essay about animal testing for cosmetics

Everything You Need to Know About Animal Testing for Cosmetics

And how to know if your favorite cosmetics have been tested on animals.

• Chapman University

• University of Tennessee

Liudmila Chernetska / Getty Images 

• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species
• Global Regulations

What Animals Are Used in Cosmetics Testing?

Substances tested on animals.

• Federal Protections

How Do I Know if My Cosmetics Have Been Tested on Animals?

Humans have been using animals to test pharmaceuticals and cosmetics since 1937, when a chemical reaction caused by an untested liquid antibiotic marketed toward pediatric patients caused the death of over 100 adults and children. The tragedy led to the passage of the 1938 U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which required drugs be labeled with improved directions for safe use and mandated pre-market approval by the FDA of all new drugs. At the time, researchers were limited to animal toxicity testing to get their ingredients approved.

While many countries don’t report their numbers even today, Humane Society International estimates that about half a million animals are used to test cosmetics around the world each year.

Many of these outdated experimental techniques are ultimately pointless, since they typically produce results that cannot reliably be applied to humans.

As researchers have grown to discover since the 1930s, most animals respond differently than humans when exposed to the same chemicals. In fact, new pharmaceuticals pass preclinical animal testing to enter clinical trials about 12% of the time; of that, about 60% successfully complete the first phase of supplementary trials and a whopping 89% then go on to fail in human clinical trials.

If toxicity-related failure rates are so high in pharmaceuticals after animal testing, why are we still using these methods in the cosmetics industry—or at all?

What Exactly Are Cosmetics?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines cosmetics as "articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body ... for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." Legally, cosmetics include makeup, skin care, hair products, deodorant, and toothpaste.

Global Regulations on Animal Testing for Cosmetics

While the current Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulated by the FDA prohibits the sale of mislabeled and "adulterated" cosmetics, it does not require that animal tests be conducted to demonstrate that the cosmetics are safe. However, the United States has yet to ban the practice of animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals within its borders. 

Instead, the FDA puts the decision in the hands of the manufacturers, saying:

...The agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing. Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety. In some cases, after considering available alternatives, companies may determine that animal testing is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient.

One of the most significant contributors to the continued use of animal testing in cosmetics is China, which before 2021 required all cosmetics products to be tested on animals in order to be imported or sold in the country. However, China has started moving away from this law for a few years now, and as of May 2021, the requirement for some cosmetics imported and sold in the country had changed.

The new law waives requirements for animal testing if companies can provide satisfactory evidence of their safety according to China’s standards. “Special” cosmetics like antiperspirants, sunscreens, and baby products continue to be subject to more in-depth information requirements, and the country can still require new ingredients to undergo animal testing if authorities are not satisfied with the quality of safety reporting provided.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the European Union banned testing cosmetics on animals and selling cosmetics tested on animals back in 2013. This measure followed the U.K.'s lead, which became the first nation to ban the practice in 1998. The EU's decision created a major shift in the cosmetics industry for companies that marketed and produced cosmetics, since those that wanted to sell in the EU couldn’t use animal testing, but if they wanted to sell to China, they were required to.

The example set by the EU helped inspire other countries, such as India, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Switzerland, and parts of Brazil, to pass similar laws. Most recently, Mexico became the first country in North America and the 41st nation in the world to completely ban animal testing for cosmetics.

That means cosmetic companies both in the United States and abroad that choose to conduct animal tests are not legally allowed to sell their merchandise in these countries, forcing many organizations to rethink their methods for testing new products and ingredients.

In the US, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Virginia have also passed laws to ban or limit cosmetic animal testing at the state level.

These days, animals used for testing range from rabbits and guinea pigs to rats and mice, but some rare cases include dogs.

These animals are used in a few different ways, the most common of which are skin and eye irritation tests—where cosmetic chemicals are rubbed onto shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained animals (usually rabbits) without pain relief. This is known as the Draize rabbit eye test, and it’s intended to discover whether or not a product or ingredient will cause injury to the human eye.

There are also tests that deliver controlled doses of chemical substances to animals (usually mice) via a feeding tube that’s forced down their throats. Generally, these kinds of tests can last for weeks or months while the researchers look for signs of general illness or long-term health effects such as cancer or congenital defects. In reproductive toxicity tests, researchers may feed chemicals to pregnant animals to see whether the substances will cause abnormalities in offspring.

Though it is undoubtedly one of the more controversial tests performed on animals, some laboratories still use lethal dose (or LD50) tests, in which substances are administered to animals topically, orally, intravenously, or through inhalation to determine how much of that substance will cause death.

The test gets its nickname from its objective to find the amount of a chemical that kills half, or 50%, of a population. LD50 tests are especially condemned among the animal welfare community because their results have very little significance when it comes to humans (learning how much of a specific chemical kills a mouse, for example, has little correlation to humans). 

Developing or using new ingredients in cosmetic products comes with certain liabilities—both safety and legal. Since cosmetics must not be adulterated or misbranded under the FD&C Act, the responsibility lies on the manufacturer to identify potential hazards to humans, and companies certainly don’t want to sell a product that could result in legal issues.

Cosmetic animal testing involves testing the finished product, the chemical ingredients in a product, or both. A finished product can include a lipstick or a shampoo, while a chemical ingredient might include a dye or preservative used to formulate that lipstick or shampoo. Requirements for finished product testing are rare outside of China.

Some ingredient testing is required on behalf of specialty chemical companies who supply cosmetics manufacturers and the laws behind them, threatening to undermine existing animal testing bans.

The European “Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH)” regulation, for instance, requires chemical companies to provide new information on certain cosmetic ingredients. Per the EU European Chemicals Agency, “...this means companies must test their chemicals for safety—by using alternative methods or—as a last resort—testing on animals. Animal tests are only permitted if there is no alternative way to gather the safety information.”

Federal Protections for Test Animals

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is a federal law that addresses the standard of care received for animals bred for commercial sale, transported commercially, exhibited to the public, or used in research. An amendment in 1970 by the Secretary of Agriculture specifically excluded rats, mice, and birds from the AWA—animals that represent a huge majority of those regularly tested upon. Labs and research facilities are not required to report these non-AWA-protected animals.

If laboratories using live vertebrate animals in research are funded by the Public Health Service, they must also adhere to the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS Policy). Although the PHS Policy sets standards for any live vertebrate animal, including those not covered by the AWA, participants are allowed to appoint their own committee responsible for inspections and reviews. PHS Policy is not federal law, as it only applies to facilities that have applied for PHS funding, so the most serious penalties for infractions are either loss or suspension of the federal grant or contract.

Not sure if your favorite cosmetics brand contains ingredients tested on animals? Start by looking for cruelty free certified products. Keep in mind that there are only three official third-party organizations certifying products as cruelty free : Leaping Bunny , Cruelty Free International , and Beauty Without Bunnies .

What Does Cruelty Free Mean?

According to Humane Society International, a cosmetic can be considered cruelty free when the manufacture has committed to: “Not conduct or commission animal testing of its finished products or ingredients after a certain date,” and “monitor the testing practices of its ingredients suppliers to ensure they do not conduct or commission new animal testing either.”

Cruelty free certifications recognize companies that have met a set of cruelty free standards, signed legal documents, and submitted additional documentation to ensure compliance.

These certification programs also have online databases and mobile apps to download on your phone and make it easy to scan a product’s barcode.

If you don’t have the product package or are not sure of its ingredients, contact the company directly to address specific questions or concerns about its animal testing policies.

" Part II: 1938 Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act ." U.S. Food and Drug Administration .

" Animals in Cosmetic Testing ." Humane Society International .

Norman, Gail A. Van. " Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials: Is It Time to Rethink Our Current Approach? " JACC: Back to Translational Science , vol. 4, no. 7, 2019, pp. 845-854., doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008

" Cosmetics and U.S. Law ." U.S. Food and Drug Administration .

" Animal Testing and Cosmetics ." U.S. Food and Drug Administration .

" China Announces New Animal Testing Policy After PETA Push ." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals .

" Ban on Animal Testing ." European Commission .

" Animal Testing for Cosmetics ." European Animal Research Association .

" Cosmetics Testing FAQ ." Humane Society of the United States .

" Mexico Becomes First Country in North America to Outlaw Animal Testing for Cosmetics ." Humane Society International.

" Alternatives to Animal Testing Under REACH ." European Chemicals Agency .

" Cosmetic Testing Q&A ." Humane Society International .

• What Are Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)? Definition, Examples, and Environmental Concerns
• What Does a Clean Beauty Label Really Mean?
• Alternatives to Animal Testing in Cosmetics
• What is the LD50 or Lethal Dose 50 Test?
• Mexico Bans Animal Testing for Cosmetics
• Avon, Mary Kay, and Estee Lauder Practice Animal Testing
• What Is the California Toxic Free Cosmetics Act? List of Banned Ingredients
• California Bans Animal Testing in Cosmetics
• Everything You Need to Know About Natural Skin Care
• Are Your Beauty Products Cruelty Free? 3 Certifications Against Animal Testing
• What Are Fugitive Emissions? Definition and Impact
• What Is the Difference Between Vegan and Cruelty-Free Makeup?
• Environmental Impact of Harmful Chemicals in Beauty Products
• The 7 Best Natural Insect Repellents
• The Environmental Impact of Cosmetics Is Tremendous—Here's How They're Harmful
• Is IT Cosmetics Cruelty Free, Vegan, and Sustainable?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Introduction

Throughout history, animals have been the subject of experimentation to improve our understanding of anatomy and pathology ( 1 ). However, animal testing only became significant in the twentieth century ( 2 ).

Animal experiments are used extensively when developing new medicines and for testing the safety of certain products. Recently, the use of animals for biomedical research has been severely criticized by animal rights and protection groups. Similarly, many nations have established laws to make the practice of animal testing more humane. There are two positions in animal testing. One is that animal testing is acceptable if suffering is minimized and there are human benefits that could not have been achieved using any other means ( 3 ). The second position considers animal testing unacceptable because it causes suffering, and the benefits to human beings are either not proven or could be obtained using other methods.

As such, animal testing is a highly controversial subject that often elicits conflicting emotions from supporters and critics alike. It is also a divisive subject as some people support animal testing only in certain cases and oppose its use in other areas. For example, scientists note that significant medical breakthroughs have only been made possible through drug testing on animals. To them and other like-minded people, such achievements are reason enough to keep using animals in the lab ( 4 ). Animal tests determine if experimental drugs are effective or ineffective on human beings. Eventually, the medicine is tried out on a small group of humans through clinical trials before declaring the medicine safe to use.

Badyal and DesaI ( 5 ) note that these treatments are as beneficial to humans as they are to animals, since some human diseases are found in animals too. Therefore, some who support animal testing only advocate its use for medical (but not cosmetics) purposes, arguing that the advancement in human medicine may lead to advancement in animal medicine.

While a significant population completely disapproves of animal testing, a faction of people only disagrees with the use of animals for cosmetics testing, arguing that it is despicable and cruel to use animal life merely so that humans can advance their beauty technology. The concern extends to animals used for science, and people want animal suffering to be minimized ( 6 ). The discovery of new drugs has for a long time been based on a number of interactions among aspects such as data collected from patients, tissues, organs or cell culture and varied animal species ( 7 ). Those who oppose the use of animal testing for cosmetics believe it is outrageous and cruel to use animal life for the simple reason of making humans look better, and that the benefits to human beings do not validate the harms done to animals ( 7 ).

