If you believed everything you heard from animal rights activist groups, you might think that the cosmetic industry could easily stop testing on animals. They have suggested that there are dozens of alternatives to animal testing. 
Well, the scientists in the cosmetic industry and readers of the Beauty Brains know that this hasn’t been true. The issue of animal testing of cosmetics is not so simple. In fact, until just recently there were no approved alternatives to animal testing. Instead, companies that wanted to claim “cruelty free” have relied on using formulas that are composed of compounds that had previously been tested on animals or farming the dirty work out to their raw material suppliers.
Animal Testing Alternative?
But there’s some good news on this front. The FDA, EPA, and CPSC have all given approval to two animal alternative testing methods for detecting eye damage. The two new methods include the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay and the isolated chicken eye assay. These are the first approved animal alternatives that the cosmetic industry can use as proof that their products are safe.
This seems like great news because there is now a real alternative to sacrificing lab animals (like bunny rabbits) for testing whether cosmetics will cause irritation. On the other hand, the tests still involve using animal tissue. The difference is that the tissues are from animals that were previously slaughtered for things like steaks and chicken nuggets.
Beauty Brains bottom line
The incidence of animal testing in the cosmetic industry has been dramatically reduced in the last few decades and it looks to continue to get more rare. Thankfully, scientists are working on alternatives to make this a non-issue. Hopefully, that time comes soon.
Loading ...
Juliet Says:
I beg leave to differ.
This is true of the *USA*. But alternatives have already been legally approved by the EU, and by individual members of the EU (such as the UK and Germany) for some time.
The USA is not the only place to legalise things. Nor is it The One And Only world authority and sole source of such official approval. And it doesn’t have a world monopoly on scientific research either!!!
As was the case with, for example, FDA approval of new sunscreen agents such as Mexoryl and Tinosorb, the US is often behind other legislations.
To be fair, this slower process also means that the FDA has a laudably cautious approach, which is clearly very much in consumers’ interests. This has also been known to coincide, however, with economic interests and national protectionism …
Left Brain Says:
So sorry, we do at times get a bit US-centric.
However, even in the EU they are finding it difficult to live up to the 2009 ban on animal testing of cosmetics. Many countries are lobbying to suspend the ban because there are some tests that just have no animal alternatives.
Thanks for the info.
blah Says:
I always wonder how people who are categorically against animal testing for cosmetic products respond to animal testing for medical devices and pharmaceuticals. I understand that people react more strongly against cosmetic testing because they think the industry is more trivial. However, I do think that there are varying degrees of necessity in the pharmaceutical industry as well. For example, would you be against animal testing for acne drugs like Accutane? Do you think animal testing for new forms of contraception passes the necessity test when there are already effective contraceptives available? A lot of academic and industry animal testing goes towards investigating the pathology of various cardiovascular diseases and the effectiveness of implant materials, drugs and pump designs used for treating these diseases. However, the healthier the population, the lower the incidence of heart disease, the less impetus there is for performing animal testing for treatment. So would your passion for animal rights be enough for you to make lifestyle changes so you could avoid having to partake of heavily animal researched drugs in the future?
These are just things I wonder sometimes…they don’t really reflect my views. I do believe in responsible and well regulated animal research.
Janis Says:
The only alternative is honestly just not to use cosmetics if you dislike animal testing. That’s it. Use as little personal care product as possible.
Juliet Says:
In response to Janis - there are plenty of companies who don’t test their cosmetic products on animals. These vary between companies who never have (ex. Beauty Without Cruelty) and companies who have recently changed their policies - in part due to consumer pressure (ex. Maybelline).
You might be surprised how many readily-available, mainstream companies don’t test: such as the whole Estee Lauder group, Chanel, Bourjois, Revlon, and Almay.
Companies in the more health-food end of the market (inc. those dubiously calling themselves “natural” and decrying “non-natural” and “un-natural” products, boo hiss…) have been making better and better products more recently; their make-up used, it must be said, to be somewhere between not good and worse than nothing. Though now demanding department-store price (ex. Dr Hauschka) for products that aren’t department store quality and performance… and have not undergone the same kind of safety testing (animal or otherwise).
Three side issues. Aside from the necessity of cosmetics; and whether or not to draw a line between necessary (medical) and unnecessary (cosmetic) products and their testing; and whether it is acceptable to draw this line (I’m a drawer of lines, I admit):
(1) A company may never have tested its products, or ingredients therein, on animals; all very laudable, but what about ingredients whose safety has been tested on animals earlier, by other companies? Many companies try to fix cut-off dates, and some highlight their long history of never having tested (ex. Lavera and Beauty Without Cruelty). How grey an area is created by this somewhat arbitrary cut-off date?
(2) Companies jumping on the “green” and “ethical” bandwagons, with what look like valid claims until you read the small print. Ex. product not tested on animals but individual ingredients are. Or not tested by that company - but testing farmed out to another company.
(3) There has been testing - even many decades ago - of even the most basic and non-frilly ingredients: such as glycerin, water, and various oils (inc. mineral and coconut, and coconut derivatives, inc. in turn most of the commonest cleansing agents).
So: conflict between being an ethical consumer and being a rational and scientific one? (My personal solution is to go for grey areas and admit that this is too complex an issue for unsophisticated, black-and-white rules.)
Left Brain Says:
For me, I find companies that use arbitrary cut-offs to be hypocrites and parasites. They let other people do their dirty work and then claim some sort of moral high ground. It’s so troubling.
I’m with you though Juliet, the issue is too complex for a black and white answer.
Jim Says:
I’ve read a few of your posts, and they are amusing, to say the least. Apparently, hundreds of other websites, subjectively or objectively written, are all wrong except this one. It sounds like justifying propaganda to me and I have noticed that near all the comments are mostly in unison supporting whatever you spout.