Getting Rid of Cosmetic Animal Testing is Harder Than Some Have Suggested

January

Getting Rid of Cosmetic Animal Testing is Harder Than Some Have Suggested

There are sites all over the internet suggesting that animal testing is an abomination and should be halted immediately. They make all sorts of claims that implying that science is a lot further along than it really is.

For example, this site called “Cosmetic Testing Facts” says…

“…the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results.”

Are alternatives really better?

But according to the scientists who are actually working on the problem, finding alternatives for animal testing is proving difficult. We’ve previously written about 5 new methods for reducing animal testing, but these tests just can’t completely replace animal testing. For example, there are no alternatives to animal testing for determining whether allergens are absorbed through the lungs.

So, if you are creating a product that will be sprayed from an aerosol, they have to do animal testing to prove that it’s safe.

Also, interesting in this article is that the scientists conclude

“…the end goal of developing tests without animals remains distant as the process of understanding how chemicals interact with human tissue, developing testing alternatives for new chemicals and then validating them is both slow and complex.”

This is certainly different than the claims made by anti-animal testing sites.

Does the FDA require animal testing?

We see this claim fairly frequently. But is it true? According to the FDA, “no but yes.” No, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic act does not specifically require animal testing to establish the safety of cosmetics. However, it does require that you only sell products that are proven to be safe. Unfortunately, the only data that the FDA accepts as proof that your product is safe is …animal testing!

So, while it’s true they don’t specifically say you have to do animal tests to prove safety, it’s the only data they accept as proof.

If the FDA didn’t require animal testing of cosmetics, no one would continue to do it.

The Cruelty Free Cosmetic Con

These days, you’ll find hundreds of companies, big and small, touting their products as being “cruelty free” or “not tested on animals”. But the truth is, this is not the whole truth. While it is perfectly legal to make claims that your whole product is not tested on animals (if it’s not), these same companies are using raw materials that were tested on animals by the raw material suppliers. No, the products weren’t tested on animals, but all the component materials were.

Beauty Brains bottom line

We here at the Beauty Brains can’t wait for the day when cosmetics and personal care products are no longer tested on animals. Hopefully, researchers will find useful alternatives. It’s just incredibly troubling that many companies are out there misleading consumers, tricking them into believing some products are more “ethical” than others because they aren’t tested on animals. All the products you use were at some point tested on animals.

27 Responses to “Getting Rid of Cosmetic Animal Testing is Harder Than Some Have Suggested”

Leah Says:

I in no way condone Animal Testing, but i would rather use a product i know wont burn my face off than one which is “ethical”.

I do think Animal Testing is cruel, and if there were a better alternative, i’d be all for it. As it stands though, there isn’t.
E.D. Says:

Thank you for posting this. I will be sending people here in the future instead of typing this argument out every time someone claims that “this product not tested on animals” means anything.

I work for a paper chemical supplier. If a new chemical is similar enough to an existing raw material, sometimes animal testing is not required. If the new chemical is cationic and/or low molar mass, some type of animal testing is required for FDA approval. What types of animal testing is really chemistry- and use-specific. Most new paper chemicals are tested for bioavailability, biodegradation, aquatoxicity, and a few other properties.

Like Leah said, I’d rather use something that has some reassurance about safety than something with a useless (since all of the components have probably been tested) “no animal testing” label. In fact, if the product is from a new company without a decent safety record, I would prefer that the formulated product be tested. Sometimes, it is difficult to predict how mixtures of materials may interact with human tissue.
GothicRapunzel Says:

I’m always thinking about if a product wasn’t tested first, and it did real damage to a person using the product, they’d sue with the line of “why didn’t anyone check this to see if it was safe?”

Well, how exactly were they supposed to test it?

This is a great post, thank you.
Christie Says:

This is all very confusing. The companies that are on PETA’s good list (i.e. MAC, Clinique, Smashbox, Urban Decay) say they are cruelty free. But L’Oreal (Lancome, L’Oreal, Maybelline) still test. From this I gather that the companies on the “ethical” list do not test because the raw ingredients have been tested, but the “testing” companies test both the raw ingredients and the finished product? Is this correct?

