Cortes 1

Cristina Cortes

Instructor: Malcolm Campbell

English 1104

24 March, 2018

Looks to Die For

Some associate cosmetic products with strictly makeup which is not the case. Cosmetic

products include simple household items such as shampoo, beauty related products and lotions.

The consumers who buy these products, that are fairly affordable and easily in reach to the

Public, don’t know the action and process that takes place in order to create these products.

These products are used every day by the public are put through a series of tests that involve the

use of innocent animals in exchange to for those to feel and look beautiful. Approximately

100,000-200,000 animals suffer and die just for cosmetic testing alone each year (PETA). These

animals include mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits. The animals used have chemicals

forced into their eyes, down their throat and onto shaved skin to test the reaction of the product

for humans “well-being”.

The Human Society International, a global animal protection organization, discusses how

even though companies have a choice about whether to test on animal products or not,

companies still choose to test on animals because companies want to test new ingredients that do

not have existing safety data. With this said, since these ingredients have not been declared safe

to put on the market yet scientist have to test these new products/ingredients before releasing it to

the public. So why don’t scientist use the other available methods to replace animal testing.
 Cortes 2

Developing new tests takes time so before these new non-animal test can be developed; animal

tests are still performed.

What animal tests are carried out for cosmetics?

Humane Society International, explains the many test used and which animals are used

for these specific tests. For example, the Draize eye test which is used most commonly by

cosmetic companies to evaluate irritation caused by the lotions, shampoos, and other beauty

related products (The Humane Society). These chemicals are dripped into the animals’ eyes often

causing blindness, redness, swelling, discharge, hemorrhaging and more. This test is commonly

performed on rabbits who are then killed after the experiment is over. Another common test

practiced is called the Skin sensitization test, which test for allergic reactions on the skin and

often performed on guinea pigs and mice. The test substance is applied to the surface of the skin

or applied to the ears of the guinea pigs and mice. If the animal faces allergic reactions to the

product it is not given a pain reliever and has to endure the agony of the chemical burns. Acute

Oral toxicity is when the test substance is forced down a mouse’s throat using a syringe. Animals

may experience convulsions, bleeding from the mouth, seizures, paralysis, and ultimately, death.

These are some out of the many test performed on animals for just cosmetics alone.

The few tests listed above are commonly used today to test new products on the market,

unfortunately most of the animals either die from the chemical injected into them or are killed at

the end of the experiment. Pain relief is also not provided to the animals because it could

possibly interfere with the test results (PETA). These tests still take place because cosmetic

companies want to test new products that are not listed safe unless tested on first. If companies

stuck to the same products that have already been tested and considered safe for the public than

animal testing wouldn’t be practiced on as frequently and wouldn’t be as common today.

 Cortes 3

New Models Replacing Animal Testing

Gregory Mone, Harvard graduate and author of “New Models in Cosmetics Replacing

Animal Testing”, wrote an article that discusses how new models produced by the European

Commission on Research will eventually replace animal testing. As of last year, the European

Union has banned any use of animal testing to test the safety of beauty related products. Gregory

Mone discusses how scientist say “Animal-based tests take too long and are too expensive, they

say, often requiring several years and millions of dollars or more to carry out”. The physiological

difference between humans and animals is drastic and can limit the validity of the results. Which

is why the European Commission on Research & Innovation launched a $68-million research

initiative to develop lab technologies and computational models capable of predicting the

toxicity of chemicals in humans.

Even though there is a demand and rush for these new models, biotechnology companies

say it will take up to five more years develop these new technologies. Cosmetics or beauty

related products present a challenge since cosmetics products generally designed to cling to the

surface can still seep inside the skin and possibly travel through the blood stream. Mark Cronin,

a computational toxicologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K says “In the near

future, one of the big challenges will be understanding exposure,” (qtd. in Mone). One of the

models that is being developed is a virtual model of the liver which is the main detoxifying organ

in the human body. The model, still in its early stages will show how the liver would respond

when it is exposed to a known toxic compound. Experts of the Safety Evaluation Ultimately

Replacing Animal Testing (SEURAT) program say the research is progressing faster than they

expected and that virtual work is the future of testing (Mone).

