≡ Menu

Animal Testing in the Cosmetic Industry

I saw this article in the Guardian about the delay the EU faces in their ban of animal testing of cosmetic products.

For someone new in the cosmetic industry, the role of animal testing may be confusing. There are many brands out there that claim to be ‘cruelty free’ and that ‘don’t test on animals.’ It might make an aspiring cosmetic chemist wonder, why do some companies continue to test on animals? What kind of animal testing is done? If one company could stop testing on animals, why don’t they all?

Good questions. But before we answer, let’s go over what animal testing has been used in the cosmetic industry.

Cosmetic animal testing

There are a number of animal tests that can be done on cosmetic formulas and ingredients. The primary tests include the following.

1. Draize test - This is a procedure used to determine dermal irritation. Animals used are albino rabbits who have much more sensitive skin than humans. Semiocclusive patches of the test material are placed on skin and readings are taken at 24 and 72 hours. The skin is then graded for erythema and edema. In the United States, this test is required by law for cosmetics and skin care products under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

2. Eye irritancy test – Tests what happens if the cosmetic gets into the eye. It involves albino rabbits again and compounds are put into the eyes. Evaluations take place at 24, 48, 72 hrs and up to 7 days.

3. Guinea Pig Maximization test – This test measures for the sensitizing potential of an ingredient and involves injecting the compound under the skin followed by topical application.

I’ve never been too comfortable doing animal tests and as a cosmetic formulator, I never had to. Fortunately, it is unlikely that you will ever have to do any animal testing yourself. It is typically done by an outside testing laboratory. But governments still require cosmetic companies to demonstrate their products are safe and while they don’t usually require animal testing, for some products, it is the only proof they accept.

Thoughts on cosmetic animal testing

I was once asked a series of questions about animal testing. Here is my perspective.

1. Do you think that animal testing for cosmetics should be banned?

While I don’t like animal testing, as the original story shows there are currently no suitable alternatives for some types of tests. I don’t think animal testing should be banned until there are alternative tests that help prove products are safe.

2. Should animal testing be banned for cosmetics, but still be allowed for medicine?

Animal testing is not something that anyone wants to do. Scientists feel the same affection for animals as everyone else. But until alternative tests are better developed, banning animal testing for either cosmetics or medicine seems unethical. Aren’t human lives more important than animals?

EU animal testing ban

3. Do you agree with the EU ban on animal testing? What will the effects be?

I don’t agree or disagree with the decision made by the EU. The truth is cosmetics are not vital for living a healthy life. The result of banning animal testing will be that no new cosmetic products will be made. All you will get in the future are color & bottle changes using the same products you have today. Cosmetic innovation will stop. Solutions to acne, dandruff, dry skin, frizzy hair, etc. will not be developed. Fortunately, the products available now are often good enough. If these problems were never solved and there were never a new cosmetic made, the world would be just fine.

However, it seems strange people get upset about animal testing, but still eat meat, kill mice & rats, and wear leather products.

Pros of a ban: fewer animals will be killed

Cons of a ban: Cosmetic problems will not be solved, no new ingredients will be used, innovation stops

4. Do you use cosmetics products that have been tested on animals?

Yes I do. So do you. Everyone uses products that have ingredients that were tested on animals. It is misleading when companies say they don’t test on animals. ALL cosmetics have been tested directly or indirectly on animals.

The truth is, very few cosmetic companies directly test their products on animals. Animal testing is expensive and terrible for public relations. Companies who say they don’t test on animals either use ingredients that were already tested on animals or have their raw material suppliers do the animal testing. They can argue that they never tested their formula on animals (which they technically don’t) because they know they are using only raw materials that have already been tested on animals (by someone else).

Since all ingredients have been tested on animals, there does not seem to me to be any moral high ground to avoiding companies based on whether they claim to test on animals or not.

Getting rid of animal testing

5. With all the efforts to stopping animal testing for cosmetics, do you think that it’s possible to one day completely get rid of animal testing for cosmetics?

Yes, I believe one day animal testing of cosmetics will be a thing of the past. Everyone wants to get rid of this type of testing. No one wants to hurt animals. Scientists are working hard to create testing alternatives that work. We are just now seeing some tests that are receiving approval from governmental agencies. I believe withing 10 — 20 years animal testing of cosmetics will be practically non-existent. But until there are reliable testing alternatives (there aren’t yet) animal testing will still be necessary.

