Would you die for eyeliner or an after-shave? Maybe not, but every year cosmetic producers take the lives of thousands of animals to experiment with their products during manufacturing.
According to the producers, it is best for human health and safety to test products on animals before the products are launched in markets for human use. Alternatively, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not necessitate testing cosmetics on animals because there are many other options existing in this era of new technology to test products. Therefore, deciding on which testing method to use is in the hands of the manufacturers.
The practice of testing cosmetics on animals began in the 1930s when a woman was blinded by using mascara. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) in 1938 to keep the public away from hazardous makeup. However, the FDA did not clearly necessitate animal testing for cosmetics or ingredients.
Cosmetic testing on animals takes place in all of the practices whether its:
- Testing complete cosmetic items on animals.
- Testing individual ingredients of cosmetic products on animals.
- Testing whichever grouping of ingredients
on animals. - Using a third-party corporation to carry out any of the above tests.
- Using a secondary or third party corporation to carry out any of the above tests in nations where animal testing is not prohibited.
Some cosmetic companies possibly will state that their items are not tested on animals, regardless of using one or more of the mentioned practices.
Animal testing for beauty products is an extremely brutal, unkind and unethical custom, which we humans are guilty of. Thousands of animals like rats, mice, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea
pigs, monkeys, birds even fish and reptiles are used for testing every year.
According to Enlightenment for Animals (EFA), animals are injected with chemicals and different types of ingredients or kept in hazardous conditions to test out tolerance and reactions. In order to test lethal doses, the animals are strained to swallow chemicals until 50% of the animals under the process expire. A number of them are forced to draw in poisonous vapours (for inhalation studies), others are helplessly held in dangerous equipment for hours, several have holes pierced into their skulls, and most have their skin tissues and flesh permanently burned off when corrosive chemicals are applied directly to their skin.
Pain-relieving drugs generally are not given as testers say their use may hinder the test results. Consequently of these factors, a lot of animals fracture their necks or backs in an effort to get away. All of this is done for our favourite mascaras, perfumes and body lotions that we use to enhance our beauty and destroy theirs. Would you want your pet to go through this viciousness?
ALTERNATIVES
Charles R. Magel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Moorhead State University, explains it best: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are like us.” Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.
According to the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), many alternatives to testing products are available. Several companies that are against animal testing have developed artificial skin systems that can be used to evaluate the irritancy likelihood of test agents. Cell culture and tissue culture are at present very successful and show good potential to be the best method to test products.
Samples of human cells and tissues are employed to test a chemical in this method. It is comparatively inexpensive and is favourable for a manufacturer as well, because it offers information and results, in particular, concerning humans.
More substitutes to the use of animals are up-to-date computer systems and human corneas from eye banks. By adopting such methods, the billions of dollars spent every year on animal testing could be put to a much more competent, useful, and humane exercise if used in medical and epidemiological research and public health programs.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
The chief drawbacks to animal testing are animal uneasiness, death, species extrapolation issues, time consumption, heavy costs, and most importantly, the brutal handling of animals.
“The brute animals have all the same sensations of pain as human beings, and consequently endure as much pain when their body is hurt; but in their case, the cruelty of torment is greater because they have no mind to bear them up against their sufferings, and no hope to look forward to when enduring the last extreme pain.”
Thomas Chalmers
Animals, as sentient creatures, ought to have parity and deserve to be sheltered from this kind of violence. The basic type of parity is equal thought of interests, and it is this that we must spread out further than the limitations of our own species. Basically, this means that if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain. Pain and suffering do not depend on the species of being that goes through it. There has to be a call for an instant stop to animal testing for pointless and irrelevant purposes.
Our initial steps could be to spread awareness and opt for cosmetic companies that do not make animal testing a part of their making.
Always look for products that state on the label that they have not been tested on animals. There are famous companies like LUSH that manufacture beauty products without animal testing.
A ban on beauty products that are made after being tested on animals would save many laboratory animals and millions per year.
Printed in Petigree Magazine Aug / Sep 2013 issue