Rita+Fung

History/background

According to Canadian law, a cosmetic is defined as “a product, which cleanses, improves or alters the complexion, skin, hair or teeth.” In Canada, the law stated that animals are necessary to be used for medical testing; it does not say that animals are entailed for cosmetic testing. (Canadian Federal Humane Society) However, many companies and factories still used animals to test the ingredients used in making cosmetics. Cosmetic manufactures are required to prove that the cosmetic products that they are producing are safe for customers to use according to the Cosmetic Regulation in Canada. (Canadian Federal Humane Society) Usually the cosmetic product wouldn’t be tested on animals but the ingredients that are used to make the product. Therefore, even if cosmetics are labeled “ cruelty free” or say that it not tested on animals, it might not be the case because the manufacturer might not tested the product on the animal, but another company that supplied the manufacturer the product might have tested the ingredients in the product on animals. (Canadian Federal Humane Society) Performing cosmetic testing on animals began in the year of 1933. The allowing of cosmetic testing was because a lady’s eyes started burning after using mascara, she went blind shortly and died. Due to this incident, the Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 to protect the public from unsafe cosmetics. (All For Animal) The Food and Drug Act, The Cosmetic Regulations and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act and Regulations are to ensure that that their ingredients are disclosed to public, drugs are effective and are not sold as food or cosmetics and proper notification and labeling are shown on the product. (Health Canada) Although there are a few federal laws regarding to animal testing to protect animals from hurting and suffering, they do not specify requirements for animal testing for cosmetic purposes. Experimentation on live animals, which is also known as "vivisection" began in the 17th century. During that time period, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected Philosopher Rene Descartes' theory that animals are not able to reason and therefore do not feel pain and suffering. (All for Animals)

Issue and controversial behind animal cosmetic testing

Bentham stated that animals don’t have feelings nor could they feel pain. Many people value the lives of animals less than human lives. According to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world every year. An animal can die instantly, after a few seconds or in a few months. The longer the procedure last the more suffering they have to endure. There is a wide range of animal species that are used for testing and they include, fruit flies, rodents, rabbits, monkey and even cats and dogs. Over 20 million mice and rats are used in a year and over 25,500 cats were used in the U.S. in 2000. Cosmetic test on animals involve toxicity, which causes eye irritation and skin corrosion.(Wikipedia) Is there any alternative ways to test cosmetics to ensure that they are safe for human to use? Cosmetic testing is different from medical testing; at least medical testing is beneficial to the world. The most common animal tests are Draize test developed by a scientist named John Draize. The procedure of a Draize test includes dropping a highly intoxicated substance into an animal’s eyes, the results are observed throughout a period of time. Another animal test is called the LD50. Which involves forcing substances into animals’ body until fifty percent of the animals die in the group. (All for Animal)

Government/ union

Many people are not fond with using products that are tested on animals and the inhumane actions that are allowed in their own countries and states therefore many governments have reconsidered there regulations and laws regarding to the subject of animal testing. California was the first state to pass a law to limit the act of testing products on animals in year 2000, Following is New Jersey and New York to pass a similar legislation regarding the same issue in 2007 and 2008.(AAVS) Many of the countries and states have only recently past the legislation to limit on animal testing. The numbers of animals that went through testing and pain can not even be counted, it started in the 17th century and now in the 21st century, people are just beginning to care about the situation and begin to take action. The United States is not making much of a progress regarding the used of non- animal alternatives in testing products. There are no federal laws in Canada that govern animal research, but there are some provincial laws pertaining specifically to animal research, as well as some federal laws that relate to the way animal research is conducted in Canada. (AAVS) Sections 444-447 of the Criminal Code broadly protect animals against cruelty in Canada. Only four provinces – Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan – have legislation specific to animals in research. Saskatchewan and Alberta have incorporated the CCAC guidelines into the provincial animal protection acts. (AAVS) The Seventh Amendment of the Cosmetics Directive was passed in 2004 by the European Union. The Amendment sets the rules and deadlines for animal testing bans on product that contains animal tested ingredients. This legislation will have an enormous impact on the cosmetics industry both in the European Union and abroad as the law sets specific deadlines not just for the production but also for the sale of products that have been tested on animals or contain animal-tested ingredients. (CFHS. "Medical Testing.")

Another Perspective

If we think in a cosmetic companies’ perspective, of course they want to ensure that their product is safe for consumers to buy. They can get into a lot of trouble even if one customer feels ill or did after using their product. A lot of big companies such as L’oreal and Revelon have stopped using animals for testing cosmetics however a lot of companies in the US still do. Yes, they are thinking of the safety of human, after all, no body wants to use any harmful substances on themselves. A neurosurgeon named Tipu Aziz from Oxford claims that testing cosmetic on animals is not wrong. (Lewis, The Guardian) Although he does not perform cosmetic test on animals, he uses animals for researches and he is not shameful or embarrassed by the fact that he does. He stated, "People talk about cosmetics being the ultimate evil. But beautifying oneself has been going on since we were cavemen. If it's proven to reduce suffering through animals’ tests, it's not wrong to use them. To say cosmetics is an absolute evil is absurd." (Lewis, The Guardian) Sometimes people only think about one side of the argument, testing cosmetics on animals is inhumane and cruel but if we look at the situation from another view point would we be very happy if the products were not tested and ensured that they are safe before putting them out in the market for the public.

Organization

Many organizations established after realizing the urgency of protecting animals. There are many animal support groups in the world as well. An example is the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), it requires the generation of safety data for all chemical substances produced or imported into the European Union in certain amounts. Due to the concerns raised by animal advocates, REACH was amended prior to final passage both to promote the use of currently available non-animal alternative test methods and to encourage the development of new alternatives. In 1969, The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) was formed in the U.K. Furthermore. (AAVS)The John Hopkins Center for the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association formed the “Alternatives to Animal Testing” was successfully established in 1981. The establishment of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees review the procedures and facilities that have to do with the testing of an animal, whether or not pain will occur. (AAVS) These organizations are actively fighting for animal rights and their freedom. They truly believe that human should not be the cause of suffering to animals.

Bibliography

AVS. "Laws on Animals used for Product Testing : AAVS." Working to end the use of animals in science. AAVS. 02 Feb. 2009 .

"Animal testing." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 01 Feb. 2009 .

CFHS. "Cosmetic Testing." CFHS | Cosmetic Testing. CFHS - The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. 01 Feb. 2009 .

CFHS. "Medical Testing." Helping Canadians help Animals. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. 02 Feb. 2009 .

"History of Animal Testing." All For Animals. 29 Jan. 2009 .

Health Canada. "Cosmetics Regulations." Canada Business | Entreprises Canada. Canada-Ontario Business Service Centre. 01 Feb. 2009 .

Health Canada. "Consolidation of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations." Food and Nutrition. Health Canada. 02 Feb. 2009 .

Lewis, Paul. "Scientist backs animal testing for cosmetics |." The Guardian. 02 Feb. 2009 .