What are your thoughts on cosmetic animal testing? Does it affect your formulating decisions? Leave a comment below.

{ 43 comments… add one }

  • Me 02/24/2014, 9:04 am

    “Aren’t human lives more important than animals?”

    That right there sums up the complete arrogance that many humans exhibit and abuse, which leads to the suffering and torture of these animals. We are all God’s creatures, and to abuse your God-given power like this is an eternal sin.

  • KAC 10/10/2013, 9:57 pm

    Thank you! You guys have helped me for my english paper! Yay! Anyway, I think animal testing is cruel. Why should animals suffer for no good reason!? Cosmetics aren’t needed, and I’m definitely sure that we can survive without it. Geez! And if I’m correct, animal testing does not work all the time! SO STOP ANIMLA TESTING FOR COSMETICS! At least! Do the animals a favor for once! What have they ever done to us!?

    • KAC 10/10/2013, 9:57 pm

      Oops I spelled animal wrong… Oh well.. Stop animal testing!

  • Rani 08/22/2013, 3:49 am

    The topic of animal testing can be argued both either ways. Some people agree with and some are completely against animal testing and I respect everyone’s viewpoint…
    Testing on animals occurs in research, medical fields and for cosmetics. The other fields can be argued with or against…So I am, myself unsure about this…
    However, when it comes to things like cosmetics, I think that it should be banned no matter what! I mean, come on, animals are being hurt and tortured in the making of the products. And all these products do is hide some acne, make your eyelashes look longer… clearly, these things are not essential for survival. Also, the chemicals in most of the products aren’t really good for us in the long run. These only make us age faster. Also, for the night creams etc there are substitutes for them. How about good old natural things like aloe vera… and things like a good diet, exercise… help solve this problem. This world really doesn’t need another mascara or a hairspray…
    All creatures on the planet deserve respect and have the right to live! And we have no right to play “God”. It is clear that I am against it and I don’t use any products tested on animals anymore. I only buy things form lush now and am looking for more cruelty free companies. Also, suppose, that there was not way we could get cosmetics without testing them on animals, then I would use no products at all. Also, I would be okay with getting wrinkles and visible lines at an early age.
    Animal testing for cosmetics is wrong and it’s really not that hard to see. It’s just wrong!..I can’t change the world but I don’t want to encourage them in anyway…
    Hehe It’s obvious, i have more to say but i will stop there.

    Cheers,
    Rani :) <3

    • Perry Romanowski 08/22/2013, 12:37 pm

      You must be a vegetarian?

      There really are few companies who currently test on animals but all the ingredients that Lush uses in their products were tested on animals at some point. But what you say is reasonable, cosmetics are not critical for survival and people could live without them.

      • Rani 08/22/2013, 11:14 pm

        I look at it in different way i guess. Yes, you are right, lush does use ingredients that were at some point tested on animals. However, none of their products are tested on animals and they don’t do business with companies that test their ingredients on animals.
        So according to Lush’s standards, if there was an new ingredient, and the company was unsure whether to use it or not, then they wouldn’t put it in some animals eyes to see if it is safe or not. This is what I call cruelty free…
        Wow it is great that companies are switching to being cruelty free. I have only recently changed and only found out about animal testing like a few months ago.
        And to know if something’s cruelty free or not, I research on the internet. Even if one source says that the company tests on animals or if there is no information about the company. Then I don’t buy things from that company. But internet isn’t always the most reliable source…Do you know any way to be sure about whether a company is truly cruelty free or not. Or what I am doing is fine…
        Thanks for your reply.

        Cheers,
        Rani :)

        • Perry Romanowski 08/23/2013, 6:51 am

          There really is no way to know. You just have to trust the companies that you buy from. The reality is that unless you work for the company you have no way of knowing whether they are cruelty free or not. Just because Lush says they don’t work with companies that test ingredients on animals, there is no way you can verify that. But you can only do what you can do.

