Animal testing of cosmetics is a controversial topic and frequent source of questions for the Beauty Brains. We were thrilled to report recently on five newly developed test methods that will reduce the amount of animal testing done by the beauty industry. We applaud the industry for taking steps in the right direction!
But while animal testing in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals gets a lot of attention, similar testing done by the beverage industry has gone without much notice. Until now. The New York Times just announced that Coke and Pepsi have agreed to curb their animal testing after pressure from PETA. I didn’t realize the extent of soft drink testing on animals until I read the Times account. They gave two examples that seemed particularly ourtrageous: A Coca-Cola scientist worked on a study, financed by Nutrasweet, that involved cutting open the faces of chimpanzees to test nerve impulses reactions to sweeteners. And perhaps even more appalling is the example from Roll International, makers of Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice, who had been testing their juice to see if it could relieve artificially induced erectile dysfunction in rabbits.
The Beauty Brains are anxious to see the development of more validated, non-animal test methods for cosmetics AND other industries!
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
If this is true, I will never buy another product from coca cola ever again!! Not only that, but what kind of person can live with themselves after doing these things to innocent animals? I proudly work for a cosmetic company that does not engage in animal testing. I just don’t get it.
animal testing is so abusive. i try to avoid any items tested. melissa, where do you work? i am always looking for good, animal-free cosmetics (i generally use urban decay).
As thebeautybrains have said before, companies that say they don’t test on animals use products that others have already tested on animals.
You’re absolutely right Lauri. For those of you who think that Urban Decay or any other cosmetic company is innocent when it comes to animal testing, you are just fooling yourself. Every ingredient that anyone uses in their cosmetics have been tested on animals and shown to be safe.
See our previous animal testing posts on the subject.
Truth about animal testing and cosmetics.
Why the Body Shop was Sold
Okay, okay I see your point. I therefore will clarify, I work for a company that does not currently actively participate in animal testing. Tough crowd.
gee why do people test beauty products on animala
People test products on animals to ensure that they can be safely used by people. Would you want to use a product on a baby that wasn’t first shown to be safe to use?
No one likes to do animal testing. There just haven’t been acceptable alternatives. Scientists are looking for alternatives but nothing is accepted quite yet.
This kind of testing does not make any sense to me. If they wanted to test for neurotoxicity caused by nutrasweet there are many more effective and cheaper assays out there (mostly using cultured nerve cells and transformed cells). Additionally, potential neurotoxicity would be caused by the metabolites of the sweeteners, not the sweeteners themselves. That is an example of bad reasoning skills and bad research.
The POM one is also bad science. Did they 1st prove that some active ingredient in the juice could cause the inhibition of PDE or another enzyme involved in blood vessel dilation? Which ingredient, then? Can this be proven in vitro? in cell strains?
Just a fraction of all the active compounds found or synthesized by researchers in academia and pharmaceutical companies ever make it to the animal research stage. In vitro and in vivo studies in cells have to be done prior to animal experimentation. There are regulations that ensure this, as well as committees that enforce this regulations (at least in academia). Are these companies free from government regulation regarding animal research?
To those who would say, “But animal testing keeps human beings safe!”, I would say, do the research. According to animal testing, arsenic isn’t poisonous, but aspirin is deadly. See this article from the Ecologist.
Sharyn, and one might also suggest that using an article published in a non-scientific magazine like The Ecologist is not really research. Research involves looking at many sources which back-up the things they say with references. It also involves citing unbiased sources.
The article you site makes some excellent points, most notable that animal testing isn’t 100% effective. It isn’t and it can lead to erroneous conclusions.
But it makes many statements that are not supported by facts.
For example, “A 10-year international study proved that human cell culture tests are more accurate and yield more useful information about toxic mechanisms than traditional animal tests.” Where is the reference to this 10-year study? Who conducted it? Where was it published?
The reason to ask is because it flies directly in the face of conventional wisdom. In fact, in the EU they are trying to ban animal testing for cosmetics (not pharmaceuticals) and even they don’t yet accept alternatives to animal testing because they haven’t shown to be as predictive.
You are correct, people should do the research. But don’t rely on single sources and organizations with clear biases.