all of which can, and in most cases does, affect the test results, which then ruins the overall reliability.
Although the exact number of animals tested on for cosmetic products is unknown, the Humane Society International “[estimates] that approximately 100,000–200,000 animals suffer and die” for cosmetic research around the world (Humane Society International, n.d.). These tests that certain cosmetic companies and the opposing party find necessary are used to determine the toxicity of cosmetics and their ingredients. Those tests include “skin sensitization, skin irritation/corrosion, eye irritation/corrosion, acute oral toxicity, acute dermal toxicity, acute inhalation toxicity, subacute and subchronic toxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, toxicokinetics, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity (birth defects), [and] genetic toxicity/mutagenicity” (Humane Society International, n.d.).
The effects of these tests generate a wide array of possible side effects like “ulcers, inflammation [of the skin]”, “blindness”, “convulsions”, “paralysis”, and “seizures” among many others, most of which would ultimately lead to “death” (Humane Society International, n.d.). Certain tests like the chronic toxicity tests are designed specifically to expose rats to a chemical for a period, usually a year or longer. The rats are then “killed and their organs are examined” to determine whether the substance or product is poisonous or not. A similar process is done on pregnant female dogs and rats in a test to determine whether a substance will cause birth defects (Humane Society International, n.d.).
Cosmetic animal testing still has a multitude of problems that people overlook but are still used because of how convenient it is for companies as well as the fact that “companies insist on developing and using “new” ingredients” (Humane Society International, n.d.). Testing on animals for cosmetics is something that’s tried and true; companies have been partaking in the practice since 1938 and it’s unfortunately become a standard in the industry until more recently.
Despite the inhumane but conventional practices in cosmetic animal testing, scientists and organizations like the “Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing (SEURAT)” (Mone, 2014) and the “National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)”, which was established in 1929 (Guither, 1998), among many other organizations, have been working on alternative solutions that prove to be more accurate in comparison to animal testing. The move towards developing methods that could ultimately replace animal testing began when the “Interagency Coordination Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Authorization Act is signed” in 2000, which “established a coordinated effort by United States agencies to evaluate and adopt alternative test methods” (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d.).
Scientists have created multiple replacements for cosmetic animal testing. For example, the most popular methods in recent years include “in vitro toxicology” (Zurlo et al., 2012) and “in silico testing” (Mone, 2014). In vitro “refers to the technique of performing a given procedure in a controlled environment outside of a living organism” (“Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies,” n.d.). However, in silico testing involves “sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing,” n.d.).
Examples of in vitro testing include but are not limited to “organs-on-chips”, “MatTek’s EpiDermTM Tissue Model”, and alternatives “developed by Researchers at the European Union Reference Laboratory”. The “organs-on-chips” contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems”. MatTek’s EpiDermTM Tissue Model is a 3D model that “replicates key traits of normal human skin”. Lastly, researchers at the European Union Reference Laboratory developed “five different tests that use human blood cells to detect contaminants in drugs that cause a potentially dangerous fever response when they enter the body”. Examples of popular in silico testing methods include the use of “sophisticated computer models that simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases” and “Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs)”, which “estimates [of] a substance’s likelihood of being hazardous, based on its similarity to existing substances and our knowledge of human biology” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing,” n.d.).
In the sphere of our current technological progress exists advanced “imaging technologies”, “3D cell cultures”, (Mone, 2014), and the further study of “biotechnology, the use of biological processes to manufacture product” (Zurlo et al., 2012), which makes it easier for scientists to discover and develop innovative, safe, and more accurate methods (Mone, 2014). Experts have even gone so far as to say that “the research is progressing faster than they expected” (Mone, 2014). But regardless of their undoubtful progress, scientists still have varying predictions in what type of testing will be at the forefront of alternative solutions to animal testing.
