Thecosmetic industry is the most popular manufacturing business. As apart oftodays culture, people commonly all over the world use some type of cosmeticproduct that is mass produced globally.
Animal testing is widely used todevelop new cosmetics to test the security of these enhancing products. As aresult, thousands of distinct species of animals are being harmed due to theexperiments cosmetic researchers conduct on them. These experiments can cause painto the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other mental,emotional, physical ways. Cosmetic research purposes not only harmfully effectanimals but also the environment as well. The chemicals substances and toxins that areused in animal research cause air, ground, and water pollution. What are the negative effects of research purposes onanimals in the makeup industry and what should be done to improve thesituation? The use of animals to test the safety of certain cosmetic products forresearch purposes is unethical and should be forbidden globally.
Thefundamental rights of animals are utterly violated in the cosmetic industrythus leading to a plethora of adverse side effects towards the animals and theenvironment as there are feasible alternatives to testing the safety ofcosmetics. Research Purposes in the CosmeticIndustry and Animal Testing Cosmeticsis defined as products used to apply to thehuman body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or alteringthe appearance without affecting the body’s structure or functions.Examples of cosmetics include skin cream, lipstick, perfume, nail polish, eyeand facial makeup, and shampoo. In the cosmetic industry scientists have manyways of experimenting on animals to test the safety of ingredients in theseproducts.
The hazardous experimentations performed on animals clearly leads tohealth complications. Common tests conducted on animals include “skin and eyeirritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or drippedinto the eyes of rabbits without any pain relief” (The Humane Society, n.d,).Other trials performed on animals are “lethal dose” tests, where the labsubjects are forced to ingest copious amounts of test chemicals to determinethe dose that causes death. Another detrimental test used on animals inresearch trials for cosmetics is recurring force-feeding studies that last forweeks or even months long to examine the signs for overall illness or certainhealth threats such as cancer or birth defects (The Humane Society, n.d). TheHumane Society of The United States reported that in the US, 95% of the animalsused in research experiments such as laboratory-bred rats and mice are notcounted in official statistics andreceive 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 requiresthat minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animalsbred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, orexhibited to the public” (United States Department of Agriculture, n.d). Thelack of consistency pose strain with the AWA and how it “excludes purpose-bredbirds, rats, or mice, which comprise more than 90% of animals used in research alsothe U.S.
guidelines overseeing research conducted with federal funding includesprotections for all vertebrates” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, p. 8). The animalsuffering involved in the research purposes for cosmetics, and its impact onhuman health, questions the basis of animal experimentation’s efficacy has beensubjected to little systematic scrutiny. Animals in laboratories areinvoluntarily placed in artificial environments, within boxed rooms, for theduration of their lives. Animals are kept in captivity while undergoing testsand live in unethical circumstances such as artificial lighting, human-producednoises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typicalbehaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among wildlife.
(Akhtar,2015, p. 5). The exploitative research tests thrusted upon wildlife is aviolation of their rights and should be banned in the cosmetic industryglobally.
Research Purposes inthe Cosmetic Industry and the Environment In additionto an increase in harming animals, cosmetic companies also take a toll on theearth and environment. Since the large amounts of fossil fuels and chemicalsare extracted from the earth in order to create the ingredients in cosmeticproducts, companies are damaging the environment around the globe. The mainingredients used in cosmetics today is mineral oil and the fossil fuel calledpetroleum. Petroleum is obtained in an liquid/oil substance that cause waterpollution such as oil and petroleum ocean spills, that ultimately harm aquaticwildlife. In addition, the use of petroleum can be converted into a substancecalled petrolatum, a constituent used in many moisturizers and hair products.Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are classified astoxic and carcinogenic, “The petrolatumcan be contaminated with PAHs.
Studies suggest that exposure — including skincontact over extended periods of time — is associated with cancer and can alsocause skin irritation and allergies (David Suzuki Foundation, n.d, p. 2).According to Groff, Bachli, Lansdowne, & Capaldo the incineration of animalremains has been related with air pollution in which ash barium levels are beyondacceptable standard levels.
