Brianna Lariviere

UWRT 1104

Professor Malcolm Campbell

10 October 2018

Cosmetic Testing on Animals: Why Haven’t We Changed?

In 2013, the European Union made history by banning the testing of cosmetics on

animals and prohibiting the selling of products that have been tested on animals. Since then, Commented [1]: Necessary?

countries such as Turkey, India, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, and a few others have

made similar laws (Timeline). Even China, a country that used to ban all products not tested on

animals first, has retracted some of the guidelines (Timeline). If the major countries are changing

cosmetics for the better, surely the United States is one of them, right? I’m afraid not. Just like in

Russia, American cosmetics are not cruelty-free. But do not lose hope yet, because we have a

chance to change our ways.

First off, let me explain what a cosmetic is and what is going on behind closed doors

when they’re being concocted. Cosmetics, as defined by the dictionary, are products such as

makeup that is meant to beautify the consumer, but not changes any function of the consumer.

This means that once a face wash has medicine in it to prevent acne, it is no longer a cosmetic. In

simpler terms, cosmetics are meant to make us feel good, but we don’t really need them, we just

like them.

Now, to make new products, scientists usually have to mix new chemicals that haven’t

been mixed before in order to have the results that they have never seen before. To ensure that Commented [2]: _Accepted suggestion_
Deleted: and
they are safe to use, they test them on small animals, typically mice, rats, guinea pigs, and

rabbits. These animals, as described by the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, are not animals (JSTOR). Commented [3]: _Accepted suggestion_
Deleted: Animal Welfare Act, enacted in 1966
They are test subjects and are not protected by the law that should guarantee their safety and well

being just like a pet mouse or even a pet snake. So to ensure that humans are safe, scientists test

these chemicals in a number of different ways, including force-feeding them to animals to see Commented [4]: _Rejected suggestion_
Deleted: these chemicals
how they react to them (Fact Sheet). Another test involves injecting large amounts of the drug Commented [5]: I'm not sure if drug is the right word,
but just to have something other than chemicals I took
into the bloodstream to see how much the animal can take before it dies (Fact Sheet). The most a shot (still should describe like this)
Commented [6]: _Accepted suggestion_
famous test, the skin-and-eye irritation test, is where chemicals are dropped into the animal’s

eyes or onto bare skin without pain relief so their pain can be measured (Fact Sheet). Deleted: in advance
Deleted: that
In case you are wondering about why we ever started testing potentially dangerous

chemicals on animals as often as we do now, I am more than happy to give you some

background. In 1932, a drug called Elixir Sulfanilamide was introduced in the US as a cure for

all medicine (Hajar). Do you have a headache, stomach cramps, morning sickness or a meth

addiction? Elixir Sulfanilamide may be for you! The only side effect is death. There were over Commented [9]: Like we talked about, add something
in-between to make this flow better. semicolon, new
paragraph, "yes, drugs' etc
100 cases where deaths were directly correlated with the drug. This could have been avoided, but

the drug was never tested first. As a result, the FDA passed the United States Food, Drug &

Cosmetic Act in 1938, enforcing all new chemicals to be tested on animals before being released

for public consumption (Hajar).

As upsetting as all of this is, I want you to remember that this is all perfectly legal in the

US, but not in the EU. Earlier this year in May, members of the EU planned to address this issue

in front of other world leaders, pushing for a global change (ProQuest). German Greens Member

of the European Parliament (MEP) Stefan Eck calls the cosmetic treatment of animals “barbaric

and shameful” (ProQuest). Eck isn’t exaggerating about it being barbaric, and he isn’t the only

one calling the testing of cosmetics on animals barbaric. The usage of testing on animals dates all

the way back to 322, BC when the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle admitted to testing on
rodents. Debates on whether animal testing is ethical dates all the way back to the 17th century,

though the fight against cosmetics testing has only just begun (Hajar).

Finnish MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen, president of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on the

Welfare and Conservation of Animals, has been quoted as saying, “we now call on our Commented [10]: _Rejected suggestion_
Deleted: W
colleagues to drive this forward and ensure we manage to achieve a global ban [of animal-tested-

cosmetics]” (ProQuest). Despite their efforts, America does not seem to want to change how Commented [11]: _Accepted suggestion_

cosmetics are made. Do not lose hope yet, there is another team rooting for the animals within Commented [12]: Example of how you are assuming
people are on your side, consider not doing this
America’s borders: The Humane Society of The United States.

The Humane Society of the United States has over 1 million animal rights activists and is

currently the largest organization dedicated to animal protection rights in the US (Fact Sheet).

