animal tested cosmetics essay

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Testing Cosmetics On Animals

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Works Cited

• Cruelty Free International. 'What is animal testing?' 12 September. 2018.
• Cruelty-Free Kitty. '30 Makeup Brands That Still Test On Animals In 2018' 18 September. 2018.
• Cruelty-Free Kitty. 'List of Officially Cruelty-Free Brands - 2018' 18 September. 2018.
• Humane Society International. 'About Animal Testing' 12 September. 2018.
• Humane Society International. 'Cosmetics Test That Use Animals' 18 September. 2018.
• Humane Society International. 'Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing' 12 September. 2018.
• One Green Planet. '5 Awesome Organizations Fighting to End Animal Testing' 18 September. 2018.

Testing Cosmetics On Animals. (2021, Mar 09). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay

"Testing Cosmetics On Animals." StudyMoose , 9 Mar 2021, https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay

StudyMoose. (2021). Testing Cosmetics On Animals . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay [Accessed: 9 Sep. 2024]

"Testing Cosmetics On Animals." StudyMoose, Mar 09, 2021. Accessed September 9, 2024. https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay

"Testing Cosmetics On Animals," StudyMoose , 09-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay. [Accessed: 9-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2021). Testing Cosmetics On Animals . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/testing-cosmetics-on-animals-essay [Accessed: 9-Sep-2024]

• Luxor Cosmetics Executive Summary Pages: 5 (1441 words)
• Consultancy Report - Largest Cosmetics Organizations Pages: 5 (1349 words)
• Sephora Cosmetics Pages: 10 (2914 words)
• Cosmetics company Pages: 1 (288 words)
• SASA Cosmetics Success: A Case Study by Group 4 Pages: 10 (2844 words)
• Chemicals Used in Cosmetics And Perfume Pages: 6 (1708 words)
• Innovative and Playful: Introducing Korea's Etude Home Cosmetics Pages: 2 (564 words)
• Analysis Of NYX Cosmetics’ Competitive Advantage Based On Consumer Behaviour Pages: 3 (626 words)
• Animals Must be Protected From Testing Pages: 9 (2493 words)
• Why Are Animals Used for Testing Medical Products? Pages: 3 (735 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

May 28, 2014

Beauty and the Beasts: The U.S. Should Ban Testing Cosmetics on Animals

There are more effective, efficient and humane ways to be sure products are safe

By Jim Moran & Paul A. Locke

SA Forum  is an invited essay from experts on topical issues in science and technology. On April 15, 1980, animal rights advocate Henry Spira took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to decry the use of animals in the safety testing of cosmetics. “How Many Rabbits Does Revlon Blind for Beauty’s Sake?” the ad asked. The question alluded to the use of the Draize test, which involved dripping substances such as toluene into rabbits’ eyes, causing pain and sometimes blindness.

Spira’s ad birthed a campaign to ban animal testing in the U.S. that continues to this day. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require animal safety testing for cosmetics—a category that includes skin cream, perfume, makeup and shampoo—animal tests are still used. (Some countries, such as China, require them.) In contrast, the European Union has put in place a testing ban that prohibits animal testing on all cosmetic products and ingredients, and forbids marketing cosmetic products and ingredients that were tested on animals.

Eliminating animal testing of cosmetics is entirely feasible. In the past three decades scientists have developed many advanced alternatives to animal testing—methods that use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin or computer models to test the safety of products. And many multinational companies have embraced these alternative test methods, reducing and in some cases eliminating their dependence on animal testing. As a result, they cut costs and save time; animal testing is expensive, slow and, because animals are not people, not always predictive.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The movement to eliminate animal testing extends beyond the cosmetics industry. In 2007 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report recommending that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for human health risks. Through a greater reliance on in vitro testing, researchers could evaluate the effects of chemicals on biological processes while using very few animals. Scientists would generate better data and test a greater number of chemicals more quickly and cheaply. To help make this vision a reality, the EPA has established a computational toxicology research program that includes high-throughput screening and robotics. The EPA, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health have established a program called “Tox21,” which applies 21st-century scientific tools to screen thousands of compounds for toxicity—without new animal tests. Many universities are also working hard to implement this vision.

Meanwhile Congress should embrace the future and pass the Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 4148), which would prohibit animal testing in the U.S. cosmetics industry and gradually eliminate from the U.S. market cosmetics and ingredients tested on animals. The legislation would encourage the development of new alternative testing methods and increase the use of testing alternatives that already exist.

At the same time this bill would protect people, ensuring that only safe products tested with cutting-edge technology enter the U.S. market. American consumers have the right to demand that their cosmetics are safe. Given rapid scientific advances, there is no reason those products cannot be humane, too.

Rep. Jim Moran, a Democrat, represents Virginia's 8th District.

Paul A. Locke, an environmental health scientist and attorney, is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Molecular and Translational Toxicology.

The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Johns Hopkins University or Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Animal Testing

Argumentative Essay on Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Is it okay to test cures on animals?

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

References:

• Moxley, Angela (2009) 'The End of Animal Testing?' ALL ANIMALS: Vol. 11: Iss. 5, Article 5. Pp. 20-26 Available at: https://animalstudiesrepository.org/allanimals/vol11/iss5/5
• Dario Ringach, 'The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research,' American Journal of the Medical Sciences, Volume 342, Number 4, October 2011 305-313
• “Animals Behind Top Drugs.” Foundation for Biomedical Research, fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-testing-research-achievements/animal-research-behind-top-drugs/.
• Seok, J., Warren, H.S., Cuenca, A.G., Mindrinos, M.N., Baker, H.V., Xu, W., Richards, D.R., McDonald-Smith, G.P., Gao, H., Hennessy, L., Finnerty, C.C., Lopez, C.M., Honari, S., Moore, E.E., Minei, J.P., Cuschieri, J., Bankey, P.E., Johnson, J.L., Sperry, J., Nathens, A.B., Billiar, T.R., West, M.A., Jeschke, M.G., Klein, M.B., Gamelli, R.L., Gibran, N.S., Brownstein, B.H., Miller-Graziano, C., Calvano, S.E., Mason, P.H., Cobb, J.P., Rahme, L.G., Lowry, S.F., Maier, R.V., Moldawer, L.L., Herndon, D.N., Davis, R.W., Xiao, W. and Tompkins, R.G. (2013) Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 3507-3512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222878110
• “Animals in Science / Alternatives.” Harm and Suffering, www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing.
• Archibald, Kathy. “Of Mice, but Not Men.” What Doctors Don't Tell You, Aug. 2016, www.wddty.com/magazine/2016/august/of-mice-but-not-men.html.
• Marshall, Lindsay. “Science In Transit; The Move Away From Animals In Research.” HuffPost UK, HuffPost UK, 17 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lindsay-marshall/science-in-transit-the-mo_b_13645840.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=8IkJMdenjYW09I6MKKwEPg.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Animal Testing
• Animal Welfare

In Korea, 41.4 million animals have reportedly been mobilized and victimized in animal experiments...