For such reasons, the use of animals for testing cosmetics products has been banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Union since 2013 ( 8 ). However, other countries like China and the United States of America still continue with the practice ( 9 ). Linzey adds that about 50 - 100 million animals are used for experiments every year, and that over 1.37 million animals were used for drug experimentation in America in the year 2010 ( 9 ). In the meantime, the number of experiments conducted on animals has declined in Britain but is increasing in other countries. While experiments involving vertebrates are regulated in most countries, experiments on invertebrates are not ( 5 ).

The aim of this study is to examine whether or not animal testing is still useful and necessary in the present time, and whether there are ethical differences between animal testing in medical and cosmetics fields. We use the UK as our case study and provide alternatives that can be recommended in place of animal testing.

This review was based on a cross-sectional survey by Clemence and Leaman ( 11 ) that analysed the importance of animal testing from two different aspects: medicine and cosmetics. The population consisted of individuals residing in the UK, and the sample size was 987 (= 0.03). The research included 496 men and 491 women. The report compared public views with the responses from a similar study in 2014 that had 969 participants (477 men and 492 women). The inclusion criteria were based on numerous strata such as gender, social grade definitions (i.e., professionals such as doctors and architects, people with responsible jobs such as professors, middle rank public servants such as nurses and clerics, skilled manual workers, etc.), respondents’ working status (fulltime, part-time, not working), ethnicity (white, non-white), and educational background. This report measured public perception on whether it is ethical to use animal testing for medical or cosmetics purposes. Participants were required to state whether they found it acceptable, mostly unacceptable, unacceptable, or were undecided. Consequently, the same participants were also tasked to indicate whether they saw conducting animal testing for scientific experimentation as completely necessary, somewhat necessary, not very necessary, completely unnecessary, or they did not know.

The study also utilized data from the UK Home Office ( 12 ) to determine which animals were most frequently used for medical and cosmetics research around the world. This report also provided crucial information as to the purposes of animal testing, for instance for medical research, biological testing, regulatory testing, etc.

According to the UK Home Office ( 12 ), in the year 2016, 48.6% of the animal tests in medical research were conducted for genetically oriented studies. Moreover, 28.5% of the medical research involving animal testing was for basic biological research, 13.5% was for regulatory

testing, 8.6% was for translating research from animals to humans, and 0.8% for other trainings. This is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Purposes of Animal Testing in Medicine

Data from the UK Home Office ( 10 ) indicates that the most commonly used animals for medical and cosmetics research are mice and rabbits (72.8%), fish (13.6%), rats (6.3%), birds (3.9%) and other animal species representing 3.4% of the total test animal population, as indicated in Figure 2 below.

Types of Animals Used in Testing

A published report ( 12 ) indicated that 17% of the sampled group viewed animal testing for medical research as ‘mostly unacceptable’ if there were no alternative, 17% as ‘not acceptable’, and 65% as ‘acceptable’. This was in stark contrast with testing for cosmetics purposes, to which an overwhelming 80% of the participants responded as ‘unacceptable’. The summary of the results is provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below.

Animal Testing for Medical Research

Animal Testing for Cosmetics Research

 In the same study ( 12 ), the participants were asked about the necessity of conducting scientific experiments on animals, which 38% of the respondents viewed as ‘completely necessary’, 23% as ‘somewhat necessary’, 20% as ‘not very necessary’, and 16% as ‘completely unnecessary’. The results are summarized in Figure 5 below.

Necessity of Conducting Scientific Experiments on Animals

The application of these methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetics was the most detested as stated by about 80% of the people who were interviewed during the investigation. The sensitivity to human life, on the other hand, reduces the strictness towards utilization of animals to find anti-viruses and antibiotics for various diseases.

The outcome portrays the essentiality of using animals to determine materials that would help the population to live healthily ( 13 ). However, in the past few decades, the number of animals used for testing drugs has been steadily decreasing ( 14 ).

The data indicates that most of the medical research processes involving animal testing emanate from genetically oriented studies, which constitute 48.6% of the medical research animal testing. Experimentation on human genetics presents various legal and ethical challenges to medical and biological researchers, alongside problems in creating experimental procedures using human test subjects. These problems occur partially due to the fact that the experimentation processes involved in these types of studies often lead to extensive gene and physiological damages to the test subjects. Such experiments typically involve deliberate presentation of diseases and other gene modifications to the test subjects, usually requiring the euthanizing of the involved subjects ( 15 ). The animal testing experimentations involving genetic processes include studies in gene modification and examine diseases believed to hold genetic components, such as cancer and diabetes ( 16 ). These experimentation processes typically involve some sort of gene modification that can simulate the presentation of genetically based disorders manifested in human beings to allow researchers to better understand those disorders.

The data also indicate that another major application of animal testing in the medical field is in basic research in biological systems and processes, which accounts for 28.5% of the testing categories. This application of animal testing in medical research involves studies in how biological systems function, and the nature and manner of disease transmission in living organisms. The findings accrued through these kinds of studies translate to advancements in the scientific knowledge of human pathology and present opportunities for the derivation and testing of cures, as noted by Festing and Wilkinson ( 17 ).

The findings further present that regulatory testing (13.5%) and animal to human translation research (8.6%) account for significant portions of the application of animal testing in the medical field. The use of animal testing for regulatory testing purposes involves applying new medical findings, procedures and products to animals to see if they meet the thresholds mandated by the medical regulatory bodies. Translation of research findings from animals to humans involves conducting research into the possibility of animal pathogens becoming infectious to humans, and identifying potential ways of applying non-human physiology to the improvement of human health. Other forms of medical and biological trainings and studies that also engage the use of animals in experimentation in the medical field include elements such as basic physiology and pathogen studies, typically conducted in educational institutions.

Animal testing in the field of cosmetics generally involves the use of animal subjects in testing new cosmetics products and ingredients. The practice essentially involves the application or forced ingestion or injection of these substances to various parts of test animals to examine their toxicity, irritation of the eyes and/or skin, ultraviolet light-triggered toxicity, and their potential for causing unwanted gene mutations ( 18 ).

The use of animal testing in the field of cosmetics research and production presents an unethical viewpoint since the findings do not advance human health, and the practice leads to the torture and killing of animals. The Humane Society ( 18 ) also notes that at the conclusion of the experimentation, the animals are usually killed through methods such as decapitation, neck twisting and asphyxiation, often without pain relief.

With regard to the ethical principles of animal testing in both fields, a convincing argument should first be presented to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This is to justify the need for a researcher to conduct animal studies, and to ensure that the research is conducted using the smallest possible number of animals and with minimal suffering. Additionally, Naderi et al. ( 19 ) noted an increased level of legislation on the matter of animal testing, with researchers being required to submit comprehensive proposals to the IACUC to demonstrate procedural compliance with the guiding principles of the organization before conducting animal tests. Furthermore, Holden ( 20 ) highlighted the fact that researchers need to justify to review and ethics committees the use of mice rather than other alternatives in experiments. These issues indicate that researchers should look for alternatives to animal testing before proceeding with animal trials.

The issue then remains on the nature and availability of alternatives to animal testing in the medical research field. Researchers have undertaken measures to introduce some levels of such alternatives in medical studies. The accrued data indicate that a significant number of people agree with animal testing for medical research, especially when compared to those who agree with animal testing for cosmetics purposes. The data obtained from the studies indicate a slow but perceptible shift in the public opinions regarding animal testing for medical research purposes. People are increasingly finding it unacceptable to use animal test subjects even in medical research. However, the majority of the sampled people believed that medical testing procedures should use animal test subjects, but only when there is no other alternative. This indicates that people view animal testing for medical research as ethical, but under certain conditions.

The use of animals in research is still relevant because the process is useful in veterinary medicine as it helps the students understand the physiology and anatomy and improves surgical skills ( 21 ). The study by Badyal and Desai ( 5 ) supports this perception by highlighting the fact that animal use in laboratory investigation will make new discoveries possible. However, researchers should apply ethical concepts to reduce the amount of pain and unnecessary procedures for the animals. Moreover, animal testing to develop new drugs will continue to protect the future existence of humanity. Cheluvappa, et al. ( 22 ) reiterate that animal experimentation will remain essential to testing future medicine because it helps scientists understand the changes of behaviour, embryology and genetics through dissections that are conducted on the genetically produced animals.

Animals play an important role in testing human drugs as they have a large number of medical reactions similar to those of human beings. Specifically, animals such as dogs, mice and rabbits have an identical DNA that cannot be replicated through artificial models. Public concern for the increasing use of animals in terms of ethics and safety provokes anxiety among the population. Conversely, these uncertainties and unavailability of trustable alternatives show the importance of using animals in medical research as the scientists aim to protect the human race ( 23 ).

However, the use of animals to test cosmetics is highly limited due to the availability of alternative sources. For instance, The Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association (LAVA) claims that the UK government prohibits any individual from using animals to determine the suitability of cosmetics to the human body ( 13 , 24 ). In its circular, The European Union states that they have succeeded in developing alternative measures that cosmetics firms can apply to test their products without using laboratory animals ( 25 ).

Recommendations: Alternatives to Animal Testing

To improve business ethics in cosmetics companies, it is necessary for alternatives to be integrated instead of animals. Companies can employ assessment of scientific barriers to find replacements for animal test subjects and to procure the knowledge of correctly using animals for medical and cosmetics tests. Sophisticated tests on human cells or tissues, computer-modelling techniques, and experiments on people who volunteer are some measures that can limit acts of animal cruelty by cosmetics companies. Companies need to integrate tests that minimize involvement of animals in order to limit the possibility of animal cruelty, and consequently improve their business ethics. Some of the recommended alternatives are listed here.

Computer Simulation

The concept was developed by Denis Noble, and the system is currently enrolled in clinical settings. These simulations are used to test heart replacements, and are also applied to explore human behavior. Various scholars provide that this model is more accurate than animal experiments because it uses human data to analyse diseases and make predictions ( 26 ).

Stem cells are proper alternatives to the in vitro systems of disease testing and toxin evaluations ( 27 ). The experiments involve evaluation of embryonic stem cells that can be grown in Petri dishes. The Petri dishes can be placed in the cells, and after that the resulting components are placed under evaluation to help in the discovery of new medications. Stem cells are essential because they can differentiate into human tissues and make it possible to screen the suspected diseases ( 26 ).

These materials are majorly utilized in the cosmetics industry to minimize the number of animals used to test the level of toxicity in a product. Significantly, investigations showed that human tissues developed in laboratories can be used to assess the allergic responses to the available chemicals ( 28 ). These results can then be analysed by comparing reactions, and a bio signature of genes is used to make appropriate interventions.

Notably, scientists can take high-resolution pictures of human tissues, which are then analyzed with the help of various computer systems. The advantage of this model is characterized by its ability to customize the parts of the organism under consideration. Moreover, 3D images also develop prototype designs and materials that can be used to investigate the existing and future ailments ( 29 ).

This study indicates that it is justifiable to use animals in experimentations only when there are no alternatives, and the tests have significant benefits to humans. Many researchers are working towards finding options that will help eliminate the use of animals for medical and cosmetics tests. The different natures of tests conducted on animals in the fields of medicine and cosmetics tend to have clear negative implications. For such reasons, it is imperative for organizations to develop practices that endorse business ethics. Although animal tests are ideal in establishing whether drugs can be effective in treating humans for various ailments, entities that conduct these tests need to be educated about the gravity of the situation. Animals have been extremely useful in conducting genetic studies and for biological systems investigations. However, a comparison between animal tests in medicine and cosmetics reveals that their benefits in the field of medicine outweigh those in cosmetics. Therefore, animals are essential contributors to scientific experiments that are affiliated with the medical industry. The effects that medical products may have on humans make it ethical to carry out the tests on animals first.

