FREE ESSAY ON COSMETIC ANIMAL TESTING

COSMETIC ANIMAL TESTING

English 112 
April 2, 1999 Page 1
Cosmetic Testing on Animals 
When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they
usually
don't put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals
die and
suffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah,
abstract)
Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked. It is a
problem that
has lasted for centuries. As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals
Newsletter, animal
testing on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed
to
feel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a
while.
However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara. After that incident
the
Food and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics.(Issue 1)
However,
that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. 
There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most common
ones are the Draize Test and the LD50. The Draize test is an eye test named after a man
by the
name of John Draize. This test involves dropping a substance into an animal's eye and
watching
the results.(All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on
albino rabbits,
and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include
swelling of the
eyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting
from broken
necks.(the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose
50 is
preformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them
dies.
Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a
vein, or
into the lining of the abdomen. This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed
without
administering no kind of painkillers.(Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree
that these
tests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these
tests are
vital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate.(Health safety
alliance,
abstract) 
Page 2
No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliable
alternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these
alternatives are
faster, cheaper, and provide better information.( Health safety alliance, abstract) So
what are
these alternatives? There are many of them. One very common one is the use of cell
cultures,
which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and
they react
just like normal skin.(Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the
easiest way to
test new ingredients as well as finished products. He also mentions that using these
cultures will
save money as well as lives of animals.(abstract) Another popular alternative is the use
of
corneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test. (Shah, abstract) The
following
are some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter:

Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration
system.
This replaces the Draize test. 
Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the
reaction of a foreign substance on human skin. 
Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.
Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a
water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. 
Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy.
Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,
and teratonogenicity.
So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of
human injury,
provide quicker results, and don't hurt animals: Why don't all companies use them? The
answer
is that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. 
There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that
says that
they can't be tested. However, there is a good side. There are laws to regulate testing.
In Britain,
these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of
licensing 
Page 3
and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United
States,
there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times. (the
last
being in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory
animals.
Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U.S. Public Health Service
Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985.
Both
of these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular
reports.
They also require animal care and use committees.( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997)
Finally
according to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and
Ethics,
written by J. Zurlo, D. Rudacille, and A.M. Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect
laboratory
animals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC).
These
committees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an
animal,
whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used
is
sufficient, and that the scientist are using the three R's: 
1. Refinement 
2. Reduction 
3. Reduction
Besides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a
responsibility to
these animals. They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper
care,
use, and an avoidance or minimization of distress, pain, and suffering. They also make
sure that
animals stay in good health because they know that animals in poor health could cause
serious
experimental error, just like testing on water wouldn't be any good if it were preformed
in a dirty
container.( Health safety alliance, abstract) Even though these protection acts, and good
scientist
are out there it doesn't make testing okay, just better. Testing still needs to be
completely
stopped. 
Page 4
Some companies refuse to acknowledge the fact that testing needs to be abolished. These
are
companies that continue to torture and kill these poor helpless animals. According to an
abstract
called Animal Testing by the Cosmetic Industry these companies and examples of their
products
include: 
Unilever: Dove soap, Cutex, Wisk Laundry detergent, I Can't Believe it's not Butter,
Echo,
Crem Silk shampoo
Proctor and Gamble: Max Factor, Clarion, Cover Girl, Luvs, Pampers, Vidal Sassoon, Crest
toothpaste, Tide laundry detergent, Head and Shoulders
Colgate-Palmolive: Palmolive shampoo, Colgate toothpaste
