Grijalva 1

Amber Grijalva

Ms. Harris

AP Seminar

03 February 2020

Immoral Animal Testing

“The beauty industry makes people look and feel beautiful but is horrifically ugly when it

comes to the treatment of animals in laboratories” (Cole), says Natasha Cole, an advocate for

cruelty-free cosmetics. Usually, makeup companies test their products on animals to ensure they

are safe for human use before putting the product up for sale. They perform experiments to

observe how the cosmetic product would react on humans. These tests can include applying

liquids in animal's eyes, skin corrosion tests, tick tests, and even disease tests. Experiments like

these sometimes end up leaving treated animals with burned skin, damaged tissue and in many

cases, dead. This issue is important to address due to the unethical procedures which lead to

animal abuse for the benefit of humans. From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to take away

innocent animals' lives for the personal benefits of humans without regard for the animals’

welfare. Many “animal lovers” are unaware of the painful procedures these animals are put

through. Due to the inaccurate results, the numerous amounts of deaths and the need to protect

these animals, laws should be established against animal cruelty in the cosmetics field.

Animals are brutally abused by those who intend to find out if their cosmetic products are

fit for human use. However, results are not always accurate and innocent animals are harmed

pointlessly. Natasha Cole, a make-up artist and advocate for cruelty-free cosmetics, says,

“Throughout the world, hundreds of thousands of animals endure unnecessary suffering and
 Grijalva 2

eventually die from animal testing for cosmetics annually.” (Cole). Animals are put through

dangerous experiments that cause them suffering and pain. The results, however, are sometimes

inaccurate because animals react differently to products than humans. Due to this difference,

utilizing animals to test the safety of cosmetics for humans is irrational. Alison Abbott, a

pharmacologist and specialist in environmental studies says, “Most animal tests over or

underestimate toxicity, or simply don’t mirror toxicity in humans very well.” (Abbott). Utilizing

animals for human testing is morally incorrect, not only because it harms animals but because it

provides inaccurate results while doing so. Animals used for cosmetic testing endure a great deal

of pain, only to produce unreliable results. However, companies argue that the reason they test

on animals is because they are required to produce safe products; either way, the treatment of

animals is wrong. Karyn Siegel-Maier, a writer specialized in herbs, alternative medicine, and

health states, “What's even more sobering is the fact that while cosmetic manufacturers are

obligated to produce a product that is safe for human use, there is no obligation for

manufacturers to refrain from inflicting unnecessary harm upon animals in their efforts to

provide us with safe products.” (Siegel-Maier). The performance of these tests is optional, there

are different methods, other than animal testing, which can be used to test a product’s safety. By

implementing laws against animal testing, cruelty in cosmetics would not be an option,

companies would be forced to use alternatives, that could be more accurate, animal friendly, and

morally correct.

Hundreds of animals die daily as a cause of these tests. These experiments cause them

pain and end up killing them. Humans are taught that killing is wrong, but do not take that into

account when heartlessly killing animals. Regardless of this, animal cruelty is still practiced in

various countries. In the article, “ Animal testing: what you don’t know about it but should”, by
 Grijalva 3

sentiment media a company working to educate the global audience, it states, “the animal was

caged, tested against its will, potentially suffered greatly from the impact of the chemicals and

the handling, and never was able to sense any kind of freedom or free choice". Animals are

forced to go through these inhumane and unjustifiable which would in no way be accepted if

practiced on humans. In the article, “Taking Suffering Out of Science” produced by The Humane

Society, a nonprofit organization working to save animals lives, it says, “100,000–200,000

animals suffer and die every year due to cosmetic testing...animals have chemicals forced down

their throats, into their eyes and onto their shaved skin in order to document their reaction.” By

providing statistic and examples of cruelty, the author supports the arguments that animals are

mistreated, abused, and violated of their rights. In the same article by The Humane Society it is

stated, “Animals are deliberately sickened with toxic chemicals or infected with diseases, live in

barren cages and are then killed when the experiment ends.”. Animals taken to these facilities do

not get to have a normal life but spend their days in experimental facilities where they are

immediately intoxicated, damaged and taken advantage of. If laws against animal testing were

implemented in all countries, the number of animal deaths would decrease drastically.

