"Because I am worth it"....Are they?

“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance, is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion in the only guarantee of morality.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality 


 The truth behind the shine in your lipstick, the lingering smell of your perfume, the fact that your shampoo doesn't sting your eyes and even the pain relief that pill brings when you have a headache- is due to the life of an innocent animal, sitting in a cold cage somewhere, enduring side effects of products they have no use for.

Beauty secrets revealed

Testing cosmetics on animals was the beauty industries longest, and best kept secret. According to the Lush website, in the 80s and 90s public awareness grew, particularly in Europe where massive protests occurred, in which people turned to the government and demanded the implementation of laws that would protect animals from vanity products. In 1993, legislation was written to completely ban the testing of cosmetics on animals. However, with the constant delays produced by lobby groups in support of the companies, in 2013 the legislation that was drawn up 20 years ago is still not in effect. There is no written law stopping these cosmetic companies bringing permanent harm, or death to these innocent animals. The only level of authority these companies have to refer to is administered by the The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which “urges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct whatever tests are appropriate to establish that their cosmetics are safe but does not specifically mandate animal testing for cosmetic safety". Such a statement as this exemplifies the lack of compassion in the people that hold the most power, as well as displays a perfect example of how people may search for loop holes in the structure of a written order i.e. how they leave the decision and justification of what is necessary to the researchers, rather than outlining specific regulations of what should/needs to be tested. I believe that both legal organizations (such as the FDA, and Government officials), and large cosmetic companies are just as guilty as one another. For the FDA and government officials are ultimately above cosmetic parties, and have the power to ban animal testing permanently, but instead appear to beat around the bush, build barriers during the progression to a permanent ban, or give vague descriptions of their point of view. Ultimately, leaving cosmetic companies practically untouched by law, and allowing them to commit acts that outside of the laboratory, would have them arrested.

                               They endure tests for products they will never have any use for

Ugly Facts

Approximately more than 100 million innocent animals are tested on every year, including rats, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs and primates. The exact amount is unknown because animals such as rats and mice who make up more than 95 percent of animals used in these experiments are unprotected by even the most basic aspects of the Animal Welfare Act, and therefore there lives go uncounted.

What are these tests?

The most common are:

• Skin and eye irritation tests in which chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or poured into the eyes without any pain relief being administered to the animals.

• Repeated force-feeding experiments that last weeks or months, to witness symptoms of general illness or specific health hazards that may be a possible side effect of the product.

• Finally, probably most inhumane, “lethal dose” tests are conducted, where animals are forced to swallow substantial amounts of chemicals to determine what dosage causes death.
   

 Most tests result in some form of permanent damage or death. The counter argument for animal testing, is that testing on animals identifies the potential risks a product may have on humans. Pro-testers argue that human life is more valuable than animals, and that the knowledge to be obtained from these tests, far outweighs its unethical and inhumane nature. It is true that without animal research, advances into curing cancer, safe and effective vaccines, and a general understanding of diseases and potential dangers will never have been developed without the information derived from these tests. However, if the constant research and extension of experiments has led to all of this information being uncovered, then one could argue that putting that level of research, and extending and testing alternatives to animal testing can also achieve a situation where no living animal is harmed in the research that needs to be obtained. One could also argue that by extending their fields of experimental content, scientists may produce more accurate results. Especially seeing as nine out of ten experiments that are successful with animals, have opposite effects in humans. Thus decreasing the reliability of scientific results, and also deteriorating the argument of Pro-testing.

                                           The

                                                  truth

                                            
                                              is

UGLY

The alternatives, the Future

Pro-testers often argue that no alternative out there, produces as valid results as the tests on animals. However, considerable research has been conducted using alternatives, and in most cases the alternatives to animal experiments have produced more reliable results. Predicting and testing the levels and effects of toxicity a chemical has on human skin, has always been done on animals but have produced conflicting results. One alternative that has shown to better the reliability of results, and does not harm animals, is the testing of these chemicals on three-dimensional human skin equivalent-systems such as EpiSkin and SkinEthic. Other alternatives that have been tested repeatedly and have passed laws stating they are effective are as follows:

• in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures- this alternative ultimately produces more reliable results because it is tested directly on human cell tissue, increasing the overall conclusion that a chemical would have on humans.
• computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, which is advanced software created to replicate the human body and it's reactions
• stem cell and genetic testing methods have proven time and again to be effective in producing reliable results, because again it is directly testing the effect chemicals have on aspects of humans
• microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)- which may be argued may also be affecting a living thing, however even after animal tests of complete in terms of medication, human trials are conducted too.

In addition to more reliable results being obtained through these alternatives, and no animal being harmed, these alternatives are more cost effective, more accessible (as they do not have to wait for animals to age or heal before continuing the tests), and are also more environmentally friendly.

                                           EpiSkin process 

                                          In Vitro testing

With the evidence presented both for and again animal testing, I believe these alternatives described is where science should be heading towards. They are cost effective, more reliable and do not harm any living creatures. We are the voice for these animals, public awareness and people making a stand against animal testing has forced governments to take action, and cosmetic companies to seek alternatives. This needs to continue happening, we need to continue being their voice and seeking more effective and humane alternatives.

References

• Animal Testing 101 | PETA.org. (n.d.). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA.org. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx 
• Animal Testing and Cosmetics. (n.d.). U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/ProductTesting/ucm072268.htm 
• Background on Animal Testing | Do Something. (n.d.). Do Something | Largest organization for teens and social cause. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/background-animal-testing 
• In Testing | Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research . (n.d.). New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing 
• Pro-Test: standing up for science. (n.d.). Pro-Test: standing up for science. Retrieved September 29, 2013, from http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=e