Critical Thinking Paper: Animal Cosmetic Testing

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16

OUTLINE DUE
Thesis Statement Worksheet
I.

What is your thesis?

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
Because of the unnecessary torture of innocent animals, and the amount of
alternate ways of testing that have been discovered in the past few years, the
government should follow the steps of Europe and make animal testing illegal.
Test your thesis. Does your thesis:
____Make a claim with which a reader can agree or disagree?
____Include a call-to-action?
____Reflect knowledge of the source material?
____Pick out an idea that can be defended in the space allowed?
____Limit the kinds of evidence you can use to defend it?
III.
What evidence, examples or arguments will you use to support your
working thesis? You should have at least three. What are your sources and
annotate them here.
First argument: To test the eye and skin irritability of many cosmetic substances,
products are rubbed onto the shaved skin and dripped into the eyes of small animals.
The consequences of these tests can include blindness, swollen eyes, sore bleeding
skin, internal bleeding and organ damage, birth defects, convulsions and death.

Second argument: Over fifty alternative tests have been created in the past decade that
could replace animal testing, such as Using blood from human volunteers to test for the
presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of
thousands of rabbits each year from traditional pyrogen tests and EpiSkin,
EpiDerm and SkinEthiceach composed of artificial human skin.
Third argument: (three arguments is the minimum number): As of 2009, the EU has
banned cosmetic animal testing and has begun using alternative methods, so why cant
the United States?
IV.
What sources have you used so far to come up with these arguments?
You must put these in MLA style and annotate them below. Your Worksheet will be
considered incomplete if you do not do this.

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
1. MLA Citation: "About Cosmetics Animal Testing." Humane Society International. N.p.,
n.d. Web.
1 Mar. 2016. <http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/
about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html>.
Annotation here: I used this page to tell me consequences of animal testing on the
animals themselves.
2. MLA Citation: "Alternatives to Animal Testing." The Humane Society of The United
States. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 1 Mar. 2016. <http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/
cosmetic_testing/facts/alternatives_animal_tests.html>.
Annotation here: This site explained to me the many different alternatives there are to
animal testing.
3. MLA Citation: "EU bans sale of all animal-tested cosmetics." BBC News. N.p., n.d.
Web. 1 Mar.
2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21740745>. Annotation here: This
website informed on the animal testing laws in other countries.
NOTE: I changed my thesis statement from my outline because one of my reasons
changed.

Because of the unnecessary torture of small animals, the genetic differences

between humans and animals, and the recent development of multiple alternative
methods of testing, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) should be amended to make
cosmetic animal testing illegal, altogether.
To a mother, buying her daughter her first bottle of mascara, her first tube of
concealer, or her first blush pallette represents a rite of passage into adulthood and
moment that the mother will never forget. However, before arriving at the store to be
sold in neat little packages, those makeup products were being used to torture and
permanently scar small animals. Approximately 100,000 to 200,000 animals undergo
painful testing by scientists wishing to test whether cosmetics from around the world

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
cause,skin sensitization, skin irritation, eye irritation, acute oral toxicity, acute dermal
toxicity, acute inhalation toxicity, reproductive/developmental screen
(HumaneSociety.org). The procedures of these tests can range from painlessly rubbing
vaseline on the shaved skin of a rabbit to painfully dropping nearly acidic drops of
shampoo into a rabbits eyeball. Note that all animals are killed after being used in these
tests.
Extremely popular cosmetic brands that almost every woman uses or has heard
of, test their products on animals. MAC cosmetics was recently removed from the
cruelty free list by the people for the ethical treatment of animals (PETA). MAC is one
the worlds most popular makeup brands with its vibrant lipsticks and eyeshadows but
MAC is just another makeup company contributing to the torture and killing of
thousands of small animals. Another company that uses animal testing is Dove. Dove
shampoos and conditioners are sold in 54 countries and in almost every drug store.
While plenty of women have beautifully clean and healthy hair, Dove is on PETAs list of
companies that use animal testing. Finally Aveeno, one of the worlds largest producers
of lotion is also on PETAs list. During the cold winter months, one might want to slather
on a layer of lotion to battle dry skin, while a scared animal cowers in a cage and is
forced to consume that same lotion to test how its body will react.
Concerns for the housing of animals have come up which have led to Congress
passing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only Federal law in the United States that
regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers
(USDA.gov). The AWA was originally passed in 1966, but has been amended often after
that. The AWA has regulations for the housing and treatment of animals such as, For
indoor housing of animals, regulations specify minimum and maximum temperatures,
lighting, and ventilation; Animals kept outdoors must be sheltered from the elements;
Animals must be offered food and clean water regularly . . . Circuses must not use

