Williamson 1

Brynn Williamson

Gardner

Milky Jalapenos

1 November 2019

Annotated Bibliography

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

Nov. 2005. Pp. 144-146. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/438144a.

In Abbott’s article published by Nature magazine, she discusses a researcher named Thomas

Hartung, who became the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative

Methods (ECVAM) in Italy. He was tasked with the job of “delivering a slew of animal-free

methods for testing chemical toxicity,” as instructed by the European Union. Abbott also claims

that the tests executed on animals to test chemicals used in cosmetics are outdated and “poorly

predictive.”

A problem with this source is that it is outdated, which damages its ethos. It was written in 2005,

soon after the Euorpean Union outlawed cosmetic animal testing. The article also contains little

to no appeal to pathos, however it contains an abundance of logos due to the facts and statistics it

includes. A loose generalization logical fallacy is also found in this source, due to the fact that it

assumes that every test conducted on animals is outdated and inaccurate, which is not true.

Due to the issues with this source, I will be backing up information used from this article with

other sources. Because some data provided is outdated, I will back up specific statistics with

ones from other sources that are more recent. This source will support my claim that animal
 Williamson 2

testing is unethical because I will use facts from the article that shows there are better

alternatives to animal testing and show the downsides to testing cosmetics on animals.

Lush Cosmetics North America. “The Truth About Animal Testing for Cosmetics

#BeCureltyFree” Youtube. Youtube, 9 Sep. 2018. Web. 20 Oct. 2019.

This video was created by Lush Cosmetics North America, a cosmetics brand attempting to stop

cosmetic animal testing worldwide, and posted to youtube. The video discusses how many

people are oblivious to the issue of cosmetic animal testing, as well as how many animals suffer

from cosmetic testing each year, “Worldwide, nearly half a million rabbits and other animals are

blinded, poisoned, and killed each year to test new cosmetic products and their ingredients.”

(Lush Cosmetics North America). This video also discusses how animal testing methods have

been proved outdated and unreliable, and cosmetic animal testing could stop immediatly with no

harm whatsoever to consumers due to the fact that new, more accurate ways for testing cosmetics

have already been developed. Also explained in the video is how many countries around the

world have banned or are working to ban cosmetic animal testing.

This multimedia source provides accurate, useful and important information, however, the source

does contain flaws. The video uses an appeal to false authority logical fallacy. This can be seen

because there a few actual experts shown in this video, and much of the information provided is

not cited. However, this source effectively applies to pathos through the use of upsetting images,

as well as logos by providing facts, data and statistics.

 Williamson 3

I will use this multimedia source in my essay by utilizing the data provided in the video to

support my claim that cosmetic animal testing is unethical and there are many safer and more

accurate alternatives. Information used from this source will also be backed up from other

sources I have gathered because of the flaws it contains.

Romanowski, Perry. “Animal Testing in the Cosmetic Industry.” Chemists Corner, 11 Jan. 2011,

https://chemistscorner.com/animal-testing-in-the-cosmetic-industry/.

This article posted by the website “Chemists Corner” explains the different ways cosmetic

animal testing is done, such as: draize tests which determine irritation to the skin, eye irritancy

tests which test what happens if the product gets into the eye, and the guinea pig maximization

test which, “Measures for the sensitizing potential of an ingredient and involves injecting the

compound under the skin followed by topical application”. The article then goes on to discuss

opinions on animal testing, the EU animal tesing ban, which is a ban on all cosmetic products

that were tested on animals that took place in 2013 in Europe. The last thing discussed in the

article is alternatives to animal testing.

Although this article provides helpful information and different points of view, it contains logical

fallacies. The main fallacy it includes is anecdotal fallacy, because it relies heavily on the

opinion of the author, and the data provided supports said opinion. In addition, it contains

bandwagon thinking because it is assumed that because the author and many other people believe

cosmetic animal testing should be banned, that everyone should feel the same way.
 Williamson 4

I will use this source in my essay to explain the different ways animals are tested on and how it

affects them. It will also help me support my claim that cosmetic animal testing is unethical and

that it should be banned. Because this article is slightly opinion based, I will use evidence from

other sources to back up information used from this article.

Seeker. “Why Do We Still Test Cosmetics on Animals?” Youtube. Youtube, 20 May 2016. Web.

26 October 2019.

In this video posted to Youtube by the channel Seeker, a group focusing on “understanding the

science shaping our world”, the reasons behind why we test on animals is explained. First, the

video explains that things like shampoo, deodorant and toothpaste are considered cosmetic

products, not just makeup. The speaker then goes on to explain that animals are used for testing

because they are an easy way to quickly see if a product will cause any problems for the animal,

including birth defects in their offspring, any sort of skin or eye damage, irritation, etc.

Chemicals and products cannot legally be tested on humans because it is considered to be

inhumane, so because of this, the easiest and quickest way to see the effects of a product is

through the use of animals.

The video contains problems, such as an appeal to false authority logical fallacy. This is due to

the fact that the speaker is not cited to be any sort of expert on the topic, thus damaging the ethos

of the source. However, the video has a strong appeal to logos because of the different facts

provided, and it has a slight appeal to pathos because of the melancholy tone of voice the speaker

uses throughout the video.

 Williamson 5

In my essay, I will utilize the information provided in the source, as well describe the logos and

pathos in order to support my claim that animal testing is unethical. Due to the lack of credibility

this source has, information I use from this video in my essay will be backed up by information

from other, more reliable sources.

Twohy, Mike. “I’m Not Religious-- Just Anti-Science.” Cartoon. New Yorker. 5 Jan. 2015.

Cartoon Bank. Web. 22 Oct. 2019.

This political cartoon published by New Yorker and created by Mike Twohy shows two rats in a

cage, one with antlers due to being tested on. Shown on the cage is a piece of paper with

markings on it. The caption to the cartoon says, “I’m not religious-- just anti-science.” Produced

by this cartoon is a lighthearted element to the issue of animal testing in general, which can be

applied to cosmetic animal testing. This cartoon represents how animals being tested on can

result in odd characteristics resulting in animals that are left alive after the testing process.

The cartoon comes from the website “Cartoon Bank”, which provides many different political

cartoons. Due to the source of the image, it contains the logical fallacy of appeal to false

authority. This is because the creator of the cartoon is not an expert on the topic of animal

testing, and any information the artist used to create the illustration is not cited, giving him less

credibility. A comedic element is applied to this cartoon, which provides strong pathos for the

audience, which is the main element of the cartoon, however it somewhat lacks logos due to the

fact that there is no actual evidence or facts provided.

 Williamson 6

In my essay, I will use this source to further support my argument that animal testing is unethical

by using the rat with antlers as a loose example of odd characteristics that can develop in animals

due to animal testing. I will use the cartoon alongside other sources that contain more ethos and

logos in order to further support not only my argument, but also the cartoon.