        • Sharon 11/02/2013, 9:37 pm

          Companies who formerly stopped animal testing in the 1970′s (Estee Lauder comes to mind) may now be testing again because they cannot sell their products in China without animal testing. Estee Lauder now claims that they “do not do any animal testing unless required to do so by law”, but they no longer print “cruelty free” or anything of the sort on their packaging and the last time I checked, they were not on PETA’s list of companies that do not test. Bobbi Brown is another company that claimed to do no animal testing, but they were bought by Estee Lauder. So, you can see how difficult it is to determine whether animal testing is done in the cosmetics industry or not. And they lie about it, or at least use subterfuge as in the letter I receive from Estee Lauder. Most people just don’t seem to care anymore or don’t know that it is going on in the first place. There is no furor about it. It is probably necessary in some fields of science, but cosmetics? If women knew the pain and suffering behind the products they are putting on their faces, would they even care if they thought it would stop their skin from aging? I wouldn’t bet on it.

  • Linda 08/21/2013, 7:34 pm

    There is a very real difference between growing and killing an animal humainly for food, and the painful and cruel testing that occurs that is totally unnecessary for the MSDS sheets.
    If you want to make a difference, only buy products that are shown to be cruelty-free.
    Scientists do have a choice.

    • Perry Romanowski 08/22/2013, 12:38 pm

      What exactly does cruelty-free mean to you? Anyone can put that on their label. There is no law restricting its use.

      • Rani 08/22/2013, 11:19 pm

        I thought there were some conditions that companies need to meet before getting the bunny cruelty free sign.

        • Perry Romanowski 08/23/2013, 6:49 am

          The bunny cruelty free symbol is run by a private company who does have standards. However, anyone can make their own bunny and call themselves cruelty free. It is no guarantee that a product really meets your standards of what cruelty free is.

  • Torvus 07/31/2013, 12:39 am

    Have just come across this page, July 2013. Some interesting comments. I’m afraid crying ‘cruelty’ just doesn’t work with the science fraternity. I think it was scientist Konrad Lorenz who proposed a test for scientific researchers: that they should imagine killing and cutting up a lettuce, a fly, a guinea pig and a dog. He recommended that any person who found it equally easy to cut up a live dog and a live lettuce should commit suicide as soon as possible.

    I don’t think there have been any suicides on this basis: science teaches stoicism if not indifference in the face of others’ agonies; many researchers will seriously (or maybe jokingly?) tell you how they love animals, and in fact love their pets if they have one or two, yet can discard that love for their own once they leave home. Their credo is the old one of: “It’s the animal that suffers and dies, or it’s you.” Not true. It can be both.

    Though I do know of an animal rights activist who committed suicide (nearly 30 years ago) through despair over the awfulness of animal experimentation. Most, not all, products (furniture, glue, paper, plastics, metals, etc) have been tested on animals over the years and then trialed on people before being put on sale. These trials were probably made using young volunteer students (mostly male) looking to earn some money, no matter that the product was for the very young or very old. Your best bet is to buy something that has been in use for 10 years and is no longer freshly tested, or has not been tested on animals at all.

    Viagra for example went through animal tests and was trialed by humans, but when put on sale to the public, erm, a ‘few’ people died from its use, and it wasn’t the sex that killed them. The most well-known blooper was Thalidomide – tested on a number of animals, I think there was only one type of rabbit it didn’t go down well with – no doubt trialed on aforesaid students – and the rest is history. If penicillin had been tested only on guinea pigs it would never have got to market, as the animals are allergic to it. So you select a variety of species to test, and if it works with, say, one, and doesn’t work out with the others, the product may get the go-ahead, for it can be ‘proved’ that animals have been tested. There are not enough inspectors to carry out proper checks on what is going on in our secretive research laboratories, so it has been left to the animal rights activists to expose what they can, and that exposure is chilling enough.

    There have been some horrific experiments on animals that had no discernible purpose whatsoever, just a mere love of cruelty and death (eg tying mice to a frame and setting them in front of an electric fire to see how it took them to fry to death, which equals Thomas Edison’s frying of a live elephant for spectacle’s sake). There are tests that have been made using live primates in simulated car crashes, when there are plenty of examples of human crashes to study; there are the researches forcing dolphins and seals to live in tanks of crude oil, when we have enough real examples of oil pollution to study. Much animal testing goes on to see how best to kill humans – tests carried out by the military. So animals are stabbed, shot, poisoned, irradiated, etc. Er, haven’t we had several wars over the past century with live and dead examples of humans to study? However, some enlightenment is dawning:

    “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. With the ability to knock in or knock out any gene in a mouse–which can’t sue us – researchers have over-relied on animal data. …The problem is that it hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem…We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.”

    Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Former NIH director, 2002 — 2008, speaking before the NIH Scientific Review Management Board on June 4, 2013 as reported in NIH Record,
    http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2013/06_21_2013/story1.htm

    • Perry Romanowski 07/31/2013, 10:07 am

      You forgot to mention the 100′s of millions of animals that are killed each year and turned into hamburgers.

      • Torvus 07/31/2013, 3:48 pm

        Thank you for your observation. I thought the subject was animal testing. One could write hundreds of books on man’s abuse of animals – in circuses, sport, clothing, aquaria, etc. In the case of food animals, yes, that runs into billions every year. Fortunately over the past four or five decades the cruelties inflicted on food animals are now being well aired, if the public bother to notice. No matter how ‘organically’ and ‘happily’ these selected animals live, their slaughter is often still horrific. Who can be surprised at the cruelties animals suffer at the hands of humans, when you see the behaviours of man towards man?

  • Olivia 03/14/2013, 12:47 pm

    The one and only thing that truly urked me in this article is the comment on human lives being more valuable than animal lives. It didn’t sound sarcastic if it was supposed to be, and it pissed me off. Because that is utter ignorance, one day when we kill every animal on this planet for our surface level and shallow reasons, we will realize that we need them and comments such as that will prove to be as ignorant and selfish as they are.

    • Perry Romanowski 03/14/2013, 2:22 pm

      If you think about what you’re saying, you will realize that you value human lives over animal lives too. How many flies or gnats or spiders have you killed? And if you are not a vegetarian, how many cows, pigs & fish? And if you are a vegetarian, how many mice, worms, and other insects were killed when the land was plowed? We do need animals and we should treat them kindly. But that doesn’t mean they are equivalent to human lives.

      • Mandy W 04/04/2013, 6:06 pm

        Amen Perry Romanowski!! Preach it!

  • Brittney 02/08/2013, 12:58 am

    I only read the first two comments, but goodness, some of you guys make us “animal supporters” look brain dead. You’ll never make your point if you can’t spell remedial words like “cruel” and “practice”. However, I do agree with you, animal testing is primitive and unnecessary.

    • Mandy W 04/04/2013, 6:12 pm

      Well, you have an inability to look at animal testing from all sides, so in that sense, you ARE extremely “brain-dead”.

      (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-benefits/)
      Below is just a small selection of the major medical breakthroughs made possible by animal research. These treatments have been used to save or improve the lives of many millions of people worldwide. For more referenced case histories of past and current treatments developed using animals download the booklet “Medical Advances and Animal Research”, produced by UAR.

      Penicillin
      Blood transfusion
      Tuberculosis
      Macular degeneration
      Asthma
      Meningitis
      Kidney Transplants
      Breast cancer
      Parkinson’s disease
      Insulin

      Yeah, these advancements are super “unnecessary and primitive” (sarcastic). When someone you loves dies from cancer because scientists couldn’t do any animal testing and figure out how to cure it, I can guarantee that you will all of a sudden go pro-animal testing.

      The reason we have animal testing:
      “Due to a large disaster in 1920, where women were drawn to salons for an eyelash treatment designed to make their lashes darker. The dye, called Lash Lure, did as it promised but in exchange for lush lashes, the beauty searches received problems from mild eye irritation, to blindness, and even death.

      This horrible cosmetic incident led to the main cosmetic animal test used today, the Draize tests. “((http://makeup.lovetoknow.com/Cosmetic_Animal_Testing)

      “Americans are living longer, healthier lives and we owe much of that success to biomedical research,” said Robert Palazzo, Ph.D, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)

      From the SOCIETY OF TOXICOLOGY:
      “Using animals in experiments is critical because such complexity cannot be duplicated in cell culture or in nonliving systems. For example, toxicity can be influenced by the speed with which the substance enters the system, how the liver and other organs change it and how it is taken up by and interacts with various body tissues. Some of the response is influenced by the tissue characteristics (e.g., liver is different than kidney tissue). Because “the dose makes the poison” at the level of the individual organ, we need to be able to analyze not only how a chemical acts, but the relationship between the dose given to the animal and the dose delivered to the different organs and tissues in the body.

