English 112 April 2, 1999 Page 1Cosmetic Testing on Animals When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they usuallydont put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals die andsuffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah, abstract)Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked. It is a problem thathas lasted for centuries. As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals Newsletter, animaltesting on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed tofeel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a while.
However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara. After that incident theFood and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics. (Issue 1) However,that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most commonones are the Draize Test and the LD50.
The Draize test is an eye test named after a man by thename of John Draize. This test involves dropping a substance into an animals eye and watchingthe results. (All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on albino rabbits,and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include swelling of theeyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting from brokennecks. (the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose 50 ispreformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them dies.
Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a vein, orinto the lining of the abdomen. This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed withoutadministering no kind of painkillers. (Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree that thesetests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these tests arevital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate.
(Health safety alliance,abstract) Page 2 No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliablealternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these alternatives arefaster, cheaper, and provide better information. ( Health safety alliance, abstract) So what arethese alternatives? There are many of them. One very common one is the use of cell cultures,which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and they reactjust like normal skin. (Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the easiest way totest new ingredients as well as finished products.
He also mentions that using these cultures willsave money as well as lives of animals. (abstract) Another popular alternative is the use ofcorneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test. (Shah, abstract) The followingare some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter: Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system.
This replaces the Draize test. Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic thereaction of a foreign substance on human skin. Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances. Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of awater-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy.
Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,and teratonogenicity. So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury,provide quicker results, and dont hurt animals: Why dont all companies use them? The answeris that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that says thatthey cant be tested. However, there is a good side.
There are laws to regulate testing. In Britain,these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of licensingPage 3and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United States,there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times. (the lastbeing in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory animals.
Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U. S. Public Health Service Guide forthe Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Bothof these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular reports. They also require animal care and use committees.
( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997) Finallyaccording to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and Ethics,written by J. Zurlo, D. Rudacille, and A. M.
Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect laboratoryanimals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC). Thesecommittees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an animal,whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used issufficient, and that the scientist are using the three Rs: 1. Refinement 2.
Reduction 3. ReductionBesides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a responsibility tothese animals. They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper care,use, and an avoidance or minimization of distress, pain, and suffering. They also make sure thatanimals stay in good health because they know that animals in poor health could cause seriousexperimental error, just like testing on water wouldnt be any good if it were preformed in a dirtycontainer. ( Health safety alliance, abstract) Even though these protection acts, and good scientistare out there it doesnt make testing okay, just better.
Testing still needs to be completelystopped. Page 4 Some companies refuse to acknowledge the fact that testing needs to be abolished. These arecompanies that continue to torture and kill these poor helpless animals. According to an abstractcalled Animal Testing by the Cosmetic Industry these companies and examples of their productsinclude: Unilever: Dove soap, Cutex, Wisk Laundry detergent, I Cant Believe its not Butter, Echo,Crem Silk shampooProctor and Gamble: Max Factor, Clarion, Cover Girl, Luvs, Pampers, Vidal Sassoon, Cresttoothpaste, Tide laundry detergent, Head and ShouldersColgate-Palmolive: Palmolive shampoo, Colgate toothpasteThese are just a few of the companies that are still testing the list goes on and on. However, thereare over 500 companies that are cruelty-free. These companies include: Avon and Revlon.
There is yet another side to this. There are many companies that claim to be cruelty-free butreally arent. This may mean that the company itself hasnt tested on animals, but the companywhere it got its ingredients from has. There is no government standards to define this term soaccording to an online brochure by the Health and Safety Alliance, Not Tested on Animals can really mean:The exact final product formula was not tested on animals, but single ingredients oringredient combination was. The manufacturer did not conduct animal testing, but the ingredient supplier did.
