Cortes 1

Cristina Cortes

Instructor: Malcolm Campbell

English 1104

24 March, 2018

Looks to Die For

Some associate cosmetic products with strictly makeup which is not the case, cosmetic

products include simple household items such as shampoo, beauty related products and lotions.

The consumers who buy these products, that are fairly affordable and easily in reach to the

Public, don’t know the action and process that takes place in order to create these products.

These products are used every day by the public are put through a series of tests that involve the

use of innocuous animals in exchange to for those to feel and look beautiful. Approximately

100,000-200,000 animals suffer and die just for cosmetic testing alone (PETA). These animals

include mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. The animals used have chemicals forced

into their eyes, down their throat and onto shaved skin to test the reaction of the product for

humans “well-being”.

The Human Society International, a global animal protection organization, discusses how

even though companies have a choice about whether to test on animal products or not,

companies still choose to test on animals because companies want to test new ingredients that do

not have existing safety data. Meaning these ingredients have not been declared safe to put on

the market yet so to do so scientist have to test the products before releasing it to the public. So

why don’t scientist use the other available methods to replace animal testing? Developing new
 Cortes 2

tests takes time so before these new non-animal test can be developed, animal tests are still

performed.

What animal tests are carried out for cosmetics?

Humane Society International, explains the many test used and which animals are tested

on for the many different kinds of test. For example, Draize eye test, used most commonly by

cosmetic companies to evaluate irritation caused by the lotions, shampoos, and other beauty

related products (The Humane Society). These chemicals are dripped into the animals’ eyes often

causing blindness, redness, swelling, discharge, hemorrhaging and more. This test is commonly

performed on rabbits who are then killed after the experiment is over. Skin sensitization test, test

for allergic reactions on the skin and often performed on guinea pigs and mice where the test

substance is applied to the surface of the skin or injected under the skin of a guinea pig and

applied to the ear of a mouse. Acute Oral toxicity is when the test substance is forced down a

mouse’s throat using a syringe. Animals may experience convulsions, bleeding from the mouth,

seizures, paralysis, and ultimately, death. “Determines the amount of a substance that causes half

of the exposed animals to die within 14 days of exposure when the substance is swallowed.”

(Humane Society International). These are some out of the many test performed on animals for

just cosmetics alone.

The few tests listed above are commonly used today to test new products on the market,

unfortunately most of the animals either die from the chemical injected into them or are killed at

the end of the experiment. Pain relief is also not provided to the animals because it could

possibly interfere with the test results (PETA). These tests still take place because cosmetic

companies want to test new products that are not listed safe unless tested on first. If companies
 Cortes 3

stuck to the same products that have already been tested and considered safe for the public than

animal testing wouldn’t be practiced on as frequently and wouldn’t be as common today.

New Models Replacing Animal Testing

Gregory Mone, Harvard graduate and author of “New Models in Cosmetics Replacing

Animal Testing”, wrote an article that discusses how new models produced by the European

Commission on Research will eventually replace animal testing. As of last year, the European

Union has banned any use of animal testing to test the safety of beauty related products. Gregory

Mone discusses how scientist say “Animal-based tests take too long and are too expensive, they

say, often requiring several years and millions of dollars or more to carry out”. The physiological

difference between humans and animals is drastic and can limit the validity of the results. Which

is why the European Commission on Research & Innovation launched a $68-million research

initiative to develop lab technologies and computational models capable of predicting the

toxicity of chemicals in humans.

Even though there is a demand and rush for these new models, biotechnology companies

say it will take up to five more years develop these new technologies. Cosmetics or beauty

related products present a challenge since cosmetics products generally designed to cling to the

surface can still seep inside the skin and possibly travel through the blood stream. Mark Cronin,

a computational toxicologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K says “In the near

future, one of the big challenges will be understanding exposure,” (qtd. in Mone). One of the

models that is being developed is a virtual model of the liver which is the main detoxifying organ

in the human body. The model, still in its early stages will show how the liver would respond

when it is exposed to a known toxic compound. Experts of the Safety Evaluation Ultimately
 Cortes 4

Replacing Animal Testing (SEURAT) program say the research is progressing faster than they

expected and that virtual work is the future of testing (Mone).