Another significant example of howresearch purposes steered on animals effect the environment is how thousands ofanimal bodies are eliminated into areas of waste. Most of the animal carcasesare contaminated with toxic or hazardous chemicals and viruses that aresometimes not discarded of appropriately and excessive amounts of laboratorywaste 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 anddisposed of in research and testing, and the associated use of chemicals andsupplies, raises serious concerns about the overall environmental impact ofusing animals in this capacity” (Groff, Bachli & Lansdowne, 2014, p. 16).Ground water contamination due to the debris from animal wastes, toxins, andchemicals after disposal when testing is finished. The mass production andgenetically modified reproduction of animals used for research studies causeconflict within the agricultural business. To keep the animal test subjectsalive long enough for testing to be done, care givers must feed them. As previouslymentioned in this essay, tests often include force feeding the animals forcertain results.
The copious amounts of food required for feeding the animalsis time consuming and impractical because the test lab animals are inescapablygoing to be terminated. This clearly effects the agricultural part of theenvironment due to the production and growing of vast amounts of food foranimals. Adverse environmental costs of animal use in research purposes demonstratenegative effects due to the contribute to pollution, the associated use ofchemicals, ways of disposal, and use of feeding in the cosmetic industry. Many critics that oppose the supportfor banning research purposes on animals think that non-animal testing methods isnot the solution and research tests on animals is necessary for the safety ofcosmetic items for the consumers who buy them. Critics also believe that usinganimals for these research purposes is cheaper for capitalist corporationsrather than other methods of testing; however, there are many alternative formsof non-animal testing research that is widely available and economical inlabour. In 2013 the European Union (EU) decided to cease all animal testing forcosmetic goods if industries wish to market their products in Europe (EuropeanReport, 2013). Since the EU has established the innovative decision has ofbanning animal-tested ingredients, there have been previous and some newdevelopments in how to seek new ways to assess research tests in chemicalsafety for cosmetic items, for example via a public-private partnership withthe European Commission.
Research on animals in the cosmetic industry and thetesting tactics that go along with it are much too time consuming andexpensive. There is a solid foundation where viable, inexpensive, and effectivenon-animal tests are accessible for cosmetic research purposes. In the past threedecades scientists have developed many modern alternatives to animal testing-methodsthat use human blood, cell lines, artificial skin or computer models to test thesafety of products. Toxicokinetics iscrucial for the testing of cosmetics and is defined as “the description of whatrate a chemical will enter the body and what occurs to excrete and metabolizethe compound once it is in the body” (Wikipedia, 2017).
Alder, Basketter &Creton stated that “Toxicokinetic modelling is currently seen as the mostadequate approachto simulate the fate of compounds in the human body. These data should and canbe generated with non-animal studies with in vitro or in silico approaches thatallow quantification of specific dose–response curves” (2011, p. 372). It is clearthat these testings of computer model, syntactic skin, in vitro and in silicotests decrease the environmental and health aspects of research cosmetics.Non-animal testing could help consumers buy better quality variety of cosmetic productsthat are healthier or more beneficial towards skin care routines or improvedmakeup/perfume brands. According to Mehling et al, “Cell-based assays and in silico methods are presentedtogether with a discussion of their current status” (2012, p.
1). These formsof non-animal testing are ultimately cheaper for the research process and forcorporations. A few of the many cosmetic companies that already work withnon-animal testing research for their products are; Lush, Bath & bodyworks, Aveda, Urban Decay, Anastasia Beverly Hills, and many more. Althoughconsiderable numbers of companies are turning animal-free testing, more needsto be done to eliminate animal testing in the cosmetic industry.
“With significantprogress having been achieved during the last years, the rationale today isthat data from different non-animal test methods will have to be combined toobtain reliable hazard and potency information on potential skin sensitizers”(Mehling, et al., 2012). The path towards animal-free testing results in notonly benefits to the cosmetic industry but contribute to a global safety netsolution for chemical ingredients. Due to these blatant factors, theinformation demonstrates the need for research purposes used on animals to bebanned globally. It was found that the use of research purposes on animals inthe cosmetic industry have significant dangerous effects on animal’s health dueto the harmful tests conflicted upon them and how these research trials causeair, water, and ground pollution with toxic animal remains and chemicals intothe environment. There are many multi-disciplinary approaches to make safenon-animal tests for enhancing products for the cosmetic industry.
The fundamentalrights of many species of animals are proven to be defiled in the cosmeticindustry thus leading to a surfeit of hostile side affects towards negativeconsequences to the animals and the environment as there are feasiblealternatives to testing the safety of cosmetics