A Major Statement: Cosmetic Animal Testing as an Obsolete Practice

As a species, humans are both very selfless and very selfish. They like to think of themselves as selfless: people donate to charity, they volunteer, and they send their loose change to help save elephants from ivory hunting. But there is a certain point when people turn a blind eye to the violence that is incorporated into their everyday lives. Humans like to make grand gestures: the Ringling Bros. has shut down due to efforts to help the “entertainment” animals, and “Blackfish,” the SeaWorld documentary was a huge success. But there is something so simple that could change the face of animal cruelty: stopping cosmetic animal testing. Shampoo, soap, eye shadow, shaving cream, lipstick, lotion, and chap stick are just some of the products that are tested on animals in the cruelest of ways. These animals are tortured, shaved, bled, infected, and then brutally killed every day for the sake of cosmetics sections in grocery and department stores. What makes matters worse is that animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients isn’t even legally required in the United States (The Humane Society of the United States). This is a case of necessity versus luxury. In a world where cosmetic animal testing was the only viable way to test the safety of products, reforms in the execution of the testing would be enough. However, because the United States is one of the holdout countries clinging to this archaic practice, and because there are more effective, efficient and cruelty-free alternatives that are readily available, it is clear that there is no longer a need for cosmetic animal testing in today’s modern world. The fact that major brands continue this practice is ludicrous, and there should be legislation in place in America that protects animals from scientific cruelty just as there are laws preventing domestic animal abuse. What does location and purpose have to do with it? What exactly creates the hierarchy between humans and these organisms with whom human beings share a living space? Violence is violence, and progress in science has led us to better and more peaceful ways of testing the safety of cosmetic products. With all of this to consider, there needs to be major reform in the legal policies of cosmetic animal testing, and a transition to more forward-thinking and safer methods of testing safety.

Before getting into proposed legislation changes and implementations going forward in cosmetic safety testing, it is important to understand what exactly goes into cosmetic animal testing. In cosmetic animal testing, products are being applied topically to the animals, and the scientists are judging the reaction. This is not limited to the skin, though. Products can be applied to the eyes, ears, and mouth as well. If there is a burn-like wound when the skin is exposed to UV rays, it means that the product has an adverse reaction and is unsafe for human use (Motivans). Essentially anything is fair game in the animal-testing world. Every day, millions of animals are slaughtered for the sake of shampoo safety and the like. These animals are routinely blinded, burned, poisoned, mutilated, and even operated upon without anesthesia, being cut open whilst fully aware (Animal Legal Defense Fund). When did it become okay for humans to enact unnecessary violence onto other animals? Because, in fact, humans are animals. The people of the world are very quick to forget that they are genetically similar to the ones that are “lesser” than they are. Chimpanzees, for example, share 96% of their genetic code with human beings (Lovgren). That means there is a mere 4% of genome separating a normal human consumer with the monkey that was tortured and slaughtered so that the human could buy a chap stick. Doesn’t it sound crazy when it’s described that way? It’s because it’s not being sugar coated. So many corporations want to mask the fact that they profit off of violence, and there is not a lot of legislation keeping them from doing so.

In the United States, there are very few laws in place for the well being of lab test animals. In fact, a whopping 95% of the 100 million animals having cosmetic products and ingredients tested on them are not protected by US law (Animal Legal Defense Fund). This is where an argument of necessity and absolutes come into play. In a perfect world, humans wouldn’t need to test cosmetic products on animals because they wouldn’t be using ingredients that could potentially blind or maim someone. However, in an acceptable world, when products needed to be tested, there would be civil practices in place that prioritize the safety and health of the test subjects. That just is not the scenario humans have created. The have chosen to treat these animals as property to be played with and disposed of, and the laws that activists and lawmakers have tried to put in place don’t do much to stop it. According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund:

“Legal tests include burning, poisoning, starving, forced smoking, mutilating, blinding, electrocuting, drowning, and dissecting without painkillers. For decades, cats, dogs, primates, birds, rodents, horses, goats, pigs, and other animals have been experimented on with these measures….Given the climate of poor regulatory oversight, many animals are also abused, neglected, and harmed in ways that violate the law. In 2012, monkeys were boiled alive when sent through scalding-hot mechanical cage washers, while others overheated to death in poor laboratory conditions. Other examples include open-heart surgeries without painkillers and unauthorized amputations.”