Alternatives to animal testing: Computer (in-silico) Modeling

National Center for Biotechnology Information states that in-silico modeling, in which

computer models are developed to model pharmacologic or physiologic process, is a logical

extension of controlled in vitro experimentation. PETA explains how in silico modeling can

simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. “Quantitative structure-

activity relationships (QSARs) are computer-based techniques that can replace animal tests by

making sophisticated estimates of a substance’s likelihood of being hazardous, based on its

similarity to existing substances and our knowledge of human biology” (PETA)

Alternatives to animal testing: In Vitro

Since many people are now becoming aware of the cruelty of animal testing and how it is

generally inapplicable to humans, scientist have now researched and moved on to use different

methods that can study disease and test products in replace of animals. Some of the methods

used include in vitro methods and in silico methods, in vitro means performed or taking place in

a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside a living organism. These studies are performed

with microorganisms, cells, and biological molecules outside their biological context. PETA, the

largest animal rights organization in the world discusses how in vitro testing better predicts the

human situation by using actual human cells rather than using an animal in their “Alternatives to

Animal Testing” article. “Harvard’s Wyss Institute has created “organs-on-chips” that contain

human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human
 Cortes 5

organs and organ systems.” The chips will be used to replace animal testing for disease research,

drug testing, and toxicity testing. These chips have been shown to be more accurate than animal

testing has ever been.

In vitro testing (cell-based tests) can be used to test the safety of drugs and new

ingredients companies want to use for their products. Cyprotex, an Evotec Company, specialize

in in silico and in vitro ADME-Tox developed an in vitro method that assesses the potential of a

substance to cause a skin allergy in humans. This test would replace guinea pigs and mice that

would have needed the substance to be applied to their shaved skin or forced down their ears to

determine an allergic response. “MatTek’s EpiDerm™ is also being used to replace rabbits in

painful, prolonged experiments that have traditionally been used to evaluate chemicals for their

ability to corrode or irritate the skin.” (PETA).” MatTek corporation is at the forefront of tissue

engineering and 3D reconstructed human tissue models. In vitro testing compared to animal

testing is also much cheaper, Skin corrosion test for example, the Draize rabbit skin test cost up

to $1,800 while EpiDerm™ human skin model, an in vitro test can cost around $850. So why do

scientist and beauty brands still choose to test on animals?

The pros of animal testing

ProCon.org has explained the many benefits and disadvantages of animal testing. Even

though animal testing can be cruel and inhumane, one of the main benefits of animal testing is

how it has contributed to finding many lifesaving cures and treatments. For example,

experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin,

critical to saving the lives of diabetics (qtd in ProCon). The polio vaccine, tested on animals,

reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 27 cases in 2016 (qtd

in ProCon). Although in-vitro testing and in-silico testing are becoming more available and
 Cortes 6

useful, one of the main arguments of why animal testing is still beneficial is how there is no

adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Studying cells in a dish just

doesn’t allow enough opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous

system, endocrine system, and immune system. Overall even though animal testing has had its

benefits and contributions to discovering cures, we now have the technology and knowledge to

create alternatives that are faster, better, and cheaper than animal testing.
 Cortes 7

Works Cited

Humane Society International, “About Animal Testing in Cosmetics”

http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html

Humane Society International, “Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing”

http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html

Mone Gregory, “New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing” April 2014,

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/4/173234-new-models-in-cosmetics-replacing-animal-

testing/fulltext

PETA, “ Alternatives to Animal Testing” People for the ethical treatment of animals,

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/

PETA “Animal Testing 101”, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animal-testing-101/

“Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” ProCon, Understanding the

Issue. Understanding Each Other. 2 Nov. 2017, https://animal-testing.procon.org/

Cortes 8