Blinded by Beauty Products: Cosmetic Giants Continue to Test on Animals
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - PETA
May 26, 2006
By Heather Moore
During the late 1980?s and early 90?s, a massive public outcry against animal testing changed the face of the cosmetics industry. Undercover footage of a kitten convulsing after being doused with a chemical, a rabbit whose skin had been eaten away by a corrosive substance, a beagle cowering alone in her cage, and rats dying after soaps were pumped into their stomachs, shamed cosmetic manufacturers and caused an industry-wide upheaval.
Benetton was the first major company to announce a permanent ban on animal testing. Avon, Revlon, and Est?Lauder quickly followed suit.
More than 500 companies, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Almay, Aveda, Bath & Body Works, Bobbi Brown, Chanel, Clinique Laboratories, Crabtree & Evelyn, Hello Kitty, M.A.C. Cosmetics, Merle Norman, Nordstrom Cosmetics, Tommy Hilfiger, Ultima II, and Urban Decay, have since promised People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that they will not test their products on animals. Companies like The Body Shop, Paul Mitchell Systems, and Tom?s of Maine proudly tout their cruelty-free status on their products and in their advertisements and promotional materials.
Tremendous progress has been made in the fight against animal testing. So much progress, in fact, that many people seem to believe that product tests on animals were stopped years ago. Kathy Guillermo, who led People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? campaign against product testing on animals from 1989 to 1993, understands where this myth of total success comes from, but fears many people have stopped using their consumer dollars to protest this most despicable animal abuse. ?We can end the use of animals in product testing,? says Guillermo, ?but only if we show with our purchases that we won?t tolerate it.?
Huge Corporate Holdouts Continue to Test on Animals
Every year, major, multi-billion-dollar cosmetic, personal care, and household product manufactures, including Procter & Gamble (the largest personal care company in the United States), Clorox, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive Co., S.C. Johnson, and L'Or?, conduct crude product tests, dating back to the 1920?s, on millions of rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals.
The infamous lethal dose 50 percent (LD50) test is the most common animal-poisoning experiment. In this test, animals are force-fed increasing amounts of a substance until 50 percent of them die. The animals often endure severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, seizures, paralysis, and/or bleeding from the nose, mouth, and genitals before they die. Variations of the LD50 test have been used for decades even though they have never been scientifically validated to confirm that their results are indicative of chemical effects in people.
In another common test, the Draize eye- and skin-irritation/corrosion test, rabbits are immobilized in full-body restraints while a substance is dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto their shaved skin. They generally suffer from swollen eyelids, irritated and cloudy eyes, inflamed skin, and in some cases, they may even endure ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, or blindness. The results of the Draize test are highly subjective, unreliable, and not applicable to humans. Rabbits? eyes are anatomically and physiologically different from humans? eyes and they tend to have stronger reactions to chemicals.
These tests are not only inhumane, inaccurate, and unnecessary, they also do nothing to ensure consumer safety. Even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be sold to consumers.
Alternatives to Animal Testing
There is just no excuse for companies not to modernize their test methods. No law requires cosmetics, personal care, and household cleaning products to be tested on animals. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?urges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct whatever tests are appropriate to establish that their cosmetics are safe? but does not specifically mandate animal testing for cosmetic safety.
Human skin patch tests, computer analysis, in vitro studies, human corneas, cloned human skin, and other non-animal alternatives will give us faster, more accurate information. EPISKIN? and EpiDerm?, multi-layered skin models made up of cultures of human skin cells, have been scientifically validated and universally accepted as replacements for rabbit skin corrosion studies. The cell-based ?3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test? is a widely accepted alternative to the use of guinea pigs and mice to assess sunlight-induced skin irritation.
Be A Caring Consumer
Beauty is more than skin deep. Consumers should boycott companies that test on animals until they emerge from the dark ages and declare a permanent ban on animal testing.
A complete list of companies that do and do not test on animals, as well as a thorough list of animal ingredients and their alternatives, can be found on CaringConsumer.com.
Heather Moore is senior writer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA, 23510; www.CaringConsumer.com.
