Running head: TESTING 1

Testing Animals For Cosmetics

Brooklyn Benson

Arizona State University

TESTING ANIMALS 2

Testing Animals For Cosmetics

Women mostly in the Western and Eastern hemisphere use a variety of cosmetic products

such as mascara, blush, and lip balm. What these women may not realize, is what multiple

innocent animals were forced to go through, so they could put on their cosmetics. Cosmetics are

products that are applied to any part of a body. Cosmetics have two main categories- skin care

and makeup products. Skin care products may include cleansers, sunscreen, moisturizers, etc.

Makeup is any product that can be applied to someone to help them either cover up unwanted

marks (pimples, scars, dark spots, etc.) or to enhance their natural features. Cosmetic companies

usually ensure their products are safe for everyone to use. Not everyone sees animals as being

equal to humans. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) requires that most

products must first be tested on animals to ensure safety for humans. They agree with the

Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of

Laboratory Animals. The cosmetic industry’s market value is billions of dollars. Due to the

amount of money this industry is making, the cosmetic companies will hire scientists who force

animals to undergo specific chemicals that cause them pain, suffering, and permanent harm

which usually results in death at the end of the experiment. Once the animals die, the scientists

will replace them and repeat this process. It is important for animals to not be tested on, so they

do not have to go through this pain and suffering daily. People need to be educated on what

animals are having to go through. Alternatives to animal testing would alleviate the unjust harm,

give more accurate results, and produce less waste.

Abott, A. (2009). The Lowdown on Animal Testing for Cosmetics. Nature News. Doi:

10.1038/news.2009.147

This publication, explains the lowdown on testing animals for cosmetics. It focuses

specifically on animal testing in Europe. It explains that in 1976, animal testing was made to
TESTING ANIMALS 3

ensure the safety for humans. This went on until 1993, where an amendment was made to stop

animal testing, but no one ever actually stopped testing on the animals. Europe was the only

country to make a law against animal testing for cosmetics. There has not been any alternative

tests approved yet, but they are estimating in about one decade there will be. The global sales for

cosmetics is one hundred and two billion dollars. This is why it is hard to stop the testing,

because of how powerful the market is. For example, L’Oreal and Maybelline both continue to

test on animals. This source’s goal is to educate its audience on the facts of animal testing in

Europe. It is useful, because it has solid information from reliable sources.

Baldrick, P. (2013) The Evolution of Juvenile Animal Testing for Small and Large Molecules.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 67 (2), 125-135. Doi:

10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.07.009

This publication is mainly about three important subjects. It describes juvenile animal

study frequency, what scientists are finding from the tests, and information about the trends for

now and the future for juvenile animal testing. Specifically in Europe, there is a need for testing

on juvenile animals, because they want to make sure the chemicals that they are using are safe.

This sources goal is to evaluate whether there is a need to test on juvenile animals for human

safety. This is a useful source, because it has multiple data charts that you can look at to further

your understanding. This source will help me add detail into my essay, because I will be able to

use the information from the data charts.

Dolgin, E. (2010) Animal Testing Alternatives Come Alive in US. Nature Medicine. Doi:

10.1038/nm120-1348

This report stresses the fact that the US is looking for alternatives to animal testing.

Thomas Hartung mentions that this is a big step for America, because in the past they have not

been as interested in finding alternatives. The US has teamed up with the Food and Drug
TESTING ANIMALS 4

Administration to look for alternatives, because of the benefits for everyone. This source will not

be used the most in my paper, because it is more health testing based, instead of cosmetics based.

It still has a few useful details and information that I will be using, such as the new American

Society for Cellular and Computational Toxicology information.

Garattini, S. (2017) Animal Testing is Still the Best Way to Find New Treatments for Patients.

European Journal of Internal Medicine. 39, 32-35. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.013

Trial and error is what this source is centered on. This source will be useful, because it is

my opposing view. For example, this source states that animals are needed for testing. They say

the outcome of the test will help decide whether it is safe for humans. Although they are pro

animal testing, they do agree that there could be improvements made for the comfort of the

animals. Also, this source mentions that animal testing has always been a controversial subject.

This sources overall goal was to explain that animal testing is still, and always will be, the best

way.

Liebsch, M. (2011) Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Current Status and Future Perspectives.

Archives of Toxicology, 85, 841-858. https://link-springer-

com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/article/10.1007/s00204-011-0718-x

This source explains the current status and future perspectives of animal testing. The

ZEBET, which is part of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, is based on replacement,

reduction, and refinement. The ZEBET would like to find an alternative to animal testing, but it

also believes in safety for humans. Currently, about 80 million animals are being tested on in the

US. This source’s goal is to explain what ZEBET is doing to help the current and future for

animals being used for testing. The information is reliable, because it comes from scientific data.

Phillips, K. (2007) New Methods to Eliminate Animal Testing. Chemical Week. 169 (17),

25.
TESTING ANIMALS 5

https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/222528167

?accountid=4485&rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

The purpose of this source is to inform about the new methods of animal testing. For

example, there is an organization that has the goal to use animals less for testing. They are able

to save 240,000 mice by using an alternative method of testing. Also, they created a test so they

do not need to use rabbits eyes anymore. Lastly, they mentioned that in New York they have

been made aware of certain eye makeup that has lead in it, which is dangerous. Although this

source was the shortest one, it was packed full of information that I will be able to use for my

paper.

Swami, V. (2008) Free the Animals? Investigating Attitudes Toward Animal Testing in Britain

And the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 49(3), 269-276. Doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00636.x

This source was by far the most different from the others. This source was about a group

of undergraduate students from Britain and America testing opinions on animal testing. The

participants filled out a questionnaire by themselves. There were people that both agreed and

disagreed. It was mostly women who disagreed with animal testing. This source is extremely

interesting, but it will not give me plenty of information for my paper. It does give us interesting

information, but there is not scientific data. Attitudes that were recorded might be helpful in

proving specific points in my paper, but it is not going to be my most used source.

Wickenson, F. (2010) Activists Should be Consulted in Animal Testing Decisions. Nature

International Journal of Science. 463 (7279), 293.

http://www.nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/articles/463293b

The purpose of this source, is to tell people that activists should be consulted in animal
TESTING ANIMALS 6

testing decisions. The source explained that if activists are consulted, then both sides are able to

learn more. This way they would be able to understand each other more. The article explains that

activists are only attacking, because they feel like they are not being heard. In this source, there

are no scientific facts. It is a short source that is straight to the point. It is just someone who

shared their opinion, but I will still be able to use their opinion in my final paper.

Overall, I will be able to use all of the sources I annotated in my final paper. Each of

them had useful information. I had both sources that I agreed with, and sources that I disagreed

with. Animal testing for cosmetics needs to be stopped. These animals are being tortured, the

results are inaccurate, and it is extremely wasteful. There are new methods that scientists can use

to eliminate testing these helpless animals.