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
deprivation of food and water or any kind of physical abuse for training purposes . . .
(and) review research proposals to minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the
animals (About.com). The AWA is enforced in all facilities that sell, test, breed, or
publicly exhibit animals. While this act did make animal fighting and certain animal
testing illegal, it has been criticized for not covering all aspects of the issue that it
should.
The biggest criticism that the AWA has encountered is that the act excludes
birds, rats, mice used in research; . . . (as well as) reptiles; amphibians; fish; and
invertebrates (About.com). Although not related to cosmetic testing, it is necessary to
know that the act also excludes livestock, which leads to the exclusion of farm animals.
No laws exist today that have any regulations regarding the treatment and housing of
animals raised specifically for food. The AWAs regulations for marine animals have
been criticized for being insufficient since the smallest a tank for porpoises and dolphins
can be is 24 feet long and 6 feet deep. In the wild, marine mammals are used to
swimming thousands of feet deep into the open ocean. Finally, the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which is the committee which enforces the AWA,
includes people who are affiliated with the organizations that are being reviewed for
animal neglect, therefore a great deal of corruption occurs in the process of checking
animal holding and processing facilities for their safety.
There are 13 types of animal testing that the The Humane Society of the United
States has identified as the most common tests in the country. The Humane Society has
also stated that Pain relief is rarely provided and the animals used are always killed at
the end of each test. External experiments test how much irritation, corrosiveness, and
toxicity that a product can have on the animal after being applied to the animals skin for
predetermined periods of time. Depending on the specific experiment, the product can
cause varying levels of redness, ulcers, scaling, inflammation, itchiness . . . rash,

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
lesions . . . and/or other signs of damage (HumaneSociety.org). While these effects can
put the animal under a moderate level of distress, they are nothing compared to the
internal tests that are forced upon these small animals.
Internal tests check the oral, inhalation, repeat dose, subchronic dose,
carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity of certain products by forcing
animals to eat, inhale, and be exposed to substances that can greatly damage their
internal organs. To test for the acute oral toxicity of a product, The test substance is
forced down a rats throat using a feeding tube. She may experience diarrhea,
convulsions, bleeding from the mouth, seizures, paralysis, and/or
death(HumaneSociety.org). The results of this test will determine how much of the
substance can be swallowed before death occurs. At least half of the rats must die
before getting the final results. To test for birth defects by certain products, A pregnant
female is exposed, usually by force-feeding, starting at the initiation of pregnancy and
continuing throughout the pregnancy. She is then killed on the day before she is
expected to give birth. Her pups are extracted and evaluated for signs of developmental
abnormalities (HumaneSociety.org). This test would be necessary if it were testing
medication that humans needed to survive, but its actually a cosmetic product.
Companies are inseminating and then killing the mothers of certain animals for testing.
If these tests were to be administered on humans, it would be considered torture.
Testing on animals often makes no sense considering that animals like rabbits
and mice are nothing like human beings. Why should an organism that is molecularly
constructed differently be used to study a human bodys reaction to certain substances;
Animals have proven to be poor models for human disease research. Because they are
genetically different from humans, studying diseases in animals can give us inadequate
or erroneous information. (Neavs.org). Animals are therefore not subjects that will give

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
one hundred percent accurate results on how the human body will react to certain
cosmetic products.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act FD&C) prohibits adulteration,
which refers to violations involving product composition (FDA.gov), in the
manufacturing of cosmetics. Act FD&C clearly states that a company will be found guilty
of adulteration if its product contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which
may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling
thereof, or under conditions of use as are customary and usual" (FDA.gov). Animal
testing may be the least expensive method to test a products composition and side
effects, but it is certainly not the only method. The Bovine Corneal Opacity and
Permeability uses cornea tissue, a slaughterhouse byproduct, in place of live rabbits.
The tissue is treated with a sample chemical and then light is transmitted through it. An
undamaged cornea remains virtually transparent, whereas those affected by a test
substance will appear opaque. The cornea is also tested to see if a fluorescent
compound is able to permeate the tissue. These measurements determine the level of
irritation (Friendsofanimals.gov) This test could completely replace The Draize Eye
Test, created in 1944, which consists of dropping different chemicals into the eyes of
animals, usually rabbits. Scientists have also found a way reduce the use of animals in
cosmetic tests by grow(ing) two- or three-dimensional models made up of one or many
kinds of human cells, which are then used to test chemicals for toxicity. For example, a
few human skin cells can be grown into skin tissue which is very useful for assessing
the potential skin irritation potential of a chemical (PCRM.org). By using this method
hundreds of animals could be saved without any chance of incorrect results since actual
human skin is being tested on. The AWA does in fact state that all alternative methods
should be considered before the commencement of the test, and hopefully, in the near
future, no animal testing will even be considered.