Scientists and big corporations take advantage of small, harmless creatures because they are

bigger and more powerful. Various harmless animals like bunnies, cats, and dogs don’t get to run

around like other animals and be free. Instead, they spend a lonely life analyzed and intoxicated

with cosmetics in daily experiments. Meanwhile, there are pet owners who call themselves

“animal lovers” who are unaware that they are supporting and wearing makeup brands that test

on animals. In the article, “Cruelty-Free cosmetics” by the Physicians Committee for responsible

medicine, a nonprofit organization helping stop animal cruelty in cosmetics it states, “In these
 Grijalva 4

tests, substances are smeared into rabbits’ eyes and onto their shaved skin, and these substances

cause burning, redness, swelling, lesions, ulcers, or blindness.” Showing the processes an

inoffensive animal, like a rabbit, must go through creates a sense of compassion for them. Just

because rabbits are similar to humans, in the sense that they suffer related diseases, doesn't mean

they should be deprived of their freedom to be tested on mercilessly. Iza Iglesias is a graduate in

journalism and writer for the Manila times, she says, “No animal should get tested for the sake or

expense of cosmetics especially since we value our own lives. We should also value theirs”

(Iglesias). The author puts humans and animals in an equal position to show that animal's lives

are no less valuable than human life's and should be cared for as well. Margo DeMello is

specialized in cultural anthropology and is a director for Human-Animal Studies, he says,

“...How animals can be similar enough to humans to use for products and different enough so

that they are subjected to treatments that could never be given to humans...” (Demello 176). By

stating this, the author shows the unfairness that goes into animal testing for cosmetics. Animals

are not treated in a humane way and are only used as experimental resources.

In conclusion, animal cruelty is slowly getting rid of thousands of animals, pointlessly

harming innocent lives in harsh and malicious ways. Using animals cruelly for human purposes

is not morally correct and should not be allowed in any country. In order to stop animal testing

within the cosmetics industry, laws should be placed to help protect animal lives. Such laws

would help diminish the suffering these poor creatures go through and would force the cosmetic

industry to find other ways to practice cosmetic testing. It is important to analyze animal cruelty

from an ethical perspective. By looking at what is wrong and right, we can see that the situations

animals are put in are not proper and should not be allowed under any circumstance. No creature

deserves to live the type of life where they are only used as a means of human safety and their
 Grijalva 5

life does not matter. People should be able to see that animal testing does not fit human morals

and they should not buy from companies who put forward these tests. In countries where laws

have been placed, they have shown to be successful solutions to ending animal cruelty and

should be placed as well in countries that do not yet have them.

Final Word Count: 1,315

 Grijalva 6

Works cited

Abbott, Alison. “Animal Testing: More than a Cosmetic Change.” Nature, vol. 438, no. 7065,

Nov. 2005, p. 144. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/438144a. Accessed 18 January 2020.

“About Cosmetic Animal Testing.” Humane Society International,www.hsi.org/news

-media/about_cosmetics_animal_testing/. Accessed 20 January 2020.

Cole, Natacha. “Cruelty-Free Cosmetics 101.” Natural Life, July 2015, p. 1. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=ulh&AN=110678894&site=ehost-live.

Accessed 18 January 2020.

“Cruelty-Free Cosmetics.” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 2019,

www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/animal-testing-and-alternatives/cruelty-free-cosmetics.

Accessed 26 January 2020.

DeMello, Margo. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. Columbia

University Press, 2012. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=477462&site=ehost-live. Accessed 20 January 2020.

Iglesias, Iza. “8 Million Signatures Needed in Fight against Animal Testing.” Manila Times, The

(Philippines), 20 July 2017. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W63387402711&site=ehos

t-live. Accessed 30 January 2020.

Jarvenpaa, Mikko. “Animal Testing: What You Don't Know About It but Should.” Reporting on

Animals, Animal Rights, and Human Choices -, 17 Dec. 2019, sentientmedia.org/animal-

testing/. Accessed 1 February 2020.

Siegel-Maier, Karyn. “Cruelty-Free Beauty.” Better Nutrition, vol. 61, no. 4, Apr. 1999, p.64.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=hxh&AN=1831405&site
 Grijalva 7

ehost-live. Accessed 19 January 2020.