• Conversation

Throughout the decades, the world has seen some significant advantages regarding animal rights....

Animals are used in scientific research, help us to gain significant knowledge about human...

• 21st Century

At what price do other living beings gain the right to their lives? As humans, our species have...

• Animal Ethics

Is it morally right to progress in health and medicine? Would killing an animal with society’s own...

For many people, cosmetics are a part of everyday life; from shampoo and toothpaste, to a full...

Testing on animals is one of the most talked about and problematic issues in moral debates. This...

According to Aysha Akhtar, certified neurologist and preventive medicine/public health specialist,...

Science is doing several kinds of inventions to make the life of everyone easier. Animal testing...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

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.

• 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

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Essay: Living with Climate Change

Aug 23, 24 02:37 AM

Grammar in IELTS Listening

Aug 22, 24 02:54 PM

IELTS Line Graph: Governments Expenditure on Research

Jul 23, 24 01:27 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

• 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
• Cosmetics Science & Research
• Product Testing of Cosmetics

Animal Testing & Cosmetics

Consumers and manufacturers sometimes ask about the use of animals for testing cosmetics. The following information addresses the legal requirement for cosmetic safety and FDA policy on developing alternative methods. 

FDA is responsible for assuring that cosmetics are safe and properly labeled. This mission is accomplished through enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), related statutes, and regulations promulgated under these laws.

The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, 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. FDA supports and adheres to the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing animal testing, including the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy of Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . Moreover, in all cases where animal testing is used, FDA advocates that research and testing derive the maximum amount of useful scientific information from the minimum number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability.

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.

More Resources from FDA:

• "Cruelty Free-Not Tested on Animals" Label Claims
• FDA Authority Over Cosmetics

Resources from Other U.S. Government Agencies:

• Animal Welfare Act
• National Toxicology Program--Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Test Methods (NTP-ICCVAM)
• Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Resources from the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) :

May 31, 1999; Updated April 5, 2006. This information is current. It is updated only when needed.

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 .

• Alternatives to Animal Testing in Cosmetics
• Avon, Mary Kay, and Estee Lauder Practice Animal Testing
• Animal Rights Versus Animal Welfare
• Animal Rights and the Ethics of Testing
• What Are Animal Rights?
• Overview of Animal Cruelty
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• What is the LD50 or Lethal Dose 50 Test?
• Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement
• Basic Tenets of Animal Rights
• Is Pet Ownership Ethical?
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• Do Bugs Have Rights?
• Arguments About Animal Rights
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan

Cosmetic Testing on Animals 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

Introduction

Necessity of cosmetic testing on animals, current problems in preventing cosmetic testing on animals, works cited.

Cosmetics have become a multi-billion dollar industry with millions of consumers around the world. Items such as lipsticks, lip gloss, eye shadow, concealers, moisturizers, skin whiteners, blush, and an assortment of other products are bought on a daily basis by female consumers in order conform to the current societal view of beauty.

However, the procedures utilized in ensuring that the products that are sold conform to a certain level of safety and allergenicity are done through the use of animal testing procedures (Abbott, 144-146). On average, nearly 14 million animals are utilized by cosmetic companies around the world to test particular types of cosmetics during product creation as well as prior to export to various countries.

Of those 14 million animals, nearly 1 million of them are comprised of animals such as cats, dogs, guinea pigs, various types of hamsters and even small primates (Abbott, 144-146). The reason why animal testing in the cosmetics industry often involves the use of animals such as rabbits, mice, rats and other types of animals is to ensure that certain types of cosmetics can be applied onto the surface of the skin or near the eye without causing significant allergic reactions.

The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type of chemical compound, when applied over a prolonged period of time, could cause significant levels of irritation or could result in possible chemical poisoning (Abbott, 144-146).

Unfortunately, such methods of testing can often result in severe discomfort or even serious pain in the case of some testing procedures since some cosmetic ingredients are often applied directly onto the mucous membranes of the lab animal. Areas such as the nose, mouth, or eye are often subjected to an assortment of chemicals and procedures which cause mild to severe irritations.

In fact, some studies show that a percentage of these tests could be classified as a form of torture given the severe and prolonged amount of pain that some testing procedures inflict upon the animals being tested. Another area of ethical concern is the way in which some animals are not treated after the testing has been accomplished. Instead, they are disposed of through euthanasia while another batch of animals are brought in for further testing.

Nearly 50 percent of all animals that are utilized in cosmetic testing procedures die within 3 weeks due to the various chemical compounds they are exposed to as well as their possible side-effects.

Given that cosmetic testing procedures subject animals to prolonged and painful testing which can last from hours to days with, it must be questioned whether the continued usage of animals in cosmetic testing procedures is acceptable since there is little actual benefit to humanity aside from improving an individual’s artificial aesthetic appeal.

The concept of consumer protection is at the forefront of the debate involving animal testing given that it is necessary to implement some measure of ensuring that products that are sold and applied on the human body do not create any adverse effects. Arguments such as those presented by Kolar (2006) illustrates this point by explaining that the requirements behind human testing procedures are complex to the point that it would delay the production of new types of cosmetic products.

Not only that, there are an assortment of procedural requirements and limitations on the types of tests that can be applied to the point that very little data can actually be obtained before government regulations involving the degree of harm to humans come into play to prevent the testing procedure from progressing (Kolar, 111-122).

While the European Union may have banned the importation of cosmetics where animal testing has occurred, the fact remains that countries such as the U.S., Japan, and various other major consumer centers mandate the use of animals in cosmetic testing to ensure that they can be utilized by local consumers (Europe Enacts Full Ban On Animal Testing For Cosmetics, 14).

It is due to this mandate that cosmetic testing goes unabated within such countries. In order to better understand the justifications behind the necessity of animal testing the concept of rhetoric will be examined to determine how the argument behind cosmetic testing on animals has been formulated.

Rhetoric can be described as the use of language in order to achieve a persuasive effect on people in other words it is a form of delivery that entails being able to convince people of the validity of the argument being given. On the other hand under Aristotle’s treatise on rhetoric the concept of ethos is thus defined as credibility of a speaker in which through this credibility they are able to convince people that he/ she is believable in what he/she is saying.

