Alex Dorsch

Ms. Thomson
Research Paper
31 January 2018

The Unethical Practice of Animal Experimentation in the Cosmetic Industry

According to the Humane Society International, “…approximately 100,000-200,000

animals suffer and die just for cosmetics every year around the world.” The term “cosmetics” is

most commonly defined as products with the intended use to be applied to the human body for

sanitation or beautification purposes (“Animals Used in Cosmetics Testing”). In order to prove

that these products are safe, hundreds of thousands of animals are forced to endure painful

experimentation every year. The side effects of such experiments are often life threatening or

fatal. However, the number of animal deaths that result from cosmetic company testing can be

eliminated with the use of modern methods such as cell lines and artificial skin. These alternative

methods could also save some of the thousands of dollars that go towards funding lengthy animal

testing. The torturous and costly experiments used by cosmetic companies to conduct research is

unethical and not legally mandated in the United States.

The procedures conducted on animals by cosmetic companies are cruel and merciless.

When developing new ingredients or formulas, cosmetic companies often test the substances on

animals to see how their bodies react. While some tests may induce itchiness or dry skin, more

often than not they cause the animal to endure painful, life-inhibiting side effects.

These tests can cause considerable pain and distress including blindness, swollen eyes,

sore bleeding skin, internal bleeding and organ damage, birth defects, convulsions and
 Dorsch 2

death. Pain relief is not provided and at the end of a test the animals are killed, normally

by asphyxiation, neck-breaking or decapitation. (“About Cosmetics Animal Testing”)

The treatment and side effects that the animals endure is simply disturbing and barbaric. If such a

procedure was performed on a human being, the world would be up in arms over such a torturous

and inhumane act. However, because animals have no voice or way of fighting back, animal

testing is often kept silent and suppressed from public knowledge. No living creature deserves to

endure such torturous tests, especially when they receive no anesthesia or pain relief. Many

scientists argue against the use of anesthesia for test animals because it could, “…interfere with

the scientific goals of their experiment,” (“Pain and Distress in Research Animals”). It is

understandable that scientists want to gather accurate results from their experiments, but not at

the expense of animal suffering. There are many other methods of experimentation that can be

used in place of animal testing in which no living creature is harmed. In addition to their

research, scientists also claim that investing in forms of pain relief such as anesthesia would

create an extra financial expense. While there is truth that paying for additional medication will

increase the overall cost of the experiment, it is worth it if it prevents animals from enduring the

pain that comes with experimentation. Regardless of the cost, inflicting intentional harm upon

any living creature is ethically and morally wrong. Animals no longer deserve to be subjected to

ulcers, seizures, or cancer for the sake of developing another cosmetic product. The pain and

suffering that countless animals have undergone is not only avoidable, but unnecessary since the

United States does not require any form of animal experimentation.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require animal testing for cosmetics.

The Humane Society clarifies that, “The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (regulated by the

Food and Drug Administration) prohibits the sale of mislabeled and "adulterated" cosmetics, but
 Dorsch 3

does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate that the cosmetics are safe,”

(“Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing”). While the Food and Drug Association does require that

cosmetic products are safe and unadulterated, they do not require such products to be tested

through the means of animal testing. There are many alternative methods that can be used to

create trustworthy products; some of which require no testing at all. There are thousands of

ingredients have already been tested on animals and proven to be safe. Therefore, there are many

ways to create cosmetic products without having to conduct any new animal research. Despite

this, some cosmetic companies argue that they, “have to test on animals,” because they sell their

products in countries such as China were animal testing is required by law (“About Cosmetics

Animal Testing”). However, the flaw in this logic is that companies who choose to sell their

products in such locations are fully aware that they will have to conduct animal experimentation.

True cruelty-free companies such as LUSH have vowed to not sell their cosmetics in countries

that require any form of animal testing (“About Cosmetics Animal Testing”). As for the

companies who choose to conduct animal testing within the United States, there are various

alternative methods that have proven to be faster and more accurate than outdated animal

research.

Animal testing is more expensive than the modern, more advanced alternatives. The

process of testing animals to learn how certain ingredients react with the human body can take up

to several years to complete. The Humane Society International elaborates that, “Some animal

tests take months or years to conduct and analyze (e.g., 4-5 years, in the case of rodent cancer

studies), at a cost of hundreds of thousands—and sometimes millions—of dollars per substance

examined (e.g., $2 to $4 million per two-species lifetime cancer study),” (“Costs of Animal and

Non-Animal Testing”). Animal experimentation is a lengthy process that can require millions of
 Dorsch 4

dollars’ worth of funding. In addition to the waste of finances that animal testing proposes, the

data recorded can be inaccurate due to that fact that animals, such as mice and rabbits, are

anatomically different from humans. Thus, if the test results are inaccurate or unpredictive, then

all the finances that went into the experiment are wasted. Fortunately, there are several more

reliable alternatives to animal testing that have been developed using human blood, artificial

skin, cell lines, and computer lines (Moran, Jim and Paul A. Locke). Replacing animal testing

with these more advanced methods could potentially save tens of thousands of dollars.

According to a data chart provided by the Humane Society International, it costs fourteen

thousand dollars cheaper to conduct a genetic toxicity test of the sister chromatid exchange using

cell lines or artificial skin rather than animal testing (“Costs of Animal and Non-Animal

Testing”). Switching to more advanced methods of experimentation will save cosmetic

companies and the government thousands of dollars. These modern methods allow scientists to

gather accurate results much faster than the outdated method of animal experimentation.

The research performed on animals by cosmetic companies is unethical due to the fact

that it is cruel in nature, not legally required in the United States, and expensive. Animal testing

is abusive and agonizing for the animals who endure such horrific experimentation. They are

forced to be caged and locked up in stressful laboratory environments and face frequent poking

and prodding. The effects from the ingredients with which they are tested range from skin

corrosion to paralysis to death. These torturous methods of cosmetic testing are not only out

dated and costly, but also not required by U.S. law. Modern methods of product testing involving

human cells and computer technology are quicker, more efficient, and cost effective. The citizens

of the United States must work together to ban animal testing and utilize modern scientific

methods of conducting cosmetic research.

 Dorsch 5

Works Cited

“About Cosmetics Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, Humane Society

International. Hsi.org

“Animals Used in Cosmetics Testing.” National Anti-Vivisection Society, NAVS. Navs.org

“Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals.” The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane
Society of the United States. Humanesociety.org

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

“Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing.” The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society
of the United States. Hsi.org

Kangas, Cathy. “Cosmetics Industry and Animal Testing.” The Huffington Post,
The Huffington Post. 26 Jan. 2016. Huffingtonpost.com

Moran, Jim and Paul A. Locke. “Beauty and the Beasts: The U.S. Should Ban Testing Cosmetics
on Animals.” Scientific American, Scientific American, 28 May 2014.
Scientificamerican.com

“Pain and Distress in Research Animals.” The Humane Society of the United States, The
Humane Society of the United States. Humanesociety.org

“The Animal Testing and Experimentation Industry.” National Anti-Vivisection Society, NAVS.
Navs.org