After analysing the arguments of both the supporters and opponents involved in the controversial subject of animal testing, it is difficult to determine which direction is right or wrong. However, the agreement is that animal suffering be minimized at all costs. This research concludes that cosmetics companies should adhere to the established laws and principles against the use and abuse of animals in tests and should seek alternative methods to test their products.

Acknowledgements

Citation to this article:

Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019; 12: 15.

Conflict of Interests

Authors declare having no conflict of interest.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing

Argumentative Essays on Animal Testing

Hook examples for animal testing essays, the ethical dilemma hook.

Begin your essay by presenting the ethical dilemma surrounding animal testing. Explore the moral questions it raises and the conflicting viewpoints of proponents and opponents.

The Historical Perspective Hook

Take your readers on a journey through the history of animal testing. Discuss its origins, evolution, and its role in scientific and medical advancements over time.

The Scientific Advancements Hook

Highlight the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that have resulted from animal testing. Discuss how it has contributed to medical treatments, vaccines, and the understanding of diseases.

The Alternatives and Innovations Hook

Explore alternative methods and innovations in research that aim to replace or reduce the use of animals in testing. Discuss advancements like in vitro testing and computer modeling.

The Animal Welfare Hook

Focus on the welfare and ethical treatment of animals used in testing. Discuss regulations, guidelines, and efforts to minimize harm and suffering in research.

The Legal and Regulatory Landscape Hook

Examine the legal and regulatory framework surrounding animal testing in different countries. Discuss laws, restrictions, and their enforcement.

The Public Opinion and Activism Hook

Discuss public perceptions of animal testing and the role of animal rights activists in advocating for change. Highlight notable campaigns and their impact.

The Unintended Consequences Hook

Explore unintended consequences or risks associated with animal testing, such as potential harm to humans due to species differences or the limitations of animal models.

The Future of Research Hook

Discuss the future of scientific research and the possibilities for reducing or eliminating animal testing. Explore emerging technologies and trends in biomedical research.

The Personal Story Hook

Share a personal or anecdotal story related to animal testing, such as the experiences of a researcher, activist, or someone affected by medical advancements achieved through animal testing.

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

The negative consequences of animal testing, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Ethical Statement for Animal Testing

Arguments aganist using animals in experiments and testing, reasons to stop animal testing, the reasons why animal testing should be stopped, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Discussion Whether Animals Testing is Necessary

An argument favoring the use of animals in testing and the benefits it has brought, animal testing in modern world, pros and cons of animal testing: the conflicting debate, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Ethics of Animal Testing: an Argument Against Its Practice

Discussion: should animals be used for scientific research, the arguments concerning animal testing, why animal testing should be viewed as beneficial, saving the animals: alternative ways to test products, discussion on whether scientists should be allowed to test products on animals, the arguments why we should not test on animals, reasons why animal testing should be forbidden, why we should not continue test on animals, arguments for the reduction of animal testing, the problem of human cruelty to animals, how animal testing benefits us from diseases, stop the cruel and unnecessary animal testing, animal testing and alternatives for developing cruelty-free makeup, animals should not be a part of scientific research, worldwide problem of animal testing, analysis of the perspectives in support for animal testing and against it, animal testing in the united states, animal testing in the world, arguments for eliminating the use of animal testing.

Animal testing, referred to as animal experimentation, animal research, or in vivo testing, involves the utilization of animals other than humans in scientific experiments aimed at manipulating the factors influencing the behavior or biological processes being investigated.

Throughout history, the practice of animal testing has deep roots dating back centuries. The earliest recorded instances can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where animals were used for various scientific and medical purposes. The Greek physician Galen, during the second century AD, conducted experiments on animals to understand human anatomy and physiology. However, the formal establishment of animal testing as a systematic approach began to take shape during the 19th century with the emergence of modern medical research. In the late 1800s, advances in scientific knowledge and technology led to an increased demand for animal testing in various fields, including medicine, toxicology, and physiology. The development of anesthesia further facilitated the experimentation on animals by reducing pain and discomfort. Throughout the 20th century, animal testing became more widespread and institutionalized, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.

Public opinion on animal testing is a complex and diverse topic, with viewpoints spanning a wide spectrum. While there are those who support the use of animals in scientific research for the advancement of human knowledge and medical breakthroughs, others express strong opposition due to ethical concerns and the perceived mistreatment of animals. Some people argue that animal testing is necessary for the development of life-saving treatments and the improvement of human health. They believe that animals provide valuable insights into human biology and the effectiveness of potential therapies. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing argue that it is cruel and unnecessary, advocating for alternative methods such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and human cell-based assays. Public opinion on animal testing often hinges on the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare. The growing awareness of animal rights and ethical considerations has fueled debates and discussions surrounding the topic. As society becomes more conscious of animal welfare, there is an increasing demand for alternative testing methods and greater transparency in the treatment of animals involved in research. Ultimately, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping policies and regulations surrounding animal testing.

1. Scientific advancement. 2. Human health and safety. 3. Understanding diseases. 4. Regulatory requirements. 5. Animal welfare improvements.

1. Ethical concerns. 2. Inadequate human relevance. 3. Availability of alternatives. 4. Animal welfare. 5. Speciesism and moral status.

One example of media representation is the documentary "Earthlings" directed by Shaun Monson. This influential film explores different aspects of animal exploitation, including animal testing, and highlights the ethical concerns surrounding the practice. It has garnered widespread attention and prompted discussions about the treatment of animals in scientific research. Social media platforms have also become powerful tools for activists and organizations to share information and advocate for alternatives to animal testing. Hashtags like #StopAnimalTesting and #CrueltyFree have gained traction, raising awareness and encouraging conversations on the topic.

The topic of animal testing is important due to its ethical, scientific, and societal implications. From an ethical standpoint, it raises profound questions about the treatment of sentient beings and the moral responsibility we have towards animals. It prompts us to consider the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare, urging us to explore alternative methods that minimize harm. Scientifically, animal testing has been instrumental in advancing medical knowledge and developing treatments for various diseases. However, it is essential to continually evaluate its effectiveness, limitations, and potential alternatives to ensure both human and animal well-being. Furthermore, the issue of animal testing has societal implications as it reflects our values and priorities as a society. It prompts discussions about our relationship with animals, the extent of their rights, and the importance of promoting more humane practices.

The topic of animal testing is worth writing an essay about due to its complex nature and the multitude of perspectives it encompasses. It is a subject that elicits strong emotions and raises critical ethical, scientific, and social questions. Writing an essay on animal testing allows for an in-depth exploration of these issues and encourages critical thinking and analysis. By delving into the topic, one can examine the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in experiments, weighing the potential benefits against the moral implications. Additionally, it provides an opportunity to evaluate the scientific validity and reliability of animal testing as a method for understanding human biology and developing medical treatments. Furthermore, an essay on animal testing opens avenues for discussing alternative approaches and advancements in technology that can reduce or replace animal experimentation. It allows for an exploration of the societal impact of animal testing, including public opinion, legislation, and the influence of media.

1. Each year, millions of animals are used in scientific experiments worldwide. According to estimates, over 100 million animals, including rabbits, mice, rats, dogs, and primates, are subjected to testing for various purposes, such as biomedical research, drug development, and toxicity testing. 2. Animal testing is not always reliable in predicting human outcomes. Studies have shown that there can be significant differences between animals and humans in terms of anatomy, physiology, and drug metabolism. This raises concerns about the validity and relevance of using animal models for understanding human diseases and developing treatments. 3. Alternatives to animal testing are emerging and gaining traction. Scientists and researchers are actively exploring innovative methods, such as in vitro cell cultures, computer modeling, and organ-on-a-chip technology, to simulate human biology and predict human responses more accurately. These alternative approaches aim to reduce or eliminate the need for animal testing while still ensuring the safety and efficacy of new products and treatments.

1. Abbott, A. (2005). Animal testing: more than a cosmetic change. Nature, 438(7065), 144-147. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA185466349&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E513ffe31) 2. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096 Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. 3. Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ Heart views: the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12(1), 42. 4. Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought… on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 26(1), 3-16. (https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/633) 5. Valappil, S. P., Misra, S. K., Boccaccini, A. R., & Roy, I. (2006). Biomedical applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in vivo responses. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 3(6), 853-868. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/17434440.3.6.853) 6. File, S. E., Lippa, A. S., Beer, B., & Lippa, M. T. (2004). Animal tests of anxiety. Current protocols in neuroscience, 26(1), 8-3. (https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471142301.ns0803s26) 7. Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261192920965977) 8. Donnellan, L. (2006). Animal testing in cosmetics: recent developments in the European Union and the United States. Animal L., 13, 251. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/anim13&div=18&id=&page=)

Relevant topics

• Gun Violence
• Discrimination
• Death Penalty
• Homelessness
• Women's Rights
• Black Lives Matter
• Pro Life (Abortion)

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Animal Testing: Introduction

Animal testing: debatable questions, animal testing: conclusion.

Animal testing denotes the use of animals in medical experiments to unveil the potency, safety, toxicity, and viability of developed drugs. Concurrently, the phenomenon also applies to other biological experiments, which utilize animals as specimens. The method incorporates the administration of pharmaceutical compounds into biological systems (test animals).

This usually occurs for scientific purposes and medical developments. The process is debatable and has been disputed by animal activists, religious groups, and ethical communities who believe that the trend is immoral and inappropriate since animals cannot be compared with human beings (Panza & Potthast, 2010).

Animal testing usually involve vertebrates like rodents, cats, dogs, birds, and Guinea pigs among others. Since this is a disputable phenomenon, where one can argue for or against the act, this paper supports the aspects of animal testing with bountiful reasons based on its viability in investigating pharmacological compounds. Without animal testing, numerous drugs, which currently help the humankind, could have missed.

Since human beings cannot commence crude pharmaceutical investigations as test specimens, using test animals is significant in this context. It is advisable to execute scientific investigations elsewhere before introducing them into human beings. It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations and scientific discoveries.

With regard to animal testing, debatable questions emerge. In this paper, “Should animal testing be abandoned due to ethical claims surrounding it?” forms the debated question. This question tries to unveil whether it is viable for biologists and medical scientists to cease from using animals for experimental investigations.

Despite the conventional use of these animals in numerous scientific experiments, it is still debatable on their viability and potency. Arguably, the animal testing phenomenon should continue with regard to scientific investigations.

The need for efficacy, safety, novelty, and certainty in the realms of drug-use require thorough investigative experiments, which can only materialize when test animals are incorporated. Firstly, some animal have systems that resemble those of human beings; thus, the ability to use such animals give a broader chance of executing an elaborate experimental investigation.

Using animals as representative of humans is a critical phenomenon when scrutinized critically. There are numerous individuals who have disputed this claim as stated in the research question. The desire to continue with the animal testing phenomenon has infuriated numerous activists who are against it (Panza & Potthast, 2010).

Nonetheless, it is evident and appropriate that this phenomenon should continue for further discoveries to be realized. It is questionable how further medical research will occur and how this will materialize without the use of test animals. This is an impossible phenomenon, which demands those who are arguing against animal testing to reconsider their stands.

Another issue is that human beings cannot be used as experimental animals. The drugs administered into humans must be of some quality, minimized toxicity, viable to use, potent, safe, and effective. This means that they have been investigated and approved by the concerned bodies after scientific investigations. If animal testing will be abandoned, no effective experimentation will occur on biological vessels.

Evidently, invitro (using experimental tubes) experimentations are slow and incomprehensive. This means that scientific investigations will delay and sometimes results might not occur. It is vital to consider that animal testing has helped significantly since its inception several decades ago. It has remained a viable, trusted, and considerable experimental design for pharmaceutical products and other scientific investigations.