These are just a few of the companies that are still testing the list goes on and on.
However, there
are over 500 companies that are "cruelty-free". These companies include: Avon and
Revlon.
There is yet another side to this. There are many companies that claim to be
"cruelty-free" but
really aren't. This may mean that the company itself hasn't tested on animals, but the
company
where it got it's ingredients from has. There is no government standards to define this
term so
according to an online brochure by the Health and Safety Alliance, "Not Tested on Animals
"
can really mean:
The exact final product formula was not tested on animals, but single ingredients or
ingredient combination was.
The manufacturer did not conduct animal testing, but the ingredient supplier did.
What does the claim "Not Tested on Animals" or "Cruelty-Free" really mean?
The manufacture did testing in another country.
Ingredients or the finished product have not been tested within the past five years. 
Page 5
In reality most ingredients have been tested on animals at some time or another.
However,
companies have no business misleading consumers. There are some honest companies that
don't
make the claim "cruelty-free" simply because of one of the above reasons.
There is a question that remains on my mind: How could a company morally hurt poor
animals? Most people look at them at being nasty rats, but those nasty rats are warm
blooded
creatures that can feel pain, and besides 10-15 percent of these animals are dogs, cats,
and
monkeys. (Chang, 1998) Now how could people promote hurting those household pets.
Companies and supporters say that it is for our own well being. Well, I have shown a
number of
alternatives that equally, if not more, effective. Besides, what about the animals well
being?
Many people believe that they have nothing to do with what companies do. However,
without
consumers are what makes a company. So what can we do? I have made a list of possible
ways
to help: 
1. Stop buying products that are tested on animals. This is simple enough. If a company
loses a
lot of consumers for this reason then they will be forced to stop testing, and I'm sure
that any
kind person can find it in their hearts to sacrifice a couple of their household products
and
personal items for the sake of these harmless creatures.
2. Write companies that test on animals. You don't have to get evil, just let them know
that you
care enough to respond. 
3. Write companies that do not test on animals. Let them know what a great job they are
doing.
This will cause them to keep up the good work. 
4. If you really want to become involved, join an animal support group. These groups
donate a
lot of their time fighting for the well being of animals.
I don't know if testing on animals will ever be stopped. There will probably always be
those
stubborn companies out there that just will not give in. However, we can try to abolish
it. I have 
found out that in the last ten years animal research has dropped by 50 percent.(Chang,
1998) If 
Page 6
we can only keep this trend continuous then everything will be just fine. Scientist and
activist
want totally different things. I believe that with a little teamwork they can get on the
same 
grounds. For now maybe we can get the scientist to really promote the three R's ,
especially
replacement. It's not abolishment..but it's a start. 
English 112 
April 2, 1999 Page 1
Cosmetic Testing on Animals 
When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they
usually
don't put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals
die and
suffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah,
abstract)
Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked. It is a
problem that
has lasted for centuries. As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals
Newsletter, animal
testing on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed
to
feel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a
while.
However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara. After that incident
the
Food and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics.(Issue 1)
However,
that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. 
There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most common
ones are the Draize Test and the LD50. The Draize test is an eye test named after a man
by the
name of John Draize. This test involves dropping a substance into an animal's eye and
watching
the results.(All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on
albino rabbits,
and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include
swelling of the
eyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting
from broken
necks.(the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose
50 is
preformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them
dies.
Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a
vein, or
into the lining of the abdomen. This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed
without
administering no kind of painkillers.(Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree
that these
tests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these
tests are
vital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate.(Health safety
alliance,
abstract) 
Page 2
No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliable
alternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these
alternatives are
faster, cheaper, and provide better information.( Health safety alliance, abstract) So
what are
these alternatives? There are many of them. One very common one is the use of cell
cultures,
which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and
they react
just like normal skin.(Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the
easiest way to
test new ingredients as well as finished products. He also mentions that using these
cultures will
save money as well as lives of animals.(abstract) Another popular alternative is the use
of
corneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test. (Shah, abstract) The
following
are some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter:

Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration
system.
This replaces the Draize test. 
Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the
reaction of a foreign substance on human skin. 
Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.
Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a
water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. 
Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy.
Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,
and teratonogenicity.
So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of
human injury,
provide quicker results, and don't hurt animals: Why don't all companies use them? The
answer
is that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. 
There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that
says that
they can't be tested. However, there is a good side. There are laws to regulate testing.
In Britain,
these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of
licensing 
Page 3
and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United
States,
there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times. (the
last
being in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory
animals.
Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U.S. Public Health Service
Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985.
Both
of these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular
reports.
They also require animal care and use committees.( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997)
Finally
according to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and
Ethics,
written by J. Zurlo, D. Rudacille, and A.M. Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect
laboratory
animals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC).
These
committees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an
animal,
whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used
is
sufficient, and that the scientist are using the three R's: 
1. Refinement 
2. Reduction 
3. Reduction
Besides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a
responsibility to
these animals. They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper
care,
use, and an avoidance or minimization of distress, pain, and suffering. They also make
sure that
animals stay in good health because they know that animals in poor health could cause
serious
experimental error, just like testing on water wouldn't be any good if it were preformed
in a dirty
container.( Health safety alliance, abstract) Even though these protection acts, and good
scientist
are out there it doesn't make testing okay, just better. Testing still needs to be
completely
stopped. 
Page 4
Some companies refuse to acknowledge the fact that testing needs to be abolished. These
are
companies that continue to torture and kill these poor helpless animals. According to an
abstract
called Animal Testing by the Cosmetic Industry these companies and examples of their
products
include: 
Unilever: Dove soap, Cutex, Wisk Laundry detergent, I Can't Believe it's not Butter,
Echo,
Crem Silk shampoo
Proctor and Gamble: Max Factor, Clarion, Cover Girl, Luvs, Pampers, Vidal Sassoon, Crest
toothpaste, Tide laundry detergent, Head and Shoulders
Colgate-Palmolive: Palmolive shampoo, Colgate toothpaste
These are just a few of the companies that are still testing the list goes on and on.
However, there
are over 500 companies that are "cruelty-free". These companies include: Avon and
Revlon.
There is yet another side to this. There are many companies that claim to be
"cruelty-free" but
really aren't. This may mean that the company itself hasn't tested on animals, but the
company
where it got it's ingredients from has. There is no government standards to define this
term so
according to an online brochure by the Health and Safety Alliance, "Not Tested on Animals
"
can really mean:
The exact final product formula was not tested on animals, but single ingredients or
ingredient combination was.
The manufacturer did not conduct animal testing, but the ingredient supplier did.
What does the claim "Not Tested on Animals" or "Cruelty-Free" really mean?
The manufacture did testing in another country.
Ingredients or the finished product have not been tested within the past five years. 
Page 5
In reality most ingredients have been tested on animals at some time or another.
However,
companies have no business misleading consumers. There are some honest companies that
don't
make the claim "cruelty-free" simply because of one of the above reasons.
There is a question that remains on my mind: How could a company morally hurt poor
animals? Most people look at them at being nasty rats, but those nasty rats are warm
blooded
creatures that can feel pain, and besides 10-15 percent of these animals are dogs, cats,
and
monkeys. (Chang, 1998) Now how could people promote hurting those household pets.
Companies and supporters say that it is for our own well being. Well, I have shown a
number of
alternatives that equally, if not more, effective. Besides, what about the animals well
being?
Many people believe that they have nothing to do with what companies do. However,
without
consumers are what makes a company. So what can we do? I have made a list of possible
ways
to help: 
1. Stop buying products that are tested on animals. This is simple enough. If a company
loses a
lot of consumers for this reason then they will be forced to stop testing, and I'm sure
that any
kind person can find it in their hearts to sacrifice a couple of their household products
and
personal items for the sake of these harmless creatures.
2. Write companies that test on animals. You don't have to get evil, just let them know
that you
care enough to respond. 
3. Write companies that do not test on animals. Let them know what a great job they are
doing.
This will cause them to keep up the good work. 
4. If you really want to become involved, join an animal support group. These groups
donate a
lot of their time fighting for the well being of animals.
I don't know if testing on animals will ever be stopped. There will probably always be
those
stubborn companies out there that just will not give in. However, we can try to abolish
it. I have 
found out that in the last ten years animal research has dropped by 50 percent.(Chang,
1998) If 
Page 6
we can only keep this trend continuous then everything will be just fine. Scientist and
activist
want totally different things. I believe that with a little teamwork they can get on the
same 
grounds. For now maybe we can get the scientist to really promote the three R's ,
especially
replacement. It's not abolishment..but it's a start. 
English 112 
April 2, 1999 Page 1
Cosmetic Testing on Animals 
When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they
usually
don't put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals
die and
suffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah,
abstract)
Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked. It is a
problem that
has lasted for centuries. As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals
Newsletter, animal
testing on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed
to
feel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a
while.
However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara. After that incident
the
Food and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics.(Issue 1)
However,
that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. 
There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most common
ones are the Draize Test and the LD50. The Draize test is an eye test named after a man
by the
name of John Draize. This test involves dropping a substance into an animal's eye and
watching
the results.(All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on
albino rabbits,
and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include
swelling of the
eyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting
from broken
necks.(the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose
50 is
preformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them
dies.
Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a
vein, or
into the lining of the abdomen. This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed
without
administering no kind of painkillers.(Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree
that these
tests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these
tests are
vital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate.(Health safety
alliance,
abstract) 
Page 2
No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliable
alternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these
alternatives are
faster, cheaper, and provide better information.( Health safety alliance, abstract) So
what are
these alternatives? There are many of them. One very common one is the use of cell
cultures,
which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and
they react
just like normal skin.(Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the
easiest way to
test new ingredients as well as finished products. He also mentions that using these
cultures will
save money as well as lives of animals.(abstract) Another popular alternative is the use
of
corneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test. (Shah, abstract) The
following
are some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter:

Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration
system.
This replaces the Draize test. 
Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the
reaction of a foreign substance on human skin. 
Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.
Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a
water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. 
Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy.
Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,
and teratonogenicity.
So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of
human injury,
provide quicker results, and don't hurt animals: Why don't all companies use them? The
answer
is that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. 
There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that
says that
they can't be tested. However, there is a good side. There are laws to regulate testing.
In Britain,
these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of
licensing 
Page 3
and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United
States,
there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times. (the
last
being in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory
animals.
Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U.S. Public Health Service
Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985.
Both
of these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular
reports.
They also require animal care and use committees.( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997)
Finally
according to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and
Ethics,
written by J. Zurlo, D. Rudacille, and A.M. Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect
laboratory
animals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC).
These
committees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an
animal,
whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used
is
sufficient, and that the scientist are using the three R's: 
1. Refinement 
2. Reduction 
3. Reduction
Besides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a
responsibility to
these animals. They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper
care,
use, a