There are animals currently locked up in laboratory cages including dogs, rabbits, mice and more. These animals have become test subjects, waiting to have patches of their fur shaved off and chemicals rubbed on their skin to see how they will react, to see whether it will burn, scar or scab, see if it will cause a reaction, so that we can have cosmetic products that companies are confident are not harmful to human skin.
According to Cosmetic Index, there are at least 15 cosmetics manufacturing companies in New Jersey. That doesn’t mean all of them are engaging in inhuman animal testing, but testing is done regularly in countries including the United States. Moreover, many of the products lining the shelves of your local pharmacy are manufactured in countries with fewer testing restrictions, even if the labels indicate they are from US based companies.
Many consumers don’t want to support this kind of testing, which according to articles from the advocacy organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ or (PETA), includes forcing animals “to swallow or inhale a test substance, or [have] a chemical is applied to their skin or eyes.”
Austin Lee, a second-year pre-medicine major at MCCC says “I refuse to use products that are made via animal testing. It goes against my own ethical morals, and I wish that more people will become aware of this problem.”
The question for consumers like Lee, however, is how to determine if products use animal testing or not.
Lee Buttery, a local makeup artist says that people need to be aware of what they are using on their skin.
Buttery says, “Always look out for the bunny logo, or if it’s leaping bunny certified. ‘Vegan’ or ‘cruelty-free’ should always be emblazoned on the label.”
These labels, used by companies like NYX, Burt’s Bees, Arbonne, and The Ordinary certainly indicate a company’s stated vision and values, however, they may be misleading.
According to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the safety of cosmetics products, “Consumers sometimes ask about use of claims such as ‘Cruelty-Free’ or ‘Not Tested on Animals’ on cosmetic labeling. Some cosmetic companies promote their products with claims of this kind in their labeling or advertising. The unrestricted use of these phrases by cosmetic companies is possible because there are no legal definitions for these terms.”
In fact, while the FDA “supports the development and use of alternatives to whole-animal testing as well as adherence to the most humane methods available” it also requires some form of testing to be done to ensure product safety.
Because term “cruelty-free” is not regulated by the FDA, products claiming they are “cruelty-free” could have used animal testing at the ingredient level but not during the development of the final product.
In an interview with Vicki Katrinak, the Manager for Research and Testing and Animal Research Issues at The Humane Society of the United States, she said that in addition to the U.S. ‘s testing obligations, other countries have additional requirements.
“Often companies are testing on animals to comply with laws such as those in China, which requires animal testing for many cosmetic products or to satisfy requirements from chemical registration programs,” Katrinak said.
According to Rachel Hajar M.D, the Director of Non-Invasive Cardiology Section from Hamad Medical Corporation, animals have been conducted in experiments throughout history, although there is an urgency to abandon old practices.
Specific states have moved to push back against products tested on animals, although New Jersey is not one of them.
Katrinak of the Humane Society says, “In the past two years, 3 states. California, Illinois, and Nevada have passed laws that prohibit the sale of cosmetics developed with new cosmetic animal testing. All of these laws went into effect on January 1, 2020.”
Amanda Nordstrom, the Company Liaison for PETA’s “Beauty Without Bunnies” program says, “The results of animal tests are often unreliable or not applicable to humans, and there are more modern non-animal safety testing methods, such as computer models and cell and tissue cultures.”
Research supports Nordstrom’s claim. As the European Union as a whole has moved toward tighter restrictions on animal testing, alternatives methods are gaining attention.
In an article titled “New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing,” from the journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, author Gregory Mone writes, “Reliance on animal testing, according to several experts, has actually hindered the evaluation of many chemicals and ingredients inside and outside the cosmetics industry. Animal-based tests take too long and are too expensive, they say, often requiring several years and millions of dollars or more to carry out.”
The efforts Mone outlines include the kind of computer modeling that Nordstrom says should be the norm. PETA says we could prevent testing on more than 100 million animals in U.S laboratories if these changes are implemented and if consumers push for more cruelty-free products and apply scrutiny to ensure that label has a stronger legal definition.
Certain factors such as cost, quality, and convenience can encourage people to switch over to “cruelty-free” brands. Knowing more about the reality of animal testing can also inspire behavioral changes.
Make-up artist Buttery adds, “There are brands created by celebrities that have too high of a price point when the quality of the makeup is garbage. You’re paying for the name, not the formula.”