Harrison & Hester (2006), which identifies alternative of animal testing, agrees that attaining an alternative of this trend is daunting and minimally achievable. Scientific considerations support this trend since there are limited alternatives to replace the method comprehensively (Harrison & Hester, 2006).

Those who are against animal testing claim that animals are not human beings and equating the two is inconsiderable. Evidently, animal are not exact copies of humans. There are numerous differences noticeable amidst the two factions. Additionally, they argue that what works best in a guinea pig (an experimental animal), might not exactly perform in humans.

The two factions (humans and test animals) are different hence the assumption that they can emulate each other is misled. Notably, this argument is understandable; however, as the situation stands, it is still appropriate to conduct animal testing to help in research investigations. Humans can hardly be used for crude or undeveloped researches as the ones done with test animals. This means that animal testing is still the best option.

According to Schmidt (2001), which discusses the aspects of animal testing, recognizes that it is important to infer that what is inconsumable for test animals is similarly consumable for humans. It is possible to note the adverse effects of drugs with animals, make appropriate changes in the composition of the tested drug, and later emerge with effective, safe, and potent compound worth human utilization.

Watson (2009), which describes the ethical issues related to animal testing, argues that some ethical claims behind the animal testing are baseless when compared to human lives saved daily due to animal testing executed to investigate proper and effective drugs. A mere claim that it is immoral to inject or administer unworthy compounds into an innocent animal while doing research is superfluous. This simply means that those who are against animal testing hardly want researches to be done using animals.

This is good and considerable; however, these very people hardly provide viable alternatives that can work better compared to the conventional animal testing provisions. Besides, they are also among those who gain from the findings and results achieved from such investigations. Evidently, almost all drugs currently used in the world at one point passed through animal testing to unveil their viability, safety, efficacy, toxicity levels, and other viable provisions demanded in this context.

Concurrently, it is inappropriate to abandon animal testing as claimed by the activists. The current discoveries on genetics, reproduction, developmental biology, and study of behaviors among others could have not materialized minus animal testing.

Additionally, there are other viable provisions that characterize the phenomenon besides the known pharmaceutical investigations which usually occur using test animals as stipulated before. In these mentioned fields, there are still considerable knowledge gaps that will necessitate further application of animal testing in order to unveil additional information.

This phenomenon can hardly occur minus animal testing since there will be no specimens for further research. The ethical claims fronted by the mentioned activists should cease from hindering further investigations (Watson, 2009). It is evident that discoveries made from animal testing are numerous and helpful to the human race as indicated earlier. The need for more investigations and application of animal testing will continue to exist following its viability, applicability, and reliability in the aspects of research.

The viewpoint that animals equally have moral rights is evident; however, it is disputable in this context since it acts as a hindrance to lucrative investigations and discoveries that are helpful to the humankind. Hayhurst (2000), which debates on animal rights, denotes that individuals who perceive animal as having rights are equally accurate in their opinions; nonetheless, they should also consider the merits of animal testing to their lives and beyond.

This relates to the ethical arguments posted with regard to this topic. It forms the center of argument from various people. It is crucial to denote that animal testing has numerous provisions worth noting in varying contexts. This relates to its viability and potency in unveiling the less investigated claims with regard to life. According to various sources, some arguments regarding the aspects of animal testing are invalid and misleading (Hayhurst, 2000). They simply emerge from undue compassion for animals.

This contributes to why this paper agrees with the continuity of animal testing. Precisely, its merits surpass its baseless flaws numerous times. It is recommendable to scrutinize these arguments before they derail the realities that encompass a given matter. It is crucial to consider such provisions following their viability in this context.

Additionally, those who argue against animal testing claim that such animals lack the capacity to express themselves hence can hardly show their pain, dissatisfaction, and suffering.

This is a critical claim; however, it is not enough to support the ban against animal testing. Conversely, scientists, medics, and biologists who use such animals apply moral aspects to their undertakings; hence, will barely intend to harm such experimental animals. Since such ethical observations are carried out within the mentioned experimental testing, it is considerable to continue with the animal testing phenomenon. Adjusting the conditions of these tests might equally help in upholding the ethical demands.

Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness. It is daunting and time consuming to develop therapeutic and diagnostic compounds from human beings. This relates to the aspects of delay claimed earlier.

Scientists will not be able to attain their demands in time. This might discourage them from continuing with investigations. Since the use of animal testing provides instant results, its application is widespread, applicable, and viable in numerous contexts. The aspects of safety indicated earlier in these claims equally contribute to the applicability of animal testing. It is improper to execute unsafe experiments or unverified drugs on humans.

The repercussions might be devastating than when it was applied on test animals (Schmidt, 2001). For example, developments and investigations on HIV drugs cannot occur on humans at their initial stages. It is advisable to develop them through animal testing before rendering them usable by humans. It is possible to adjust the composition of the given compound to unveil its viable concentrations. Emerging with instant results supports the application of animal testing and contributes massively in this context.

Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs. Following the merits of animal testing, its application and advancements should continue while observing ethical concerns.

Harrison, R. & Hester, R. (2006). Alternatives to Animal Testing . Ohio, OH: Cengage Learning.

Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal testing: The animal rights debate . New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.

Panza, C. & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics For Dummies . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Schmidt, A. (2001). Animal testing in infectiology . Basel: Karger.

Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics . New York, NY: Rosen Pub.

• Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay
• Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
• Enhancement Drugs in Sports Should Be Banned: An Argumentative Paper
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation
• Burmese Pythons
• Grass Fed versus Grain and Corn Fed Animals
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing
• The Impact of Burmese Pythons on Florida’s Native Biodiversity
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 6). Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/

"Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 6 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay'. 6 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

A decade’s worth of wins against cosmetics animal testing

Kitty Block and Sara Amundson

Tomorrow, March 11, 2023, marks the 10-year anniversary of a historic paradigm shift away from cosmetics animal testing . When the European Union and Israel became the world’s first markets to ban animal tests for cosmetics such as makeup, shampoo and cologne, the change jump-started our global campaign to extend this precedent. It’s incredible to see all that we’ve accomplished since then: Norway, India, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Switzerland, Guatemala, Australia and Mexico have all enacted national measures against cosmetics animal testing. Through sustained advocacy efforts made possible by our multinational presence, we’ve secured cosmetics animal testing and sales bans on nearly every continent. This progress not only spares animals from needless suffering but puts pressure on other nations to follow suit or risk losing the ability to export and sell their cosmetics to key markets. The number of country-level cosmetics animal testing sales bans or restrictions has risen from 28 to 43, and that’s not even counting 10 state-level bans in the U.S. and 13 more in Brazil.

And that’s just the legislative progress: On the corporate side, we’ve seen just as much enthusiasm for using non-animal testing methods that are more relevant to human safety than the painful chemical tests carried out on guinea pigs, rabbits, mice and rats. Many of the top beauty brands in the world—Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Avon, L'Oréal, Johnson & Johnson—have joined us, our longtime partner Lush Cosmetics and our local NGO partners to outlaw cosmetics testing on animals in many of the world’s most influential economies.

You have helped to make this more humane world a reality; consumer demand has spurred a cruelty-free products sector now valued in the  billions . And even more people became active on this issue when Save Ralph , our short film that featured rabbit Ralph’s life as a laboratory “tester,” inspired nearly 800 million #SaveRalph posts and homages on TikTok, driving more than 5 million people to sign one of our petitions, and prompting Mexico to become the first country in North America to pass a ban and led to renewed campaign momentum in other countries.

As we celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the EU and Israel bans, we’re looking forward to the fights ahead. Here’s where we’re working and how you can help:

• In the U.S., we continue to push for the passage of the bipartisan  Humane Cosmetics Act , which would prohibit the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetics. Last year, the bill garnered immense support, with 20 senators and 188 representatives co-sponsoring the legislation. The bill is also endorsed by the Personal Care Products Council, as well as hundreds of companies, including Whole Foods Market. We expect the measure to be reintroduced soon, and we’re determined to work toward its passage in the 118th Congress. You can urge your legislator to support an end to cosmetics testing on animals . In the meantime, we are active on the state level, pressing for additional laws to prohibit the sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals.
• In Canada, bills backed by Humane Society International/Canada and our partners have fallen just shy of becoming law. In 2021, we helped secure an election pledge by the country’s ruling party to introduce legislation to end cosmetic testing on animals by 2023, and our team is working closely with the Canadian industry and other stakeholders to hold the government to its commitment. You can sign our petition to urge the Canadian government to include cosmetics animal testing ban language in its 2023 budget bill.
• In Brazil earlier this month, we celebrated the introduction of a regulation that would restrict some animal testing for cosmetic purposes countrywide. The measure builds on the state-level testing bans we have previously secured there and provides further incentive for lawmakers to enact a federal law that HSI, our partners and the Brazilian industry association have been championing. (You can sign our petition to encourage Brazilian lawmakers to take action .)
• In Chile, a federal bill backed by HSI, our NGO partner and the national industry association is only one step away from becoming law. Please sign our petition to help us push it across the finish line.
• Even in the EU, the landmark 10-year-old ban on animal testing in the cosmetics regulation faces challenges from regulators who are demanding new animal testing for cosmetic ingredients under the EU’s chemicals regulation. This is unacceptable, and our team is spearheading a call for essential revisions to the law in order to advance the goal of safety innovation without animal suffering.
• In addition to our campaign efforts, HSI has been working with global industry partners via the Animal-Free Safety Assessment Collaboration to create a first-of-its-kind master class in animal-free cosmetic safety assessment. The AFSA Master Class will support smaller companies, government authorities and other stakeholders in a transition to state-of-the-art non-animal methods. This training and capacity-building effort is a vital complement to our policy efforts, to build understanding, confidence and acceptance of new non-animal approaches, assuring human safety is maintained and providing vital information on how to comply with animal testing bans.

There is so much to be proud of in this work, and we’re honored to have led the way this far. With your continued advocacy, we’re surely close to a world where cosmetics testing on animals is only a distant memory.

Sara Amundson is president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

Taking Suffering Out of Science

About the author

Kitty Block is President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States and CEO of Humane Society International, the international affiliate of the HSUS

Subscribe to the blog

Get all of Kitty's latest updates delivered to your inbox.

Also of interest

Major win: Canada just banned cosmetics animal testing and trade

In major win for animals, Mexico bans animal testing for cosmetics

Cosmetics animal testing is in the spotlight—now’s the time to end it

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Testing Cosmetics on Animals, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 927

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

  “We call them dumb animals, and so they are, for they cannot tell us how they feel, but they do not suffer less because they have no words.”

— Anna Sewell

In the contemporary world of fierce competition companies are trying to increase their sales by all means. Most of the time, companies are not much concerned about the ethics of their choice of product development and product testing. Nearly all producers of cosmetics openly violate certain ethical ideas and standards, including the conduct of chemical tests on animals. Every year millions of animals suffer and even die, as a result of such unsuccessful experiments. It is my belief that a great number of cosmetics companies have an ability to minimize the exercise of animal testing and find alternative ways of ensuring their products to be safe for human beings. Imagine being locked in the cage of the laboratory for weeks, have deadly chemicals being pumped into your blood, experiencing pain and fear, and finally die a useless and absurd death. In my essay, I will try to convince the audience that testing of cosmetics on animals leads to worthless deaths of friendly and harmless creatures, while alternative ways of experimenting chemicals do exist and can substitute animal testing easily. The goal of my paper is to inform the reader about the basis of testing cosmetics on animals, indentify its negative consequences, and state the alternative ways of testing the chemicals in question.