      Studies in whole animals are required to ensure the proper use of beneficial chemicals such as medicines, because the tissue or organ receiving the beneficial effect might be harmed if exposures are greater than needed. In many cases, laboratory tools simply cannot duplicate these complicated phenomena. Ultimately, animal testing is the best method to detect effects such as cancer and birth defects.” (http://www.toxicology.org/ai/air/AIR_Final.pdf)

      So, now you have been educated and hopefully, understand the FULL SPECTRUM of the pros and cons of animal testing.

  • bubbles 01/30/2013, 12:34 pm

    i think that animal testing is crule and it should have never been invented in the first place because makeup it just used to cover the outer part of you and the only ugly and pretty beauty is on the inside…

    • Mandy W 04/04/2013, 6:17 pm

      Just the fact that you can’t use proper grammar or spell things correctly extremely decreases the effectiveness of your statement.

      For the world’s benefit, I hope you NEVER vote about anything!!

      (To get more educated about the topic, please refer to my long post above.)

  • Cari 01/30/2013, 12:25 pm

    I don’t agree with your comments that we all use or wear cosmetics, products that had been tested on animals.There are already many companies whoabandoned the primitive practise that I support and know of, even companies that never used it from their origins,because of the natural organic ingredients they use.I admit I still don’t have enough info on all companies and might still unknowingly buy an animal tested product, but I am equipping myself with more and more info and start avoiding those evil companies. And the best of all I speak very easily with people or in a group of people or in an audience, so I advocate the evil doers and the well doers. There’s nothing like putting money where your mouth is and in my case taking the money away from the evil doers and bashing them in public or towards everyone who has an ear to hear.

    • Perry 01/30/2013, 12:29 pm

      I think you missed the point. All cosmetic ingredients (whether they are natural or not) have been tested on animals. For example Cetyl Aclohol was certainly tested on animals. But I could see a company that just started out using Cetyl Alcohol but never testing their own products on animals. They are using ingredients that were already tested on animals so they don’t have to do the testing themselves.

    • Tiffany 03/06/2013, 8:29 pm

      Sadly, it’s true that all companies have directly or indirectly purchased from suppliers that have tested on animals. I am ashamed to admit that I worked for a chemical/raw material company that supplies “ingredients” for everything from cosmetics to auto lubricants. Although the company I worked for did not test on animals directly, we purchased from larger suppliers that do test on animals. In addition, I have personally had to hand out a certificate that stated we do not animal test, while having an MSDS in my hand from one of our suppliers, that showed the animal testing results that had been administered. Don’t ask me how that’s legal. As a vegetarian, this was devastating to learn. I had been so proud to work for a raw material company (an international company at that), only to learn that the largest suppliers in the world, all test on animals. According to PETA, there are better and most cost effective ways to complete testing, which in no way involves animals. Remember, knowledge is power-so educate yourself with all the info you can gather and formulate your own opinion. That is my mission to work toward positive changes!

      • Perry Romanowski 03/08/2013, 9:10 am

        Just because PETA says something is true, doesn’t mean it is. Currently, there are some animal tests for which we have no suitable non-animal testing alternatives. There are lots of scientists working on the technology in this field but the validated testing is just not there. PETA is exaggerating the advancement of the science.

  • Abrianna 07/01/2012, 8:22 pm

    Thank you for this voice of reason :) I can’t believe there isn’t single other comment in support of your well written article. People just want to feel like they’re better then everyone else by saying “oh I care about innocent creatures more then you!!! so Im a better person then you!!!” Whatever.

    We (the industry) avoid treating animals badly when possible, but the truth is treating them good is not only the right thing to do but the less expensive alternative, to every industry, including cosmetics and meat. But only when possible. It’s not always possible, but it’s what happens 99% of the time.

    PETA has more to the agenda then “not raising animals for use”, but not even having pets at all. They don’t want animal WELFARE they want animal RIGHTS and there is a HUGE difference.

    Support groups that work for animal welfare. (Like the humane society, animal cops, etc) because unlike PETA they won’t blow your money on spreading lies or putting commercials with naked women up for the world to see.

