Tucker 1

Felicia Tucker

Jie Liu

ENC 2135

Project 2

The Truth of Cosmetic Testing on Animals

Would you allow someone to pour chemicals into your puppys eye until he cannot see,

just so you can wear eyeliner? How about forcing your cat to swallow large amounts of

chemicals, to see how much she can ingest before she dies, so you can wear that new shade of

lipstick? Would you be okay with these tests happening to any kind of animal? While the answer

to these questions is always no, no one stops to think about the tests that happen every day to

guarantee a cosmetic product is safe for consumers to use.

In a survey with 1009 participants, all who are meant to represent the American

population, 72% said cosmetic testing on animals was unethical, while 78% considered the

development of new alternative tests important (Physicians Committee). There are currently tons

of companies, like Lush, N.Y.X., and Burts Bees, that do not test on animals (PETA, These

Companies DO NOT Test on Animals). Furthermore, other countries are making efforts to stop

the use of animals for cosmetic testing, such as the European Union banning products from being

sold or produced that have been tested on animals. It is clear that many people are against the

testing of animals, some people will even go so far to call it animal cruelty. Animals have rights,

which have been made known by the many laws that exist to protect them. In the United States,

there are laws against animal cruelty, where they punish people for poisoning and tormenting

animals, but they only apply to domestic animals, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The American Psychological Association also has laws in place regarding the welfare of animals,
 Tucker 2

but it applies to the ethical rights animals have in regard to psychological studies. They state that

researchers should not use animals when there are other options, to not cause pain to animals

when it can be avoided, and death should not be the end goal of the study. However, these laws

seem to not apply to animals used in medical research.

The Animal Welfare Act is the only law that protects animals used in research, and it is

enforced by The U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department has 115 inspectors for over

7750 facilities, so it is unlikely they will find all of the violations going on in the facilities. When

they do find violations, they issue penalties, instead of closing down the facilities, as they

should do. Under the AWA, the facilities performing the tests must have the Institutional

Animal Care and Use Committee, which is a committee responsible for inspecting labs,

approving and disproving the tests, and reporting issues about the care of animals. However, the

only requirements of this committee are that they must have a veterinarian from the facility, one

person who is not affiliated with the facility, and one person who typically is affiliated. These

members are not reviewed by the U.S Department of Agriculture, they are just simply picked by

the CEO of the company, meaning the members are typically biased, to benefit the company.

Because of the system The U.S. Department of Agriculture has in place, there are a lot of

loopholes and shortcomings, meaning the law only provides a very thin layer of protection to

these research animals (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Laws and Regulations).

The United States has no laws that make cosmetic testing mandatory (FDA). Well-known

risks of wearing makeup include acne, allergic reactions, and eye infections. However,

sometimes these risks are more extreme, resulting in chemical burns on the skin and possible

blindness. Cosmetic companies do not want to be held reliable for these risks, so they preform
 Tucker 3

tests on animals, to ensure the products are safe for consumer use, but there is bias in this system

(PETA, Why Do Companies Continue to Test Products on Animals).

Cosmetic companies use animal tests to test if the chemicals in their cosmetics are safe

for human skin and possible consumption. They want to make sure humans do not go blind, get

poisoned, and even possibly die from using their cosmetics. They do this by doing a variety of

tests, on different animals, depending on the results they are looking for, and while these tests

can tell us that a bunny can safely wear that new eyeliner, it does not necessarily tell us if it is

safe for humans to use.

Companies commonly use a test called the Draize test. The Draize test is performed to

test eye irritancy (reversible damage) and corrosion (irreversible damage), skin

irritancy/corrosion, and skin sensitization tests (The Humane Society, Fact Sheet). With the

eye tests, which is typically performed on rabbits. They drop concentrated amounts of test

substances into the animal's eye," (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Product

Development and Drug Testing), and then test how the eye reacts to these chemicals. They

evaluate the damage caused to the eye, by observing the redness, swelling, bleeding, or blindness

that may result (The Humane Society, Cosmetics Tests that Use Animals). The animals used in

these tests are often not given anesthesia or painkillers, as it is believed that anesthesia or

painkillers will disrupt the results of the tests. They use the skin tests to see how the product

reacts to skin. The irritancy/corrosion tests involve rabbits, where the hair is shaved, and then

layers of skin are removed to cause abrasions (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Product

Development and Drug Testing). After they removed skin, the product is rubbed on the skin,

and they see how the skin reacts to the product. They are testing the irritancy and corrosion the

skin has in response to the product, similar to the eye test. The tests cause a lot of pain for the
 Tucker 4

animals, and can cause bleeding, skin discoloration, redness, and more (The Humane Society,

Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.). Continuously, the sensitization tests are performed on

rats or guinea pigs, the product is either applied directly on the skin, injected into the skin, or

applied on the ear of the subject. (AltTox, Skin Sensitization) The tests cause the used animals

pain, itching, and scaring (The Humane Society, Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.). These

tests are unreliable, as the skin and eye structures of these animals are different then the skin and

eye structures of humans. For example, if you compare rats and humans, you would find that

some physical, behavioral, and social aspects are very similar (Kalish). Additionally, if you

looked at rat and human genomes, you would find they are about 85% similar (NIH). There is

also an issue of the tests not being continuously reproducible (New England Anti-Vivisection

Society, Product Development and Drug Testing).

