Testing cosmetics on animals

Testing cosmetics on animals is a type of animal testing used to test the safety and hypoallergenic properties of products for use by humans. Because of the harm done to the animal subjects, this testing is opposed by animal rights activists and others. Cosmetic animal testing is banned in the European Union, India, Israel, and Norway.

Definition

Animal testing Main articles Animal testing Alternatives to animal testing Testing on: invertebrates frogs · primates rabbits · rodents Animal testing regulations History of animal testing History of model organisms IACUC Laboratory animal sources Pain and suffering in lab animals Testing cosmetics on animals Toxicology testing Vivisection Issues Biomedical research Animal rights · Animal welfare Animals (Scientific Procedures) Great ape research ban International trade in primates Cases Brown Dog affair Cambridge University primates Pit of despair Silver Spring monkeys UCR 1985 laboratory raid Unnecessary Fuss Companies Jackson Laboratory Charles River Laboratories, Inc. Covance · Harlan Huntingdon Life Sciences UK lab animal suppliers Nafovanny · Shamrock Groups/campaigns AALAS · AAAS · ALF Americans for Medical Progress Boyd Group · BUAV Dr Hadwen Trust Foundation for Biomedical Research · FRAME National Anti-Vivisection Society New England Anti-Vivisection Society PETA · Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Primate Freedom Project Pro-Test SPEAK · SHAC Speaking of Research Understanding Animal Research Writers/activists Tipu Aziz · Michael Balls Neal Barnard · Colin Blakemore Simon Festing · Gill Langley Ingrid Newkirk · Bernard Rollin Jerry Vlasak · Syed Ziaur Rahman Categories Animal testing · Animal rights Animal welfare Related templates Template:Animal rights

Using animal testing in the development of cosmetics may involve testing either a finished product or the individual ingredients of a finished product on animals, often rabbits, but also mice, rats, and other animals.

Re-using existing test data obtained from previous animal testing is generally not considered to be cosmetic testing on animals; however, the acceptability of this to opponents of testing is inversely proportional to how recent the data is.

Legal requirements and status

Due to the strong public backlash against cosmetic testing on animals, most cosmetic manufacturers say their products are not tested on animals. However, they are still required by trading standards and consumer protection laws in most countries to show their products are not toxic and not dangerous to public health, and that the ingredients are not dangerous in large quantities, such as when in transport or in the manufacturing plant. In some countries, it is possible to meet these requirements without any further tests on animals. In other countries, it may require animal testing to meet legal requirements. The United States and Japan are frequently criticized for their insistence on stringent safety measures, which often requires animal testing. Some retailers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by their stance on animal testing.

Legal Requirements In Japan

Although Japanese law doesn’t require non-medicated cosmetics to be tested on animals, it doesn’t prohibit it either, leaving the decision to individual companies. Animal testing is required mainly when the product contains newly-developed tar colors, ultraviolet ray protective ingredients or preservatives, and when the amount of any ingredient regulated in terms of how much can be added is increased.

Japanese Brands such as Shiseido and Mandom have ended much, but not all, of their animal testing. However, most other leading cosmetics companies in Japan still test on animals.

Places that have bans

Brazil, São Paulo

São Paulo in Brazil, banned cosmetic animal testing in 2014.

European Union

The European Union (EU) followed suit, after it agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban cosmetics-related animal testing. Imported cosmetics ingredients tested on animals were phased out for EU consumer markets in 2013 by the ban, but can still be sold to outside of the EU. Norway banned cosmetics animal testing the same time as the EU.

India

In early 2014, India announced a ban on testing cosmetics on animals in the country, thereby becoming the second country in Asia to do so. Later India banned import of cosmetics tested on animals in November 2014.

Israel

Israel banned "the import and marketing of cosmetics, toiletries or detergents that were tested on animals" in 2013.

New Zealand

In 2015, New Zealand also banned animal testing.

Turkey

Turkey "banned any animal testing for cosmetic products that have already been introduced to the market."

UK

Animal testing on cosmetics or their ingredients was banned in the UK in 1998.

Places where prohibitions are considered

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is also potentially "making strides toward ending cosmetics testing on animals."

Australia

In Australia, the End Cruel Cosmetics Bill will be introduced to Parliament in March 2014, which would ban local testing, which generally doesn't happen there, and importation of cosmetics tested on animals.

Brazil

Brazil's legislation will vote on a nationwide animal testing for cosmetics ban by the end of March 2014.

United States

In March 2014, the Humane Cosmetics Act was introduced to the U.S. congress which would ban cosmetic testing on animals and eventually would ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals.

South Korea

South Korea are also potentially "making strides toward ending cosmetics testing on animals."

Taiwan

Taiwan has launched a bill proposing a ban on cosmetic testing on animals.

Other statuses

China

China passed a law on 30 June 2014 to ban the requirement of animal testing on cosmetics in China. Though animal testing on domestically produced ordinary products of China cosmetic goods do not require testing, animal testing may be tested on cosmeceutical products. Exported goods before the law have never been required, which is why China is a large root of where cosmetic companies are located. China's requirement ban of animal testing has created a great amount of difference for over a dozen countries to re-evaluate their future plans for the guidelines of animal testing requirements.

Russia

In 2013, the Russian Ministry of Health stated "Toxicological testing is performed by means of testing for skin allergic reaction or test on mucous tissue/eye area (with use of lab animals) or by use of alternative general toxicology methods (IN VITRO). In this manner the technical regulations include measures which provide an alternative to animal testing".