    • Mandy W 04/04/2013, 6:19 pm

      Amen sister!! I wholeheartedly agree with you :)

  • Anja 04/19/2012, 4:04 pm

    You are a very ignorant author. Lush cosmetics has been around for decades and not only do they not test finished products on animals, they don’t purchase raw materials from companies that do testing on animals at any stage for any reason (cosmetic or otherwise). There are alternatives. Do some research next time. In addition, more than 450 alternatives for animal testing in cosmetics exist, wih the only exception being the lethal dosage tests, which are unreliable since the amount of somethig that will kill a rabbit is it the same amount that will kill a human. Animal testing is highly unreliable, since animal skin/tissue is different than humans. Again, don’t write on such a complicated topic unless you can inform yourself properly.

    • Perry 04/19/2012, 4:16 pm

      Thanks for the comments.

      Lush uses plenty of ingredients that have been tested on animals.

      1. Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate – animal tested
      2. Cetyl alcohol – animal tested
      3. Cocamide DEA – animal tested
      4. Lauryl Betaine – animal tested
      5. Methylparaben – animal tested

      I could go on. The point is that everything that they use has been tested for safety on animals. Perhaps the testing was done in the 1980′s or 1970′s but animal testing was done.

      I’m well aware of the alternatives for animal testing and I know that there are no complete replacements. Scientists are working on it but more research needs to be done.

      Since you seem so convinced that animal testing isn’t predictive, why would scientists who work in the field come to a different conclusion?

  • E. Kelly 02/10/2012, 2:47 pm

    Cosmetics pander to vanity. Cosmetics give a lie to your appearance. ALL of the preservatives used are carcinogenic. Every ingredient has been tested on animals.
    How do these ingredients react when used together? No-one knows, they are NOT tested as final products.
    If you use perfumes, deodorants, body-washes, or any related items YOU are causing suffering to animals just as much as if you perform the experiments yourselves.
    Be honest and stop using them.

    • Perry 02/10/2012, 2:53 pm

      It is not true that “all of the preservatives used are carcinogenic”

  • tianna 01/31/2012, 12:30 pm

    STOP!!!!!!

  • Allene 01/16/2012, 4:26 pm

    Painful and Deadly Tests

    Product testing is commonly performed on animals to measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various substances used in the manufacture of cosmetics. In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is extremely painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints.

    Lethal Dosage (LD) tests are used to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, subjects are forced to ingest poisonous substances (through stomach tubes, vapor spray inhalers or injection) until half of them die. Common reactions to LD tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum.

  • RK 07/06/2011, 12:34 pm

    We have developed a software to minimize animal testing. Many institutes are using this software as an alternate or preliminary step for toxicity prediction. The software performs toxicity and pharmacology prediction. We are developing an another software to offer a complete alternate package to animal testing. If you’d like to know more about the software please send me an email at artofinnovation@yahoo.co.in

  • C.s 06/05/2011, 11:11 am

    It’s horrible, why should animals suffer? Animals can’t even agree to being tested on or not. Their defencless once the scientists have got hold of them, theres no way out.

  • andy 05/08/2011, 7:26 am

    Our socisiety stinks… we have to stop this cruelty towards animals.They need our help because they don’t have voice. We must make them to feel shame for this. It is simple, they kill animals for money. Most people who buy cosmetics, they don’t know the barbaric experiments and the deaths of the animals. We must inform them…

  • avia 05/06/2011, 8:37 pm

    I see no diffrence between animal testing and human testing!

    • robbie 04/05/2013, 1:45 pm

      of course theres a diffrence after they test animals they ether end up very injured or most likiely dead and with humans we actually stay alive through testing.

  • Zulema 03/01/2011, 4:04 pm

    animals should not be treated the way they are being treated!!! on animal testing !!! they have hearts and want to be loved just like we do!!! i’m pretty sure we wouldn’t wanna be hooked up to a moniter and get shots every day of out life’s till death comes!!! There are different kinds of ways to test products and not just on animals!!! and personally for makeup i don’t wear any neither should others if you trually care about your appearance don’t wear any and done … You should blame yourself just think about it next time opening a new bottle of coverup or eyeliner or mascara what ever you use that a bunny doggie cat had to go through hell just so you “look prettier”

    • Rani 08/22/2013, 4:00 am

      Very well said and I agree with you 100%.

  • Elsa 01/30/2011, 4:55 am

    Poor animals being dealt a cruel hand because of stupid superficial queens.

  • Pedro 01/14/2011, 1:44 pm

    Some cosmetic companies (eg.:Shiseido) invest hugely in basic research. For these companies is impossible not to use animals in some way.

Leave a Comment