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. Due to 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.
- 1 Definition
- 2 Methods
- 3 Alternatives
- 4 Certification
- 5 Procedures of Animal Testing
- 6 Legal Requirements and Status
- 6.1 Places That Have Bans
- 6.2 Places where prohibitions are considered
- 6.3 Other statuses
- 7 Brands that do not test on animals
- 8 Brands that do test on animals
- 9 See also
- 10 Notes
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, as well as 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.
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 dose 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.
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 are each composed of artificial human skin as an option for alternative testing. Artificial skin can imitate the reaction actual human skin will have to a product and the chemicals it contains. EpiSkin also using UV light, which can resemble older skin. By adding melanocytes the artificial skin results in a tan color. This helped create a spectrum of different skin colors that are then used to compare the results of sunblock on a different variety of people.  It is a safe animal free way of testing for skin reactions, also known as Pyrogen tests, to product chemicals. When cosmetics are applied to the skin they will go into the bloodstream. Therefore, NOTOX researchers have developed a synthetic model of the human liver, which is the main organ to detox the body, in order to test harmful ingredients and chemicals to see if the liver can detox those elements. 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.[promotional language]
Today Cruelty Free International and its partners manage the certification of all the companies in the world looking to be cruelty free. In North America the program is overseen by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). 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.
Legal Requirements and Status
||This section needs to be updated. (December 2015)|
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.
Places That Have Bans
Brazil, São Paulo
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. Animal testing is regulated in EC Regulation 1223/2009 on cosmetics. 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.
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 banned "the import and marketing of cosmetics, toiletries or detergents that were tested on animals" in 2013.
Turkey "banned any animal testing for cosmetic products that have already been introduced to the market." 
Animal testing on cosmetics or their ingredients was banned in the UK in 1998.
Places where prohibitions are considered
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
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. In 2016 a bill was passed to ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, which will come into effect in July 2017. 
Brazil's legislation will vote on a nationwide animal testing for cosmetics ban by the end of March 2014.
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. The bill did not advance.
South Korea are also potentially "making strides toward ending cosmetics testing on animals."
China passed a law on 30 June 2014 to eliminate the requirement for animal testing of cosmetics. Though domestically-produced ordinary cosmetic goods do not require testing, animal testing is still mandated by law for Chinese-made "cosmeceuticals" (cosmetic goods which make a functional claim) which are available for sale in China. Cosmetics intended solely for export are exempt from thet animal testing requirement.
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
|This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|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)|
|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
|This section does not cite any sources. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|Company||Market||Yearly Revenue||Product||Industry||Animal Testing||Market Segment|
|Avon Products, Inc||Avon||US $9.955 billion (2013)||Cosmetics, perfumes, clothing,
|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
|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 & gramble||Covergirl||$57 million||Cosmetics||Fashion||Yes||Mass|
- Animal testing on invertebrates
- Animal testing on non-human primates
- Animal testing on rodents
- The Three Rs (animals)
- Engebretson, Monica (16 March 2014). "India Joins the EU and Israel in Surpassing the US in Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Testing Policy". The World Post.
- Fox, Stacy (10 March 2014). "Animal Attraction: Federal Bill to End Cosmetics Testing on Animals Introduced in Congress" (Press release). Humane Society of the United States.
- "Cruelty Free International Applauds Congressman Jim Moran for Bill to End Cosmetics Testing on Animals in the United States" (Press release). 5 March 2014.
- "Kunde oder Vertriebspartner werden". VEGAS Cosmetics (in German). 16 June 2015.
- "Testing". American Anti-Vivisection Society.
- Bainbridge, Amy (17 March 2014). "Australia urged to follow EU ban on animal testing; Greens to move bill in Senate this week". Australian Broadcasting Corporation News.
- Merali, Zeeya (7/28/2007). "New Scientist". Human skin to replace animal tests. 195: 14–14. Check date values in:
- Mone, Gregory (April 2014). "New Models in Cosmetics Replacing Animal Testing". Communications of the ACM. 57: 20–21.
- "Alternatives to Animal Tests : The Humane Society of the United States". m.humanesociety.org. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
- "Leaping Bunny Certification Programme".
- "Frequently asked questions by companies - Cruelty Free International".
- About Cruelty Free International. Cruelty Free International, d.d.
- Leaping Bunny Welcomes Wen® Hair and Body Care by Chaz Dean as Cruelty-Free. Leapingbunny.org, d.d.
- . Eluxe Magazine, d.d.
- "Be Cruelty-Free Campaign Backed by Global Stars, Launches in Tokyo to End Cosmetics Animal Testing in Japan (March 17, 2014)". Humane Society International. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
- "Development of Cosmetics -- Toward Abolishment of Animal Testing (February 2015)". JFS: Japan for Sustainability. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
- "Initiatives in Response to Animal Testing and Alternative Methods". Shiseido Group. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
- "Approach to alternative to animal experiments". Mandom. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
- "São Paulo Bans Animal Testing". AFP News. 24 January 2014.
- "EU extends ban on animal-tested cosmetics". EuroNews. 11 March 2013.
- Fynes-Clinton (20 March 2014), OPINION: Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon’s End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014 answers the public’s growing opposition to animals testing, Courier-Mail
- Aryan (12 March 2013). "Norway ban animal testing of cosmetics". The Oslo Times.
- Mukherjee, Rupali (23 Jan 2014). "Govt bans cosmetic companies from testing on animals". The Times of India.
- Mohan, Vishwa (14 October 2014). "India bans import of cosmetics tested on animals". The Times of India. Retrieved 1 December 2015.
- "Import ban on animal-tested products goes into effect". The Times of Israel. 1 January 2013.
- "MPs unanimously support animal testing ban". Radio New Zealand. 31 March 2015.
- "Animal testing for cosmetics banned in Turkey". DailySabah. 27 July 2015.
- "Animal Research Regulations in the UK". Retrieved 10 September 2015.
- "Taiwan Proposes Animal Testing Ban for Cosmetics".
- "Taiwan bans cosmetics animal testing". Humane Society International.
- "Cruelty Free International wins Russian commitment on non-animal testing". Retrieved 12 May 2015.
- "Lush". Retail Merchandiser. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
- "Tom's of Maine founder reinvents for-profit sustainability in his second company". Mainebiz. Retrieved 2016-02-12.