They also went into detail on the “poor regulatory oversight.” Apparently, there are inspectors hired to be in charge of making sure that animal testing agencies are in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and other legislation. However, the government doesn’t hire enough of these inspectors to adequately, or even efficiently, oversee all of the labs in the country, and if they do see something suspicious, they are not given enough power to do anything substantial about it (Animal Legal Defense Fund). What is the point in creating laws that are in place to protect animals, if these laws are going to be routinely violated? If human beings were able to comply with the supposed “humane” practices that they attempt to put in place, then reasonable and less violent animal testing would seem more appealing to activists. The fact is that humans, at least Americans, are incapable of negotiating the extremes of animal cruelty. Part of the problem is that there is a superiority complex between humans and other animals, and this needs to be explored further in order to understand why humans feel the need to step on the shoulders of others to better their own lives.

What makes a “person” and what kind of “person” or being should be protected under US law? Or, on the other hand, do animals need to be considered “people” in order to be protected? These are important questions to consider when talking about legislation reform and animal rights in general. Within this debate, the focus has turned to the concept of self-government and the ability for a living being to deny an innate desire out of respect for obligation. Theorists called this being ruled by the “ought” (Koorsgaard 4). The understanding is that, to be a part of government, a “person” respects the laws and in return, the law respects them. There are, however, holes in this logic. What separates a baby from a non-human animal in this scenario? It can be argued that babies are incapable of turning down their innate desires, and often act out of instinct because they don’t know any better. Babies cannot communicate any better than a non-human animal can, and in some ways, animals can communicate their needs more efficiently through lessons that they learn by observing humans. What separates a baby from, say, a chimpanzee? In a study conducted with a group of chimpanzees in Switzerland, chimpanzees actually showed a level of morality comparable to that of a human being’s. The chimpanzees were shown various videos of violent acts involving their kind, but the chimpanzees’ attention was drawn to a video depicting chimpanzee infanticide, which implied that they viewed it at socially unacceptable behavior (Sims). What the team, headed by Dr. Claudia Rudolf von Rohr, was discovering, was that chimpanzees have the precursors of social morality that humans claim to be unique to their own kind. In fact, chimpanzees are like humans in many ways, including behavior that is based on community and social customs (Rudolf von Rohr, 3). This all, in short, shows that the ability to distinguish primal desire from socially acceptable behavior is not solely an ability of the human race, as once was thought. Chimpanzees were even noted to console recipients of violence or aggression (Rudolf von Rohr, 4).

If moral emotions can be found in chimpanzees, who’s to say that other animals do not possess them? There is already much research showing that animals communicate, form communities, use teamwork and make bonds. Penguins mate for life: and that kind of devotion shows a certain sense of morality in a sexual way.

Where does one draw the line when evaluating moral behavior? It can be argued that direct understanding of legislation is not a prerequisite to its protection. If one goes back to the previously described example of infants, it is obvious that they do not understand the laws that are in place in the country, but if someone abuses a baby, they face serious jail time. The same goes for those living in our country that suffer from mental illness or disability: they are not capable of understanding or even consciously following the law, yet there are specific laws made for their protection and well-being. What then, is the difference between a human being who does not have “a capacity to assess the grounds of our beliefs and actions, and to adjust them accordingly” and another living being who does not possess that either? (Korsgaard 2). It is not fair that one subject in this argument is treated with respect and love, and the other is made a torture victim and lab property. This debate is not as black and white as politicians would like to believe. Just as humans have provided exceptional legislation for those of their species that don’t quite fit the mold of responsible citizen, a sort of special law should exist for these animals that match up with humans in other ways. They, who, like humans, are sentient, feel pain, and use rational thinking, deserve the respect that should exist between coexisting members of the population of the planet.

