The Controversial Issue of Ethical Animal Testing in The Cosmetic and Beauty Industry

In recent years, the advancement in science and technology has brought a new awareness to consumers of the beauty industry. Scientists have opened the eyes of consumers, allowing them to see what goes into their cosmetics, how the cosmetics are made, and how the cosmetics could possibly be harmful. Most recently, with the new law against animal testing in the European Union (EU), the topic of the ethics of animal testing in the cosmetic and beauty industry has become a subject of controversy. Testing cosmetics on animals is unethical, and modern day science has come up with humane alternatives to test the safety of products before human use. It is inexcusable that so many companies currently make animals suffer in labs when so many other brands have effectively been “cruelty-free” from the start of their business. Additionally, research has found that testing on animals is not the most cost effective or most accurate way to test out future cosmetic products.

The most heavily relied on and commonly criticized form of animal testing was the “Draize test” which involves applying a small amount of the substance under study to an animal’s eye or skin for several hours, and then observing whether or not irritation occurs over the following week or two. Obviously, many animal rights advocates are against this, and they consider it an act of cruelty towards the lab animals used as test subjects. According to the non-profit National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), the Draize Test causes “extreme discomfort and pain” to the animals involved. Versions of the test can also cause “intense burning, itching and pain”, leaving subjects “ulcerated and bleeding.” Additionally, NAVS confirms the inaccuracy and ineffectiveness of the tests, reporting that it’s also more expensive and less reliable than other methods which do not rely on inflicting pain on animals. They report that “The results of non animal tests tend to be more consistent and better predictors for human reactions,” and “In addition, companies are spared the expense of breeding, caging, feeding and disposing of animals that are used in testing laboratories.” NAVS also hopes that with the continued development of alternative methods, “animal tests, like the slide rule, will someday be made obsolete by advancements in technology.”

Advancements in technology have already helped out the problem with animal testing. For example, some of the leading non-animal tests are conducted on cell cultures, human and animal corneas from eye banks, corneal tissue cultures, and frozen corneas supplied by hospitals. Companies are also able to move away from harsh tests by looking at the results of tests done years ago to examine information for patterns that will reveal how safe similar ingredients in their new products are without having to carry out new tests on new generations of lab animals. According to Sue Leary, chair of the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) many basic toiletries such as “soap, toothpaste, lotion and deodorant are so mild that you can just spread it on skin and there are even human volunteers offering to do that.” Leary does not mean that testing is not necessary though; she is just pointing out another reason behind why companies should not be against using human testers. Regardless of new technology, various leading brands in the beauty industry such as L’oreal, Dove, and Maybelline still stick to their old ways and continue to test on animals. In reality, modern science has made non-animal testing possible and is widely used among many cruelty-free brands.

In addition to confirmation from scientists and different labs, many reputable and popular cosmetic companies have successfully participated in refraining from the use of animal testing such as the UK based company Lush. Lush is a cosmetic company that believes in “buying ingredients only from companies that do not commission tests on animals and in testing [their] products on humans”. They are able to legally and safely create products that are cruelty free by “relying on the roughly 20,000 established cosmetic ingredients that have already been evaluated for their safety, and through the use of a growing number of proven, non-animal test methods.” Some of their alternative methods that use modern technology include a “3-dimensional human skin model that can fully replace the use of rabbits for skin irritation testing, and cell culture tests for sunlight-induced ‘photo’-toxicity, genetic mutations, and other harmful effects. Non-animal methods have been shown to be scientifically superior – and usually take less time to complete, at a fraction of the cost of animal experiments.” More companies should take Lush as an example of a successful company that can create beautiful products while not harming anyone in the process. They prove that science and modern day technology has opened up new opportunities to create great products without having to cause an innocent creature pain for the sake of vanity.

Scientifically and ethically, huge progress has been made, but this leaves consumers with a few questions, such as are cruelty-free products just as effective as companies that are not. And does this method make their products more expensive? The purpose of testing is to make sure a product is safe for humans before hitting the market. Additionally, it is used to test out the effectiveness of the product, but the quality of the product is not solely based on how it is tested. In either situation, if the product does not work the way the company’s lab wants it to, they will change it; any difference in product quality is due to what it was made with, not how it was tested. Consumers also tend to steer themselves away from cruelty-free brands because they have a reputation for being expensive, and in this day and age every penny counts. A majority of “expensive” cruelty-free brands also market themselves as brands using natural high-quality ingredients, resulting in higher prices. There are also many very inexpensive brands such as Wet N’ Wild that market themselves as being cruelty-free. Cruelty-free products range in cost from “drugstore” affordable to department store “luxury”; the price is not determined by the method of testing. If price and effectiveness are not affected by the method of testing, this leaves consumers with no excuse to not buy cruelty-free. So in the end, it is all up to a consumer’s personal choice in brand and morals regarding the ethics behind the making of the product.

As technology advances, people are learning more about the background behind the items they buy, more specifically the origins of the products they use on their faces and body. New laws regarding animal testing are being passed and people are beginning to question how their cosmetics are made. It is an old thought that animal testing is the most effective way to test a product’s safety, and modern science has proven otherwise. Now that people are made aware of the truth behind animal testing, more people are willing to put an end to it because it seems downright heartless to let a creature undergo pain just to test a foundation that promised silky baby skin. A rise in popularity among brands that are “cruelty-free” brings the world one step closer to better animal rights and shows the power of modern day science. The saying “beauty is pain” should not apply to the world of cosmetics testing, for technology has made it possible for consumers to achieve beauty while being cruelty-free.

Cite this page