 Cortes 4

Alternatives to animal testing: Computer (in-silico) Modeling

National Center for Biotechnology Information states that in-silico modeling, in which

computer models are developed to model pharmacologic or physiologic processes, is a logical

extension of controlled in vitro experimentation. PETA explains how in silico modeling can

simulate human biology and the progression of developing diseases. “Quantitative structure-

activity relationships (QSARs) are computer-based techniques that can replace animal tests by

making sophisticated estimates of a substance’s likelihood of being hazardous, based on its

similarity to existing substances and our knowledge of human biology” (PETA). In other words,

QSARs is an in-silico model which will be able to simulate human biology and eventually

replace animal testing by determining if a substance is hazardous to the “subject”

Alternatives to animal testing: In Vitro

Since many people are now becoming aware of the cruelty of animal testing and how it is

generally inapplicable to humans, scientist have now researched and moved on to use different

methods that can study disease and test products in replace of animals. Some of the methods

used include in vitro methods and in silico methods, in vitro means performed or taking place in

a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside a living organism. These studies are performed

with microorganisms, cells, and biological molecules outside their biological context. PETA, the

largest animal rights organization in the world discusses how in vitro testing better predicts the

human situation by using actual human cells rather than using an animal in their “Alternatives to

Animal Testing” article. “Harvard’s Wyss Institute has created “organs-on-chips” that contain

human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human

organs and organ systems.” The chips will be used to replace animal testing for disease research,
 Cortes 5

drug testing, and toxicity testing. These chips have been shown to be more accurate than animal

testing has ever been.

In vitro testing (cell-based tests) can be used to test the safety of drugs and new

ingredients companies want to use for their products. Cyprotex, an Evotec Company, specialize

in-silico and in vitro modeling. Cyprotex has developed an in vitro method that assesses the

potential of a substance to cause a skin allergy in humans. This test would replace guinea pigs

and mice that would have needed the substance to be applied to their shaved skin or forced down

their ears to determine an allergic response. “MatTek’s EpiDerm™ is also being used to replace

rabbits in painful, prolonged experiments that have traditionally been used to evaluate chemicals

for their ability to corrode or irritate the skin.” (PETA).” MatTek corporation is at the forefront

of tissue engineering and 3D reconstructed human tissue models. In vitro testing compared to

animal testing is also much cheaper. The Draize rabbit skin test, a skin corrosion test cost up to

$1,800 while EpiDerm™ human skin model, an in vitro test can cost around $850. So why do

scientist and beauty brands still choose to test on animals?

The pros of animal testing

Although it may seem like there are more cons than pros of animal testing, ProCon.org

has explained the many benefits animal testing has provided and the information and knowledge

it has brought us. Even though animal testing can be cruel and inhumane, one of the main

benefits of animal testing is how it has contributed to finding many lifesaving cures and

treatments. For example, experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to

the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics (qtd in ProCon). The polio

vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in

1988 to 27 cases in 2016 (qtd in ProCon). Although in-vitro testing and in-silico testing are
 Cortes 6

becoming more available and useful, one of the main arguments of why animal testing is still

beneficial is how there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system.

Studying cells in a dish just doesn’t allow enough opportunity to study interrelated processes

occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Overall even

though animal testing has had its benefits and contributions to discovering cures, we now have

the technology and knowledge to create alternatives that are faster, better, and cheaper than

animal testing.

The real reason companies continue to test on animals

In companies such as China it is required that all products sent to them from outside the country

must be tested on animals before consumer use. Although extremely inhuman, this is a logical

use for animal testing. On the other hand, in the United States it’s not required for animal testing

to be conducted before consumers use it. With no law requiring the use of animal testing in the

United States, then what reason is there for this testing outside of proof of data? These are the

questions that unfortunately have not been answered to this day, even though it has become

increasingly evident that it’s not a necessity. Of course, some cosmetic companies still use

animal testing to assess the safety of a new ingredient, but it’s evident that this is not the focus of

most of these companies.

When assessing the scale of just how many corporations use animal testing for their

products, I believe broadening the scope and taking a step outside of cosmetics is essential.

Companies such as, Band-Aid, Vaseline, Pampers, and even off, all use animal testing for the

creation, and trial and error use of their products. That is only household use; even pet food

companies test their products on animals often resulting in the death or illness of the animals that

are forced to consume the corporation’s products. Examples of these corporations include
 Cortes 7

Pedigree, Purina, Natural Balance, Friskies, as well as Sheba. This list can go on into major

categories including cleaning products, laundry, razors and hair removal, as well as hygiene.

When broadening the scope outside of cosmetics and seeing that completely different companies

use animal testing for completely different uses, it brings you around to a question, which is

why? Believe it or not this has less to do with the success of their product, but more to do with

security if something with their product goes wrong while a human is using it.

Majority of companies that test their products on animals, do so to have proof and data,

which they can use to defend themselves if they’re ever to be in the situation where a consumer

is suing them. Unfortunately, the companies that use this form of testing are less concerned with

the results of their tests, and more concerned with having proof of just testing their products

before consumers use them. Even when injured consumers take these companies to court, in

most cases the injured consumers are paid off to avoid the company’s improper tactics being

broadcasted. If you look at it from this perspective animal testing appears to be pointless with no

actual benefits for consumers occurring from this method. Bringing it back to cosmetics, another

important question is with all of the scrutiny and attention that companies receive for animal

testing, and little to no actual consumer benefit, why exactly do they continue to use animal

testing for their products?