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
As time goes on, technology and methods of research continue to improve.
Because of the rapidly developing world around us, conventional laws created over fifty
years ago are having to be rethought and enacted differently, for example the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, which was amended on November 22, 2000. If
Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to make animal cosmetic testing illegal,
thousands of animals would be spared from unnecessary pain and suffering. Testing
animals solely for human vanity is unneeded and unethical. One might say that looking
good is a major part of living, but its not worth taking anothers life.

Works Cited

"Cosmetic Tests That Use Animals." The Humane Society of The United States.

N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/

cosmetic_testing/tips/common_cosmetics_tests_animals.html>
-

Animal Welfare Act and Regulations." United States Department of Agriculture,

National Agricultural Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<https://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/
animal-welfare-act>
-

Overview of the Animal Welfare Act." About News. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://animalrights.about.com/od/animallaw/a/AnimalWelfareAct.htm>
-

"Biomedical Research." Neavs, Since 1895. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.neavs.org/research/biomedical>
-

FDA Authority over Cosmetics." FDA. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/ htm>
-

"Cosmetic Testing and Non-Animal Alternative Methods." Friends of Animals. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.friendsofanimals.org/magazine/

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
summer-2013/cosmetic-testing-and-non-animal-alternative-methods>
-

"NonAnimal Teting Methods." Physicians Committee. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/tailtox/nonanimal-testing-methods>

Annotated Bibliography
-

"Animal Welfare Act and Regulations." United States Department of Agriculture,

National Agricultural Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<https://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federal-laws/
animal-welfare-act>. This site provided me with information about the
Animal Welfare Act that I needed to complete my paper. This website is
owned by the government and is therefore one hundred percent reliable.
-

"Biomedical Research." Neavs, Since 1895. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.neavs.org/research/biomedical>. This site helped find a

quote that worked perfectly with the reason I was trying to convey. This is
an organization owned website which isn't as reliable as a government owned
website, but it's better than a commercially owned website.
-

"Cosmetic Testing and Non-Animal Alternative Methods." Friends of Animals. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.friendsofanimals.org/magazine/

summer-2013/cosmetic-testing-and-non-animal-alternative-methods>. This
site provided me with specific types of alternative methods besides animal
testing in cosmetic testing. It is organization owned website and is
therefore reliable.
-

"Cosmetic Tests That Use Animals." The Humane Society of The United States.

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/
cosmetic_testing/tips/common_cosmetics_tests_animals.html>. I used this
website in a large portion of my paper because it explained in detail
specific types of tests administered on animals and what those tests are
testing for. The Humane Society is a well-known animal shelter that is
extremely trustworthy when it comes to animals.
-

"FDA Authority over Cosmetics." FDA. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceRegulation/LawsRegulations/
ucm074162.htm>. This site helped me better understand a specific aspect
of the Animal Welfare Act that was crucial in explaining my third argument.
The FDA is a part of the government and can therefore be considered
reliable.
-

"NonAnimal Teting Methods." Physicians Committee. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/tailtox/
nonanimal-testing-methods>. This site helped me understand another
alternative method that could replace animal testing in all of cosmetic
testing. This site is owned by an organization and can therefore be
trusted.
-

"Overview of the Animal Welfare Act." About News. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

<http://animalrights.about.com/od/animallaw/a/AnimalWelfareAct.htm>.
This site helped me understand the Animal Welfare Act without actually
having to read the act itself, which would have taken a really long time.
This is a commercially owned website but from the looks of it , the website
seems fairly reliable.
-

"About Animal Cosmetics Testing." The Humane Society International. N.p., n.d.

Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16
about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html>. This site gave me an overview of
what animal cosmetics testing is like around the world and was very helpful
to read before doing any research for my paper because it provided me
insight on what I should be looking for. The Humane Society is a well known
animal shelter and is very reliable.
-

"MAC Cosmetics Is No Longer Cruelty Free." Logical Harmony. N.p., n.d. Web. 20

Mar. 2016. <http://www.logicalharmony.net/

mac-cosmetics-is-no-longer-cruelty-free/#axzz43SMrksdh>. This site gave
me information on how MAC has recently been taken off of PETA's list of
company that don't use animal testing.
-

"Shipping." Dove. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016. <http://www.dove.us>. This

website told me how many countries sell Dove hair care products which are
being tested on animals.

Rachel Martin
Red Group
3-19-16