Animal Testing

Animal testing for cosmetics has been a controversial issue for decades and is yet to have a solution. Scientists argue that animal testing is vital to protect cosmetics companies, and more importantly, to protect the wellbeing of consumers. Professor Tipu Aziz, a neurosurgeon based in Oxford, advocates for the use of animals for product testing and mentions that “if it’s proven to reduce suffering through animal tests, it’s not wrong” (Jha, Lewis). This claim that Professor Aziz makes is evidently flawed and animal testing is definitely wrong in all aspects; whether or not the animal gets hurt in the process. The main argument I have is that why should animals suffer so that we don’t have to; I find this very selfish and inhumane. Another point mentioned in the article that is flawed is a quote by John Martin of UCL, who states that “using animals to test cosmetics [is] acceptable only if it was required by regulators to protect consumers” (Jha, Lewis). The fact that cosmetics need to be regulated is not what I am against; the use of animals to prove that these cosmetics are harmful is what I have a major problem with. This argument is paradoxical as a cosmetics company L’Oreal has “invested considerable effort in developing and validating alternative testing… stopped animal testing” – this ultimately conveys that there are other safer, more humane ways of protecting consumers from potentially harmful beauty products (Jha, Lewis).

One point that could potentially make me change my mind is that “its really a question of the public in that area deciding how much testing they want before they put mascara on their eye” (Jha, Lewis). Personally, as a woman who uses mascara, from first hand experience I know how important it is to use a mascara that doesn’t make me feel like I was pouring acid into my eyes, rather than simply making my eyelashes thicker. So from this point of view I can understand the importance of testing for allergens in cosmetics that we apply on our faces on a daily basis. Secondly, the reason why Professor Aziz is making this statement, to address the “misinformed and sometimes illiterate antivivisectionists who adopt terrorist tactics”, could be a valid claim in the way that there are professional manners to address these issues, and acting in a terrorist behaviour is definitely not the solution (Jha, Lewis). Moreover, Clive Page from the University of London, tries to explain why animal testing is “still necessary” in todays world for the development of medicine and for cosmetics, and this is potentially an acceptable claim for someone like me who is completely against animal testing at all costs (Jha, Lewis). Perhaps it is necessary and some cosmetic products could not be sold if they were not tested, however I still truly believe that there are more humane methods. It is hard to argue that companies haven’t advanced to these aforementioned methods due to the fact that L’Oreal have been using them and they seem to be working as effectively as animal testing.

Works Cited:

Jha, Alok, and Paul Lewis. "Scientist Backs Animal Testing for Cosmetics." The Guardian. N.p., 04 Mar. 2006. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.