Although a strong case can be made for “personhood” protection for these abused animals, it is not entirely necessary for their protection. Humans do not solely have to protect the things that are “equals” to them. History has taught human kind again and again that taking advantage of those who are “beneath” a class of humans in any way does not end well, and is eventually heavily regretted. There was a time in history where it was perfectly acceptable to own another human being. Now, that concept is looked at with disgust, and it is understood that it is not right to assume ownership over what is not understood or seen as equal. There is a similar, not identical, situation at play here, and the United States has been a little slow on the uptake. A good requisite for the idea of “personhood” or a general protection of rights is the universality of the definition. Human kind should be in agreement about what constitutes a human being, and what merits legal protection in the case of violence and personal safety in the world of cosmetic products, even if the subjects aren’t given full “personhood.” America, as it turns out, is on the wrong end of a growing trend to ban cosmetic animal testing. The entirety of the European Union, which includes 28 countries, has completely banned it, as well as Israel, Norway, India, Turkey, New Zealand and South Korea (Motivans). And of several of the countries where it is not illegal, like Australia, there are active petitions to make it so. So what makes European attitudes on this issue different than American ones? As a multi-national organization, this is a bold move for the EU to take. What is most admirable about their determination to move away from animal-tested products is the emphasis that they put on necessity, just as has been outlined here. The EU recognized that animal testing was not a necessity for cosmetic products, and did a full and comprehensive study on alternative methods and their effectiveness in 2011. Then, they assessed when alternative methods would be able to take over all existing methods. Then, when that time came, they put the law into place, saying:

“On 11 March 2013, the Commission finalised the review process by adopting a Communication on the animal testing and marketing ban and on the state of play in relation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics. This Communication confirms the Commission’s commitment to maintaining the 2013 deadline and outlines how it intends to further support research and innovation in the area while promoting animal welfare worldwide. In addition, the EURL-CVAM Technical Report 2013 provides a more detailed overview of progress made in the development, validation, and regulatory acceptance of alternatives” (European Commission).

Their focus was to move away from archaic and antiquated ways of testing safety of these products, and using intelligence and initiative to do something better for humans and animals. The point of their work is to point out that people can have it both ways: there is a way to have safe cosmetic products and not hurt other living beings in the process. So, the question remains: if that’s an option, then why aren’t all countries doing it? Part of it is possibly fear to move away from what is tried and true, as is human nature. But it is also human nature to explore boundaries and continue to push to come up with better solutions to problems. The cold hard facts are that animals are dying horrible deaths because of cosmetic product testing, and they’re being tortured all the way to death’s door. Humans have a propensity to crave power, and to assert that power over others, but at some point the obvious, more humane alternatives need to be recognized.

The EU alone has written several progress reports, created scientific partnerships and worked for several years to enacted scientifically proven alternative cosmetics testing paired with appropriate policy change. What is more admirable about their work is that it is all-inclusive; they are passionate about ending animal cruelty, but they focus on the science in order to make that vision a credible reality. In fact, their goals don’t just benefit the animals; they also are making things better for the companies doing the testing. According to their 2012 Progress report, their goals included: “to assess safety: Of a much larger number of substances and mixtures than is currently possible, More rapidly, efficiently, and cost effectively than at present, In systems that may be more relevant to toxicity in humans, as well as capable of identifying the cellular mechanisms at the root of toxicity and disease, Using fewer or no animals” (Seidle 14). The idea of cruelty-free practices is only one of the many positive and budget-friendly goals of their research.

