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. Before these products were ensured to be safe, various

incidents happened to innocent people from their cosmetic products. Cosmetic users have gone

blind and pregnant women have had birth defects. Scientists needed to make sure that this would

not happen anymore, so certain chemicals do not cause harm to humans. Scientists have found a

way to ensure the safety of cosmetic products for humans by testing these chemicals on animals.

Animal testing for cosmetics, is where a scientist will use an animal and inject certain chemicals

into them to ensure that specific cosmetics are safe for humans to use. Experts in the field of

animal testing have an on-going debate about whether scientists should continue to test on

animals or not.

Animals and humans are both affected by animal testing. On average, one hundred

animals each year throughout the world are used for testing (Tatchell, 2004). This is an issue,

due to the amount of innocent animals enduring pain and suffering. According to Tatchell, two

million living animals are killed each year, because of the testing done to them. Animal testing

affects humans in more ways than one would think. Croswell explained that humans and animals

are different species, so in human clinical trials there is a about a ninety percent chance that what

was effective in animals will be ineffective in humans. Many times, these trials have not been

successful. Another example of animal testing affecting humans, is that almost all humans are

paying for animal testing with their tax dollars (Tatchell, 2004). Tatchell mentions that the

government has a twelve billion dollar yearly budget that is specifically for animal testing, which

is what humans pay for in tax. Humans and animals especially, are both being affected by animal

testing every day.

TESTING ANIMALS 3

The history of animal testing goes all the way back to 500 B.C.. Originally, scientists

were testing chemicals on human criminals, but certain prohibitions shortly stopped them

(Archibald 2004). Aristotle had an idea to test on animals, because he thought they were not

clever enough to comprehend what was happening to them. Later, in 1596, French philosopher

Rene Descartes was experimenting on animals, because he believed that animals could not think

(Archibald 2004). In the 19th century, the public started having an opinion against animal testing.

This is when animal testing first started to become controversial, and movements against it were

created. According to Abbott, animal testing for cosmetics was created due to horrific events

happening as a result of certain cosmetics being used. For example, a specific type of test that is

used on animals is called the “draize test”. Typically, a scientist will use a rabbit for this test.

They will take the chemical that they want to know how damaging it will be, and pour it into the

rabbits eyes (Abott, 2005). They will pin open the rabbit’s eyes for up to multiple days and

report on how its eye is being affected (Abott, 2005). The US Food and Drug Administration,

FDA, created the Draize test in 1944 (Abott, 2005). The reasoning behind this is because of what

was happening to humans from makeup products. For example, a thirty-eight year old woman

used a cosmetic product for her eyelashes and it later caused her to go blind (Abott, 2005).

Another example is that pregnant woman were experiencing birth defects due to products they

were using in the late 1950s. The government payed attention to what was happening and

implemented animal testing (Abott, 2005).

Some experts in the field of animal testing believe that animals are not equal to humans,

so they do not see the need for alternatives. Tatchell explains that scientists are able to see the

harm of almost any chemical by testing on an animal, which he says is much better than testing

on a human. He also elaborates his opinion, because from testing on rats he is able to see the
TESTING ANIMALS 4

whole entire reproductive cycle. He is able to see the toxicity of a chemical, along with the

response and comparisons. A pro to testing on animals is that scientists are able to use rats to

explore the entire reproductive sample and compare it to humans (Chapin, 2013). Meanwhile, a

con to animal testing is that it is not always 100% accurate. For example, 76 people in Britain

were killed from a product that had been researched for seven years (Tatchell, 2004). Another

con is that animal testing is extremely wasteful. Tatchell explains that certain experiments were

already well-known and scientists would have been able to use clinical trials on their computers

that would work just as well. One last pro to animal testing is how much money cosmetic

companies are profiting. Large makeup companies that test on animals, such as Maybelline, are

making millions of dollars (Abott, 2005). No one will interfere with them, because of how much

money they are bringing in (Abott, 2005).

Science is constantly advancing, so there are multiple solutions to animal testing. These

tests include in vitro test methods, computer stimulations, stem cell tests, genetic tests, virtual

drug trials, microdosing, etc. These tests are all more accurate, produce less waste, and avoid

harming the animals. According to Abbott, an in vitro alternative has been created, specifically

as a substitution for the Draize test. There are still certain limitations from these tests, but overall

they are said to be a more accurate alternative on the physical harm that will be done. Abbott

continues to go on about how the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods,

ECVAM, has created seventeen approved alternative tests. Some companies struggle for

approval for their alternatives, so they continue to test on animals.

Scientists and organizations are currently creating alternatives. A specific resource that is

needed to create these alternatives is a large amount of money. For example, Langley talks about

the funding issue with the British government. Each year, the British government gives scientists
TESTING ANIMALS 5

and organizations $85,000 (Langley, 2002). That is barely enough money to fund one research

project. Again, it is hard to create more alternatives, so most stay testing on animals. Garattini

shares information that it would be unethical to test in vitro in humans so they must do it in

animals. Controversial to that, Chapin says that the tests they do on animals are only correct 50-

70% of the time. So he says, because of this they should use the alternatives. Abbott adds to this

statement by explaining that animal tests are not able to mirror the toxicity in humans the same

way they do in animals. Less harm can be done, less waste can be created, and more accurate

results can be created if scientists start using alternatives instead of animal testing.
TESTING ANIMALS 6

Works Cited

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

10.1038/news.2009.147

Abbott, A. (2005) Animal Testing: More Than A Cosmetic Change. Nature, 438, 144-146.

Nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

Archibald, K. (2004) Animal Testing Call for Open, Scientific Debate. The Lancet, 364, 1486.

www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

Aziz, T. (2011) Animal Testing: TV or not TV? Nature, 470, 457-459.

Nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

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

Chapin, G. (2013) Assuring Safety Without Animal Testing: The Case for Human Testis in

vitro. Reproductive Technology. 39, 63-68. www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

Cozigou, G. (2015) The European Partnership for Alternative Methods in Europe and Beyond.

Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 54, 209-213.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

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

10.1038/nm120-1348

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

Langley, G. (2002) Little Funding to Develop Non-Animal Testing. Nature, 418, 273.

Nature.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

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
TESTING ANIMALS 7

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

25.

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

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

Roush, W. (1996) Hunting for Animal Alternatives. Science, 274, 168.

Go.galegroup.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu

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

Tatchell, P. (2004) Why Animal Research is Bad Science: The Government is Wrong to Support

Vivisection—and not only because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human Creatures.

Most Human Diseases are Unique to Us, and Testing on other Species is Downright

Misleading. New Statesman, 133, 18-19.

http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA121150282&v=2.1

&u=asuniv&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w

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