Animal Testing on Cosmetics - Essay Example

Animal Testing on Cosmetics Affiliation Animal Testing on Cosmetics Introduction As defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a cosmetic is any product that whose intention is to be utilized on a human being’s body for the purpose of beautifying, changing the looks without any effects on the bodily functions or cosmetics, and cleaning (Mitchell, 2002). Numerous products have been classified as cosmetics including their constituents. Such products include nail polish and skin cream. Some of the products named as cosmetics are grouped as drugs in case they are said to have a health benefit. Nevertheless, for most of these cosmetics to be approved for use on human beings, they have to undergo vigorous testing to make sure that they are safe on people, failure to which they cannot be approved. Hence, the contentious issue of testing the applicability of cosmetics on animals before they are approved for use on humans. The question is, is the utilization of animals as test subjects needed? No, it is not as there is no law that states that animals should be used when conducting tests on cosmetic products. However, in some countries like China, compulsory animal tests are done on any cosmetics on sale in the country. In the US for example, many animals, over a 100,000 are used for tests in the laboratory. In the process, some are maimed, killed, or abused. It has also been claimed that 9 out of 10 drugs that are proved to be safe after tests on animals fail in tests done on human beings (Mitchell, 2002). Thus the question arises, is it or is it not proper for animals to be used for cosmetic testing bearing in mind the ethical issues that arise as a result? If the United States is further taken as an example for animal testing on cosmetics, some notable facts arise. It is noted that out of 10 animals used for testing, 9 of them are not taken into consideration in the official animal statistics for the number of animals tested. No animal is considered an exception as there are no alternatives for animal use required by the law (The Humane Society, 2014). It has been indicated that for many cosmetics, numerous tests are required; hence, more than one animal is used for the tests as they are for evaluating different parameters. Examples of tests done on animals include skin irritation tests on rabbits, toxicity tests, and cancer likelihood on mice (Do Something, n.d.). Hence, with the mentioned facts, it is evident that something somewhere is not right when it comes to animal testing on cosmetics. It raises more than one ethical issue as to the correctness of their use, is it right or is it wrong. What are the implications of these tests? Various ethical theories like utilitarianism and virtue ethics can be used to look at the ethical value merits and demerits of cosmetic testing on animals based on the implications and moral value. According to Smart (1973), utilitarianism is a theory of for and against based on the outcomes. Hence, the author takes note of act-utilitarianism that considers the correctness or incorrectness of an act based on the entire immorality or morality of the consequences. Virtue ethics on the other hand deals less with the rightness or wrongness of consequences of an act and is more about rationality, character, wisdom, and choice. Hence, it is more than the actions (Merriam, 2008). What are the pros and cons for using animal testing for cosmetics? A critical analysis of this issue reveals several issues with it. One of them is the cost that is involved when testing for the safety and applicability of the cosmetic on animals. It has been documented that some tests on animals require up to over 100 animals to examine their toxicity. Come to think of it, the 100 plus animals have to be fed, kept in proper health, maintained, kept under constant surveillance, and accommodated. For those animals that survive the test, they have to be assessed by a veterinary specialist to ensure that they are healthy and their body organs are functioning properly. When all these is added up, it leads to enormous costs (Hester & Harrison, 2006). Again, the specificity of animals is different. Hence, when cosmetic tests, such as toxicity tests, are done on animals, gaps arise when transferring the same cosmetic to clinical human trials where humans are used. The accuracy of the tests are put into complete jeopardy while the errors that arise are huge. The errors are especially so when it comes to the analysis of the results (Willett, 2010). Further, it has been alleged that most tests on animals are not necessary. If the tests are not necessary, then, what is the essence of this tests? As a result, even the backing of cosmetics testing on animals has become limited after donors and funders took note of little essence. Their assumptions are that the funds could be put into better use in other projects that are of importance to humanity rather than on the needless tests (Briggle & Mitcham, 2012). Many of these tests on animals are considered cruel on animals due to the stress that the animals have to go through in the course of testing. However, in spite of this demerits of cosmetic testing on animals, various proponents for animals use in cosmetic testing take not of certain merits. One of the merits for animal use in cosmetic testing has been that many of the cosmetics in use today have been made possible through the tests on animals. Hence, as per the results, the tests are right and appropriate. It has also been indicated that there cosmetic laboratories undertaking tests on animals do not aim to harm or injure animals in any manner. Rather, they note that it cannot be morally correct to conduct tests for new cosmetics on people as it may result to their death or harm (Briggle & Mitcham, 2012). Moreover, it is noted that in one way or another, animals are similar to human beings. As a result, the tests are best placed to give indicative ideas on the efficiency and affectability of new cosmetics through tests on animals. Further, it is opined that animal tests are more cost effective and at the same time less is said about these tests as would be if human subjects were used for these tests (Watson, 2009). Based on these pros and cons, the ethical predicament resulting from animal testing on cosmetics comes alive. Advocates of animal tests claim that it is the only way through which humans can benefit in the cosmetic world. It can also be argued that it is morally authoritative to ensure the safety of people even if it means using animals as test subjects. On the other hand, animals are subjected to cruel tests that cause suffering, which they cannot tell and shall not benefit the animals after the testing. Again, the issue of morality implies that the moral uprightness of these tests is wrong as animals have welfare that needs to be taken care of and considered (Hau & Schapiro, 2002). The moral aspect of animal testing can be done away with on the basis that animals lack a conscience that enables them to have feelings for or against the tests been done on them. Again, when contrasted with human beings, animals are not of any importance from a moral aspect. Thus, whatever tests that are done on animals do not matter. When the consequences of the tests are considered, supporters state that they are of benefit to people. However, are they of benefit to animals? The answer is no as no cosmetic is used on animals in real life. Nonetheless, it has been indicated that alternatives for animal testing do exist. Such alternatives include the use of cultured human cells to test for the cosmetics and epidemiology. Moreover, new cosmetic testing does not need to perfect the responses of earlier cosmetics in use hence the moral authority of ensuring the safety of people ceases. Conclusion Taking into consideration these arguments for and against; along with the ethical dilemma, it can be concluded that animal tests on cosmetics are not alright. The demerits exceed the merits by far, while the ethical aspects that exist due to these tests point to the unethicality of the tests. Animals have rights too, this fact cannot be done away with considering the suffering, death, and distress that animals have to go through. The alternatives that exist should be put into good use to ensure the safety and efficacy of cosmetics on human beings. References Briggle, A., & Mitcham, C. (2012). Ethics and Science: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. Do Something. (n.d.). 11 Facts About Animal Testing. Retrieved from dosomething: https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-animal-testing Hau, J., & Schapiro, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Second Edition: Essential Principles and Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Hester, R. E., & Harrison, R. M. (Eds.). (2006). Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Merriam, G. (2008). Virtue Ethics and the Moral Significance of Animals. Houston: ProQuest. Mitchell, A. (2002). Animal FAQs: An Encyclopedia of Animal Abuse. Leics: Troubador Publishing Ltd. Smart, J. J. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Humane Society. (2014, March 13). Fact Sheet: Cosmetic Testing. Retrieved from humanesociety: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/qa/questions_answers.html Watson, S. (2009). Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. Willett, J. A. (Ed.). (2010). The American Beauty Industry Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Read More