In the case of the ethos behind cosmetic testing on animals, the projected principles that define it, namely: ensuring the distribution of a safe product, ensuring the health and well-being of their customers as well as valuing their business were in effect created in order to create an image that would justify their actions.

Cosmetic companies are trying to justify their actions by stating that through their own experiences in this current field of interest they know what works as an effective means of ensuring progressive attitudes in development of their products. What must be taken into consideration is the fact that upon examination the ethos of cosmetic testing on animals does indeed promote a distinct degree of health and well-being for the general public.

If Aristotle’s treatise on rhetoric is to be used then it can be said that the position the cosmetic companies are taking in trying to be persuasive in their message is one based on the concept of ethos in which they justify their request based on their expertise in their field.

What must be understood though is that while such a method of argument is in fact rather effective in the case of the cosmetic industry, one cannot help but think their ethos is rather self-serving in terms of allowing them to justify their future actions in terms of what they believe is right especially when taking into consideration the apparently unethical nature of their testing procedures.

Lack of Sufficient Protection for certain Animal Species

An examination of the various rules and regulations involving animal testing procedures shows that certain types of rodents (i.e. rats, mice, rabbits etc.) reptiles and avian species are actually not protected under the USDA Animal Welfare Act.

As such, it does come as much of a surprise that a vast majority of animals that are utilized in cosmetic testing at the present are comprised of such animals. While animal rights groups such as PETA and Greenpeace have lobbied for the implementation of the abolishment of animal testing in not only the U.S. but in other countries as well, the fact remains that the safety of products for human consumptions trumps that of the lives of what are now known as “lesser species”.

The main problem when it comes to erecting proper legislative mechanisms for the protection of animals during product testing procedures it that present day laws lack a sufficient method of discrimination between animal testing that has beneficial effects on human health and welfare and those that are merely for aesthetic purposes (Kolar, 111-122).

Animal testing procedures that lead to breakthroughs that save human lives are worlds apart from testing that is merely utilized for corporate profits and aesthetic appeal. Cosmetic testing does not save human lives and is merely a method creating a method of aesthetic appeal.

When balancing the millions of animals that are needlessly tortured on a yearly basis with the need to create types of makeup to make a person merely look better, it is obvious that lives take precedence over simply “looking good”. Unfortunately such a distinction is not present within present day methods of legislation.

Animal testing has become a generalized concept instead of being thought of as a scientific process that is comprised of a myriad of variations. In fact, Davis (2001) explains that this lack of distinction is actually a result of legislative efforts by cosmetic companies to ensure that their research facilities in particular countries are not adversely impacted by the development of legislation that would outright ban their type of animal testing (Davis, 60).

By creating a generalized conceptualization instead of a more specific means of addressing the issue of animal testing, present day legislators ensure that millions of animals each year continue to suffer at the hands of pharmaceutical companies.

Transferability of Testing Labs from One International Location to another

While the use of animals in cosmetic testing has effectively been banned in the E.U. and the U.K., this has merely resulted in the testing labs that used to be in such countries to merely be moved to other locations where such legislation does not exist (Ulmer, 28).

At the present, there is no broad spectrum ban against the use of animals to test out various types of makeup and, as such, even if several prominent countries were to ban the practice it would take less than a month for a new research lab to be established in another location.

Studies have shown that there are literally hundreds of cosmetic research labs in the U.S., China, Japan, Australia and other such countries that deal extensively with ensuring that new types of cosmetic products are safe for human use (Ulmer, 28).

High Demand for Effective Cosmetics among the General Public

At the present, there is a considerable level of demand by women around for cosmetics. Our culture is obsessed with the idea of perfect beauty; flawless skin, blemish free features, thin waistlines, striking eyes, perfect noses and not a pimple in sight, yet, such an obsession has been fueled by what is considered as a socially “acceptable” presentation of the concept of beauty.

As it can be seen in the case of the U.K. and European print media industry, “color” plays as much a factor as the overall appearance of a model. This evidenced by the sheer amount of toning and whitening products that are either meant to whiten a person’s appearance or created a “tanned look” to make them seem like that they have been under the sun.

What must be understood is that the present day definition of beauty is not part of a set standard (aside from considering symmetry to be beautiful), rather, throughout the years there have been various definitions of beauty ranging from hour glass figures, full figured women and even those who by today’s standards can be considered fat.

All of these standards of beauty have been in one way or another influenced by the predominate popular culture at the time. Popular culture plays an important role in defining what is beautiful and what is not, unfortunately it so happens that the present day definition is one akin to considering individuals that are white and pale as being beautiful.

At the present, “natural beauty” (i.e. beauty without makeup) is actually not viewed as being beautiful at all. Women are only considered beautiful if they have applied the correct kind of foundation, utilized their eyeliners properly and have glamorized their looks to a considerable level.

With this obsession over improving one’s beauty comes the equally obsessive desire to look unique. This has given rise to the development of newer types of cosmetic products which promise to create a deeper level of red, to create a more efficient method of applying a foundation and to create deeper and better looking lashes. This has made cosmetics a multi-billion dollar industry and, as a result, encourages continued cosmetic testing on animals in order to create a new “look” for customers.

Lack of Sufficient Awareness among the General Public Regarding the Cruelty of Cosmetic Testing on Animals

Studies such as those seen in the article “Cosmetic Solutions Covering Up Reality” (2002) indicate that an insufficient level of public awareness towards the processes that go into cosmetics leads to the continued proliferation of animal testing practices in the industry (Cosmetic Solutions Covering Up Reality, 18).

For example, the article “Animal Testing and the Issues It Raises” (2006) points to various survey based methods of examination where consumers were showed pictures and informed of the practices of various types of cosmetics.

Afterwards, they were asked whether such practices encouraged them to purchase a particular cosmetic brand since it was safe due to meticulous testing procedures or if they were more likely to avoid the brand given its connection with inhumane methods of testing and examination (Animal Testing and the Issues It Raises, 1).

Those that were examined unanimously agreed that they would not have bought that particular brand of cosmetic if they had known that inhumane animal testing practices were being utilized.

On the other hand, it was noted that while consumers stated that they would not buy a brand which they knew subjected animals to such cruelty, they themselves stated that they were unaware that such practices were going on nor did they know which company or brand is responsible for the various animal testing practices at the present.

This shows that the general public does not know any better regarding what really goes on in the cosmetics industry and whether the products they patronize have been developed utilizing unethical methods of production through animal cruelty.

The Ethical Dilemma of Performing Cosmetic Testing on Animals

The problem with utilizing animals in cosmetic testing procedures at the present is the questionable gain that is derived from their usage (Uncage Them, 17). In medical testing procedures animals are subject to a variety of tests and procedures with the end goal of developing a process that would help to save human lives in the future.