The Humane Society, as well as many other animal rights activist organizations, despise any

usage of chemicals being tested on animals, but the battle has to start small. There are several

different ways that people argue could save thousands of lives if they are practiced more often.

The three most famous of these ways are known as the Three Rs: Replacement, Reduction, and

Refinement (Fact Sheet).

Replacement refers to the method of replacing live animals with non-living subjects for Commented [13]: _Rejected suggestion_

the testing (Fact Sheet). Reduction refers to the reduction of animals used per test and ultimately,

per year. Currently, 72 animals are tested on per product. The annual amount of new products

introduced in China annually is 4,205, that equals over 306,000 animals per year, and that's only

in China (Fact Sheet). It is widely believed that over 100 billion rats and mice are killed

annually, although scientists are not legally required to report how many are used in each

experiment since they are not considered animals. The final R method is Refinement; the method

of changing exactly how the tests are done (Fact Sheet). This could also change how we dispose
of the animals that have been tested on. Instead of breaking the necks, asphyxiation, or

decapitation without medication beforehand, why not lethally inject them (Fact Sheet)?

The Three Rs are the most common push for a change besides banning it all together.

Scientists argue that by completely getting rid of animal testing would have drastic consequences

and would dramatically slow down all new cosmetic products being produced. Despite what

they’re arguing, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. There are already more than enough makeup

products available for each man, woman, and child in the US. Another solution, as pointed out

by the Humane Society, scientists can mix chemicals that already have been proven safe instead

of creating new chemicals (Fact Sheet). The Humane Society has reached out to multiple

universities across the country and is supporting using fast cell tests and 3D computer models of

human bodies reacting to the new products opposed to an animal that is nowhere near our size

and shape (Fact Sheet). This new method can provide results in a matter of hours, while animal

testing can last months or years due to the tests on pregnant animals used to see if the offspring Commented [14]: _Rejected suggestion_
Commented [16]: _Accepted suggestion_
are being affected as well as the parent. Deleted: (Fact Sheet). This is due to
Deleted: being done
All of these solutions need to be considered if we truly want to change our “barbaric”

ways, but there should also be an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act or a new law to protect

the animals being tested on, don’t you think? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: A bill.

In March of 2014, the Humane Cosmetics Act was written and introduced to Congress in

June, pushed heavily by The Humane Society. The act would eradicate all testing of cosmetics

on animals in the US and ban the selling of animal tested products (Fact Sheet). It also contains a

penalty of $10,000 to any violators (Fact Sheet). This is exactly what the EU wants us to use, as

it’s very similar to their own law. It would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals

and millions of dollars nationally. However, it was never passed.

 Lost amongst the other bills, the Humane Cosmetics Act was read aloud to the House of

Representatives and pushed aside for a later hearing (Timeline). Exactly one year later, the

process repeated itself; The Humane Cosmetics Act was read aloud to the House, and it was not

discussed before it was filed away (Timeline). In June of 2017, it was read aloud again, but

surprise, it was not discussed or debated (Timeline). This was the last time it was mentioned in

the House and it is unclear what will happen next.

Overall, we have been placed in a very difficult situation regarding how our cosmetics

are tested and if we as a nation will stand for this cruel treatment of animals. These methods have

been called barbaric, unnecessary, and torture by many and the time is upon us to join the world

stage and put our feet down to protect these animals. New technologies have arrived that are time

savvy and cost-efficient and Congress needs to be prodded into action so that the United States

will no longer be a place where billions of mice will die for a bit of mascara.

Works Cited

“Animal Welfare Act.” The Mutual Dependency of Force and Law in American Foreign Policy
on JSTOR, JSTOR, 1 Apr. 1971,
jstor.org/stable/4443437?sid=primo&origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_content
s. Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.

“Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing.” The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society
of the United States,
www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/qa/questions_answers.html. Accessed
18 Oct. 2018.
Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views: The Official Journal of the Gulf
Heart Association, US National Library of Medicine: National Institutes of Health, Dec.
2011, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/. Accessed 18 Oct. 2018.

“MEPs Vote For Global Ban on Cosmetic Animal Testing.” ProQuest. May 4, 2018.
www.search-proquest-com.librarylink.uncc.edu/docview/2034353418?accountid=14605.
Accessed 10 Oct. 2018.

“Timeline: Cosmetics Testing on Animals.” The Humane Society of the United States, The
Humane Society of the United States, 2017,
www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/timelines/timeline-cosmetics-testing-
on-animals.html. Accessed 10 Oct. 2018.