“Every year, cosmetics companies kill millions of animals to test their products” (Cosmetic Testing Facts, 2009). Supposedly, such tests are establishing safety and harmlessness of the ingredients used in the production of cosmetics. The experiments examine different effects of the drug or chemical on the animal, including toxicity, skin irritation, and eye tissue damage. Moreover, sometimes animals are intentionally given a disease to test if a new drug or chemical will be able to fight the infection. Undoubtedly, in most case such animals are destined to die. “In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues” (Cosmetic Testing Facts, 2009). The procedure is so painful that rabbits often break their necks and backs in an attempt to escape. Lethal Dosage test is used to identify the amount of matter that will kill a certain number of animals. Basically, the creatures are poisoned through various means, including inhalations, injections, and digestions.

However, it was proven that testing cosmetic chemicals on animals does not secure human beings from the hazards of the given substance, but rather measure its negative impact on the given species of animals. There is sound evidence that test results retrieved from an experiment conducted on rats cannot be applied to human beings under any circumstances. In addition, the test outcomes may be influenced by the animal’s sex, age, nutrition, and other unique characteristics. It is important to realize that animals that are being examined sustain horrible damages of their organs, tissues, and eyes. “Test animals may develop tumors or other nasty conditions, and are often killed intentionally at some point in the test so scientists can examine the animals’ innards for signs of damage” (Animal and Cosmetics Testing Laboratory, 2004).

Despite the use of animal testing for cosmetic products, non-animal experiments are widely used by companies with highly valued ethical standards. These systems appear to be more effective and less expensive at the same time. Progress in science opens new perspectives in researching new ingredients for cosmetics. Live animals are substituted by animal cells and skin tissues, to which the newly developed ingredients are applied. The process is being monitored by special mathematical models and computer programs. “Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include the elimination of redundant or needless study requirements, the replacement of animal tests with non-animal methods, and the modification of animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress” (Non-Animal Testing Methods, 2009). In fact, the easiest way to exclude the animals from the testing torture is for the cosmetic companies to use already developed and safe chemicals for their products. Surprisingly, even with the development of new technologies, many well-known companies still use animals for their research. Proctor & Gamble, Colgate, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Oral-B, Max Factor and Pantene are among them. The main reason for such big corporations to employ animal testing for the cosmetics is mainly because this way they are able to manipulate the results, due to the uncertainty and instability of the data collected from such experiments.

Summarizing the facts and arguments that I have provided in my paper, I want to emphasize that animals are still being used as lifeless puppets, whose life is not valued whatsoever. Hundreds of animals suffer, endure pain, and die every single day, due to the will of some business people, who are only concerned about their financial benefit. Humanity had created ways of excluding animals from the vicious circle of murder and misery by means of applying highly technological techniques and machinery. Next time you use your shampoo or toothpaste think how many rabbits, mice, monkeys, and other peaceful animals had been killed to get this product to your bathroom. Do you really want to buy something made of blood, fear, and pain?

Cosmetic Testing Facts. (2009). The Hidden Ingredient in Cosmetic Testing: Animal Suffering . Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html.

Animal and Cosmetics Testing Laboratory. (2004). Grinning Planet . Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-12/cosmetics-animal-testing-article.htm

Non-Animal Testing Methods. (2009). The Humane Society . Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/alternatives.html

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-12/cosmetics-animal-testing-article.htm

http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/alternatives.html

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Leonardo da Vinci, Essay Example

Nursing Theorists and Their Work, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Cosmetic Animal Testing Is Cruel – But There Are Alternatives

Animal testing is an outdated method of testing the safety of cosmetics. While many companies still rely on it, consumers are demanding cruelty-free alternatives.

Explainer • Animal Testing • Policy

Words by Rachel Graham

While we may think of animal testing for cosmetic products as a thing of the past, it’s a practice that causes the death of 500,000 animals every year , primarily rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, rats and mice. These animals have chemicals applied to their skin, injected into their bodies or smeared onto their eyes. They  often  undergo immense physical pain and mental torment just so  companies can produce the very latest lipstick or deodorant. Not only is there significant consumer demand to stop testing cosmetic products on animals, but there are now many alternatives to testing cosmetics on animals that produce more accurate and efficient results — and most importantly, don’t cost lives.

What Products Are Regulated as Cosmetics?

Under U.S. law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act considers cosmetic products to be any “articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body…for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.” This includes a wide range of products we buy every day, from skin moisturizers to shampoos to deodorants. This also includes any chemicals or substances that a manufacturer is intending to use as an ingredient in one of these products.

When Did Animals Start Being Used to Test Cosmetics?Widespread use of animal testing for cosmetics began in 1938 when the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act came into law, requiring cosmetic products to be safety tested before being sold to consumers. A key trigger for this was the death of one woman and the blinding of several others from a mascara known as Lash Lure. The product contained p-pheynenediamine, a then untested chemical that caused severe skin damage . 

There’s little debate that cases like this must be prevented, and that cosmetic products need to be safety tested before being applied to human skin — but many feel strongly that testing these products on animals is not the way to do it. In a survey carried out by the organization Cruelty Free International in the U.S. in 2019, 79 percent of respondents would support a federal law that would end animal testing for cosmetics.

Following the widespread introduction of testing cosmetics on animals, it wasn’t long before the Draize irritancy test was introduced and became the “gold standard” for testing cosmetic products on animals. This test was introduced in 1944, and involved the animals’ eyes and/or skin being subjected to harsh chemicals to determine whether or not they were safe enough to be used in cosmetic products. 

Are Cosmetic Products Still Being Tested on Animals? 

Unfortunately, animal testing for cosmetic products is still taking place today. In the U.S., the decision of whether or not to test cosmetics on animals is largely left up to the manufacturing company. In the European Union, conflicting regulations —between requirements on safety testing to protect workers, and a directive to avoid animal testing unless absolutely necessary — mean that animal testing is still used on some substances only for cosmetic products. While China no longer requires cosmetic products to be safety tested on animals, particular products such as hair dyes require a license that can only be granted once data from animal safety tests are submitted. Which Animals Are Used by the Industry for Testing?

Precise numbers of each species used are difficult to ascertain, but animals used to test the safety of cosmetics include rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats and hamsters. There is little scientific basis for these species being used;  the animals are often selected instead for their practicality . These animals breed easily, have short gestation periods and therefore reproduce at a rapid rate. They are also cheap to maintain in a laboratory environment, and because they are prey species, are easy for researchers to handle during experiments.

What Products Are Tested on Animals?

In countries where animal testing for cosmetic products is permitted, tests can be carried out on the finalized cosmetic products, or the individual ingredients in them. Testing makeup products on animals is a common example, but cosmetic products also include shampoos, deodorants and moisturizers, just to name a few. Instead of using chemicals and formulas that are already known to be safe for consumers, some companies are still developing new ones that they have no knowledge of the effects of, and testing them out on animals.

What Cosmetics Tests Are Performed on Animals? 

Skin absorption or dermal penetration.

Dermal penetration tests, also known as skin absorption tests, are carried out to determine the rate at which a chemical can penetrate the skin, and what happens to the substance once it is in the body. Animals, typically rats, have their backs shaved and various chemicals spread across their bare skin. The rats are then killed at various times in order to analyze their blood and tissue for changes related to the chemicals. Even if not for their ethical implications, there is no reason for these tests to still be carried out today; the technology exists for in vitro methods to be used instead. These involve models of human skin tissues, or parts of living organisms such as sample of cells.

Skin Sensitization

Skin sensitization tests are similar to dermal penetration tests and also require untested chemicals being smeared on an animal’s skin so that researchers can see how much damage they cause. Just as with dermal penetration tests, there are alternative skin sensitization tests that use in vitro methods and so don’t require lives to be ended. 

Acute Toxicity

Acute toxicity testing involves an animal being exposed to a chemical substance, either orally, through their skin, or by inhaling it. This can involve a single dose or multiple doses, and the animal is observed for 21 days afterwards to assess the substance’s toxicity . 

Draize Test — Chemicals Applied to an Animal’s Eyes

Draize testing involves chemicals being directly placed onto the eyes of the animals to evaluate the damage they can cause. Rabbits are commonly used for draize testing due to their large eyes and how easily they can be handled in the lab.

Skin Irritation

Skin corrosivity and irritation testing is an umbrella term used to refer to a range of methods used to test how a chemical can damage the skin, including the Draize test. These tests have largely fallen out of public favor due to their ineffectiveness in translating to humans , as well as their use of live animals. 

Where Is Cosmetics Testing on Animals Banned?

Animal testing for cosmetics has now been limited or banned in 42 countries around the world. Even in these countries, however, there are often exceptions to the rules that allow companies to still test harmful chemical substances on rabbits, mice and other animals. Campaigns are ongoing for the Humane Cosmetics Act to be passed in the United States so that animal testing for cosmetics here can be limited and eventually banned.

Is Animal Testing for Cosmetics Even Necessary? 

Animal testing is no longer necessary. Not only has scientific advancement provided us with alternative, more ethical methods of safety testing cosmetics, but also with options that are more accurate, efficient and cost-effective . 

 Are There Arguments for Testing on Animals?

The main argument used by those in favor of animal testing is that it allows cosmetic products to be tested on biological tissues before being applied to human skin. In many cases, however, the results they produce are not the same as the results of the chemical being used on human tissue. The absence of a viable argument for testing on animals may slowly but surely inch cosmetics companies closer to an overall end to animal testing .

What Are the Alternatives to Animal Testing? 

Thanks to scientific and technological advances in recent years, there are numerous alternatives to testing cosmetic products on animals. Along with not causing the suffering and deaths of thousands of animals, these alternatives often produce more reliable results and are more efficient to carry out.

Organ on Chip 

Organ on chip technology works by very small tissues being grown within microfluidic chips. These chips control the microenvironment of the cells so that human tissues can be accurately simulated. This technology can be used to mimic single organs or multiple organs, and can be more accurate and cost-effective than the methods that use animal models.

Computer Modeling

Also known as “in-silico modeling,” computer modeling for safety testing of cosmetics involves using computers to predict the toxicity of chemicals in the body. The technology works by using data from chemical substances we know to be similar to the test substance in order to predict how it will interact with certain proteins in the human body, and therefore any harm it might cause.

In Vitro Human Tissue

Instead of chemicals being applied to an animal’s eyes or skin, in vitro tests allow the substances to be applied to models of the human cornea or human epidermis , giving a more accurate picture of the effects of these cosmetics on humans. 

Human Volunteer Research

Chemicals that have unknown effects on human tissue cannot ethically be applied to a human either, so human volunteer testing can’t be considered a complete alternative to animal testing on its own. It can however be used after in vitro safety testing methods have been applied and the product is thought to be safe, to give final confirmation that the cosmetic product does not harm human skin.

Cosmetics Brands That Test on Animals

Despite increasing consumer demand for an end to animal testing and multiple available alternatives, some cosmetic brands still carry out tests on animals. Cosmetics brands that still use animal testing may do so themselves, or by using ingredients that a third party has produced using animal tests. The only way to be sure a product you use has not involved animal testing at any point in its production is if it is certified as “cruelty-free.”

How Do I Know If My Cosmetics Are Cruelty-Free?

Cruelty-free cosmetic products are ones that have not been tested on animals or had any of their ingredients tested on animals. Brands may attempt to get around this, however, by describing their products as being cruelty free when this is not actually the case. 

The best way to determine if a cosmetic product you’re buying is truly cruelty-free is to look for the Leaping Bunny logo . The Leaping Bunny certification program was set up in 1996 by a coalition of several animal protection groups to provide a single standard for brands to be certified as  cruelty-free. In addition to  looking for the Leaping Bunny logo on any cosmetic products you’re considering buying, the program also compiles a list of which brands have recommitted to being cruelty-free each year.

