Tess Howard
“Cosmetic testing” using animals is common throughout the world. It is used to test
products that a company is trying to put on the market, such as shampoo, make-up, face
washes, soap, etc. Prior to putting it on the market, they must make sure the product is safe.
That’s where animal cosmetic testing comes into play.
According to mercyforanimals.org, there is no law which requires animal testing for
cosmetics and household products. The specific organizations which take part in determining
the safety for the products are FDA, CPSC, and FHSA. Although the tests are not required, many
manufacturers follow through with animal testing for various reasons. Mercyforanimals.org
states that the very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies,
and they use the fact that they had their products tested to help defend themselves against
consumer lawsuits. Also, a common reason animal testing is used is because it is the easiest and
cheapest way to “prove” that the ingredients are indeed “safe”.
The tests are conducted in a numerous ways, according to the type of product being
tested. In one of the tests, according to mercyforanimals.com, a liquid, flake, granule or
powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of rabbits. Laboratory technicians record the
damage done to the eye tissue at specific intervals over 72 hours, maybe lasting 7-18 days. In
order to keep the rabbit’s head still, they are placed in “stocks” to reduce their mobility.
Another type of test is called the “acute toxicity test”, which according to mercyforanimals.org is
also called “lethal dose” or “poisoning tests”. These tests are used to determine how much of one
substance can be used until it causes mortality. When conducting these tests, the substance is forced by
tube into the animal’s stomachs/through holes in their throat/injected under the skin, into a vein, or
abdomen/mixed into food/inhaled/put into the eyes, rectum, or vagina. The animals are used to
determine how one would react to the amount of substance given.
There are both pros and cons on the topic of animal testing according to buzzle.com.
PROS
Various dangerous diseases like herpes simplex,
hepatitis B, polio, rabies, malaria and mumps have
been treated owing to medications developed
from tests on animals.
Results through medical research on animals have
led to improvement in medical procedures like
blood measurement, lung diseases diagnosis, heart
diseases diagnosis and various pacemaker
technologies.
One of the most important techniques in medical
surgery, anesthesia has been developed after it
has been tested on animals.
CONS
Animals go through severe pain during the tests.
Months of torture leads to loss of eyesight loss,
organ failure and many more dangerous
consequences on animal health. Just to see the
affects of chemicals, animals are imprisoned and
observed over certain period of time.
A study suggests that less than 2% of illnesses that
affects humans are ever found in animals.
There are some alternative ways to test out products without the use of animals,
according to associatedcontent.com and all-creatures.org, such as “TestSkin” which uses human
skin grown in a sterile plastic bag and can be used for measuring irritancy, and “EpiPack” which uses
cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances, as well as Eytex, Skintex, Neutral Red
Bioassay, TOPKAT, Ames Test and Agarose Diffusion Method. If there is any hesitation of knowing
whether or not a specific company tests their products on animals, there should be a label on
the substance verifying whether they do or do not in most cases.
A quote on associatedcontent.com by Mohandas K. Gandhi says it best, "To my mind,
the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take
the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature,
the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
I agree with that statement entirely, and am completely anti-animal testing. I do not feel
that it is an ethical decision and I believe that it is unfair to the animals who cannot speak up for
themselves, and for that, they must suffer. I could never imagine one of my pets or any animal
that I have come across to know going through such horror. Brittany Landers, in her article
“Animal Testing: Unnecessary Cruelty?” states a very important tip which consumers should
take if they are anti-animal testing. She says, “As consumers, we can make a difference in the lives
of innocent animals by purchasing only products deemed "cruelty free" and by writing to the companies
that still test animals to let them know why we will no longer purchase their products.”
A product which does not test on animals and will not give in to the process unless it is
required by law is Avon. According to John N. at the Avon Information Center, he stated that,
“On June 2, 1989, Avon announced a permanent end to all animal testing of our products, including
testing done in outside laboratories.” He also said that, “Our approach to safety evaluation uses data
from in vitro (test tube/cell culture) or clinical tests (on human volunteers). We also reference existing
animal-testing data.” This information is proof that there are companies who can and will make
products safe for their consumers without risking the lives of innocent animals. If it can be done, why
not do it?