Ethical Considerations of Animal Testing

For many people, cosmetics are a part of everyday life; from shampoo and toothpaste, to a full face of makeup. These products make us feel beautiful and confident, but the truth behind them is extraordinarily gruesome. Animal testing is a process that has existed for thousands of years, and unfortunately, it is something we’ve come to accept. In the article, Guilt Free Beauty, Karyn Siegel-Maier writes about the history of animal testing when she says, “As early as the third century B.C., Erasistratus of Alexandria recorded the mutilation of live animals to study the body humors.” The inhumane harming of animals for human gain is an idea that has existed for too long.The pain endured by various innocent creatures is more than inhumane. Rodents are the animals of choice for testing. They can be bought from breeders, or purposefully bred by researchers. It can be difficult to evaluate the pain of a rodent, such as a rat or mouse. Karyn Siegel-Maier describes how, “Descartes, the 16th century French philosopher, maintained that animals were incapable of emotional response, of feeling distress or pain,” which is still an opinion held by some. Science today tells an opposite story. Ariel from the website, Psychology in Action wrote, “The interpretation of suffering cannot be based solely on whether or not an animal outwardly shows emotion or seems to possess more cognitive capabilities than another species,” which means that some animals could be in agonizing pain without clearly expressing it.

Many animals clearly express their pain as well. Images have surfaced over time of some horrific side effects of animal testing. Karyn Siegel-Maier says, “There are 13 standard types of safety tests routinely conducted on a cosmetic product, geared to evaluate the potential for eye irritation, oral acute toxicity, photosensitivity and skin irritation. The public is most familiar with the more archaic and brutal of these tests — the Draize and LD50, tests that cruelly blind animals and kill half of the test group.” These tests permanently harm

For many people, cosmetics are a part of everyday life; from shampoo and toothpaste, to a full face of makeup. These products make us feel beautiful and confident, but the truth behind them is extraordinarily gruesome. Animal testing is a process that has existed for thousands of years, and unfortunately, it is something we’ve come to accept. In the article, Guilt Free Beauty, Karyn Siegel-Maier writes about the history of animal testing when she says, “As early as the third century B.C., Erasistratus of Alexandria recorded the mutilation of live animals to study the body humors.” The inhumane harming of animals for human gain is an idea that has existed for too long.

The pain endured by various innocent creatures is more than inhumane. Rodents are the animals of choice for testing. They can be bought from breeders, or purposefully bred by researchers. It can be difficult to evaluate the pain of a rodent, such as a rat or mouse. Karyn Siegel-Maier describes how, “Descartes, the 16th century French philosopher, maintained that animals were incapable of emotional response, of feeling distress or pain,” which is still an opinion held by some. Science today tells an opposite story. Ariel from the website, Psychology in Action wrote, “The interpretation of suffering cannot be based solely on whether or not an animal outwardly shows emotion or seems to possess more cognitive capabilities than another species,” which means that some animals could be in agonizing pain without clearly expressing it.

Many animals clearly express their pain as well. Images have surfaced over time of some horrific side effects of animal testing. Karyn Siegel-Maier says, “There are 13 standard types of safety tests routinely conducted on a cosmetic product, geared to evaluate the potential for eye irritation, oral acute toxicity, photosensitivity and skin irritation. The public is most familiar with the more archaic and brutal of these tests — the Draize and LD50, tests that cruelly blind animals and kill half of the test group.” These tests permanently harm animals, and often leave them with little to no quality of life. Natacha Cole, author of the article Cruelty-free cosmetics 101 writes, “Many cosmetic companies test their new products and ingredients by forcing rabbits, hamsters, and mice among others, to endure horrific practices such as breathing in poisonous fumes or having lethal chemicals poured into their eyes and rubbed into their skin.” This testing of products result in very gruesome side effects or results. These lasting effects are not deserved by vulnerable, guiltless animals.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

One considerable argument for animal testing is its potential benefit to humans. Peter Singer, author of Experiments on animals; scientists should be looking for alternatives, writes, “The real basis of objection to the experimental use of animals is that pain and suffering of animals is of no less concern than the pain and suffering of humans.” Historically, humans have accepted this viewpoint, but does it need to be this way? Karyn Siegel-Maier writes, “Based on historical record, it’s a foregone conclusion that other species have been exploited to ‘better’ mankind.” However, there are many flaws with animal testing. Many argue not to buy for ethical reasons, but research also suggests that it might not be as effective as once thought. For many tesys, the side effects from animal to human can be different and varying. Kathi Keville, author of the article Compassionate cosmetics: once an accepted part of the beauty industry, animal testing is becoming a thing of the past writes, “the skin, hair and eyes of an animal can react quite differently from those of a human–especially in tests where animals receive extremely large doses applied over a long duration. And several studies conducted during the past 30 years have indicated that animal testing simply does not accurately predict human responses.” This new research and data has compelled many companies to change their ways. Products available using animal testing have effective counterparts that were not tested on animals. Companies like BareMinerals Cosmetics and Bath & Body Works are certified by PETA’s, (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Beauty Without Bunnies Program, as businesses that don’t test on animals.

Another flaw with animal testing is where to draw the line. One viewpoint claims there is a ‘grey area’ when animal testing, and that testing just needs to be monitored. This theory doesn’t account for the legal challenge it is to define what exactly is and isn’t okay for testers. Many say that science is a reasonable excuse to use animals. Andrew N. Rowan, author of Why Scientists Should Seek Alternatives to Animal Use, says, “Public concern seems to focus on the extent of animal suffering, the manner in which research is conducted, and the purpose of the research. For example, most people would probably not favor the use of animals to produce a new shampoo. At the same time, many people seemed willing to countenance the killing of a baboon (if painless) to provide a surrogate heart for Baby Fae,” which means that some people can support the research aspect of testing but not the cosmetic aspect. Research and cosmetics are different things. The cosmetic industry is not testing animals in a painless and directly beneficial way. The alternatives to products tested on animals hold many effective counterparts.

Today, it can be challenging to identify what products have been tested on animals and which have not. In the article, These Beauty Brands Are Still Tested on Animals, the PETA, states that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” packaging labels, so companies can put this on their packaging even if the product or ingredients have been tested on animals,” which means that some companies, such as L’Oréal, have not been completely honest with consumers. L’Oréal doesn’t test on animals in America, but instead pays for deadly animal testing in China. Other companies such as Avon, Clinique, Maybellene, and Victoria’s Secret have avoided testing in america also, to instead test in countries like China where it is required. Researching products before purchasing is a smart idea for caring consumers.

A new wave of consumers are pushing for change in the cosmetics industry. Kim Bartel Sheehan and Joonghwa Lee, the authors of What’s cruel about cruelty free: An exploration of consumers, moral heuristics, and public policy write, “Ethical consumers base these positive buying decisions on their presumed ethical obligations and their personal beliefs about what is right or wrong (Kurland, 1995). These consumers want to create meaning through their purchases, since ethical issues often are an important part of their self-identity (Shaw, Grehan, & Hassan, 2005). As a result, these consumers may hold very strong (or sacred) values that are hard to alter.” This means that many consumers are purchasing based not just on what is available, but instead on what is right and wrong.

Today, you can create change by being an ethical consumer. By purchasing PETA certified cruelty free products, or products that have not been tested using animals, you can help bring change. Animal testing is a practice that has existed for far too long. We can all help end the inhumane animal testing process by doing research and buying our products with purpose.