What does the claim Not Tested on Animals or Cruelty-Free really mean?The manufacture did testing in another country. Ingredients or the finished product have not been tested within the past five years. Page 5In reality most ingredients have been tested on animals at some time or another. However,companies have no business misleading consumers. There are some honest companies that dontmake the claim cruelty-free simply because of one of the above reasons. There is a question that remains on my mind: How could a company morally hurt pooranimals? Most people look at them at being nasty rats, but those nasty rats are warm bloodedcreatures that can feel pain, and besides 10-15 percent of these animals are dogs, cats, andmonkeys.
(Chang, 1998) Now how could people promote hurting those household pets. Companies and supporters say that it is for our own well being. Well, I have shown a number ofalternatives that equally, if not more, effective. Besides, what about the animals well being?Many people believe that they have nothing to do with what companies do. However, withoutconsumers are what makes a company. So what can we do? I have made a list of possible waysto help: 1.
Stop buying products that are tested on animals. This is simple enough. If a company loses alot of consumers for this reason then they will be forced to stop testing, and Im sure that anykind person can find it in their hearts to sacrifice a couple of their household products andpersonal items for the sake of these harmless creatures. 2.
Write companies that test on animals. You dont have to get evil, just let them know that youcare enough to respond. 3. Write companies that do not test on animals. Let them know what a great job they are doing.
This will cause them to keep up the good work. 4. If you really want to become involved, join an animal support group. These groups donate alot of their time fighting for the well being of animals.
I dont know if testing on animals will ever be stopped. There will probably always be thosestubborn companies out there that just will not give in. However, we can try to abolish it. I have found out that in the last ten years animal research has dropped by 50 percent. (Chang, 1998) If Page 6we can only keep this trend continuous then everything will be just fine.
Scientist and activistwant totally different things. I believe that with a little teamwork they can get on the samegrounds. For now maybe we can get the scientist to really promote the three Rs , especiallyreplacement. Its not abolishment. .
but its a start. English 112 April 2, 1999 Page 1Cosmetic Testing on Animals When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they usuallydont put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals die andsuffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah, abstract)Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked. It is a problem thathas lasted for centuries.
As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals Newsletter, animaltesting on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed tofeel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a while. However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara. After that incident theFood and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics.
(Issue 1) However,that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most commonones are the Draize Test and the LD50. The Draize test is an eye test named after a man by thename of John Draize. This test involves dropping a substance into an animals eye and watchingthe results.
(All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on albino rabbits,and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include swelling of theeyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting from brokennecks. (the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose 50 ispreformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them dies.
Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a vein, orinto the lining of the abdomen. This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed withoutadministering no kind of painkillers. (Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree that thesetests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these tests arevital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate. (Health safety alliance,abstract) Page 2 No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliablealternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these alternatives arefaster, cheaper, and provide better information.
( Health safety alliance, abstract) So what arethese alternatives? There are many of them. One very common one is the use of cell cultures,which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and they reactjust like normal skin. (Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the easiest way totest new ingredients as well as finished products. He also mentions that using these cultures willsave money as well as lives of animals.
(abstract) Another popular alternative is the use ofcorneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test. (Shah, abstract) The followingare some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter: Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system. This replaces the Draize test. Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic thereaction of a foreign substance on human skin. Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.
Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of awater-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy. Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,and teratonogenicity. So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury,provide quicker results, and dont hurt animals: Why dont all companies use them? The answeris that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that says thatthey cant be tested.
However, there is a good side. There are laws to regulate testing. In Britain,these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of licensingPage 3and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United States,there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times.
(the lastbeing in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory animals. Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U. S. Public Health Service Guide forthe Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Bothof these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular reports.
They also require animal care and use committees. ( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997) Finallyaccording to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and Ethics,written by J. Zurlo, D. Rudacille, and A. M.
Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect laboratoryanimals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC). Thesecommittees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an animal,whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used issufficient, and that the scientist are using the three Rs: 1. Refinement 2. Reduction 3. ReductionBesides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a responsibility tothese animals.