New surgical techniques, a variety of vaccines, new types of medication and other such benefits that originate from animal testing for medical knowledge helps to justify their use in such procedures especially when taking into consideration the potentially adverse effects such chemicals or procedures could have on human volunteers for experimentation.

However, when examining the potentially beneficial effects of cosmetic testing on animals there is little that can help to justify the significant loss of animal life (PCRM Asks Cosmetics Companies to Come Clean about Animal Testing, 14). For one thing, cosmetic testing does not create any beneficial medical effect on humans to the extent that it can either save or prolong a human life.

Studies have even shown that the prolonged use of cosmetics can actually be detrimental toward an individual’s face due to blocked pores and long term exposure to a variety of chemicals.

Animals that are part of such procedures are normally exposed to a variety of chemicals and solvents to the extent that investigations into the procedures utilized showed that it was common for severe bleeding to occur, for eyes to literally swell and pop out of their sockets, for the skin to inflame, crack and bleed into the surrounding fur and other similar instances that result in significant pain and discomfort for the animals.

Further compounding the ethical ramifications of the issue is the fact that these animals are not subject to any form of pain relief such as anesthesia or even tranquilizers to keep them unaware of what is happening to them.

The reasoning behind such actions is the fact that the implementation of cosmetic testing procedures on animals is not legally mandated to provide methods of pain relief and, as such, the practice of utilizing pain killers or tranquilizers is not utilized given the added cost of utilizing them as well as the necessity of ensuring that the test subjects move in a “normal” fashion.

Animals that are subjected to these procedures are left in pain for days or weeks at a time as scientists examine the progression of irritation or bleeding which enables them to determine the correct type of dosage to use at a later date (Uncage Them, 17). Some animals are in fact reused extensively with one half of the animal being subject to one test at a time until such a point that sufficient scientific data has been derived from the tests.

It is only at this point that they are promptly disposed of and the next batch of test subjects are subjected to the same type of horrendous treatment. Unfortunately, some of the test subjects fail to reach the point where they are disposed of after days or weeks or agonized testing (Uctas, 38).

Given the diverse array of toxicology characterizations evident into some of the products that are tested on the animals what occurs is usually a prolonged and violent death due to chemical poisoning or the body simply giving up as a result of the severe pain and bleeding that at times occurs.

After analyzing the various circumstances that animals that are subject to cosmetic testing undergo, it becomes clear that what is occurring is a clear and brutal form of prolonged torture. Actions where researchers knowingly subject animals to dangerous and painful procedures with no actual benefit than aesthetics for a select few people that can afford makeup is ethically questionable (Uctas, 38).

The most damning aspect of cosmetic testing procedures it that despite the sheer amount of testing that does occur, nearly 97 percent of all cases of testing fail to reach the market since the effect of testing the same product on humans yields different results than in animals.

The mere fact that 97 percent of all tests can be considered useless procedures where animals were needlessly tortured and killed for nothing showcases how cosmetic testing at the present is not only ethically irresponsible but is also abhorrent in that it is needlessly torturing animals for results that turn out to be useless.

While such testing could have been understandable during the 16th to 18th century where scientific methods of analysis were still in their infancy and lacked the modern technical knowledge that we possess today, the fact remains that since the technology and capability exists in the present then such processes should be implemented instead of needlessly torturing animals.

Present Day Alternatives to Cosmetic Testing on Animals

It should be noted that there are actually a variety of alternatives to present day animal testing procedures such as the Agarose Diffusion Method, cell tissue testing using transepithelial electrical resistance as well as the Critical Micelle Concentration Test (Hunter, 26).

These alternatives can help to determine allergenicity towards particular chemical compounds just as well if not better than traditional animal testing procedures. The only problem really is that these have yet to become industry standards due to the level of uncertainty behind their usage as well as the inherent cost involved in shifting from one method of testing to another.

Abbott, Alison. “Animal Testing: More Than A Cosmetic Change.” Nature 438.7065 (2005): 144-146. Academic Search Premier . Web.

“Animal Testing And The Issues It Raises.” Animal Testing & The Issues It Raises (2006): 1. Science Reference Center . Web.

“Cosmetic Solutions Covering Up Reality.” Ecologist 32.2 (2002): 18. Academic Search Premier . Web.

Davis, Don. “Small Gleam Of Sanity.” Global Cosmetic Industry 168.2 (2001): 60. Business Source Premier . Web.

“Europe Enacts Full Ban On Animal Testing For Cosmetics.” Dermatology Times 34.4 (2013): 14. MasterFILE Premier . Web.

Hunter, Beatrice Trum. “New Alternatives In Safety Testing.” Consumers’ Research Magazine 83.5 (2000): 26. MasterFILE Premier . Web.

Kolar, Roman. “Animal Experimentation.” Science & Engineering Ethics 12.1 (2006): 111-122. Academic Search Premier . Web.

“PCRM Asks Cosmetics Companies To Come Clean About Animal Testing.” Good Medicine 21.4 (2012): 14. MasterFILE Premier . Web.

Uctas, Rachel. “Testing Times.” ICIS Chemical Business 273.14 (2008): 38. MasterFILE Premier . Web.

Ulmer, Rich. “The Future of Safety Testing Labs.” Global Cosmetic Industry Aug. 2007: 28. Vocational and Career Collection . Web.

“Uncage Them!.” Ecologist 31.2 (2001): 17. Academic Search Premier . Web.

• Do Non-Human Animals Have Rights?
• An Ethical Analysis of Animal Rights
• Osborne Cosmetic Surgery's Market Viability
• Cosmetics as a Decorative Technique Used by Women
• The Extent of the Cosmetic Industry in Australia
• Nonhuman Animals in Moral Equality Theories
• Animal Liberation vs. Environmentalism
• Do Animals Possess Moral Rights?
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 13). Cosmetic Testing on Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-3/

"Cosmetic Testing on Animals." IvyPanda , 13 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-3/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Cosmetic Testing on Animals'. 13 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Cosmetic Testing on Animals." April 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-3/.

1. IvyPanda . "Cosmetic Testing on Animals." April 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-3/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Cosmetic Testing on Animals." April 13, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-3/.

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

• Future Perfect

Animal testing, explained

Is anything really “cruelty-free”?

by Celia Ford

It’s nearly impossible to go a day without benefitting from the suffering of animals. The ingredients in your toiletries and makeup; your medicine, vaccines, and implants; your cleaning supplies; the chemicals that helped grow your food — most of it was, at some point, tested on animals.

