The Animal Testing Cosmetics is defined as products

The
cosmetic industry is the most popular manufacturing business. As apart of
todays culture, people commonly all over the world use some type of cosmetic
product that is mass produced globally. Animal testing is widely used to
develop new cosmetics to test the security of these enhancing products. As a
result, thousands of distinct species of animals are being harmed due to the
experiments cosmetic researchers conduct on them. These experiments can cause pain
to the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other mental,
emotional, physical ways. Cosmetic research purposes not only harmfully effect
animals but also the environment as well.  The chemicals substances and toxins that are
used in animal research cause air, ground, and water pollution. What are the negative effects of research purposes on
animals in the makeup industry and what should be done to improve the
situation? The use of animals to test the safety of certain cosmetic products for
research purposes is unethical and should be forbidden globally. The
fundamental rights of animals are utterly violated in the cosmetic industry
thus leading to a plethora of adverse side effects towards the animals and the
environment as there are feasible alternatives to testing the safety of
cosmetics. 

Research Purposes in the Cosmetic
Industry and Animal Testing

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            Cosmetics
is defined as products used to apply to the
human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering
the appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions.
Examples of cosmetics include skin cream, lipstick, perfume, nail polish, eye
and facial makeup, and shampoo. In the cosmetic industry scientists have many
ways of experimenting on animals to test the safety of ingredients in these
products. The hazardous experimentations performed on animals clearly leads to
health complications. Common tests conducted on animals include “skin and eye
irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped
into the eyes of rabbits without any pain relief” (The Humane Society, n.d,).
Other trials performed on animals are “lethal dose” tests, where the lab
subjects are forced to ingest copious amounts of test chemicals to determine
the dose that causes death. Another detrimental test used on animals in
research trials for cosmetics is recurring force-feeding studies that last for
weeks or even months long to examine the signs for overall illness or certain
health threats such as cancer or birth defects (The Humane Society, n.d). The
Humane Society of The United States reported that in the US, 95% of the animals
used in research experiments such as laboratory-bred rats and mice are not
counted  in official statistics and
receive no protection under the Animal Welfare Act (The Humane Society, n.d).
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is an American enactment that “was signed into law in 1966, this act also requires
that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals
bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or
exhibited to the public” (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d). The
lack of consistency pose strain with the AWA and how it “excludes purpose-bred
birds, rats, or mice, which comprise more than 90% of animals used in research also
the U.S. guidelines overseeing research conducted with federal funding includes
protections for all vertebrates” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, p. 8). The animal
suffering involved in the research purposes for cosmetics, and its impact on
human health, questions the basis of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been
subjected to little systematic scrutiny. Animals in laboratories are
involuntarily placed in artificial environments, within boxed rooms, for the
duration of their lives. Animals are kept in captivity while undergoing tests
and live in unethical circumstances such as artificial lighting, human-produced
noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical
behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among wildlife. (Akhtar,
2015, p. 5). The exploitative research tests thrusted upon wildlife is a
violation of their rights and should be banned in the cosmetic industry
globally.

Research Purposes in
the Cosmetic Industry and the Environment

            In addition
to an increase in harming animals, cosmetic companies also take a toll on the
earth and environment. Since the large amounts of fossil fuels and chemicals
are extracted from the earth in order to create the ingredients in cosmetic
products, companies are damaging the environment around the globe. The main
ingredients used in cosmetics today is mineral oil and the fossil fuel called
petroleum. Petroleum is obtained in an liquid/oil substance that cause water
pollution such as oil and petroleum ocean spills, that ultimately harm aquatic
wildlife. In addition, the use of petroleum can be converted into a substance
called petrolatum, a constituent used in many moisturizers and hair products.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are classified as
toxic and carcinogenic, “The petrolatum
can be contaminated with PAHs. Studies suggest that exposure — including skin
contact over extended periods of time — is associated with cancer and can also
cause skin irritation and allergies (David Suzuki Foundation, n.d, p. 2).
According to Groff, Bachli, Lansdowne, & Capaldo the incineration of animal
remains has been related with air pollution in which ash barium levels are beyond
acceptable standard levels. Another significant example of how
research purposes steered on animals effect the environment is how thousands of
animal bodies are eliminated into areas of waste. Most of the animal carcases
are contaminated with toxic or hazardous chemicals and viruses that are
sometimes not discarded of appropriately and excessive amounts of laboratory
waste such as animal excrement, bedding, excess feed, needles, and syringes,
are disposed of after use in research and testing every year. (Groff, Bachli,
Lansdowne, & Capaldo, 2014, p. 18). These authors stated that “this substantial number of animals used and
disposed of in research and testing, and the associated use of chemicals and
supplies, raises serious concerns about the overall environmental impact of
using animals in this capacity” (Groff, Bachli & Lansdowne, 2014, p. 16).
Ground water contamination due to the debris from animal wastes, toxins, and
chemicals after disposal when testing is finished. The mass production and
genetically modified reproduction of animals used for research studies cause
conflict within the agricultural business. To keep the animal test subjects
alive long enough for testing to be done, care givers must feed them. As previously
mentioned in this essay, tests often include force feeding the animals for
certain results. The copious amounts of food required for feeding the animals
is time consuming and impractical because the test lab animals are inescapably
going to be terminated. This clearly effects the agricultural part of the
environment due to the production and growing of vast amounts of food for
animals. Adverse environmental costs of animal use in research purposes demonstrate
negative effects due to the contribute to pollution, the associated use of
chemicals, ways of disposal, and use of feeding in the cosmetic industry.