They have good reason for dedicating so much of their time to this research. The harsh truth of animal testing is that it is neither as efficient nor as accurate as many would like to believe. Animal skin reacts differently to substances than human skin, and therefore the reactions documented in lab can only somewhat predict what exposure to the chemical being studied will do. In fact, chemical testing on animals such as guinea pigs only have an accuracy of 72% when detecting allergic reaction (Motivans). When dealing with the safety of consumers, this earns a grade of about a C-. This is not very comforting, especially when considering allergies that consumers may have. These numbers are not impressive; in fact they are shockingly disappointing. Statistics like these are why the EU and other scientific organizations have donated so much time and money to developing more accurate and safer, cruelty-free tests. The good news is that these tests exist, and their success rate is much higher than those of pre-established animal testing.

Several different kinds of cruelty-free product testing exist. Some involve donated human skin or cultured human cells (Motivans). This is ideal because the tests are actually conducted on human skin and the reaction can be measured accordingly. This method is called Phototoxicity, and these tests have a 90% accuracy of measuring allergic reaction. This is almost 20% more accurate than traditional animal testing (Motivans). If this is not scientific progress, then nothing is. Another type of test that was developed with the help of the EU’s effort is carcinoGENICS. The idea behind these tests were using in vitro cells to create models of human and rat livers in order to test the carcinogenic effect of certain substances on the human body (Seidle 25). Also, during the experiments and testing for carcinoGENICS, a company called Cellartis was able to do something that will promote accurate, effective and cruelty-free testing for products. Cellartis was successful in creating “a homogenous, reproducible, feeder-free

monolayer culture of human embryonic stem cell-derived hepatocyte-like cells (hES-HEP)” (Seidle 26). This means that there is a never ending supply of test tissue for tests of this sort, and that is incredibly more economic for labs. When labs have test animals, they need to first buy the animals themselves, then they need to buy cages, restraints, and food in order to contain the animals. In addition to this, they need to dispose of the deceased animals in some way, and that costs money as well. On top of this, when the animals do eventually die, the entire process starts over again with the purchase of new lab animals. Creating a self-preserving and reproducible sample of human skin is ground-breaking for science and extremely budget-friendly.

CarcinoGENICs is only the tip of the iceberg of in vitro chemical testing, with programs like ChemScreen, that tests human and environmental toxicity of products, as well as ESNATS, which uses embryonic stem cells to study a wide variety of cell responses in their native tissue, and even NanoTEST, involving the use of in vitro and in silico testing methods to assess the toxicity of nanoparticles on the human body so that the field of nanomedicine can be advanced (Seidle 65). The success rates of these different programs are immense, and it shows enormous progress for the world of science. If these companies can prove the effectiveness and efficiency of these tests enough for the entire EU to use their results as a basis for legislation reform for animal testing, then it is only natural that the United States follows suit. The facts are there, in black and white, and the U.S. cannot allow itself to be held down by comfort and inflexibility. It is time that the world move into the future of what science can be, and let go of violence where it is neither necessary nor effective.

Works Cited

Animal Legal Defense Fund. "Animal Testing and the Law." Aldf.org. Animal Legal Defense Fund, n.d. Web.

The Humane Society of the United States. "Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing." HumaneSociety.org. The Humane Society of the United States, n.d. Web.

Korsgaard, Christine M. "Personhood, Animals, and the Law." Personhood, Animals, and the Law (n.d.): n. pag. People.fas.harvard.edu. Harvard University. Web.

Lovgren, Stefan. "Chimps, Humans 96% The Same, Gene Study Finds." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 31 Aug. 2005. Web.

Motivans, Elena. "Chinese Laws Are Fuelling Animal Testing for Makeup." ZME Science. ZME Science, 07 Dec. 2016. Web.

Rudolf von Rohr, C; Burkart, J M; van Schaik, C P (2011). Evolutionary precursors of social norms in chimpanzees: a new approach. Biology and Philosophy, 26(1):1-30. DOI: 10.1007/s10539-010-9240-4

Seidle, Troy, and Horst Speilmann, eds. "Alternative Testing Strategies Progress Report 2012." AXLR8 Consortium (2012): n. pag. Europa.org. European Commission. Web.