I would still rather give my money to companies who do the least amount of harm to animals … since many of the big department store brands can minimize testing, I don’t see why the L’Oreals and Proctor and Gambles can’t.
amy Says:

This just depresses me beyond belief. I try so hard to be conscious and ethical in my choices and no matter what, the poor animals continue to be tortured and destroyed. The FDA is ridiculous between this and the chemicals/hormones in food, we really have no idea what we are ingesting and what implicatons our actions have.
Ninjarina Says:

Less animal testing = more human testing

Give a starving college student $15 an hour and there are plenty of things that he/she will medically consent to.
thebeautybrains Says:

Yeah. Unfortunately, there are some tests you can’t ethically do on college students even if they are willing. Beer money seems hardly worth it if the chemical you inhale is going to shut down your lungs or the compound makes you blind.

However, there are already a wide range of tests that are done on people. For example, patch testing is done pretty frequently. In this, chemicals are put on a gauze bandage and taped to the person’s skin (usually the back). They wear these things for 24 hours or more and then they’re checked. Some people make a living out of just letting themselves be tested.
Susan Says:

Christie, have you checked with Loreal about their animal testing? I have and received back a statement that they do not. Have you looked at P&G’s product list? Are YOU willing to take a pharmaceutical that has not been tested on animals and then humans? I’m not and I’m not willing for my family to take them either. I try to be careful of what I purchase, but I also live in the real world and realize that nothing is perfect and there are something that just require animal testing as there is not an alternative.

And if we do reach the point where cloning humans is possible, would that be an okay alternative to you for animals testing?
The Beauty Brains » Blog Archive » Animal Testing In The Future: Robots Not Rabbits Says:

[...] Here’s a topic that’s near and dear to the hearts of many of our Beauty Brainiacs: Animal testing! [...]
Animal Testing In The Future: Robots Not Rabbits | Beauty Secrets Blog Says:

[...] Here’s a topic that’s near and dear to the hearts of many of our Beauty Brainiacs: Animal testing! [...]
lydia Says:

Is it really necessary for people to use so many products that contain such harsh chemicals that they need to be tested on a live subject to make sure it doesn’t kill us. We need to use more natural products that are made from ingredients that come directly from the earth and that we know aren’t going to burn our faces off.Besides is it worth the lives and comfort of helpless animals so that we can come up with lipstick that claims it stays on longer than the last? Or to have products to clean our homes with that maybe it wont require as much actual Physical scrubbing of us. Is worth the extra work and a less flawless look to spare these animals some pain . I wish it was the same for more people as well
Left Brain Says:

Good questions Lydia. The fact that some chemicals are harsh is not why animal testing continues. Animal testing would be done even on “natural” products. Our government requires that companies prove their cosmetics are safe. The only data they accept as proof is animal testing. Ergo, no matter what your cosmetic is made from (natural or synthetic) you’ll have to have some animal testing to back up claims that it’s safe.

On the plus side, the incidence of animal testing is decreasing and as you can see from the article, there may soon be acceptable alternatives.
jo Says:

you are wrong. animal testing is horrific and needs to be stopped! you do not have to test on animals coz there are alternatives! and you know this is true coz at the beginning you say you have to test on animals and then at the end of this article you say that there are alternatives! you dont know what you’re talking about so do your reasearch properly!!!!!
i luv dylan Says:

i agree with jo. you are wrong. animal testing is horrific and needs to be stopped! you do not have to test on animals coz there are alternatives!you dont know anything so do your reasearch!
but i dont know what jo is going on about here “and you know this is true coz at the beginning you say you have to test on animals and then at the end of this article you say that there are alternatives!” plz tell me what jo is talking about.
thebeautybrains Says:

Jo, who is wrong and about what? No body said it wasn’t a goal to stop animal testing. Plz read the post again.

