Essay Sample on Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Cruelty or Necessity?

Introduction

Much has been said over the years about animal testing for cosmetics, and some countries have laws that prohibit the use of animals in such experiments. In many parts of the word, many animals are dying after being exposed to chemicals and cosmetics like shampoos and lipstick (Donnellan, 2006). These chemicals are mostly forced down on their throats, dripped through the eyes or rubbed into their shaven skins. Testing is done to ensure that the products and chemicals used in cosmetics are safe or consumption by human beings. The advantages of using animal testing for cosmetics are that the practice is a research aid for new products, unavailability of alternative testing methods, to improve the safety of cosmetics, the procedure has some benefits to animals, and companies have the opportunity to research lifespan applications when people use the various cosmetics (Vinardell & Mitjans, 2017). However, the cons outweigh the pros; therefore, it is justifiable for states to ban the use of animals for dangerous experiments. Some of the disadvantages of using animals include harming the animals, many items that are tested are never used, the process is costly, unreliable results from the tests, ineffective practices may invalidate the results achieved after testing, and the availability of loopholes in the cosmetics industry (Donnellan, 2006). Moreover, cosmetics are not a basic necessity to human beings, so killing animals for testing purposes can be misleading. Although using animals for testing is prohibited in some states, some organizations still continue with the practice for various reasons. For instance, new products and chemicals are being developed every day, and without safety data, they cannot be used by human beings (Wilson, Ahearne, & Hopkinson, 2015). Some states have completely banned the use of animals for testing cosmetics, and many other countries are following the trend. The BeCruelty Free campaign is the largest initiative in the world that advocates for animals' rights through educating consumers, working with organizations, and legislators to push for laws that will ban firms from harming animals (Vinardell & Mitjans, 2017). The primary goal of this essay is to draft a literature review regarding the banning of animal testing for cosmetics.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Dark Side: Animal Suffering and Death in Cosmetic Testing

According to Simmons (2019), the estimated number of animals that suffer and die around the world due to cosmetics testing is about 100,000-200,000. Donnellan (2006) cites that the most commonly used animals are guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, and rats. Although dogs and monkeys are not used to test for cosmetics, these animals are used in the testing of other chemicals. Abbott (2005) explains that the history of cosmetics testing began in 1938 when the United States Food and Drug Act signed a law that allowed companies to test their products on animals. According to Abbott (2005), the Draize eye and skin irritancy tests were established, and for decades, these tests were regarded as gold standards for safety assessments although they lead to animal suffering. Wilson, Ahearne, and Hopkinson (2015) cite the various methods used during chemical testing. For instance, chemicals are forced down the animals' throats; some are applied on their shaved skin, while liquid chemicals are dripped into their eyes. Donnellan (2006) explains that after the chemicals are introduced into the bodies of these animals, the testers wait or some weeks or months to see any signs of illness or general health hazards like cancer and birth defects in the tested animals. Some companies even use lethal dose tests by forcing animals to swallow hazardous chemicals to determine the dose that causes death. According to Abbott (2005), the chemicals cause a lot of pain to these animals, and other effects include swelling of the eyes, bleeding and sore skins, organ damage, blindness, convulsions, and death, among others. Simmons (2019) cites that at the end of the test, no pain relief is provided, and the animals are killed through ways like neck-breaking, suffocation, and decapitation.

However, according to Donnellan (2006), many companies still use animals for cosmetics testing even though it is not necessary. Abbott (2005) cites that one of the reasons why organizations are reluctant to use alternative methods of chemical testing is because the firms continue to develop new ingredients that do not have existing safety data. Therefore, safety data must be generated before a product is taken into the market. Secondly, Simmons (2019) explains that convention plays a significant role in the usage of animals for cosmetics testing. Using animals is the method that most companies have used in the past. Regulators who determine if cosmetics that are safe for use often use a conservative approach when providing safety data when alternative methods to animal testing are used.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing: A Double-Edged Sword

Wilson, Ahearne, and Hopkinson (2015) explain the various benefits of using animals while testing for cosmetics. First, some companies justify their actions by saying that more animals are killed for food than for chemical testing. In the United States, over 60 billion animals are killed for consumption every year, and only about 200,000 are in animal testing facilities (Donnellan, 2006). Abbott (2005) explains that the use of these animals is about one's personal perspective. Another advantage of using animals for testing is that the process has several benefits. For example, all the animals used are provided with healthy food, proper shelter, and are also vaccinated. Wilson, Ahearne, and Hopkinson (2015) cite that there is no considerable difference between caging animals safely at home and keeping them in the lab. According to Donnellan (2006), another advantage of using animals is that the safety of the products is improved. Testing the viability of cosmetics before they are used by human beings is crucial so that safer products are developed. Animal testing helps to verify where a certain product should go into the market or not.