            Many critics that oppose the support
for banning research purposes on animals think that non-animal testing methods is
not the solution and research tests on animals is necessary for the safety of
cosmetic items for the consumers who buy them. Critics also believe that using
animals for these research purposes is cheaper for capitalist corporations
rather than other methods of testing; however, there are many alternative forms
of non-animal testing research that is widely available and economical in
labour. In 2013 the European Union (EU) decided to cease all animal testing for
cosmetic goods if industries wish to market their products in Europe (European
Report, 2013). Since the EU has established the innovative decision has of
banning animal-tested ingredients, there have been previous and some new
developments in how to seek new ways to assess research tests in chemical
safety for cosmetic items, for example via a public-private partnership with
the European Commission. Research on animals in the cosmetic industry and the
testing tactics that go along with it are much too time consuming and
expensive. There is a solid foundation where viable, inexpensive, and effective
non-animal tests are accessible for cosmetic research purposes. In the past three
decades scientists have developed many modern alternatives to animal testing-methods
that use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin or computer models to test the
safety of products.  Toxicokinetics is
crucial for the testing of cosmetics and is defined as “the description of what
rate a chemical will enter the body and what occurs to excrete and metabolize
the compound once it is in the body” (Wikipedia, 2017). Alder, Basketter &
Creton stated that “Toxicokinetic modelling is currently seen as the most
adequate approach
to simulate the fate of compounds in the human body. These data should and can
be generated with non-animal studies with in vitro or in silico approaches that
allow quantification of specific dose–response curves” (2011, p. 372). It is clear
that these testings of computer model, syntactic skin, in vitro and in silico
tests decrease the environmental and health aspects of research cosmetics.
Non-animal testing could help consumers buy better quality variety of cosmetic products
that are healthier or more beneficial towards skin care routines or improved
makeup/perfume brands. According to Mehling et al, “Cell-based assays and in silico methods are presented
together with a discussion of their current status” (2012, p. 1). These forms
of non-animal testing are ultimately cheaper for the research process and for
corporations. A few of the many cosmetic companies that already work with
non-animal testing research for their products are; Lush, Bath & body
works, Aveda, Urban Decay, Anastasia Beverly Hills, and many more. Although
considerable numbers of companies are turning animal-free testing, more needs
to be done to eliminate animal testing in the cosmetic industry. “With significant
progress having been achieved during the last years, the rationale today is
that data from different non-animal test methods will have to be combined to
obtain reliable hazard and potency information on potential skin sensitizers”
(Mehling, et al., 2012). The path towards animal-free testing results in not
only benefits to the cosmetic industry but contribute to a global safety net
solution for chemical ingredients.

            Due to these blatant factors, the
information demonstrates the need for research purposes used on animals to be
banned globally. It was found that the use of research purposes on animals in
the cosmetic industry have significant dangerous effects on animal’s health due
to the harmful tests conflicted upon them and how these research trials cause
air, water, and ground pollution with toxic animal remains and chemicals into
the environment. There are many multi-disciplinary approaches to make safe
non-animal tests for enhancing products for the cosmetic industry. The fundamental
rights of many species of animals are proven to be defiled in the cosmetic
industry thus leading to a surfeit of hostile side affects towards negative
consequences to the animals and the environment as there are feasible
alternatives to testing the safety of cosmetics

Author:

x

Hi!
I'm Eileen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out