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.

38 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
The Truth about Animal Testing and Cosmetics | The Beauty Brains Says:

[...] safety standards often require animal testing to prove a product’s safety. As alternatives to animal testing are developed such as computer modeling, or cell cultures, the laws are being changed, but this is [...]
Jirka Says:

This is not the whole truth. Of course, there are a product without animal testing – the company just needs to use established components. You do not need to test thousands of chemicals because they were tested long time ago. Only new chemicals require testing.
thebeautybrains Says:

@Jirka – All of the established components were previously tested on animals. It’s disingenuous to tell people you don’t test on animals when you’re using products that other people tested on animals.
Best of the Beauty Brains 2008 | The Beauty Brains Says:

[...] industry. Some you may care about follow. 1. Mercury in mascara? 2. More trouble for Jan Marini 3. Getting rid of cosmetic animal testing is harder than we think 4. The chemical-free cosmetic myth 5. When natural ingredients attack 6. 7 reasons there aren’t [...]
Jirka Says:

@thebeautybrains. Yes they WERE tested. Similarly, there WAS slavery in U.S., and many other bad things. This is past, we cannot change it. THe other company test their products and ingredients now.
Jirka Says:

Sorry for the typo. I meant “The other companIES” (meaning companies that keep testing instead of using established ingredients – following so called fixed cut-off date policy, i.e, using only ingredients tested before certain fixed date)
Steph Says:

Hey, I just want to say, I think you are wrong about the fact you believe all companies test parts of their products on animals, but not the whole product, just take a look at lush. None of their products, not even the ones brought from suppliers are tested on animals, so if its true to sell a product they have to prove by testing on animals it is safe for humans, how do they get away with selling their products.There are quite a few companies like this now.
Why can`t people just think do I really dont need to inject this rabbits eyes with mascara, just to make sure its ok for humans, if its really so important for us to wear mascara then we should test it on ourselves.
How can the people doing this testing actually find it in their hearts to hurt such poor defenseless creatures, and what makes us so much better then any species to cause them pain for something as stupid as mascara, lipstick, shampoo etc.
I know this is just my opinion, but we live in a very sick world and for a lot of people ignorance is bliss, if they actually performed, or saw these tests performed they would never buy any of these products again.
miles Says:

you don’t need any new cosmetic products.

new products are developed to make money, not make you beautiful. there are enough shampoos etc available already. we don’t need new ones! (same for household products).

new products don’t need to be tested on animals because new products are NOT NEEDED.

let’s face it, it is the selfish vanity (of mainly women) that is responsible for the torture of millions of animals, so we can try and reach a level of unattainable beauty.

you will NEVER be THAT beautiful.

some companies have a fixed cut-off date policy. so that they will not use any products / ingredients tested on an animal after a certain date.

companies like lush will not buy ingredients from companies that test on animals, even if the ingredients themselves have not.

no excuse. of you buy these products then you are disgusting. if you wouldn’t do it to your children then you shouldn’t do it to anyone else’s. the pain and suffering animals feel is exactly the same as ours – they are physically built the same to feel pain.

~miles
Sherry Says:

I am against animal testing, but I also know that there are so many products that people use every day that have at some point either past or present been tested on animals. Yes, it is wrong and animal should not have to suffer. But humans also have to look out for their safety. Would I use a cleaning product, a cosmetic product or a food product if there had been absolutely no testing done? Absolutely not! And to anyone who may come up and say “Well if you had an animal would you test on it?” Of course not, I love my cat. But while animal testing is wrong, it still happens. I’m all for alternatives to it, believe me, but until they have alternatives that are proven to give results that satisfy the FDA and the need for safety and protection for humans AND animals, the best thing we can all do is use products that have the least amount of animal testing and do research on companies that have all-natural and ethical products. It’s up to every individual to make their own sound judgement on whether to use a product or not and to do research to see if they would have any moral and ethical dilemmas with that product.
Ebru Says:

Steph, you said: “…just take a look at lush. None of their products, not even the ones brought from suppliers are tested on animals,..”. did you ever look at the ingredients of their products? They contain preservatives – parabens – which are animal tested! So I suggest you do more research on all the other companies you mentioned before you make up your mind about them.
chris Says:

If humans want a product for themselves, they can test it on themselves. take all the convicts that have wasted their chance at life, take all the drug addicts that slowly desecrate their bodies anyway, test it on them. leave the animals to their own world of innocence. the hell with aerosol sprays, why are they really necessary? the only thing i could tolerate testing for woudl be a cure ofr cancer or any other major disease. even then, I do not believe that there are not people out there that woudl nbot volunatrily be tested on for money. people will do any thing for money …