They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper care,use, and an avoidance or minimization of distress, pain, and suffering. They also make sure thatanimals stay in good health because they know that animals in poor health could cause seriousexperimental error, just like testing on water wouldnt be any good if it were preformed in a dirtycontainer. ( Health safety alliance, abstract) Even though these protection acts, and good scientistare out there it doesnt make testing okay, just better. Testing still needs to be completelystopped. Page 4 Some companies refuse to acknowledge the fact that testing needs to be abolished.
These arecompanies that continue to torture and kill these poor helpless animals. According to an abstractcalled Animal Testing by the Cosmetic Industry these companies and examples of their productsinclude: Unilever: Dove soap, Cutex, Wisk Laundry detergent, I Cant Believe its not Butter, Echo,Crem Silk shampooProctor and Gamble: Max Factor, Clarion, Cover Girl, Luvs, Pampers, Vidal Sassoon, Cresttoothpaste, Tide laundry detergent, Head and ShouldersColgate-Palmolive: Palmolive shampoo, Colgate toothpasteThese are just a few of the companies that are still testing the list goes on and on. However, thereare over 500 companies that are cruelty-free. These companies include: Avon and Revlon. There is yet another side to this. There are many companies that claim to be cruelty-free butreally arent.
This may mean that the company itself hasnt tested on animals, but the companywhere it got its ingredients from has. There is no government standards to define this term soaccording to an online brochure by the Health and Safety Alliance, Not Tested on Animals can really mean:The exact final product formula was not tested on animals, but single ingredients oringredient combination was. The manufacturer did not conduct animal testing, but the ingredient supplier did. What does the claim Not Tested on Animals or Cruelty-Free really mean?The manufacture did testing in another country. Ingredients or the finished product have not been tested within the past five years.
Page 5In reality most ingredients have been tested on animals at some time or another. However,companies have no business misleading consumers. There are some honest companies that dontmake the claim cruelty-free simply because of one of the above reasons. There is a question that remains on my mind: How could a company morally hurt pooranimals? Most people look at them at being nasty rats, but those nasty rats are warm bloodedcreatures that can feel pain, and besides 10-15 percent of these animals are dogs, cats, andmonkeys. (Chang, 1998) Now how could people promote hurting those household pets. Companies and supporters say that it is for our own well being.
Well, I have shown a number ofalternatives that equally, if not more, effective. Besides, what about the animals well being?Many people believe that they have nothing to do with what companies do. However, withoutconsumers are what makes a company. So what can we do? I have made a list of possible waysto help: 1. Stop buying products that are tested on animals.
This is simple enough. If a company loses alot of consumers for this reason then they will be forced to stop testing, and Im sure that anykind person can find it in their hearts to sacrifice a couple of their household products andpersonal items for the sake of these harmless creatures. 2. Write companies that test on animals. You dont have to get evil, just let them know that youcare enough to respond.
3. Write companies that do not test on animals. Let them know what a great job they are doing. This will cause them to keep up the good work. 4. If you really want to become involved, join an animal support group.
These groups donate alot of their time fighting for the well being of animals. I dont know if testing on animals will ever be stopped. There will probably always be thosestubborn companies out there that just will not give in. However, we can try to abolish it. I have found out that in the last ten years animal research has dropped by 50 percent. (Chang, 1998) If Page 6we can only keep this trend continuous then everything will be just fine.
Scientist and activistwant totally different things. I believe that with a little teamwork they can get on the samegrounds. For now maybe we can get the scientist to really promote the three Rs , especiallyreplacement. Its not abolishment.
. but its a start. English 112 April 2, 1999 Page 1Cosmetic Testing on Animals When most people go to the store to purchase cosmetics and household cleaners they usuallydont put too much thought into it. Most people do not realize that 14 million animals die andsuffer each year for these products that are almost meaningless to humans. (Shah, abstract)Cosmetic animal testing is a very big problem that gets greatly overlooked.