Additionally, cosmetic companies will perform toxicity tests, such as the LD50 test and

the dermal penetration tests. The LD50 tests are used to test the amount of substance can be used

before half of the test subjects die within fourteen days (New England Anti-Vivisection Society,

Product Development and Drug Testing). There are three different versions of this test,

involving oral toxicity, dermal toxicity, and inhalation toxicity. With the acute oral toxicity tests,

the animals, typical rats, are force fed with products for 24 hours, using a test tube (The Humane

Society, Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.). These tests not only cause death in half of the

subjects, but will also cause stomach bleeding, seizers, and other issues to the animals (The

Humane Society, Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.). With acute dermal toxicity tests, rats,

Guinea pigs, or rabbits are shaved and the product is applied to their skin and left on for twenty-

four hours, and then the animals are observed for fourteen days (The Humane Society,

Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.). Half of the animals die, while the rest are killed after
 Tucker 5

suffering for the study (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Product Development and Drug

Testing). Furthermore, with the inhalation tests, rats are forced to inhale the products, and then

are examined for fourteen days until half of the subjects die (The Humane Society, Cosmetics

Tests That Use Animals.). These toxicity tests are not considered particularly useful because the

skin and bodily processes of humans are different from the animals being used, and they are only

considered 65% accurate, which seems like a low number to when concerned with the health of

humans, especially when anyone can buy cosmetics without limitations (PETA, Product

Testing). With the dermal penetration tests, used to test the chance a product has of being

absorbed into the skin and entering the blood stream (AltTox, Dermal Penetration). Rats are

commonly used. Their hair is shaved, and then the product is applied to the skin for twenty-four

hours (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Product Development and Drug Testing).

Afterwards, the product is washed off, and then the animal is killed and the animals skin and

blood is tested to determine the rate absorption that has occurred (AltTox, Dermal

Penetration). The study is not necessarily reliable because the researchers encourage the

absorption of the product by washing it off, and the skin on the subjects used is different than

human skin (AltTox, Dermal Penetration).

While there are currently more animal tests then there are alternatives, there are tests that

exist that do not use animals, and they can be used. As of now, most alternatives to cosmetic

testing is in the developmental stages and still needs testing to ensure it is reliable. Most

companies currently practice reducing the number of animals they use; however, this is still an

issue because animals are still being used (New England Anti-Vivisection Society, Product

Development and Drug Testing). The current most used method is in vitro testing, where the

tests are performed on blood, cells, or tissues typically from humans. These tests will sometimes
 Tucker 6

use 3D models of human skin and cells, or will use actual human blood cells. There have been

models created that are used to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ

systems. (PETA, Alternatives to Animal Testing). A specific in vitro test is the In Vitro

ADME and PK (Pharmacokinetic) services. These tests include testing metabolism,

permeability, transporters, solubility, physicochemical properties, protein building, and

bioanalysis. These tests are quick, cost effective, and are reproducible, means the data is more

reliable then animal testing, according to Cyprotex, a company that performs In Vitro ADME

and PK tests. The number of animals used in testing has been reduced, and it does not cause pain

to anyone. In silico testing is also now commonly used. In silico testing is the use of computers

to test the toxicology, using a model or simulation (PETA, Alternatives to Animal Testing).

These simulations model cell behavior and can predict how the cells will react to the chemicals

being tested (Macmillian). This testing method has its problems, as it is only limited to the data

that is programed into the software (Macmillian). But, the data can be reproduced and is more

effective then animal testing.

Additionally, there is always the question of testing on humans. Pharmaceutical

companies will use human test subjects before the product is released to the market, so why

wouldnt cosmetic companies? When researchers are discrediting animal testing, they argue

about the differences in skin structure, eye structure, and bodily functions between humans and

animals, so using humans would simply eliminate this discrepancy. However, arguments for

cosmetic testing on animals discuss how using human skin tissue or cells creates issues as an

alternative is that a test tube of cells or tissue cannot predict the complex interactions that occur

within an entire living system (Howard). Human testing force researchers to be more careful

with the products used, to eliminate the chance of any issues such as death. They would also
 Tucker 7

have to eliminate tests, like the LD50, where death is the end goal, which could possibly lead to

limitations that can be made up by using in vitro or in silico testing.

In order for America to make the transition from animal testing to alternative tests, such

as the European Union has done, Americans would have to change their mind set. When

defending animal testing, researchers argue that animals have historically played an important

role with testing in the past, and while animals have been widely used in the past for research

and have led to a lot of discoveries, however, technology has allowed us to move away from this

type of testing, and use more humane methods. The new technologies have reduced the risk of

humans being hurt, but it is possible to achieve this more efficiently without hurting animals.