Animal testing throughout time

In the past animal testing was not under the microscope it is today, scientists/philosophers

such as Erasistratus, and Aristotle used to animals to perform their experiments on and were

some of the first documented to do so (ProCon). These scientists lived between the 2nd and 4th

centuries B.C, which was an era in which the people did not feel as morally obligated/aware to

speak out on things such as this, as it was seen as not a negative action. In terms of animal
 Cortes 8

testing invertebrate are used much more frequently then vertebrates because of their size and

how they provide unique opportunities for biomedical research. As said by the National Human

Genome research institute, mice share 99% of human’s genes making them the most obvious

candidate. This is what led to present day testing which revolves around the use of mice for

animal testing, especially in the field of cosmetics. With the process of genetic engineering being

created mice are used on a massive spectrum outside of cosmetics for testing. The future in

animal testing is hopefully a future that replaces it with a more ethical, as well as effective

method. Methods such as this are currently being worked on but are still not applicable with

modern technology. Examples of this include a modeling of complex interactions between, cells,

tissues, organs, and the environment to replicate what would be the effects of these cosmetic, as

well as all ranges of products on consumers and their uses.

Although there have not been major changes in animal testing, even with the huge

spotlight it is receiving, they’re still companies who have stated they’re committed to reducing

the amount of animal testing that goes on for their products, and there have also been companies

that completely removed animal testing from their process of testing out products before they’re

available to consumers. For example, here is a list of the many makeup companies that are listed

under PETAs cruelty free makeup list including Glossier, Tarte, BH Cosmetics, and E.L.F

Cosmetics, which are very well know makeup brands in the Beauty Community. Now although

the vast majority of cosmetic companies still regularly practice in animal testing, at least they’re

major corporations who are taking the steps to end this practice.

Will ending animal testing benefit cosmetic brands?

In the Huffington Post Monica Engebreston writes an article that discusses how ending

animal testing could actually benefit cosmetic brands. The article also discusses the Neilson
 Cortes 9

survey, which was conducted to find out the breadth of time and money retailers and

manufacturers spend on beauty brands. The same survey also showed consumers placed a high

level of importance on products labeled “all natural,” - a reflection of the growing consumer

scrutiny of ingredients in cosmetic products. “While 80% of the world still allows animal testing

for cosmetics, roughly half of the global cosmetic market is now firmly closed to animal tested

cosmetics”. In other words, even though many companies around the world are still open to

animal testing, cosmetic companies have noticed the number of consumers who are in fact not

open to it, which is why half the global cosmetic market is closed to animal tested cosmetics.

Ending animal testing can fill the consumer demand for safe and humane cosmetics which then

will increase the number of consumers that come back and buy the product again.

In Conclusion

Over time that more and more companies will slowly start removing animal testing

within their companies, and switching to more efficient, and human processes with the

advancement of technology, as well as the general consensus on animal testing. As inhumane

and cruel as animal testing can be, it has advanced our knowledge in science and has been

valuable to many life-saving cures. Since then we have come so far and more and more people as

we advance in society are becoming more sensitive to the inhuman treatment of animals, and I

believe this will only further increase the speed of these companies eliminating animal testing.

Cosmetic companies are certainly the front-runners of animal testing for products, and in order to

see the results best as time goes, people need to evaluate these companies on their practices. A

domino effect is occurring amongst these companies and slowly but surely animal testing will

become a minimum in the future.

 Cortes 10

Works Cited

Engebretson Monica, “Ending Cosmetic Testing on Animals Is Good Business” 21 Nov. 2016,

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ending-cosmetic-testing-o_b_13136278.html

Accessed 17 March. 2018

Humane Society International, “About Animal Testing in Cosmetics”

http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/about_cosmetics_animal_testing.html

Accessed 25 Feb. 2018

Humane Society International, “Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing”

http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html Accessed

28 Feb. 2018

Mone Gregory, “New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing” April 2014,

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/4/173234-new-models-in-cosmetics-replacing-

animal-testing/fulltext Accessed 28 Jan. 2018

National Human Genome Research Institute, “Why Mouse Matters” 23 July. 2010,

https://www.genome.gov/10001345/importance-of-mouse-genome/ Accessed 10 Apr.

2018

PETA, “ Alternatives to Animal Testing” People for the ethical treatment of animals,

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-

testing/ Accessed 16 Feb. 2018

 Cortes 11

PETA “Animal Testing 101”, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-

experimentation/animal-testing-101/ Accessed 16 Feb. 2018

“Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” ProCon, Understanding the

Issue. Understanding Each Other. 2 Nov. 2017, https://animal-testing.procon.org/

Accessed 21 March. 2018,