Why We Should Not Test Cosmetics On Animals

They are the chemico approach, the vitro approach, the silico approach, computer simulator, and using humans to test called the human patch test (Vandebriel, Loveren 1). Most if not all of the articles discuss the vitro testing to some degree. Vitro testing involves using cellular/culture based toxicity tests to see how it would affect humans and other living organisms that might be exposed to the product (Mone, 2). As more research is being done on this method of testing it is becoming more evident among companies that are making the transition from animal testing to this method. In the Korean Cosmetics company article it included a section about a Norwegian and UK collaboration that wanted to further the research vitro testing. Another method that is becoming popular is silico testing. Silico testing is type of modelization (Dreno Et. Al.1). It is pretty similar to vitro testing but focuses more on the different pathogens that are involved and can pass through the vitro testing.

Many of the cosmetics that we use every day have also been tested on animals. The number of animals used for cosmetic testing has been greatly reduced as the potential hazards have been eliminated. Products such as sunscreens, anti-dandruff shampoos, fluoride toothpaste, and anti-acne creams could not have been proven safe without the use of animal testing since they contain ingredients that cause a chemical change in the body that could be harmful, even deadly. Without these safety tests, it would be impossible to ensure that these products are safe.

Over 100 million animals die each year from animal testing alone states PETA. Makeup and beauty companies test their products on animals. These products are harmful to them. The testing procedures are also very cruel. There are many problems with animal testing, but they can be solved.

Many of America’s favorite go-to skin care products and cosmetics are tested on animals. Despite that, there are products on the market that use alternative testing procedures yet are still considered safe and effective. In the article titled Animal Testing on Cosmetics written by author Ian Murnaghan, the controversy of animal testing in cosmetics is referred to when he says, “The practice is particularly controversial because animals may experience discomfort, suffering and ultimately die, all in the name of aesthetics and 'looking good.’”. Much of what he says in this quote can be applied to extremely popular cosmetic brands like Sephora , Almay, and Revlon who all use animal testing to build their products to maximum use. Brands that compare to these are ELF, Too Faced, and Physicians Formula who all claim to using alternative procedures to show the importance of being

This concept is not always a valid one. Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. In the 1950s, a company produced the sleeping pill Thalidomide. They released an advertising commercial which showed that the drug was tested on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters. After the release, the drug was reported to have caused severe deformities in over 10,000 babies, and did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered in extremely high doses (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Fortunately, with today’s technology, scientists can use different alternative testing methods that can replace animal testing, a practice which may not guarantee the product’s safety anyway. According to Kara Rogers, a biomedical sciences editor and is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers, “In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Furthermore, the Draize test, which is a severe toxicity test devised in 1944, “has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin” (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial “membrane” instead of conducting tests on animals (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). With the growth of technology, animal testing is now not the only way to verify the product’s safety. Using animals as a means to verify the safety of a product is no longer necessary in today’s research and development programs. It is simply

Think about the cosmetic and pharmaceutical products used in everyday life. Cosmetic products such as make-ups, soaps, deodorants, and shampoos are tested on animals. Medical products such as birth control and Visine are tested on animals as well. The FDA requires testing for medical products but cosmetic products are not required to. While it has made some advancements medically, scientists should seek out different ways to test products meant for human use; so we look at the ineffectiveness of animal testing, difference in human and animal biology, and animal fatalities.

Lipstick, shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant and even pads are tested on animals. World renowned companies such as Bobbi Brown, Clinique, Cover Girl, L’Oreal, MAC Cosmetics, Suave and Johnson & Johnson still test their products on animals. Tests being completed include dermal penetration, skin sensitization, skin corrosivity/irritation and eye irritancy. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Dermal penetration or skin absorption tests analyze the movement of a chemical through the skin and into the bloodstream” (“Animals in Science…”). Companies use the skin sensitization test to conclude if the product causes an allergic reaction. These tests used to be heavily applied to guinea pigs, but recently the procedure includes the use of mice. Skin corrosion tests are used by companies to determine how much damage their product could do to the skin. Last, eye irritancy testing allows the company to see how much eye irritation is caused by the chemicals in their products. Although scientists argue otherwise, these tests do not have a major impact on human usage of these products. Due to the differences in the skin of different species, test results are not consistent with human use. Not only does animal testing not help humans, it harms the animals in many