For centuries, the biological sciences have relied on animal testing. To figure out how a machine works, you need to disassemble it and check out its component parts. Understanding the living body, one of nature’s most complex and beautiful machines, is no different. Taking apart and fiddling with a toaster doesn’t hurt anyone, but dismantling a biological system certainly does.

Many scientists believe that experimenting on living animals is a necessary means of solving problems that affect both humans and animals. But these experiments often involve animals experiencing distress, whether from the side effects of an experimental drug, an intentionally inflicted illness, or simply their confined living situation. Some lucky lab animals get to spend their retirement in sanctuaries once they’re no longer needed. Most of the time, the animal dies, either as a direct consequence of the experiment or from euthanasia.

More often than not, animal research happens behind closed, locked, unmarked doors. That lack of transparency makes it difficult to know what to think about animal testing, and public opinion is tellingly divided. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that 47 percent of people in the US support the use of animals in scientific research, and 52 percent oppose it. Unlike climate change or reproductive health , where the parties are highly polarized, animal testing is one of few science-related policy issues where the attitudes of Republicans and Democrats are pretty similar: Both parties are split roughly 50-50.

Experimenting on animals places two seemingly good things — medical innovation and animal welfare — at odds. Even those who support animal research generally hold nuanced, conflicted beliefs about it, and questions about the nature and extent of animal testing are still hotly debated.

Inside this story

• What animal testing actually does
• Who is looking out for the welfare of animals
• The truth behind labels like “cruelty-free”
• The future of animal-free testing

Brands frequently mislead consumers about animal testing involving their products with vague labeling, and alternative research methods aren’t as broadly applicable as some activist organizations imply . Meanwhile, research facilities often ban employees from sharing photos of lab animals without institutional approval and rarely let the media observe experiments for themselves.

After spending six years as a neuroscience PhD student working in a lab with monkeys, I left academia with the impression that animal testing is neither as well-managed or justified as regulators claim, nor as malicious as others fear. Government agencies are starting to direct funding toward finding alternatives to animal testing, but the use of animals is deeply embedded in biological sciences.

A world without lab animals may be possible, but we don’t live in it yet. Here’s what’s actually going on.

What is animal testing?

Before humans invented microscopes, universities, or even paper, we were using animals for medical research. Over two millennia ago , ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle dissected dozens of animal species to better understand their anatomy and argued that studying their bodies could teach us a lot about our own biology. Over four centuries later, Galen of Pergamon , one of the most pivotal characters in Western medical history, performed public surgeries on animals ( especially monkeys ) for science, providing a spectacle that attracted curious audiences.

Today, animal experimentation is widespread and conducted far from the public eye. It falls under two broad, semi-overlapping umbrellas: biomedical research (which aims to understand, prevent, and treat diseases, as well as uncover fundamental information about how bodies work) and toxicology , or testing the effects of chemicals (including everything from toothpaste and makeup to pesticides) on living things.

Humans generally don’t want to be proverbial guinea pigs for new medicines or consumer products. We’d rather know that things are safe before we put them anywhere near our bodies. Companies, whether they deal in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, also don’t want to be liable for poisoning their customers.

People can participate in experiments that might harm them, but historically, at best, such projects have been difficult to administer . At worst, they have involved illegal human experimentation that cast a long, dark shadow over the field of medical research.

The Tuskegee syphilis study , for example, put hundreds of poor Black men with untreated syphilis through decades of invasive tests in exchange for hot meals and basic medical treatment, just to see how the disease would progress if left untreated. Effective treatments became available during the study, but researchers withheld them. Once the experiment’s scandalous history was publicly disclosed in 1972 , the US government formalized basic ethical guidelines for human research and required Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to approve studies on humans.

Today, many questions — like What is the lethal dose of this new drug? and Does this new surgical technique actually work? — can’t ethically be asked regarding humans without first being tested on a nonhuman subject.

For a long time, animals were the only alternative to humans available. To figure out the lethal dose of a new drug, scientists can give increasingly large amounts of it to mice and see what it takes to kill them. To test whether a brain implant actually relieves Parkinson’s symptoms, scientists do brain surgery on monkeys . Without computational models or cell cultures sophisticated enough to mimic the complicated interactions between organs, the options have historically been to use animals as a proxy or to drop or scale back your planned research.

We can only guess how many animals are being used in scientific experiments worldwide. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes official reports on animal research every year, but they only include animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the federal law setting basic standards for the treatment and housing of certain farm animals and lab animals. The law covers dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, pigs, rabbits, and sheep. In 2019, about 800,000 animals protected by AWA were used in research — 930,000, if you add those that lived in labs but were never included in a study.

Notably, the AWA doesn’t apply to mice and rats, which several studies estimate account for somewhere between 93 and 99 percent of all lab animals in the US. The AWA also excludes invertebrates like flies, worms, fish, and cephalopods like octopuses, whose intelligence makes them intriguing neuroscience subjects. The EU, which counts all vertebrates used in experiments, tallied about 10.6 million animals used in 2017. It’s harder to pin down a number in the US. Depending on who you ask , there might be 10 million rodents subjected to scientific experiments annually, or there might be 111 million. (Either way, it’s more than three times the number of rats in New York City.)

Rodents make appealing animal models for many scientists because they’re smart enough to learn simple tasks but are still socially regarded as pests; those who kill rats for a living don’t face the same kind of backlash as someone who, say, boasts about shooting a puppy . Nearly all mouse genes share functions with human genes, so at a basic level, their biology resembles ours. Mice only live for a year or two, enabling scientists to study things like chronic disease progression without waiting an entire human lifespan. And scientists can genetically alter mice in countless ways, knocking out or adding DNA to express diseases or make certain cell types glow under a microscope.

In some cases, a research question requires invasively studying a full, living biological system, but the gap between mice and humans is too wide. The USDA reported that 68,257 monkeys were used in 2019 to study subjects like SARS-CoV-2 , Parkinson’s disease , and HIV , where physiological and cognitive similarity to humans was a priority. Those primates were mostly macaques and marmosets; the use of chimpanzees (our closest ape relative) is now banned in many countries , including the US .

But monkey research may not be viable much longer. While hundreds of monkey experiments are being funded by the NIH , there aren’t enough long-tailed macaques to go around. In a desperate attempt to keep up with skyrocketing demand, thousands of wild-caught monkeys are illegally imported to US research institutions from countries like Cambodia. Two years ago, the long-tailed macaque was listed as endangered for the first time. PETA petitioned the US government to protect the species under the Endangered Species Act , which could end their use in research altogether, but the request has yet to be approved. Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of experimenting on an animal so similar to us, including some of the scientists who do it. However, many scientists and policymakers agree that we still don’t have non-animal alternatives that can answer tough research questions involving interactions between organs. Researchers worry that the looming primate shortage in the US — engendered by transportation restrictions and therapeutic testing requirements and exacerbated by pandemic-era demands — will limit our ability to respond to public health emergencies.