Moving Towards Cruelty-Free Cosmetics: Campaigns and Progress

According to Simmons (2019), many groups and organizations campaign for the banning of animal testing for cosmetics testing because animals are subjected to suffering, and many of them die as a result. Many organizations and governments are urging companies to use other alternatives to animals while testing the safety of their cosmetics. Saka et al. (2016) explain that safe beauty products can still be produced while not involving animals through manufacturing the chemicals in a cruelty-friendly way. Vinardell and Mitjans (2017) explain that one of the ways in which firms could produce safe products that do not require animal testing is through the use of ingredients with a long history of safe use. The rationale for this is that there are existing safety data that requires no safety testing.

According to Vinardell (2015), more than forty non-animal tests that are easily accessible and affordable too have been developed so that companies can use them while producing beauty products. Hoffmann et al. (2018) explain that new techniques have emerged to replace the outdated animal tests that have been used for a long time, yet they have not stood the test of time. Saka et al. (2016) provide some skin tests that can be used for reconstructed human skin. Some of the examples given include SkinEthic, 3T3 neutral red uptake, and EPISKIN, among others. Vinardell and Mitjans (2017) cite that many countries in the United States and in Europe use the above approaches and have completely stopped using animals for experiments. Saka et al. (2016) cite some of the countries where animal testing for cosmetics has already been banned. For instance, no state of the European Union has incidences of animal testing since 2009. Israel also imposed its ban in 2007, India in 2013, Sap Paulo in 2014, and New Zealand in 2015. However, Vinardell (2015) explains that animal testing for cosmetics is still legal in many countries around the world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the primary goal of this essay is to draft a literature review regarding the banning of animal testing for cosmetics. In many parts of the word, many animals are dying after being exposed to chemicals and cosmetics like shampoos and lipstick. These chemicals are mostly forced down on their throats, dripped through the eyes or rubbed into their shaven skins. Some of the disadvantages of using animals include harming the animals, many items that are tested are never used, the process is costly, unreliable results from the tests, ineffective practices may invalidate the results achieved after testing, and the availability of loopholes in the cosmetics industry. The advantages of using animal testing for cosmetics are that the practice is a research aid for new products, unavailability of alternative testing methods, to improve the safety of cosmetics, the procedure has some benefits to animals, and companies have the opportunity to research lifespan applications when people use the various cosmetics. Many groups and organizations campaign for the banning of animal testing for cosmetics testing because animals are subjected to suffering, and many of them die as a result. Many organizations and governments are urging companies to use other alternatives to animals while testing the safety of their cosmetics. Alternatives to cosmetics testing that do not involve animals are skin tests that can be used for reconstructed human skin like SkinEthic, 3T3 neutral red uptake, and EPISKIN.

References

Abbott, A. (2005). Animal testing: more than a cosmetic change.

Donnellan, L. (2006). Animal testing in cosmetics: recent developments in the European Union and the United States. Animal L., 13, 251.

Hoffmann, S., Kleinstreuer, N., Alepee, N., Allen, D., Api, A. M., Ashikaga, T., ... & Goebel, C. (2018). Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database. Critical reviews in toxicology, 48(5), 344-358.

Saka, V. P., Srinivasababu, P., Himaja, V., Bhagawathi, V., Prasannanjaneyulu, P., Rao, Y. V., & KUMAR, Y. N. (2016). Review on alternative to testing animals. Int J Advan Pharm Sci, 7(2), 3050-3.

Simmons, S. (2019). Animal Testing of Cosmetics and the Growing Trend Toward Change.

Vinardell, M. P. (2015). The use of non-animal alternatives in the safety evaluations of cosmetics ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 71(2), 198-204.

Vinardell, M., & Mitjans, M. (2017). Alternative methods to animal testing for the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients: an overview. Cosmetics, 4(3), 30.

Wilson, S. L., Ahearne, M., & Hopkinson, A. (2015). An overview of current techniques for ocular toxicity testing. Toxicology, 327, 32-46.