During the late 1980?s and early 90?s, a massive public outcry against animal testing changed the face of the cosmetics industry. Undercover footage of a kitten convulsing after being doused with a chemical, a rabbit whose skin had been eaten away by a corrosive substance, a beagle cowering alone in her cage, and rats dying after soaps were pumped into their stomachs, shamed cosmetic manufacturers and caused an industry-wide upheaval.
Benetton was the first major company to announce a permanent ban on animal testing. Avon, Revlon, and Est?Lauder quickly followed suit.
More than 500 companies, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Almay, Aveda, Bath & Body Works, Bobbi Brown, Chanel, Clinique Laboratories, Crabtree & Evelyn, Hello Kitty, M.A.C. Cosmetics, Merle Norman, Nordstrom Cosmetics, Tommy Hilfiger, Ultima II, and Urban Decay, have since promised People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that they will not test their products on animals. Companies like The Body Shop, Paul Mitchell Systems, and Tom?s of Maine proudly tout their cruelty-free status on their products and in their advertisements and promotional materials.
Tremendous progress has been made in the fight against animal testing. So much progress, in fact, that many people seem to believe that product tests on animals were stopped years ago. Kathy Guillermo, who led People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? campaign against product testing on animals from 1989 to 1993, understands where this myth of total success comes from, but fears many people have stopped using their consumer dollars to protest this most despicable animal abuse. ?We can end the use of animals in product testing,? says Guillermo, ?but only if we show with our purchases that we won?t tolerate it.?
Huge Corporate Holdouts Continue to Test on Animals
Every year, major, multi-billion-dollar cosmetic, personal care, and household product manufactures, including Procter & Gamble (the largest personal care company in the United States), Clorox, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive Co., S.C. Johnson, and L'Or?, conduct crude product tests, dating back to the 1920?s, on millions of rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals.
The infamous lethal dose 50 percent (LD50) test is the most common animal-poisoning experiment. In this test, animals are force-fed increasing amounts of a substance until 50 percent of them die. The animals often endure severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, seizures, paralysis, and/or bleeding from the nose, mouth, and genitals before they die. Variations of the LD50 test have been used for decades even though they have never been scientifically validated to confirm that their results are indicative of chemical effects in people.
In another common test, the Draize eye- and skin-irritation/corrosion test, rabbits are immobilized in full-body restraints while a substance is dripped or smeared into their eyes or onto their shaved skin. They generally suffer from swollen eyelids, irritated and cloudy eyes, inflamed skin, and in some cases, they may even endure ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, or blindness. The results of the Draize test are highly subjective, unreliable, and not applicable to humans. Rabbits? eyes are anatomically and physiologically different from humans? eyes and they tend to have stronger reactions to chemicals.
These tests are not only inhumane, inaccurate, and unnecessary, they also do nothing to ensure consumer safety. Even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be sold to consumers.
Alternatives to Animal Testing
There is just no excuse for companies not to modernize their test methods. No law requires cosmetics, personal care, and household cleaning products to be tested on animals. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ?urges cosmetic manufacturers to conduct whatever tests are appropriate to establish that their cosmetics are safe? but does not specifically mandate animal testing for cosmetic safety.
Human skin patch tests, computer analysis, in vitro studies, human corneas, cloned human skin, and other non-animal alternatives will give us faster, more accurate information. EPISKIN? and EpiDerm?, multi-layered skin models made up of cultures of human skin cells, have been scientifically validated and universally accepted as replacements for rabbit skin corrosion studies. The cell-based ?3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test? is a widely accepted alternative to the use of guinea pigs and mice to assess sunlight-induced skin irritation.
Be A Caring Consumer
Beauty is more than skin deep. Consumers should boycott companies that test on animals until they emerge from the dark ages and declare a permanent ban on animal testing.
A complete list of companies that do and do not test on animals, as well as a thorough list of animal ingredients and their alternatives, can be found on CaringConsumer.com.
Heather Moore is senior writer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA, 23510; www.CaringConsumer.com.
Print
Email