In the post we said that the current alternatives to animal testing did not produce results that were sufficient enough to replace animal testing. When the alternatives are good enough, the industry will start using them. Until then, animal testing will continue. And companies who claim they are not doing it are misleading consumers.
Tiana Says:

I never really thought about how bad this really is until my friend did a speech on it and her speech was very- I guess- inspiring. It really made me think about what really happens before this stuff goes on the shelves and I will no longer buy anything unless it says specifically on the label that it is not animal tested. Although I do agree with Leah, there is a better alternative, and that’s testing on humans, not a lot of people know about human testing cosmetics and other products but it is do-able. It’s just up to people that know about it to let others know about it as well, and I’ve heard of people donating their bodies to research, so why not to animal testing- not as common, but it would still help. Does anybody know where I can get a list of cosmetics that are/aren’t tested, that is actually accurate?
Natasha Says:

Companies know there are alternatives to cruel and barbaric animal testing but they won’t stop because they are heartless a-holes.
thebeautybrains Says:

Natasha, what are those alternatives?
kelda Says:

stop aniaml testing is WRONG and if you dont agree with me your sick xx
Talin Says:

Hi,

Even if you are right and there is no alternative method which can eliminate animals testing, I ask myself:

Don’t we have enough raw material for cosmetic or food industry, which are tested before? Is it really so important, to have a new brand of parfume or hair color or lipstick, which uses material not tested before? If the cosmetic companies want to make more money and if the people need each day something new to feel themself special why should animals pay for that?

About cruelty-free products: Nowadays, most of end products are not tested on animals but these products are not considered cruelty-free. Only products are considered cruelty-free in which no raw material tested on animals is used, or at least no raw material which is tested on aniamls after 1989. Of course it makes a difference to buy products from companies which continue and support animals testing and from companies which don’t support animals testing.
Anti Animal Testing Group Agrees with the Beauty Brains | The Beauty Brains Says:

[...] cosmetics on a few occasions. Here they explained how all ingredients on cosmetics were at one time animal tested and how companies can claim not to test on animals when they indirectly do. A number of people have [...]
09Anti Animal Testing Group Agrees with the Beauty Brains | Beauty Secrets Blog Says:

[...] cosmetics on a few occasions. Here they explained how all ingredients on cosmetics were at one time animal tested and how companies can claim not to test on animals when they indirectly do. A number of people have [...]
09Anti Animal Testing Group Agrees with the Beauty Brains | 1800blogger Says:

[...] cosmetics on a few occasions. Here they explained how all ingredients on cosmetics were at one time animal tested and how companies can claim not to test on animals when they indirectly do. A number of people have [...]
Sarah Says:

Sometimes it is necessary but what about the lack of anesthesia? Some tests wouldn’t be effected by their use and would save a lot of suffering for the animal. That would help the case some.
Meg Says:

I agree with Sarah. Either way you put it, testing n animals is just cruel. You might argue that it is necessary for humans, but why do we really need another stinking hair product or new lipstick? We have enough already. Plus, for medical purposes, companies should try and fund non animal testing tests, and if thats not possible, then the least cruel animal testing ways possible.
Ann Says:

People are so very conceided. Why not just live with what you’ve got rather then kill inocent animals because you are unconfortable n your own skin. Deal with it. Also tehre are many companies out there that are all natural with no animal testing or bo products such as beauty without curelty. Also animals genetic make ups are so different then humans that it really isn’t the greatest source of testing. Only approz 29% of the testing done on the billions of animals each year is actually worth testing again, or is near accurate. I know i’m not the same as a rabbit so how does that make sence. Also for medical reasons, people n the past dealt with everythng and didn’t test on animals. Go natural. Also, i h ave a chronic illness, and know i would rather me suffer until they do more reasearch rather then try to find a cure on an inocent animal. If i’m dealing with that much pain, why put incoent animal through that. There is no reason!
Ann Says:

sorry for the typo’s my keyboard is fussy haha