THE PRICE OF BEAUTY: COSMETIC ANIMAL TESTING

Many companies, up until today, utilize cosmetic animal testing, although

alternative testing procedures already exist. Hence, cosmetic testing on Animals has
continued to be debated for decades now. The article entitled “Cosmetic Animal
Cruelty: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” by Zuazua (2017) addresses the inhumanity
of cosmetic testing on animals, detailing the harm it induces to the life of various
animals and the reason for it being simply unnecessary.

The article firmly accentuated that animal testing is pointless as the science
behind it is ineffective. Humans and animals are different from each other, thereby
reactions of animals to certain chemicals are likely to be unassociated with humans.
Thus, cosmetic testing jeopardizes the safety of humans and injures innocent animals
in the process. Cosmetic animal testing is not required by law (except in China), yet
companies opt-in to using it. Animals such as mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs
endure evaluations for skin irritation, eye irritation, etc., which results in them being
severely injured or even dying. One cannot ignore the pain and suffering these
creatures go through because of these testing. Animals experience vicious procedures
like chemicals injected into their mouths, eyes, and shaven flesh, and lethal dose tests
resulting in physical suffering of the innocent creatures. Ensuring the safety of humans
does not justify the suffering of animals. As cruelty-free testing already exists, some
companies choose to switch to humane testing options. Thus, cosmetic testing is
simply inhuman and unnecessary.

The author intended to emphasize the problems of animal testing and the lack
of humanity within some companies in the cosmetic industry. The author imparted
multiple pivotal pieces of information to support the arguments, which expounded the
article’s objective. In the article, the author provided scientific explanations which
support the lack of necessity for animal testing. Backing up these claims with evidence
helped strengthen the foundation of the argument. The given evidence that various
species respond differently to the same chemicals led to a significant point. In the
article, the author also referenced animal rights groups and organizations which
exhibited the severity of inhumane procedure of animal testing resulting in the suffering
of innocent creatures. Author referencing animal rights groups and organizations
solidified the claim of animal cruelty in the testing process. These groups and
organizations unfolded the harsh conditions animals experience. According to the
evidence gathered in the article, the utilization of animal testing leads to the physical
agony and death of animals. The author did not only fixate on the negative side of
animal testing. Although the article concentrates on the problems, the author openly
exhibited the perspective of the opposition. However, the author provided
counterarguments to the opposition, hence intensifying the article’s points. Though, it
failed to balance both perceptions of the issue. The author listed Makeup and Skincare
Companies that utilize and do not utilize animal testing in their products. With these
companies listed, people can educate themselves whether the brand they use is
cruelty-free.

The article addressed the harm induced by animal testing hence leading to
physically injuring and killing animals. It states that animal testing is simply inhumane
and unnecessary. The article suggests people be aware and knowledgeable about the
topic. It provides a list of companies that utilize animal testing and companies that are
cruelty-free. People who are boycotting non-cruelty-free products can be informed
about the brands that go against their principles. Hence, the presence of the lists
provides an avenue for readers to connect with the article. Altogether, the author
expressed the essence of the argument and presented an informative perspective of
the topic. The article imparted an objective stance about animal testing providing firm
evidence on the claims. Thus, readers can view the author’s standpoint objectively
and understand the article justly. In conclusion, the article effectively raised
awareness, educated people, and opened a new perception regarding the topic.

REFERENCE:

Zuazua, R. (2017, March 9). Cosmetic Animal Cruelty: The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly. FINE Homes and Living. Retrieved from:
https://www.finehomesandliving.com/featured/cosmetic-animal-cruelty-the-
good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/article_22f3191b-8ef2-50a6-962a-
c540748a9b43.html