Monkeys are traditionally recognized as the only nonhuman animals that react to drugs with human-specific targets, meaning that in some cases, their body’s reactions could uniquely predict whether a drug will be safe and effective for humans. During the first years of the Covid-19 pandemic, monkeys were considered so crucial to SARS-CoV-2 research that when the rhesus macaque supply dried up, scientists didn’t turn to cell cultures or computer models — they just looked for different monkeys .

You might not agree that this research justifies the nonconsensual use of highly intelligent animals; many don’t, for both ethical and scientific reasons. But it’s happening, and if you’ve been vaccinated or take medications, you’ve likely benefited from it.

Who’s looking out for the welfare of lab animals?

The regulatory framework surrounding animal research is a tangled web of acronyms, committees, and working groups. Since the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966, the USDA has been in charge of enforcing it through inspections and annual reports.

In theory, researchers have to justify the use of animals in their work. To conduct an animal experiment, scientists in the US go through a review process with their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which decides whether animals are “necessary” and whether steps are being taken to minimize their pain.

IACUCs are mostly comprised of researchers who experiment on animals and the veterinarians who help them, strongly biasing committees toward approving animal experiments. In the US and elsewhere, scientists are subtly incentivized to use animals, even when they aren’t actually necessary. Academic journals tend to preferentially publish work with animal methods , and academic careers hinge on accumulating publications . These norms seep into the labs where animal experiments are performed. New animal researchers often receive explicit instructions on how to steer clear of animal rights activists, according to several researchers I spoke with while working as a neuroscientist (as well as my own experience).

This can make holding institutions accountable for animal welfare violations challenging. While researchers are required to report information about animals in their facilities, like what medical procedures they’ve received and when they’ve been fed, they are told to keep these reports “ minimal, but complete .” In other words: Avoid including photos, videos, or graphic descriptions that could enrage activists or entice the media.

There also isn’t a clear legal definition for “animal cruelty” in research settings beyond violations of the basic standards outlined by the Animal Welfare Act. This leaves some room for interpretation about what is acceptable and what would constitute illegal treatment. The EU’s Directive 2010/63/EU , its equivalent of the Animal Welfare Act, emphasizes that animals should only be used if there are no other options and if the potential benefits of the research outweigh the animals’ suffering.

This cost-benefit analysis is subjective. For example, a team of immunologists studying cancer in mice would probably say that the potential public health benefits of their work justify harming mice. A team of science policy experts at PETA would say that mice aren’t ours to use and that these experiments often don’t translate to human trials, anyway .

To bridge this ethical divide, research universities and private companies in the UK have signed a Concordat on Openness on Animal Research , pledging to proactively and transparently inform the public about their treatment of lab animals. In the decade since its launch, nine other countries have followed suit. It’s likely not a coincidence that these countries generally have the tightest restrictions on animal use. However, an independent review found that Concordat signatories in the UK are still struggling to be transparent about their animal research practices in the face of potential disapproval.

On top of the slow pace for necessary regulation, stigma obscures the true nature of what happens in these labs. In the late 2000s, the most extreme opponents of animal testing used violence to try to end the practice, sending poisoned razors and death threats to lab heads and, in at least one case, firebombing a neurobiologist’s car . But rather than encourage scientists to reconsider their methods, attacks like these cemented a culture of silence. While physical violence is not representative of activism against animal testing today — which usually centers around investigations , government advocacy , and direct care for animals and has shifted to become more inclusive — the threat of retaliation still haunts animal researchers , some of whom are encouraged by their institutions to hide their connections to animal testing from the public.

Scientists “don’t want to feel like they’re bad people,” said neuroscientist and author Garet Lahvis, who has written about primate research for Vox.

What if I want to avoid animal testing altogether? What does “cruelty-free” mean?

After learning about what lab animals go through, some people will want to find ways to avoid the products of animal testing. This is much easier said than done, however.

Animal testing is pervasive in health care. Many treatments we take for granted today, like anesthesia , flu shots , and allergy medications , went through preclinical trials in animals before reaching us. They are also valuable to your health, so please keep taking your medicine if you need it. We have more power to avoid animal testing elsewhere. Animal testing requirements are generally looser to nonexistent for cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and other household chemicals, so it’s possible to buy “cruelty-free” makeup or laundry detergent.

The legal distinction between “cosmetics” and “drugs” is blurry, though. Essentially, drugs claim to affect the body’s structure or function in some way, while cosmetics are things you apply to your body to change your appearance (like lipstick) or clean yourself (like deodorant — but not soap, which is neither a cosmetic nor a drug, but its own special category ). Many products we might think of as cosmetics are, in fact, also drugs, like anti-dandruff shampoo, tinted moisturizer with sunscreen, and other cosmetics that claim to treat some ailment. In the US, all of these items had to be tested on animals until the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 took effect in 2023 .

Cruelty-free claims used on product labels are often misleading, and differences in regulation across countries add to the confusion.

For years, the EU , Canada, Mexico, and 16 other countries (including South Korea, for the skincare girlies ) have had legislation in place banning animal testing for cosmetics or their ingredients (although last year, the UK changed their policy to allow testing for makeup ingredients again). But testing on final products or their ingredients has never been banned in the US. Even if a company doesn’t test its final product on animals, it may still run animal tests on raw ingredients. And even if those raw ingredients aren’t currently being tested on animals, they probably were when they were first introduced.

The US government doesn’t have a legal definition for the terms “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals.” A product labeled “cruelty-free” likely earned voluntary certification from a private organization like Leaping Bunny or PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies program by pledging to end animal testing at all stages of product development. The definition of “cruelty-free” isn’t standardized across animal protection groups, but earning a “bunny label” generally means that a brand attested to never conducting tests on animals during a product’s development.

Despite pressure from advocates and consumers, many US companies don’t bother with these pledges on animal testing. As of this year, approximately 310 brands globally still test their beauty and household cleaning products on animals. And some actively say they don’t test on animals at all but still sell their products to countries like China, which, until recently, required that all cosmetics (even imported ones) be tested on animals . Most certification programs exclude brands and products sold in China for this very reason.

To make it easier for US companies to sell truly cruelty-free products in China, US regulators and animal welfare advocates have been lobbying their Chinese counterparts for years to change their approach to animal testing for consumer products. Twenty years ago, Thomas Hartung, a toxicologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, spoke with the National Medical Products Administration (China’s FDA) about regulating animal testing of chemicals and told me “it was like we were coming from Mars.”

