2 of 72

No

Write now Article Tools

Wearing the trendiest lipstick just because it's recommended by a gorgeous supermodel who's being paid millions to convince gullible women to buy it, while ignoring the fact that it may have been tested on animals, is not morally OK. Human vanity is a very inadequate reason to cause animal suffering.

Unlike pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and household products are not required by law to be tested on animals. Nevertheless, many companies do so anyway because they claim that they're concerned about consumer litigation. This is an inadequate reason to subject animals to testing because there are now more sophisticated and humane testing methods available, such as computer models and cell cultures, and more are being developed every year. These tests are also more accurate, less expensive and less time-consuming than animal experiments.

Despite the availability of such cruelty-free research methods, three main methods requiring the use of animals are still widely used to test cosmetics: the Draize eye and skin irritancy tests and the Lethal Dose toxicity test. All three are unspeakably cruel to animals.

The Draize tests involve applying concentrated chemical solutions to the eyes or the skin of animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice, dogs, and cats for prolonged periods. They can and do cause bleeding, burning, ulceration, blindness and blistering. Not only do they involve the torture and death of innocent animals, they are also scientifically questionable because the physiology of humans compared to other animals can differ greatly.

Lethal Dose testing sounds just as sadistic as it is. It measures the amount of the chemical that is needed to kill a certain percentage of test animals within a specified amount of time. Because no animal would willingly submit to this kind of torment, force feeding, forced inhaling, injections, and other involuntary exposure to cosmetics, deodorants, colognes, soaps, etc., is employed until 50% to 100% of the animals are dead. Death comes only after they suffer unspeakable pain, convulsions, loss of motor function and/or seizures. Despite the extreme animal suffering involved in the Lethal Dose test, just as with the Draize tests, the results are often scientifically ambiguous and invalid.

The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report in which it proposed the gradual phasing out of animal testing on consumer products in favor of non-animal models and commented that traditional animal testing can eventually be greatly reduced and even eliminated.

More good news is that over 700 cosmetics and household product companies have voluntarily announced permanent bans on animal testing. Some companies have never performed tests on animals. Lists of cruelty-free companies are available from various animal advocacy groups, including PETA.

Ideally, the term "cruelty-free" should mean that the product is ethically produced, that is, neither the individual ingredients nor the finished product have ever been tested on animals and the product is completely free of animal-derived ingredients. However, as a consumer, you should know that "cruelty-free" doesn't always mean that. Be that as it may, the "cruelty-free" label is still an important one to look for whenever you shop for cosmetics, until the time that animals are no longer tormented and killed for nothing more important than human vanity.

API4animals.org/a2_research.ph p

Learn more about this author, Ardeth Baxter.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is it morally OK to test cosmetics on animals??
We want to hear your view. Write now!