According to Humane Society International article, The National Research Council in the United States has expressed a vision of “a not-so distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines”, and science leaders around the world have echoed this view”. Though this method has not yet been fully completed, there are methods such as in vitro tests that are taking place over animal testing. Stated in the Humane Society International article, the sequencing of the human genome and birth of functional genomics, the explosive growth of computer power and computational biology, and high-speed robot automation of cell-based (in vitro) screening systems has sparked a quiet revolution in biology (“About”). Stated in the article, Alternatives to Animal Testing, PETA describes some of the alternatives to animal testing, one of these being in vitro testing. In vitro are chips that contain human cells that have grown in a state-of-the-art system so that they mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. These chips allow researchers to conduct disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing without using a single animal. The chips have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than the crude animal experiments. There is also computer modeling that can take place over the use of animals. This computer modeling consists of a wide range of sophisticated computer models that stimulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. Studies show that these models are accurately predicting the ways that new drugs will react in the human body (“Alternatives”). Though all of these new methods are highly practical and have already shown an improvement in predicting the outcomes of products,

Every year in the United States more than one hundred million animals are poisoned, crippled, and abused in labs. Imagine being locked up in a cage your whole life and used against your will to be harmed in a number of ways (“11 Facts”). It does not sound fun does it? Just like us, animals are living. They feel pain and they suffer just like we do. I personally believe testing on animals is wrong because it is ruthless and barbarous, other methods exist today that could replace the need for animals, and these tests do not accurately foresee the results in humans.

Dalai Lama once said, ”Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to a man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not to die, so do other creatures.” Every year, animals experience pain and die in perilous tests to obtain higher quality and resolve the safety of cosmetics. Animal testing for cosmetics should be restricted because it is very dangerous to animals, it is traumatizing, and unnecessary.

Clearly, scientists knowledge on treatment is based on millions of animal research to some extent. It seems to me that animal research is the key to medical treatment technology even if the testing is considered as unethical by majority of the general public. I believe people are morally aware of animal testing, still, these testing ensure the effectiveness and safety of treatment. Whether or not people accepts, it is comprehensible that we are becoming more flourish. Notwithstanding animal experimentation gives benefits to us, I have a loathing of cosmetic animal testing as it has no contribution to the medical field which people take advantage of animals and sacrifices them.

Cosmetic companies should not test on animals for their products, because its inhumane, wrong to do to living things, an they should not even have to do this to animals if their products are naturally and chemical-free. Around “100 million innocent animals are burned, crippled, and poisoned in U.S labs everyday,” for cosmetic companies (11 Facts). Animals should not be treated wrongly because they are innocent creatures that have no say or rights when it comes to testing. Consumers will start to leave and go away if they found out multiple types of animals were being tested on cruelly in labs. Companies should not even use chemicals in their products in the first place, if their products are good for our skin and us. Cosmetic companies should not test on animals for their products because animals should not be treated wrongly, consumers may start acting negatively towards companies, and chemicals are not even necessary in these products.

Animal models should not be used for cosmetic toxicity testing because it causes pain, loss of basic animal functions, and in some cases death to the animal model. Animal testing has become a recurring problem in today's society. Products that you would not even think of are being tested on animals for toxicity. Many companies are questioning whether animal testing is absolutely necessary and trying to find alternative methods like three dimensional skin models and different cell types to completely stop using animal models. In the article, REACH, animal testing, and the precautionary principle, this fact was given,“In addition, we will demonstrate that much of the methodology that this

Every year, over 100 million animals sit in U.S laboratories waiting to be burned, crippled, poisoned and abused (“11 Facts about Animal Testing” par.1).

When using your cosmetic products on a daily basis, do you think of all the animals harmed and killed in the making? Cosmetics include products used by us every day, such as toothpaste, makeup, shampoo, soap, deodorant, etc. In the 1930s, the United States Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act compelled cosmetic companies to start testing the safety of their products on animals, beginning a long journey of violating animal rights. Since then, laws have changed, allowing companies to use alternatives that do not involve animals to test the safety of their products. Even though companies are not mandated to test on animals anymore, some still choose to do so for various reasons. Therefore, animal testing in the cosmetic industry is immoral because it is not mandatory and violates animals rights, and it has to end.