In response to yearslong campaigns by organizations like PETA and the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, China recently lifted this requirement . It is now possible to buy Chinese cosmetics that weren’t tested on animals — kind of.

As of January 2021, China no longer requires pre-market or post-market animal testing for cosmetics, meaning that companies from the US and elsewhere can sell things like eyeliner or nail polish in China while still maintaining “cruelty-free” status. But certain “special cosmetics,” like sunscreen, teeth whiteners, and hair dye, or products made for children, are all still required to undergo animal testing. And if a product uses a raw ingredient that isn’t already approved in China, foreign companies have to either reformulate or get that ingredient approved, which requires more animal testing. So, it’s possible to sell US-made “cruelty-free” products in China, but it requires sifting through a confusing and ever-evolving swamp of documentation requirements.

We have made imperfect progress toward a world of cruelty-free cosmetics. While the number of animals used for cosmetic testing in the US has dropped by 90 percent since the 1980s, 44 of the largest 50 cosmetic brands in the world still are not cruelty-free . And without a consensus agreement on what “cruelty-free” actually means, consumers are left to guess which bunny labels are genuine and which are false advertising.

Since many brands can just slap on cruelty-free claims while still sending products abroad to animal testing labs, for now, if you want to avoid animal testing, Leaping Bunny and Beauty Without Bunnies are your best bets. These certifications consider post-market animal testing in other countries as part of their standards.

Alternative methods are (slowly) coming

In some places, like the UK, strict restrictions on animal research and a commitment to transparency have considerably improved lab conditions in recent decades. Companies like Neuralink , however, continue to perform high-risk, ethically dubious experiments hidden from the public eye.

While new alternative methods are under development, animal testing remains necessary in at least some circumstances. Tight regulation — and buy-in from scientists — will be key to minimizing harm in the meantime.

Nicole Kleinstreuer, acting director of the NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) , told me that improving the current state of animal testing hinges on researchers gathering “the courage to admit that we can substantially improve upon how we’ve been doing things historically.”

Until relatively recently, alternatives to animal testing in many areas of science were very limited. But in the past decade, bioengineering and computer science have advanced rapidly. New tools like AI, organoids (balls of stem cells that grow into organ tissue), and CRISPR have made replacing animals, at least in certain experiments, more attainable.

For chemical testing, good animal-free research methods have been around for decades — long before most scientists considered using them. Even when well-validated animal alternatives exist, researchers can be slow to adopt them . Hartung, a toxicologist, said, “I turned 60 last year. The methods they’re using were introduced when I was in kindergarten.”

In 2007, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine , a nonprofit that produces independent policy guidance for the US, laid out a strategy for researchers to move away from using animals in toxicity testing and to develop faster, more human-relevant models to take their place. Today, a number of working groups, both within the US and collaborating internationally, are still trying to put this principle into practice.

As the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is uniquely positioned to influence animal testing. In 2023, the NIH spent an estimated $19 billion on US-based projects involving animals, according to Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research and Experimentation. Between 2011 and 2021, they spent $2.2 billion on projects based in other countries — where oversight boils down to trusting self-generated, non-validated reports from foreign institutions.

Kleinstreuer said that changing the current state of animal research “really necessitates a sea change, and a dramatic investment on the part of funders, particularly the NIH.”

The people in charge of the money have the power to redistribute it and could choose to spend more of it on projects that don’t use animals and less on those that do. That’s the easy part. “It’s kind of the lowest-hanging fruit, and the easiest ask,” said Emily Trunnell , director of Science Advancement and Outreach at PETA. “Even people who are in support of animal testing are on board with the funding of different methods as well.”

NICEATM, led by Kleinstreuer, is doing the in-the-weeds work of figuring out how we’d know whether a replacement method is good enough to substitute for animal experiments. Earlier this year, the NIH also approved the Complement Animal Research in Experimentation (Complement-ARIE) Program , which will set up technology development centers for researchers to make better human-based models.

Non-animal methods can already outperform certain animal tests. Back in 2018, Hartung’s research group created algorithms mapping the relationships between 10,000 known chemical compounds. With this model and lots of data, they predicted the toxicity of 89 percent of the 48,000 toxic chemicals more accurately than animal tests could and for much less money — without endangering any living creatures. Since then, Hartung said things have only become better. But AI-driven research methods are still limited by what real-world data has already been collected. “When you have no data,” he said, “nothing is possible.”

In some cases, using animals is simply bad science. There are some questions “that absolutely necessitate a human cell-based approach,” Kleinstreuer said. “You can’t look at the efficacy of a drug whose target is not expressed in animals by using animal models,” she added. Certain cancer drugs target protein receptors that only exist in humans, and gene therapies often aim to rewrite human-specific DNA sequences. One emerging option: take a sample of human cells, reprogram them to behave like whatever cells you want them to be, and test your drug on the resulting tissue sample.

These tools offer exciting opportunities to personalize medicine to individual patients, but it’s still tough to extrapolate results from a small mass of lab-grown cells in a tightly controlled environment to a human body and the complex interactions of its organ systems. Cancer and embryonic development are incredibly complex biological processes, involving lots of different interconnected body parts that evolve over time. Without that capability, Kleinstreuer said it’s harder to argue that a substance is actually safe and ready to clear for human use.

Change happens one retirement at a time

As it stands, alternatives to animal tests are not being used as widely as they should be, especially in cosmetics. But if we want to study things like deep brain stimulation or run safety tests on new cancer drugs , animal tests are all we have.

While we are stuck with animal experiments, we can try to limit them and make them more humane. Lahvis believes that we should have extremely strict criteria for what animal experiments are funded. Strategically allocating grant funding could not only save millions of lives, but also inspire better science.

Convincing animal researchers to replace animals with other methods is still a huge challenge. Hartung joked that in academia, change happens “one retirement at a time.” Unfortunately, “it’s often been one graveyard at a time,” as retired scientists continue to serve as reviewers who help choose what new projects get funded and published.

The further along a scientist is in their career, the more challenging it becomes to pivot. Because scientists are pushed to maintain a constant level of productivity, Trunnell said, someone who builds their whole lab around their current use of animal models has no incentive to change, unless they have a strong desire to do so. Changing tactics could mean putting their job on the line.

“We’re highly leveraged by the system to keep doing what we’ve always done,” Lahvis agreed. And, Hartung said, turning against a tried-and-true method would require a scientist invalidating their existing body of work or at least acknowledging that it was either unethical, ineffective, or inefficient. Using past observations to inform future experiments is at the core of the scientific method, but, Hartung said, “We’re not trained to be very self-critical.”