It is a problem thathas lasted for centuries. As a matter of fact, according to the All for Animals Newsletter, animaltesting on cosmetics goes way back to the seventeenth century when animals were believed tofeel no pain. After it was proven that they could feel pain the testing stopped for a while. However, it began again in 1933 when a woman died from a mascara.
After that incident theFood and Drug Administration passed an act for animal testing on cosmetics. (Issue 1) However,that act is no longer in effect, but companies continue to test on animals. There are several different types of tests used on animals each day. The two most commonones are the Draize Test and the LD50. The Draize test is an eye test named after a man by thename of John Draize.
This test involves dropping a substance into an animals eye and watchingthe results. (All for Animals Newsletter, Issue 1) This test is usually preformed on albino rabbits,and it is done by clipping their eyes back. The painful results of this test include swelling of theeyelids, inflammation of the iris, ulceration, bleeding, blindness, and death resulting from brokennecks. (the animal breaks their neck in an attempt to get free). The LD50 or Lethal Dose 50 ispreformed by force-feeding a substance to a group of animals until fifty percent of them dies. Substances may also be pumped into the animals stomach, injected under the skin, into a vein, orinto the lining of the abdomen.
This test, as well as the Draize test, is preformed withoutadministering no kind of painkillers. (Shah, abstract) Many health professionals agree that thesetests are crude and imprecise. (Shah, abstract) However, many scientist agree that these tests arevital in obtaining scientific test results that are reliable and accurate. (Health safety alliance,abstract) Page 2 No matter what any scientist says about cosmetic animal testing, there are reliablealternatives. As a matter of fact, some scientist have actually said that these alternatives arefaster, cheaper, and provide better information. ( Health safety alliance, abstract) So what arethese alternatives? There are many of them.
One very common one is the use of cell cultures,which is artificially grown cell cultures that come from the upper part of the skin and they reactjust like normal skin. (Chang, 1998) According to Prof. Hans Junginger, this is the easiest way totest new ingredients as well as finished products. He also mentions that using these cultures willsave money as well as lives of animals. (abstract) Another popular alternative is the use ofcorneas from eye banks. This, of course, replaces the Draize test.
(Shah, abstract) The followingare some more effective alternatives given in issue 2 of the All for Animals Newsletter: Eyetex: A test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system. This replaces the Draize test. Skintex: A test-tube method to access skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic thereaction of a foreign substance on human skin. Epi pack: Uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.
Neutral Red Bioassey: Cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of awater-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity. Testskin: Human skin grown in plastic bags is used to test irritancy. Topkat: computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,and teratonogenicity. So with all of these alternatives that are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury,provide quicker results, and dont hurt animals: Why dont all companies use them? The answeris that they have a fear for human safety and they fear product liability suits. There are no laws that say cosmetics have to be tested on animals nor is there one that says thatthey cant be tested. However, there is a good side.
There are laws to regulate testing. In Britain,these laws go way back to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. This act set up a system of licensingPage 3and certification. This act was later replaced by the Animals Act of 1986. In the United States,there is an Animal Welfare Act that started in 1966 and has been amended five times.
(the lastbeing in 1991) This act sets standards for transportation and husbandry of laboratory animals. Two other forms of protection for laboratory animals is the U. S. Public Health Service Guide forthe Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Health Research Extension Act of 1985.
Bothof these regulate research funded by National Institutes of Health and require regular reports. They also require animal care and use committees. ( Zurlo, Rudacille & Goldberg, 1997) Finallyaccording to a chapter in Animals and Alternatives in Testing History, Science, and Ethics,written by J. Zurlo, D.
Rudacille, and A. M. Rudacille, the best thing yet to protect laboratoryanimals is the establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC). Thesecommittees review all procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an animal,whether or not pain will occur. They must make sure that the number of animals being used issufficient, and that the scientist are using the three Rs: 1.
Refinement 2. Reduction 3. ReductionBesides these acts many scientist have acknowledged the fact that they have a responsibility tothese animals. They see that they need to respect the welfare of these animals by proper care,use, a