It’s important to note that just because a product is certified as cruelty-free, however, that doesn’t mean it’s vegan. While a Leaping Bunny logo signifies that no animal testing was used, a non-vegan product still has ingredients that are the result of animal confinement or slaughter. 

The Bottom Line

Animal testing is an outdated method of validating the safety of cosmetics. In addition to causing immense amounts of suffering for millions of animals around the world, animal testing isn’t effective nor is it economically viable. Thankfully, increasing demand for cruelty-free cosmetic products that use other methods of safety testing is on the rise, with more and more governments banning the sale of animal-tested products and the use of animal testing for cosmetics.

Independent Journalism Needs You

• A Tyson Exec Wrote Kentucky’s Ag-Gag Law. What Could Go Wrong?

Law & Policy • 4 min read

More Law & Policy

Ag-Gag Laws, and the Fight Over Them, Explained

Law & Policy • 11 min read

Are Lawsuits Against Big Meat the Next Path to Climate Justice?

Cities and climate activists seek accountability for meat and dairy in the court system.

Justice • 4 min read

Investigation

Australia Wants to Cull Crocodiles – But Farm Them for Leather, Too

Inside the crocodile farming industry’s dark calculations.

Investigations • 6 min read

Have the World’s Coral Reefs Already Crossed a Tipping Point?

Climate • 7 min read

How Factory Farming Exploits Female Reproductive Systems, Explained

Food • 9 min read

Beef Tallow Is the Latest Skin Care Craze to hit TikTok

Health • 5 min read

How the Farm Bill Could Quietly Reverse Prop 12

Law & Policy • 8 min read

• New Research on Animal Communication Shows Their Cultures Are Often Complex and Cumulative

Research • 7 min read

Most Read Today

• The 30 Most Intelligent Animals in the World Might Surprise You
• Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained
• Prosciutto’s Secret Ingredient: Horse Blood
• Why Eating Meat Is Bad for the Environment and Climate Change, Explained
• What Are the Causes and Effects of Deforestation?
• Does Veganism Kill More Animals? The Argument, Decoded

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Resources for You (Cosmetics)
• Resources for Consumers on Cosmetics

Cosmetics Safety Q&A: Animal Testing

FAQs Main Page

Does FDA require animal testing for cosmetics?

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does it subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, FDA has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.

Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety. In some cases, after considering available alternatives, companies may determine that animal testing is necessary to assure the safety of a product or ingredient.

FDA supports the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing as well as adherence to the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability when animals are used for testing the safety of cosmetic products. We will continue to be a strong advocate of methodologies for the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal tests with alternative methodologies that do not employ the use of animals.

To learn more, see  Animal Testing & Cosmetics .

More Resources:

• Cruelty Free/Not Tested on Animals : Information on cosmetic labeling claims
• FDA Authority Over Cosmetics
• FDA's Cosmetics main page
• Products & Ingredients
• Product Testing
• Resources for Consumers
• Science & Research

The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing

This essay is about the ethical and practical drawbacks of animal testing. It discusses the suffering inflicted on animals during experiments, raising serious moral concerns, especially with the availability of alternative methods. The essay questions the scientific validity of animal testing, noting that biological differences between animals and humans can lead to inaccurate results. It highlights advancements in technology, such as in vitro testing and organ-on-a-chip, which offer more humane and effective alternatives. Economic considerations and public opposition to animal testing are also examined, alongside the impact of consumer demand for cruelty-free products. The essay concludes that prioritizing humane research methods is both a moral and scientific necessity.

How it works

Animal experimentation has remained a contentious subject, evoking substantial moral, scientific, and pragmatic considerations. Despite its historical contributions to medical and scientific progress, the deficiencies inherent in employing animals for investigative purposes are significant and warrant careful scrutiny. The ethical quandaries, compounded by uncertainties regarding the reliability and indispensability of such assessments, necessitate meticulous evaluation.

Foremost among the concerns surrounding animal testing is the ethical conundrum it engenders. Numerous experiments entail procedures that inflict anguish, torment, and enduring detriment upon animals.

This raises profound ethical dilemmas regarding the justification of such practices, particularly in the presence of viable alternatives. The ethos of minimizing harm occupies a central position in ethical scientific inquiry, yet animal experimentation frequently runs counter to this ethos. Creatures subjected to research, such as rodents, lagomorphs, and primates, endure conditions and interventions that precipitate considerable physical and psychological anguish. Their captivity in constrained confines, deprivation of natural behaviors, and exposure to intrusive procedures exacerbate their plight, exacerbated by their incapacity to provide consent, rendering their utilization inherently exploitative.

Furthermore, the scientific validity of animal-based experiments is increasingly being scrutinized. Animals exhibit biological disparities from humans, potentially yielding results that are either inaccurate or inapplicable. Pharmaceuticals and therapies that demonstrate efficacy in animal models often falter in human clinical trials, underscoring the limitations of such modalities. Despite extensive testing in animal subjects, a significant proportion of prospective medications flounder during human clinical trials due to unforeseen side effects or ineffectiveness. This not only impugns the reliability of animal experimentation but also implies that resources could be more judiciously allocated to the development and deployment of alternative methodologies, likely yielding data that is more germane to human health outcomes.

Technological advancements have yielded viable substitutes for animal testing that are both humane and scientifically rigorous. In vitro assays, computational modeling, and human-derived tissue methodologies frequently obviate the necessity for animal models. These alternatives proffer more precise prognostications of human reactions to drugs and other substances, curtailing the risk of clinical trial setbacks. For instance, microfluidic organ-on-a-chip platforms employ human cellular substrates to simulate physiological responses, affording a more pertinent context for experimentation than animal counterparts. Such approaches not only assuage ethical misgivings but also harbor the potential to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of scientific inquiry.

The economic dimension of animal experimentation constitutes another salient consideration. The upkeep of animal facilities and execution of experiments entail considerable expenditure. The fiscal onus of these practices can be formidable, diverting resources from potentially more efficacious and ethical investigative methodologies. Investments in alternative testing modalities often prove more financially prudent in the long term, necessitating fewer resources and facilitating scalability relative to animal-based paradigms. Furthermore, diminishing reliance on animal experimentation accords with public sentiment and consumer demand for products untainted by cruelty, thereby burnishing the reputations and marketability of enterprises embracing more humane methodologies.

Public sentiment has increasingly turned against animal experimentation, propelled by burgeoning awareness of animal rights and the availability of alternative testing methodologies. Many individuals are disinclined to patronize products and endorse research entailing animal suffering, prompting intensified pressure on corporations and institutions to espouse ethical practices. Legislative initiatives in diverse jurisdictions have likewise mirrored this perceptual shift, culminating in the enactment of statutes and regulations curbing or proscribing animal experimentation, particularly concerning cosmetics and household products. This legal and societal transformation underscores the imperative for the scientific community to explore and invest in alternative modalities.

In addition to ethical, scientific, and economic considerations, the matter of species-specific responses merits attention. Animals frequently manifest divergent reactions to substances vis-à-vis humans, confounding the interpretation of experimental outcomes. For instance, a substance toxic to a rodent may prove innocuous to a human, and vice versa. This variability introduces an additional stratum of complexity to the elucidation of animal testing results, further impugning the utility of such approaches. Emphasizing alternative methodologies predicated on human-centric data can ameliorate these challenges and yield outcomes that are more precise and dependable.

Moreover, there exists the contention that the conditions prevailing in laboratory settings do not faithfully replicate the real-life circumstances to which humans are exposed, thereby impinging upon the validity of findings. Animals inhabiting laboratories contend with perpetual stressors that can engender physiological and psychological perturbations, potentially skewing experimental results. This regimented milieu diverges starkly from the intricate and variegated environments humans inhabit, casting doubt upon the applicability of findings derived from animal testing to human contexts.

Furthermore, the ascendancy of ethical consumerism has precipitated heightened scrutiny of corporate practices. Consumers are increasingly discerning and conscientious concerning the provenance and production methods of commodities. Enterprises persisting in animal experimentation confront censure and boycotts, with deleterious ramifications for their financial viability. Conversely, those embracing cruelty-free practices often enjoy augmented patronage and loyalty from an expanding demographic that esteems ethical production. This consumer-driven metamorphosis is impelling industries to innovate and devise alternatives to animal experimentation.

Additionally, animal experimentation portends a pronounced risk of exacerbating environmental imbalances. A plethora of animals earmarked for research are bred explicitly for this purpose, prompting inquiries into biodiversity and the ecological ramifications of sustaining these populations. The breeding and utilization of myriad animals annually for testing purposes engender far-reaching repercussions transcending immediate ethical and scientific apprehensions.

As we advance in genetics, biotechnology, and computational sciences, the rationale for animal experimentation becomes increasingly tenuous. Technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, 3D bioprinting, and sophisticated computer simulations furnish potent tools for researchers capable of replicating human physiological processes with greater fidelity than animal models. These innovations hold the promise of bridging the lacuna between preclinical investigations and human trials, potentially expediting the development of novel therapeutics and attenuating dependence on animal testing.

In summation, while animal experimentation has historically underwritten scientific and medical progress, its ethical and practical limitations warrant acknowledgment. The suffering inflicted upon animals, the dubious reliability of animal models, and the availability of alternative methodologies militate against sustained reliance on animal experimentation. As technology burgeons and public sentiments evolve, it is incumbent upon the scientific community to accord primacy to humane and efficacious research modalities. By doing so, we can uphold ethical benchmarks, enhance scientific precision, and foster a more compassionate approach to inquiry. The transition toward alternative testing methodologies is not merely a moral imperative but also a scientific exigency, ensuring that forthcoming research is both ethical and efficacious.

Cite this page

The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/

"The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/ [Accessed: 3 Jun. 2024]

"The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/

"The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/. [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Ethical and Practical Drawbacks of Animal Testing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-drawbacks-of-animal-testing/ [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Animal Testing Cosmetics

Animals are being tested with cosmetics. There is no justifiable right to test cosmetics on an animal just to beautify ourselves. Cosmetic testing makes sure a person does not get harmed by the product. If the product is too toxic, it could affect their skin or eyes. Food production is another reason animals are being tested. This is so we can have healthier food and more nutrition. Why can’t we just have organic foods? This may cost more for us in the end but it would require no testing on animals. Food production testing is oral or can be put on the skin or in eyes of rodents, occasionally dogs and rabbits. Another type of testing is toxicology. It is the assessment of productions like: chemicals, pharmaceuticals, additives, food products and pesticides. These tests are performed with anesthesia because scientists know they are extremely painful. If animals will be in such pain and need to be put to …show more content…

There are alternatives to animal testing. Right now they go by the 3 R’s: Replacement, refinement and reduction. Replacement is using a non-animal which could be something like computer models or cells. Refinement is used to relieve pain and suffering . They administer pain-relievers, tranquilizers and anesthetics. Refinement also is less invasive, they use ultrasounds or MRI’s. Reduction is when scientist use less animals but test more on the same animal. Instead of using animals they could use computer models, MRI’s on humans instead of animals, use statistics and data obtained from previous animal testing or us synthetic membranes. Artificial cells created and used to experiment on. They could use human volunteers as well. “Synthetic membranes can be substituted for animals and they are used to demonstrate the effects of chemicals or topical treatments on skin. This contrasts greatly with the traditional tests where an animal's fur would be shaved, and then a corrosive chemical would be applied to its back to observe the effects.” (Murnaghan,

Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issue By Robert M.

Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing

Animal Testing Inhumane

Protection Animal testing is cruel and inhumane, it should not be acceptable to use animals in scientific research. Vivisection is another term for an animal experimentation including; dissection, administering drugs, brain damaging, and other painful and invasive experiences to animals. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation("Testing - American Anti-Vivisection Society.") Animals are very different from human-being therefore it can make a poor scientific results. They should not have to suffocate and die to be use in research and cosmetics testing because there are alternative choices and different techniques that could lead to the

Informative Speech Outline On Animal Testing

Purpose: To inform the audience about animal testing I. Introduction A. Attention getting device: Approximately 26 million animals are used every year in US laboratories for cosmetic and biomedical research. B. Thesis: I would like to inform you about how animal testing is conducted. C. Credibility: I have read and studied the articles about animal testing. D. Preview: I am going to share with you purposes of animal testing, how animals are used in laboratory tests, and the effectiveness of animal testing.

Why Is Animal Testing Unethical

Animal testing is defined as “the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as food or drugs” (“Animal Testing”). Unfortunately, some cosmetic companies treat animals unethically during testing; this brings into question whether or not the practice of animal testing can be considered ethical, or even necessary, in regards to cosmetic purposes. Those with pro-animal testing views may argue that the practice of testing cosmetics on animals is necessary for human safety, however, with modern advances in technology, there are now more options for alternatives than ever before. With support from major companies and governments, alternatives to animal testing could potentially become the standard in the near future.

Animal Testing Satire

Cosmetic testing on animals is unnecessary when it comes to consumer wants. Defenseless animals should not have to suffer through useless experimentations of cosmetics. Millions of animals have painful deaths every year, because people are allowing this to happen. Since these experiments are an ancient way of testing, the animals’ deaths are in vain. They’re not the most accurate results, and there are other ways to avoid this without the cost of beauty.

Satire Essay On Animal Testing

Chimpanzees have DNA that is approximately 99% similar to humans while mice have genetics that are around 98% alike. By urging products to be tested on animals, companies will be able to feel good about themselves and ensure that their products are good enough to be marketed. Besides, they work so hard coming up with formulas consisting of new ingredients to ensure we look

Why Is Animal Testing Unnecessary

Animal testing is cruel, unjust, and wasteful, and it needs to stop. It is used to test cosmetics, to gain scientific knowledge, and for tests in schools. The Humane Society states that animal testing is tests performed on live animals for basic biology, medicinal, safety, or health research. Even small procedures have the capabilities to cause the animal high stress or discomfort. Some animals are used in future experiments, but most are killed soon after the tests.

Persuasive Essay On Embryonic Stem Cells

Testing on animals can be very dangerous and could potentially harm the animal. This could cause the animal to die if they get a bad

Dogs Should Not Be Used For Animal Experimentation

Our society likes to have the latest and greatest products. People don’t realize how unethical animal testing really is. But, animals suffer physical damage, and we already have plenty of products, we don’t need any more. We can grow human cells in labs so that we don’t have to test on animals. Animal testing is unethical and unnecessary, because animals suffer for products we do not need, and don’t need to be tested on because there is technology to test products on human cells ethically.

Animal Testing Vs Cosmetics

It’s merciless to breed and cultivate millions animals for experimentation only to throw them away afterwards, especially when the information gathered from those experiments can be profoundly inaccurate and a waste of resources. The NIH, a government granting agency, used about $30 billion in 2012 to fund for research and development that included animal testing. Animal experimentation can be avoided in total with the sophisticated alternative and technologies that are available today. Since there are a profusion of alternatives to avoid the inhumane use of animal testing, animal testing in cosmetics should be prohibited entirely. In the long run, if cosmetic products cannot be labeled safe through animal testing, then there is no feasible reason to continue with the horrendous

Why We Shouldn T Animal Testing Be Banned

According to April Klazema-blogger-animals can be force-fed, physically restrained against their will, and deprived of food and water. Also many of the animals used in testing, the welfare act does not protect them.(Klazema) An estimated 90 million animals are killed worldwide for testing each year.(Medicinal Animal Experimentation:Pointless

What Is Animal Testing Inhumane

The animals that are subjected to testing do not have a voice in whether or not they can be tested on, and therefore cannot make their own decision. Most animals that are used in testing have never even seen the outside world because

Is Animal Testing Necessary Essay

A very good example of why we need to test on animals is the Thalidomide Disaster. In the 1950s-60s The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ran tests to determine if it was safe to use. The Thalidomide drug was given out to pregnant women to help cure morning sickness. Instead of helping, it killed many babies, and approximately 15,000 babies were born with limb defects. This drug was tested on animals, but all the necessary test were not ran to insure the safety of consumer.

Animal Testing Is Inhumane Essay

All animals are different in some way. This could mean tests on animals could be misleading. Certain chemicals could be bad for animals yet good for humans, or vice versa. Animal test are much more expensive than using a human for tests. Humane Society International has compared animal tests with in vitro counterparts.

Argumentative Essay: Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

When putting on your lipstick, do you know what brand your lipstick is? If you are not aware, you might indirectly support animal testing without realizing it. Animal testing is a scientific experiment performed on animals to study the effects of drugs, cosmetic products and other chemical products on humans. In other words, it is used to evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs. About 1.4 million animals die each year because of animal testing.

More about Animal Testing Cosmetics

Related topics.

• The Animals

Cosmetics Animal Testing

People say animals are just another tool placed in the world for the use of the human race, regardless of the consequences on the animal’s part. There are also a few people who argue saying animals are not just a tool for the humans, that they too are living and deserve better treatment. Animal testing is defined as: non-human animals being used in experiments developed for the purpose of discovering the safety levels of chemicals used in foods, drugs, and such. Animal testing is a method that scientists use in order to find how a way to cure a human.

By performing different tests on different animals, scientists are able to determine if techniques such as organ transplants will actually work on humans. Usually scientists infect a living specimen, such as a rat, then try to cure it by conducting experiments on the creature in order to kill the virus within its blood. As for learning organ transplantations they simply choose a larger animal, remove one of its weaker or non-stable organs, then try to replace it to cure the animal. People believe that animals are unable to feel pain.

They think that it feels no discomfort so they either do not give a second thought at the concept of animal testing or do not care since they think there is no harm being done. It is not like they think the animals are under medication the people who have this mindset honestly believe that the animals have no concept of pain. As if their nerve system does not understand how to process the feeling. “The search for alternatives to animal testing in the cosmetics industry enters a critical…” (LaRussa, 1).

To many people when they hear the words “animal testing” they immediately begin to think of the worst situations such as being food deprived, tortured, disciplined severely or similar all for the sake of science. But what people do not realize is that animal testing is an important part in cosmetics to insure the safety of every human that can be spared from pain. Nonliving figures do not provide the necessary information to help scientists insure that the medicines will be safe to use. There’s many arguments whether cosmetics should continue using animal testing or not, but the idea is yet to be ruled out.

Due to public concern over animals, many of the cosmetic labs have begun to ban the idea of using live creatures in their tests and are now looking for alternative ways to determine whether or not a medicine can be labeled as “dangerous” or “safe to use”. As many people know animal testing is just another way that scientist can come up with cures for diseases. Though there will be people who argue that using animals for a reason like that is terrible and inhumane, there are those who believe animals were placed in this world for the advantage of humans.

Today, the vast majority of drugs are safe, in large part because of the rigorous testing process they must go through…” (Watson 4). Such as a time in the 1960’s, when women were getting severely sick due to pregnancy, they would take a medicine called Thalidomide. This drug allowed the pains to ease away during her pregnancy, but what the doctors did not realize is that they had missed something important. While the drug did help, it caused severe problems with the birth of the children either them having no arm or leg.

So as a result of this scientist started testing the medication on animals which brought to light the defaults of the drug. Even though people may think animals do not feel pain the truth is, they can. Scientist have been thought to not care, but they do, and in order to fix this problem they give animals a pain-relieving medicine. So, the animals do not feel as much pain as people originally thought. Instead the pain is lessened, and animals help scientists acquire critical information and in turn the scientists take care of the animals.

Animals that are put to live in labs are used for me information gathering, educational purposes, and also used in training drills. Even though animals are forced to endure such a drastic sacrifice they are not properly thanked for it. Dogs, for a perfect example, these creatures are used to learn how to better technology with organ transplants to have a better outcome. In order to do this, however, animals must be killed after certain tests are performed on its body and some say scientists give no reason as to why the animal has to be killed, but it probably has to do with the guilt.

Another reason that animal testing shouldn’t be a “go-to” experiment is due to DNA problems. Yes, humans and animals may have many similar aspects and DNA patterns, but two different species are not the same. Humans may react to a chemical one way while a lab rat, that’s constantly exposed to chemicals may react in another way. “A suitable alternative to animal testing is to conduct tests on ingredients and finished products in humans under critical observation…” (Curtis, 1) this is known as “the first time in humans” test. This method involves three different steps of classification.

One: is analyzing the ingredients in the product being tested, this step has extremely limited information on what is being used. Two: this step involves scientists having minimum knowledge and data about only the major ingredients that are in the product. Three: this class allows scientist to know and understand all the ingredients that are being used in the product and allows them an exceptional conclusion of what reactions will occur. Scientists have also found another alternative way to avoid using living creatures in their experiments.

One way is removing the skin cells from the test subjects then they can let the animal free after that. Once they are in possession of the skin cell the animal will serve no use, but scientist much rather prefer using the animals and administering them to a constant torment. Of course using an animal is more reassuring, but the use of them is not necessary anymore with the technology humans now have. Using animals for testing has provided to be extremely helpful and effective. Many times testing products on the animals first has saved human lives and helped scientist determine what can be use on or inside of human bodies.

Though animal testing may be seen as cruel and unusual it is thanks to it that many of the people today can live healthy lives. “Rabbits and rats…are noticeably absent from the labs at Hopkins. They are replaced with what scientists hope will be the lab animals of the future-flasks filled with chemically tested fish liver…” (LaRussa 3). Now scientists are using fish livers to experiment on and determine what and why humans can or cannot use a certain product. In few labs the scientist actually do still refuse to use these techniques and prefer to use live creatures seeing as this is more reassuring to them.

More Essays

• Animal Testing Cruel
• Benefits Of Animal Testing Essay
• Animal Cruelty: Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Essay
• Animal Testing Cons Facts
• Essay On Banning Animal Testing
• Persuasive Essay On Animal Testing Pros And Cons
• Against Animal Testing Essay
• Animal Testing Methods Essay
• Why Is Animal Testing Necessary Essay
• Animal Testing Pros And Cons Essay

Press Release

Fraunhofer spin-off tigershark science, skin models as an alternative to animal testing.

Research News / June 03, 2024

Animal testing has long been a fixture of medical and pharmaceutical research, but alternative methods are growing more and more important. Innovative methods allow for research aimed directly at humans — without using animal testing as an intermediate step. TigerShark Science, a planned Fraunhofer start-up and spin-off of the Fraunhofer Translational Center for Regenerative Therapies TLC-RT at the Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research ISC, is taking this kind of approach. TigerShark Science hopes to use skin models grown from human stem cells to significantly reduce animal testing.

There are various methods that have the potential for minimizing or even eliminating animal testing. These methods include human stem cells that are grown in vitro and used to form miniature organs known as organoids. Researchers at Fraunhofer ISC/TLC-RT in Würzburg are also working to develop these kinds of in-vitro tissue models with various areas of focus, including barrier organs like the skin. These lab-grown cell aggregates can be used to trace physiological processes and study them under controlled conditions — one way to replace or reduce animal testing. The researchers involved in the TigerShark Science start-up project are taking the same approach: They have succeeded in culturing a skin model that can represent almost all of the structures present in human skin, making it a realistic skin model. With their start-up idea, which received funding from Fraunhofer’s AHEAD program and will be funded through EXIST Transfer of Research starting in July 2024, the team of researchers is now approaching the official spin-off stage. The founding team includes Dr. Florian Groeber-Becker, head of Fraunhofer TLC-RT at Fraunhofer ISC, Dr. Dieter Groneberg, group manager for in-vitro skin testing systems at the Fraunhofer TLC-RT, and Amelie Reigl, a project manager at the Fraunhofer TLC-RT and future managing director of TigerShark Science.