Brands that do not test on animals

Company	Market	Products	Yearly Revenue
Beiersdorf Global	Nivea	Personal Care	7.4 billion (2014)
L'Oreal	Urban Decay	Cosmetics	3.7 billion (2015)
J.A. Cosmetics Corp.	E.L.F.	Cosmetics	5 million (2005)
LUSH	LUSH	Cosmetics, personal care	350 million (2014)
Colgate-Palmolive	Tom's of Maine	Toiletries, personal care	1 million (2014)
John Paul Mitchell systems	Paul Mitchell	Hair products, personal care	600 Million (1999)
L'Oreal	NYX	Cosmetics	3.7 billion (2014)
Hain Celestial	Alba Botanica	Personal care, cosmetics	2.7 million (2014)
Hain Celestial	Avalon Organics	Personal care, home goods	2.7 million (2014)

Brands that do test on animals

Company	Market	Yearly Revenue	Product	Industry	Animal Testing	Market Segment
Avon Products, Inc	Avon	US $9.955 billion (2013)	Cosmetics, perfumes, clothing, toys	Fashion	Yes	Mass Market
Chanel SAS	Chanel	6.7 billion (2014)	Perfume, Haute, Couture, Ready-to-wear, Accessories	Fashion	Yes	Luxury
Coty, Inc	OPI	$7 billion (2015)	Nail Polish	Beauty	Yes	Value for Money
Estee Lauder Co.	Aveda	$5.43 billion (2014)	Hair products, cosmetics, personal care	Beauty	Yes
Johnson & Johnson	Neutrogena	$6 billion USD (2005)	Cleansers, Cosmetics, Hair Product	Consumer Packaged Goods	Yes	Value for money
LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton	Sephore	$4 billion (2013)	Cosmetics	Beauty	Yes	Value for money
Mary Kay holding Corporation	Mary Kay	US $2.9 Billion (2011)	Cosmetics, sunscreen	Cosmetics and personal care products	Yes	Value for money
Procter &	Covergirl	$57 million	Cosmetics	Fashion	Yes	Mass

Methods

Methods of testing cosmetics on animals include many different tests that are categorized differently based on which areas the cosmetics will be used for.

Draize test: This is a method of testing that may cause irritation or corrosion to the skin or eye on animals (e.g. Draize test), dermal sensitization, airway sensitization, endocrine disruption, and LD₅₀ (which refers to the lethal dose which kills 50% of the treated animals).

Acute toxicity: This test is used to determine danger of exposure to a chemical by mouth, skin, or inflammation. Rats and mice are injected in lethal does 50 (LD50). This test can cause animal convulsions, loss of motor function, and seizures.

Skin corrosivity or irritation: This method of test assesses the potential of a substance causing irreversible damage to the skin. It is typically performed on rabbits and involves putting chemicals on a shaved patch of skin. This determines the level of damage to the skin that includes itching, inflammation, swelling, etc.

Skin sensitisation: This is a method that determines if a chemical causes an allergic reaction. The chemical adjuvant is injected to boost the immune system. In the past it was performed on guinea pigs, and applied on a shaved patch of skin. Substances are assessed based on appearance of skin.

Dermal penetration: Rats are mostly used in this method that analyzes moment of a chemical, and the penetration of the chemical in the bloodstream. Dermal penetration is a method that creates a better understanding of skin absorption.

Alternatives

Cosmetics manufacturers who do not test on animals may now use in vitro screens to test for endpoints which can determine potential risk to humans with a very high sensitivity and specificity. Companies such as CeeTox in the USA , recently acquired by Cyprotex ,specialize in such testing and organizations like the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), PETA and many other organizations advocate the use of in vitro and other non-animal tests in the development of consumer products. By using safe ingredients from a list of 5,000 which have already been tested in conjunction with modern methods of cosmetics testing, the need for tests using animals are negated.

EpiSkin™, EpiDerm™ and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin is an option for alternative testing. It can imitate the reaction actual human skin will have to a product and the chemicals it contains. It is a safe animal free way of testing for skin reactions, also known as Pyrogen tests, to product chemicals. Another alternative is The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes.

Certification

File:NoAnimalTesting.png

The "Leaping Bunny" logo which indicates that products carrying this logo have not been tested on animals.

Companies producing beauty and household products which do not to test their products on animals for any market can request membership of The Leaping Bunny Program which allows to feature Cruelty Free International's Leaping Bunny logo on their products. The program sets global standard of operations and sales. Internationally headquartered companies can obtain certification from Cruelty Free International. Companies headquartered in the US and Canada can obtain certification from The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) In 2013 over 500 companies were certified. However, some company's certifications were revoked after it was discovered they continued to test on animals in Asia.

Procedures of Animal Testing

There is a strategy used in animal testing laboratories titled the ' Three R's:' Reduction, refinement, and replacement (Doke, "Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review"). The approach of reduction is built upon the ethics to have a minimal number of animal subjects being tested on for current and later tests. Refinement suggests the planned distress and pain caused to an animal subject be as little as possible. Refinement focuses on making a home for the animals before entering testing grounds in order to elongate the life of laboratory animals. Discomfort to animals causes imbalance in hormonal levels which create fluctuating results during testing. Replacement provides the opportunity to study the response of cellular models, but in other words, replacement searches for alternatives that could be done otherwise than testing on animal subjects.

See also

• Animal testing on invertebrates
• Animal testing on non-human primates
• Animal testing on rodents
• Cosmetics
• The Three Rs (animals)