1
Paulina Padilla
Communication and Critical Thinking
11 July 2011
Vivisection: Cruel and Unnecessary
Innocent animals may have suffered in order for American consumers’ favorite
cosmetics to end up on their bodies. Here in the United States, human beings have the
right to live their lives freely. Animals should be granted those same rights because this
planet is their home, as well as it is ours. Testing on animals is one of the biggest factors
that strip them from their rights, right along with being exploited for entertainment and
being consumed as food. Not only is it cruel and deadly, it has become unnecessary due
to advancements in modern technology. With these new methods, more jobs would be
created, fewer animals would be bred specifically for lab testing, and more accurate lab
results would be produced with the alternative methods of testing. According to PETA’s
website, corporations such as Unilever, Clorox, Church & Dwight, and Johnson &
Johnson test their products on animals. PETA and other animal rights organizations like
the ASPCA are fighting to put an end to animal testing. Cosmetic companies should not
test their products on animals because there are other, more humane ways to safely test
their products without inflicting cruelty on animals.
The broad term for the experimentation of animals is called vivisection. It began
in the 17th century after Philosopher Rene Descartes came to the conclusion that “animals
are not able to reason and therefore do not feel pain and suffering.” (“All For Animals”)
However, cosmetic companies began testing their products on animals after a woman
2
died from an allergic reaction to mascara. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 to prevent such instances from
happening again. The two most common tests used back then are the Draize test and the
LD50. The Draize Test involves dropping a substance into an animal’s eye and noting the
reaction. For the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50), animals are fed a substance until half of the
group dies. More tests were developed over the years in order to test reactions to the skin,
blood, lungs, etc. Once these methods were exposed to the public in the early 1970’s,
animal rights activists formed groups in protest. Alternative methods began to be
developed as well.
Major cosmetic corporations have supported and continue to support and utilize
vivisection. According to an article in the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, the use
of vivisection can be justified by the fact that the use of animals in labs is not for
pleasure, amusement, and convenience, but for the benefit and safety of society. The
companies that test on animals claim that they use the least amount of animals as possible
and attempt to inflict the least amount of pain. They also claim that is difficult to find
consenting human test subjects in order to test their products with the alternative
methods, and resort to vivisection. They also advocate that vivisection promotes safety
for humans, and that our safety is worth sacrificing the lives of animals. Animals do not
have to be put on a payroll, given health benefits, or have to be put on specific schedules.
Companies that test on animals find it faster, easier, and more convenient to use
vivisection than the alternatives.
3
Cosmetics should not be tested on animals because of the cruelty and suffering it
inflicts on them. The animals that are used for testing, such as rabbits, mice, and apes, are
physically incapable of resisting the treatment that they receive in laboratories. If they
were able to communicate the way humans do, they would likely object being used as test
subjects. It also makes no sense that products that are intended for human use are being
tested on animals. Many argue that the results from vivisection are inaccurate because our
bodies are different than those of mice, rabbits, apes, etc. The alternative methods would
be more efficient and provide the proper results. The PETA website lists an alternative
method for every test that is performed on animals. For example, instead of testing for
skin corrosion, skin absorption, and skin irritation by applying chemicals on shaved
animals, synthetic models of human skin made from human derived skin cells can be
used. If the chemical is deemed to be non-corrosive, it can also be tested directly on
humans. As for phototoxity tests that involve applying a chemical to a shaved animal and
then exposed to simulated sunlight, the chemical can be tested directly on cells with the
T3 Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) Phototoxicity Test. Pyrogenicity testing involves injecting
chemicals directly into animals’ bloodstreams in order to identify any adverse effects.
This test in particular has been noted as one of the most harmful and inefficient. It can be
replaced with what is known as the In Vitro pyrogen test. This test involves using
donated blood from healthy humans. The reaction of the chemical with the blood can be
identified with the white blood cells, as they are part of the human body’s immune
system. All of these alternative methods are recognized as effective on an international
level as effective and safe. Contrary to popular belief, the use of living human beings is
4
minimal. It would create enough jobs to stimulate the economy without creating a
financial loss. In fact, those major corporations would likely gain more vegan and
vegetarian customers if they were to switch to the alternative methods of testing their
products with the support of the animal rights movement. Most importantly, the lives of
countless animals would be saved. The price of beauty should not be stealing their
innocent lives.
Both humans and animals would benefit if vivisection were discontinued.
Suffering would end for animals and there would be increased safety for humans with the
more accurate results from animal testing. There would be an increased awareness of the
animal rights movement and could lead to the end of the mistreatment of animals in other
industries. Animals deserve their freedom and should therefore be able to live their lives
as they were intended to be lived and not as our puppets. Would a consumer really want
to live with the fact that pain and suffering occurred for their favorite lipstick, mascara, or
moisturizer to end up on their body? The end of vivisection would be another step
towards justice.
5
Works Cited
“Animals Used for Experimentation.” Web. 11 Jul 2011.
<http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimention/default.aspx>.
Bush, Vanessa. "The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The War between Animal Research and
Animal Protection." Booklist. 01 Sep. 2000: 33. eLibrary. Web. 11 Jul. 2011.
Francione, Gary L. "The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: Necessity
and Justification." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 01 Jul. 2007: 241. eLibrary. Web.
11 Jul. 2011.
“History of Animal Testing.” All For Animals, All For Animals, Inc., 2011. Web. 11 Jul
2011.