Complex models with three layers of skin

The start-up plans to begin by offering the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries large unit volumes of healthy skin models simulating three layers of the skin — the epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis — with fat cells. These models are suitable for applications such as testing medications and their side effects or studying hair growth. The organoids are complex skin models comprising various cell types. Like human skin, they have sebaceous glands and hairs. They can be used to study aspects such as how cells communicate with each other after an active ingredient is administered and whether active ingredients trigger irritation. “There have been no skin models of this complexity on the market to date. They’re one of a kind,” Reigl says, explaining the technology’s unique selling proposition and great potential.

Organoids can be cultured in open air

An automated process is used to develop the organoids in large numbers inside a bioreactor. They are then applied to nanofibers using a special method. This creates what is known as an air–medium interface culture, in which the uppermost layer of the skin, the epidermis, is in contact with the air — unlike when the tissue is cultured in a Petri dish. The nanofibers are already patented, and there are also plans to patent the method itself.

Skin models for preclinical testing

The model enables fast testing, a huge advantage over animal tests, which can often be expensive and time-consuming. The skin organoid made from human stem cells can be used to achieve faster, more accurate results, in many cases with greater applicability in humans. It takes just one step to study the reactions of cells in all three layers of the skin, an option that has not been available on the market to date.

Broad product portfolio of various skin models planned

The skin model is currently undergoing further development. Future plans call for adding models with immune cells and blood vessels, and even models with tumor cells, which can be used to simulate and study diseases and conditions such as skin cancer. With the growing complexity of the model, further fields of application such as aspects of wound healing can be addressed or infection studies carried out. “We plan to grow our portfolio in stages. As the first step, we’re bringing the healthy skin model to market, but there will be others as well, such as a skin model to study skin fibrosis,” Reigl explains.

• Fraunhofer Translational Center Regenerative Therapies TLC-RT  (regenerative-therapien.fraunhofer.de)
• Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research ISC  (isc.fraunhofer.de)
• Research News June 2024 - Skin models as an alternative to animal testing [ PDF  0.2 MB ]

Animal Testing in Cosmetics Essay

Simple household items such as lotions, shampoos and cosmetics aren’t very expensive and are within reach for the public, yet the public is not knowledgeable of the fact that the products that they use everyday are put through a series of tests which involve the use of harmless animals. Several large commercial companies do not make products for animals; they decide that using these harmless creatures for the testing of their products, could be cause to be harmful to animals still go forward with these types of procedures on an everyday basis. Although these animals are unable to defend themselves or signs of any form of consent for the near death procedures, these companies find this as a cheap solution for testing their products before …show more content…

While the companies get away with selling almost any product because the consumers have no idea what they are doing to other animals. However, instead of making animal testing more reliable, scientists should just remove animal testing and use alternatives. Instead of using harmless animals humans should be paid to volunteer. Animals are no-volunteered to be experimented on, for example, “The Draize test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits, they are cheap, docile, and are not “equipped” with tear ducts to wash away the chemicals”. During the tests the rabbits are strapped down and a “solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of the rabbit”. The rabbit is observed at intervals of 1, 24, 48, 72 and 168 hours these tests put these rabbits into an immense amount of pain in most cases the rabbits break their necks, backs and other parts of their body while under exposure to these chemicals writhing in pain these rabbits either die, in the case of unlikely survival these rabbits are then put through another series of tests. It is very important to know that during these tests anesthesia is never used. There are tests that are more reliable although they are a little costly they will in fact ensure the safety of animals which is a

Animal Testing And The Cosmetic Industry

In this paper there are three main topics that are going to be covered. They are alternatives to animal testing, animal testing in cosmetics, and the news in the cosmetic industry related to animal testing. For this paper there were four sources that were evaluated. All of them had a few things in common and through that it was easy to link them together through three different subtopics that will be evaluated later in this paper. The first source that I will be using is “The Science of Dermocosmetics and Its Role in Dermatology”. This article was written by Dreno, B., E. Araviiskaia, E. Berardesca, T. Bieber, J. Hawk, M. Sanchez- Viera, and P. Wolkenstein. The second article that will be effective in this essay is “New

The Benefits Of Animal Cosmetic Testing

Picture being locked up in a cage, injured, alone, and in pain. Imagine being a prisoner without committing a crime. This scenario exposes the life of rabbits, mice, dogs, pigs, cats, and many other animals used in cosmetic product testing. The topic of whether animal cosmetic testing is necessary or not has been a topic that many have put-off, but something that should be thought about. The reason that specific animals like, rabbits, chimpanzees, and apes are used for experimenting is because their DNA almost exactly matches a human’s. Since these mammals’ DNA is almost identical, researchers are positive that they are a great tool for testing cleaning and cosmetic products. Though researchers don’t feel any remorse for how they treat

Satire On Animal Testing

In conclusion, animal testing, is cruel to animals and very dangerous because of its unreliability. It also i just morally wrong these poor animals live in stress, fear, and pain and is forced upon them without their consent. It is largely inconclusive because animal anatomy is different from human anatomy; results of testing cannot be said to mimic the results in

Cosmetic Animal Testing

Animal testing is still done by cosmetic companies even though it is unethical and scientifically inaccurate. The various tests carried out on animals is not a guarantee for using cosmetics on our skin since animals react differently to certain chemicals as compared to humans. Cosmetics companies kill millions of animals every year in pursuit of profit. The animals that suffer and die in these laboratories range from rabbits to mice. According to companies that perform such tests, they are done to establish the safety of products and ingredients. However, no law requires that cosmetics products be tested on animals. The Food and Drug

Animal Testing Ethics

For decades, the question of ethics in using humans and animals for research has been a constant battle in the fields of science, medicine, and even cosmetics. According to the Animal Welfare Association, approximately 19,500,000 animals - including mice, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and frogs - are killed yearly on average due to research. Although more than 50% of adults in the United States are opposed to animal testing, many popular companies like Maybelline, Vaseline, Dove, and Windex choose to remain in the shadow of animal cruelty and use animals as expendable lab equipment.

Animal Testing Required

Animal testing is an old fashioned way of testing medications and products to ensure that they are safe for humans. It is a way to further our society, without inflicting any harm to our race, but in today's society, it is no longer a required option for testing. For one, it is very cruel to animals. We should not be self involved and only think about ourselves. The world cannot survive that way. We need animals in the world, and if we continue treating them in this harmful manner they will no longer be able to provide for the world’s environment. Also, animal testing has been proven to not be as effective as people may think. In the Baltimore Sun writer Kelly Overton claims that “90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials.” This demonstrates that animal testing is no longer required in today’s society. We have better ways to test with new technology, instead of with animal testing that has been proven to be highly ineffective. Overall, in the past animal testing may have been needed to save

Animal Testing For Cosmetics Essay

Animal testing for cosmetics and medicine should be banned. Everyday thousands of animals are being tortured for science. The experiments that are performed on these poor animals are very inhumane. Scientists have a choice to make, they can choose to use animals and torture them or they can use alternatives like artificial skin from humans and/or animals to see how they react. For example, In “The 5 Worst Animal Experiments Happening Right Now” the author states, “Every year, more than 100,000 primates are experimented on in the United States. Monkeys in labs are subjected to painful, invasive, and irrelevant experiments. They’re starved and restrained, and they’re infected with diseases and pumped

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

Ever wonder where some animals spend their times at or what people are doing to animals,?Or how store bought products are tested and why the product itself so good? Well,-over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in “United States”(U.S.) labs yearly from animal testing from chemicals. Animal Testing should be outlawed due to the pain and suffering of various animals, the lack authenticity of results, and there are alternative ways of testing: as promised, public awareness is finally starting to play a role in the elimination of the problem. Innocent animals suffer through various experiments each day not knowing if their going to live or die. According to the humane Society, “registration of a single pesticide requires more than 50 experiments and the use of as

Animal Testing in the Cosmetic Industry: An Increasingly Controversial Issue

Animal testing has become an increasingly controversial issue since the 1980s. This has been the case especially in the cosmetics industry, where esthetic value rather than necessity is at the core of the industry. Since information regarding the often unnecessarily cruel practice of animal testing has become public knowledge, many activist groups have targeted the industry to pressure manufacturers into stopping practices that have been deemed unacceptable. While some of these efforts have met with some success, many cosmetic companies still do use animal testing in a somewhat covert way, despite public claims that this is not the case. Another concern for activists is the harmful chemicals in cosmetics. These are marketed to a largely uninformed public. Some of these substances are even claimed to cause various types of cancer, such as breast cancer in women. Activist groups therefore worked to raise public awareness of a largely unregulated industry in which especially giant companies have concealed their unethical practices in order to promote sales.

Animal Testing : Cosmetic Manufacturers

Many products that we use on a daily routine have been part of animal testing. Throughout the years this has become a problem that millions of people have been raising awareness for and trying to find a solution to end this cruel act. But is this enough? One of the most notorious users of animal testing is cosmetic manufacturers. Throughout the year 's many cosmetic companies have been trying to transition into using cruelty-free products. For example, Marla Donato from the Chicago Tribune states, "two of the largest manufacturers Avon Products and Revlon recently announced a permanent end to all animal testing by their companies. Mary kay announced a temporary moratorium on practice, and Procter and gamble unveiled a $450,000 grant program to investigate alternative research methods (Donato par.1)."

The Evils of Cosmetic Animal Testing Essay

• 4 Works Cited

A lot of people buy cosmetic products being ignorant to the fact that, that one product has killed a lot of animals. How would you like being sprayed with poisonous liquids, taking poisonous eye drops?, or being fed toxic substances? Cosmetic factories have been doing these inhumane things and more to innocent animals for years.

Animal Testing's Role In Cosmetic

Throughout history, animal testing has played a huge and important role in cosmetic as well as medical advancement around the world, which for the most part is fairly significant. This advancement coming on the backs of millions upon millions of animals, a necessary evil? This question is hugely speculated throughout the scientific community. Animal testing has been around for a pretty long time, whether it is medically, or it is cosmetically, in recent years, though the question has been raised about whether there is still a need for animal testing in cosmetics a question that has been proposed and fiercely debated by scientists of your caliber as well as everyday individuals who see this as a huge problem. With the amazing advancements being

Animal Cosmetic Testing

Imagine hearing the cries and whimpers from a laboratory and wondering what it is. Those sounds are coming from animals being tested and ejected with new substances daily. Everyday, animals are being tested on in laboratories and forced to use their bodies and faces for harmful chemicals in makeup. Millions of animals are killed yearly for testing purposes. Dying every day from this, animals won’t stop being put in danger until there is a cease to animals testing. In order to terminate animal cosmetic testing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should ban makeup testing on animals and use more effective and safe solutions such as human skin cells, this would help animals and humans.

Animal Testing Essay

If we were to abandon animal testing, there would be severe consequences as the alternative methods aren’t as reliable. Animal experimentations that uses animals would be justifiable if it is done in such a way that causes minimal pain to the animals involved and if all possible alternative methods have been explored. When scientists take the lives of animals into their hands, they have a duty to avoid unnecessarily cruel treatment—not only during experiments but also in the way the animals are kept and

Animal Testing Medicines And Makeup On Animals

Animal testing is where humans test medicines and makeup on animals. The good side too it is a lot of life saving medical discoveries. The bad side is a lot of the animals are mistreated.

Related Topics

• Animal rights
• Animal testing