For example, “NOTOX, one of the SEURAT’s research clusters” believes that the future of non-animal testing will come from “[basing] predictions on actual biological mechanisms of action”. They plan to analyze “pathways that [lead] to adverse outcomes”, which they claim are limited, and “using this data to bolster virtual or in silico models” (Mone, 2014). Conversely, some scientists believe that “biotechnology” will lead to the “use of human, not animal, tissues and subjects” (Zurlo et al., 2012). Moreover, there are other scientists that believe “in vitro and other alternatives [would ultimately] serve as screens for in vivo (within the living organisms) tests” (Zurlo et al., 2012). But regardless of the varying predictions scientists have for the future of non-animal testing, there’s been an increase in scientists who want, encourage, and/or take part in developing more accurate tests, all while moving away from animal testing. The scientific advancement towards alternative practices in determining toxicity initially came from the example put upon by the European Union but has since inspired other countries, including the U.S, to work towards a reform that would ultimately make effective legislative change.
Substantial legislative change began when the United Kingdom banned animal testing for cosmetics in 1998 and it only gained traction from then on. One of the biggest victories against the practice of animal testing worldwide happened in 2004 when the European Union (EU) passed a law, thus banning the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetics. It wasn’t until 2013 when this law finally came into full effect, but this time period allowed companies to make changes towards eliminating their prior practices of testing on animals. That ban has since inspired other countries to follow by the EU’s example by enacting similar laws or introducing legislation that would then eventually phase out the overall use of animal testing (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d.).
The EU ban not only applied to European cosmetic companies but also extended to include any and all companies looking to expand their business into the European Union. That ban has also inspired other countries to follow by the EU’s example including Israel, Norway, Sao Paulo, Brazil, India, New Zealand, Turkey, Taiwan (effective 2019), Switzerland, Guatemala, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and most recently California state in the U.S. In addition to that, other countries that haven’t fully banned cosmetic animal testing but have introduced legislation that could therefore lead to a ban include South Korea, Canada, and the U.S (with the introduction of the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act and Humane Cosmetics Act), Russia, and South Africa (The Humane Society of the United States, n.d.).
The United States has yet to enact an overall ban on animal testing, but despite the legislative change at the federal level, attitudes are beginning to change. In March of 2014, Representative Jim Moran introduced the Humane Cosmetics Act with bipartisan support and “support from over 150 cosmetic companies and 175 cosponsors”. Unfortunately, however, “the bill has yet to receive a hearing” (Engerbretson, 2018).
In tandem with the world’s overall increase in legislative reforms towards alternative methods to cosmetic animal testing, attitudes in support of these changes have also been increasing. “Public-opinion polls showing growing popular support for animal welfare” overall (Karaim, 2018). It’s even argued that the legislative change against animal-tested cosmetic products “simply would not have happened without consistent and persistent public support and consumer action”. After the EU banned the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetic products, and even a little before then, “the public demand for cruelty-free cosmetics has grown in tandem with forward-thinking cosmetic companies that have sworn off animal testing” (Engebretson, 2017).
The reality is that animal testing is no longer necessary in the cosmetic industry. It began out of necessity and has continued mostly due to convenience. With the invention of multiple replacing alternative methods as well as the growing study and demand of it, cosmetic testing will become a thing of the past that’s unfortunately gotten away with inflicting purposeful harm on and claiming the lives of multiple animals.
Animal testing should be banned in the U.S. California state has already paved the way for effective change within the U.S with the California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act (Engebretson, 2018) while legislation at the federal level has been seemingly stalled with the constant reintroductions of the Humane Cosmetics Act (The Humane Society of the United States). “State efforts can serve as a catalyst” and with enough support from other states, especially one with as much consumer power as California, the U.S can move towards a complete reform of banning animal testing in the cosmetic industry (Engebretson, 2018).
Cosmetic animal testing rose from the cosmetic industry complying with government standards in addition to satiating consumers in their demand of an assurance that the products they were using would leave them uninjured. The long-existed practice of animal testing is one that entails purposefully inflicting pain to animals, but innovative methods have been created and continue to be developed as attitudes towards alternative methods grow. With the increasing consumer demand for more humane practices, legislative change has come to reflect those desires worldwide, but the change isn’t on as large of a scale in the U.S as most would like. As a result, we need to work towards passing similar laws that closely resemble the now passed California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act in states with substantial consumer power. Once the bill passes in enough states, the support from consumers and compliance from cosmetic companies will force the federal government to, at the very least, consider enacting it at the national level.