That said, a growing number of scientists support the development of non-animal methods, even as they continue to work with animals themselves. People want new tools, whether for the sake of animal welfare or simply because it would make for better science. We might just have to wait another generation.

• Animal Welfare

Most Popular

• There’s a fix for AI-generated essays. Why aren’t we using it?
• Did Brittany Mahomes’s Donald Trump support put her on the outs with Taylor Swift?
• The hidden reason why your power bill is so high
• Conservatives are shocked — shocked! — that Tucker Carlson is soft on Nazis
• America’s love affair with the increasingly weird Kennedys

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Future Perfect

From granola bars to chips, more studies are revealing that UPFs are tied to diseases like cancer and depression.

Too much fluoride might lower IQ in kids, a new federal report says. The science (and debate), explained.

EVs help reduce greenhouse emissions. But too many used gas-guzzlers could make that impossible.

The US military’s recruiting crisis, explained.

Gavin Newsom could decide the future of AI safety. But will he cave to billionaire pressure?

Organ companies are getting up to pancreas hijinks.

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

• History of Animal Testing

Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other  biomedical , commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as circa 500 BC. Physician-scientists such as  Aristotle ,  Herophilus , and  Erasistratus  performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms.  Vivisection  (dissection of a living organism) was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human body in ancient Greece led to a reliance on animal subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them.  Theophrastus , a successor to Aristotle, disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, like humans, they can feel pain, and causing pain to animals was an affront to the gods. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments for humans and animals alike. Nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. To name just a few examples, animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions including breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and tuberculosis. Testing on animals was also instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Scientists racing to develop a vaccine for coronavirus during the 2020 global pandemic needed to test on genetically modified mice to ensure that the vaccine did not make the virus worse. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Australia, said testing a coronavirus vaccine on animals is “absolutely essential” and skipping that step would be “fraught with difficulty and danger.” [ 119 ] [ 133 ] Researchers have to test extensively to prevent “vaccine enhancement,” a situation in which a vaccine actually makes the disease worse in some people. “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals,” explains Peter Hotez, Dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College. [ 119 ] [ 141 ] Further, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. Vaccines tested on animals have saved millions of animals that would otherwise have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [ 9 ] [ 21 ] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing to develop safe drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. [ 9 ] [ 13 ] [ 23 ] Read More

Pro 2 Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [ 9 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] Animals often make better research subjects than humans because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. [ 9 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] Further, animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. [ 19 ] [ 20 ] A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 120 ] Read More

Pro 3 Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. [ 3 ] All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Most major research institutions’ programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Rachel Rubino, attending veterinarian and director of the animal facility at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, says, “Most people who work with research animals love those animals…. We want to give them the best lives possible, treat them humanely.” At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s animal research facility, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a “toy rotation program” provides opportunities for play. [ 28 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means,” according to Humane Society International. The US Department of Agriculture reported in Jan. 2020 that research facilities used over 300,000 animals in activities involving pain in just one year. [ 47 ] [ 102 ] Plus, most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates: “only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used.” A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies, including “incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud.” [ 64 ] [ 128 ] Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 26 ] [ 28 ] [ 135 ] Even the animals protected by the AWA are mistreated. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [ 68 ] Read More

Con 2 Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after succeeding in animal trials. Nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [ 5 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 109 ] [ 110 ] Plus, animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.” [ 105 ] [ 106 ] [ 127 ] Read More

Con 3 Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.” The Environmental Protection Agency is so confident in alternatives that the agency intends to reduce chemical testing on mammals 30% by 2025 and end it altogether by 2035. [ 61 ] [ 134 ] [ 140 ] Scientists are also able to test vaccines on humans volunteers. Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code. [ 142 ] [ 143 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Animal Testing – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• Did You Know?
• Glossary: Animals Used in Animal Testing
• Number of Animals Used for Testing
• Cite this Page
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Argumentative Paper: Against Animal Testing

Argumentative Paper: Against Animal Testing

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 682 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 682 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, ethical concerns, scientific limitations, economic considerations, legal issues, public opinion and activism.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1012 words

1 pages / 603 words

6 pages / 2522 words

1 pages / 423 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Good morning. I am here today to convince you all to oppose, stop, and disengage from the cruel and unnecessary animal testing.Did you know that the lipstick, the eye shadow and the mascara we use to make ourselves look more [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

Animals have been an integral part of human existence for centuries. They have served as companions, sources of food, and even as subjects for scientific experiments. However, as our understanding of their complex cognitive [...]

Animal testing has been a subject of ethical and scientific debate for decades. Proponents argue that it is essential for medical advancements, while opponents criticize it for being inhumane and morally unacceptable. Animal [...]

Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]

Animal testing is a debated issue over the previous decades. Animal testing in simple words is the use of animals in researches in order to determine the safety of various products such as foods, drugs and cosmetics. People have [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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 for cosmetic should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fully explain your ideas

To get an excellent score in the IELTS Task 2 writing section, one of the easiest and most effective tips is structuring your writing in the most solid format. A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences).

For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:

• Paragraph 1 - Introduction
• Sentence 1 - Background statement
• Sentence 2 - Detailed background statement
• Sentence 3 - Thesis
• Sentence 4 - Outline sentence
• Paragraph 2 - First supporting paragraph
• Sentence 1 - Topic sentence
• Sentence 2 - Example
• Sentence 3 - Discussion
• Sentence 4 - Conclusion
• Paragraph 3 - Second supporting paragraph
• Paragraph 4 - Conclusion
• Sentence 1 - Summary
• Sentence 2 - Restatement of thesis
• Sentence 3 - Prediction or recommendation

Our recommended essay structure above comprises of fifteen (15) sentences, which will make your essay approximately 250 to 275 words.

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• multilingual
• communicate
• cognitive skills
• cultural awareness
• opportunities
• globalized world
• linguistic abilities
• cultural exchange
• language proficiency
• language barrier
• foreign travel
• personal growth
• academic achievement
• self-confidence
• cross-cultural communication
• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

In number of countries, some People think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing New railway lines for very fast trains between cities. Other believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Some people believe that allowing children to make their own choices on everyday matters(such as food, clothes, and entertainment) is likely to result in a society of individuals who only think about their own wishes. other people believe that it is important for children to make decisions about matters that affect them., influence of human beings on the world ecosystem is leading to the extinction of species and loss of biodiversity. what are the primary causes of loss of biodiversity what solution can you suggest, a company has announced that it is wishes to build a large factory near your community. discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new influence on your country. do you support or oppose the factory explain your position., some people think that success in life comes from hard work and determination, while others think that there are more important factors such as money and appearance. discuss both views and give your opinion..