Animal testing is an unpopular subject in the animal rights debate; people attempt to avoid it because of how unsettling it is. Especially when it comes to cosmetics, it seems too difficult to find a brand that does not test on animals at all, so people choose to ignore the facts and buy whatever products they want. The Humane Society claims that “worldwide rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, and rats are blinded, poisoned, and killed to test new cosmetic products and their ingredients,” (“Cruelty Free: Infographic”). With online activism on the rise, more information than ever before is available about the research methods used on animals and people can view horrifying pictures of animals that have been used for tests. The disgust people
…show more content…
People began to realize that results from animal tests may be irrelevant and over or under estimations of real hazards people may face. For example, it is unlikely a person is going to accidentally pour an entire bottle of mascara into their eye. Also, the Draize test where this occurs is done on rabbits. Rabbits have “thinner corneas and insufficient tear ducts” meaning their eyes could not wash away irritants as effectively as a human eye. Their eyes are structured differently and are much more sensitive than ours, making the comparison invalid (Dickinson). Peter Singer notes in “Animal Liberation” that by 1989, PETA and other activist groups had persuaded three of the biggest cosmetic companies, Avon, Redken, and Mary Kay, to give up animal research (Singer). While most, if not all, companies have given up testing final products on animals, there are still other practices companies take part in that involve animals. This includes testing individual ingredients of products on animals, testing any new combination of ingredients on animals, having a third-party company perform any tests, or having third-party companies perform tests in countries where they are legal (McNeal). Currently, the FDCA does not specifically require animal testing on cosmetic …show more content…
The FDA notes that they “support the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing,” (FDA Site). Since studies show that the results of animal testing not only are different between species, but are far from being accurate to human reactions. The process of getting rid of animal testing starts with what the article, “Detailed Discussion of Animal Testing in Commercial Products” calls the three R’s which includes “the reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal testing,”. Specifically, the goal is to “reduce the number of animals used in experiments, refine experimental procedures to minimize animal pain and suffering, and replace animal subjects with non-animal alternatives when scientifically feasible,”. There are already many approved ways to test that do not involve using living animals. For example, some facilities use eyeballs fresh from slaughterhouses instead of live ones. Another, less gross replacement used is the membrane of a chicken’s egg which closely resembles the cornea in the human eye (“Protecting More Than Animals”). L’Oreal’s scientists have been working on reconstructed skin and other organs to use as test alternatives. This is now how they test their finished products and the majority of their ingredients for safety (L’Oreal
People began to realize that results from animal tests may be irrelevant and over or under estimations of real hazards people may face. For example, it is unlikely a person is going to accidentally pour an entire bottle of mascara into their eye. Also, the Draize test where this occurs is done on rabbits. Rabbits have “thinner corneas and insufficient tear ducts” meaning their eyes could not wash away irritants as effectively as a human eye. Their eyes are structured differently and are much more sensitive than ours, making the comparison invalid (Dickinson). Peter Singer notes in “Animal Liberation” that by 1989, PETA and other activist groups had persuaded three of the biggest cosmetic companies, Avon, Redken, and Mary Kay, to give up animal research (Singer). While most, if not all, companies have given up testing final products on animals, there are still other practices companies take part in that involve animals. This includes testing individual ingredients of products on animals, testing any new combination of ingredients on animals, having a third-party company perform any tests, or having third-party companies perform tests in countries where they are legal (McNeal). Currently, the FDCA does not specifically require animal testing on cosmetic …show more content…
The FDA notes that they “support the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing,” (FDA Site). Since studies show that the results of animal testing not only are different between species, but are far from being accurate to human reactions. The process of getting rid of animal testing starts with what the article, “Detailed Discussion of Animal Testing in Commercial Products” calls the three R’s which includes “the reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal testing,”. Specifically, the goal is to “reduce the number of animals used in experiments, refine experimental procedures to minimize animal pain and suffering, and replace animal subjects with non-animal alternatives when scientifically feasible,”. There are already many approved ways to test that do not involve using living animals. For example, some facilities use eyeballs fresh from slaughterhouses instead of live ones. Another, less gross replacement used is the membrane of a chicken’s egg which closely resembles the cornea in the human eye (“Protecting More Than Animals”). L’Oreal’s scientists have been working on reconstructed skin and other organs to use as test alternatives. This is now how they test their finished products and the majority of their ingredients for safety (L’Oreal