While American researchers believe history is important while defending animal testing, nearly

forty countries (Sharp), such as the European Union, India, and Canada, where cosmetic testing

on animals is banned, they are testing cosmetics using the alternatives that do exist, and are not

having any issues with their products being unsafe (Humane Society International). In fact, in

these countries, the demand for alternative testing has increased the likelihood that new ones will

be invented. If America followed suit, researchers would no longer be able to argue about the

lack of tests available, as the demand would lead to more alternatives being available.

Animals are our friends, our pets, and sometimes apart of our families. No one wants to

see an animal get hurt, which is why cosmetic testing should be brought to an end. As the world

gets more knowledgeable about the issues of cosmetic testing on animals, they will likely

increase the demand for alternatives, either by petitioning cosmetic companies to stop these tests

or the government to put laws in place banning the testing. I believe that it will take time, but

eventually America will come to its senses and ban cosmetic testing on animals.
 Tucker 8

Works Cited

Animal Legal Defense Fund. Animal Protection Laws of Florida. Aldf, aldf.org/wp-

content/uploads/compendium-map/2017/usa/FLORIDA.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Anonymous. More Than a Makeup Trend: New Survey Shows 72 Percent of Americans

Oppose Testing Cosmetics Products on Animals. The Physicians Committee, 28 Dec.

2011, www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/cosmetics/americans-oppose-testing-

cosmetics-on-animals. Accessed 23 October 2017.

APA. Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals in

Research. American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association,

www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Product Testing - Animal Testing &

Cosmetics. U S Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition, 31 May 1999,

www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ScienceResearch/ProductTesting/ucm072268.htm. Accessed 26

October 2017. Source updated April 5, 2006. 23 October 2017

Corsini, Emanuela, and Ian Kimber. Skin Sensitization. AltTox.org, AlTox, 18 May 2016,

alttox.org/mapp/toxicity-endpoints-tests/skin-sensitization/. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Heylings, Jon R. Skin Absorption | Dermal Penetration. AltTox.org, AltTox, 28 Sept.

2015, alttox.org/mapp/toxicity-endpoints-tests/dermal-penetration/. Accessed 23

October 2017.

Kalish, Mandy. Similar Characteristics in Rats & Humans | Cuteness. Cuteness,

www.cuteness.com/article/similar-characteristics-rats-humans. Accessed 30 October

2017.
 Tucker 9

Lasway, Hans, and JH Bloomberg School of Public Health. Yes, Dad, There Are

Alternatives. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 29 Aug. 2012,

caat.jhsph.edu/publications/Articles/aavs.html. Accessed 29 October 2017.

Macmillan, Donna. The Role of in Silico Assessment in Skin Sensitization Testing. Specialty

Chemicals Magazine, 29 Aug. 2017, www.specchemonline.com/featuredarticles/the-role-

of-in-silico-assessment-in-skin-sensitization-testing. Accessed 25 October 2017.

Neavs. Animals in Science / Research. Laws and Regulations, New England

Anti-Vivisection Society, www.neavs.org/research/laws. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Neavs. Animals in Science / Research. Product Development and Drug Testing, New England

Anti-Vivisection Society, www.neavs.org/research/testing. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Sharp, Micheal. It's Time to Go Cruelty-Free. The Humane Society of the United States, All

Animals Magazine, 20 Oct. 2017, www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/2017/11-

12/cruelty-free-they-are-worth-it.html?credit=web_id329654370. Accessed 23 October

2017.

Alternatives to Animal Testing. PETA, PETA,

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

testing/ Accessed 25 October 2017.

Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals. The Humane Society of the United States, The

Humane Society of the United States,

www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/tips/common_cosmetics_tests_animals.

html?credit=web_id329654370. Accessed 23 October 2017.

 Tucker 10

Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing. The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society

of the United States,

www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/qa/questions_answers.html?%3

Referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F. Accessed 23 October 2017.

Creating A Cruelty-Free World. Infographic: Ending Cosmetics Testing on Animals : Humane

Society International, The Humane Society of the United States,

www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/infographic/en/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww

.google.com%2F. Accessed 30 October 2017.

FAQ About Genetic and Genomic Science. National Human Genome Research Institute

(NHGRI), 2 Mar. 2017, www.genome.gov/19016904/faq-about-genetic-and-genomic-

science/. Accessed 30 October 2017.

In Vitro ADME and PK. Cyprotex, Cyprotex, www.cyprotex.com/admepk. Accessed 20

October 2017.

Importance of Mouse Genome. National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), 23 July

2010, www.genome.gov/10001345/importance-of-mouse-genome/. Accessed 30 October

2017.

Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic. PETA, PETA,

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-

experimentation-factsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/ Accessed 20 October 2017.

These Companies DO NOT Test on Animals. They're Cruelty-Free. PETA, PETA,

http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/these-companies-dont-test-on-animals/ Accessed 26

October 2017.
 Tucker 11

Why Do Companies Continue to Test Products on Animals? PETA, PETA,

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-do-companies-continue-to-test-products-on-

animals/ Accessed 23 October 2017.