Don't Put Lipstick on a Guinea Pig: The U.S. has the Chance to Reduce Animal Testing Globally Through the Humane Cosmetics Act

By: Autumn Clark

Contrary to popular belief, testing cosmetics on animals entails more than giving a rabbit a makeover, painting a bird’s talons, or putting lipstick on a guinea pig. Only a small portion of countries collect and publish data related to animal testing, however, it is estimated that over 300,000 animals are used for cosmetic testing each year.[i]  Guinea pigs, hamsters, rats, and mice are the primary test subjects for several types of cosmetic testing.[ii]  

Animals subject to cosmetic testing endure several different procedures.[iii] Rabbits are often used for the Draize eye test, where scientists place chemicals in the rabbits’ eyes to monitor the level of irritation, often resulting in ulcers, bleeding, and blindness.[iv] Toxicity tests involve exposing an animal to chemicals by mouth, skin, or inhalation to determine the level of exposure that will result in poisoning or death.[v] The Acute Dose Toxicity test determines the amount of chemicals required to cause poisoning from a single dose, while the Repeated Dose Toxicity test uses a fixed dosage amount and measures the toxicity from multiple doses of a chemical.[vi] Animals are forced to undergo various other tests that lead to reproductive and developmental defects, an increase in cancer incidences, neurological damage, and many other unwanted biological reactions.[vii] Many animals die in the process of testing cosmetics, and in some instances, death is the goal of testing.[viii] If an animal survives the testing, they are often killed after the experiment ends.[ix]

In addition to being cruel, testing cosmetics on animals is also unnecessary.[x] The FDA requires that cosmetics are tested to ensure their safety, however, it does not require companies to use animals for such testing.[xi] The increase in recent medical technology provides viable alternatives to animal experimentation, such as in vitro cell and tissue cultures, which are grown in labs separate from the animals.[xii] Human cell cultures can also be grown in labs, which are a more accurate testing alternative because the cosmetics are intended to be used on the human body instead of animals.[xiii] Specialized computer models and software programs have been developed to generate simulations to predict the various possible biological and toxic effects of chemicals as well.[xiv] Various scholars have indicated that computer-modeling techniques are more accurate than animal experimentation because they utilize human data to make predictions about potential chemical effects.[xv] These alternatives were developed nearly thirty years ago, and technological advances have made these alternatives faster, less expensive, and far more humane than animal testing.[xvi]

Due to the unnecessary cruelty animals are subjected to during experimentation, several countries and individual states within the U.S. have already banned the sale of cosmetics that utilize animal experimentation.[xvii] These bans prohibit certain products that are tested on animals from entering the market.[xviii] Twenty-one percent of the world’s nations, including all twenty-seven countries of the European Union, Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, Iceland, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, have passed laws to limit or ban testing cosmetics on animals.[xix] In the summer of 2022, Louisiana became the ninth state to ban the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, joining California, Nevada, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, Hawaii, and New Jersey.[xx] The restrictions place pressure on other countries that intend to participate in the global economy through the sale of cosmetics, particularly China.[xxi]

 Prior to May 2021, China had a mandatory policy that all cosmetics must be tested on animals.[xxii] China has recently relaxed the requirements of animal testing.[xxiii] China still requires “special use” cosmetics to be tested on animals, which are products that make functional claims, such as hair growth products, deodorants, sunscreen, and whitening products.[xxiv] However, “general cosmetics,” such as haircare, nailcare, and fragrances, which make no functional claims, no longer require animal testing.[xxv]  The main exception to China’s new rule for general cosmetics is cosmetics marketed toward children and cosmetics that contain a “new ingredient.”[xxvi]

Congress has the opportunity to make a significant impact on animal welfare within the nation and globally.[xxvii] In December of 2021, the Humane Cosmetics Act (the “Act”) was reintroduced to the 117th Congress.[xxviii] The Act was originally introduced in 2015 but it never received a vote.[xxix] The Act generally prohibits “animal testing in the evaluation of cosmetic products and prohibits the sale or transport of cosmetics developed using animal testing.”[xxx] The bill provides for certain exceptions including:

if such animal testing (1) is conducted outside the United States to comply with a foreign regulatory authority; (2) is pursuant to a specified finding that there are no nonanimal alternatives to test the safety of a potentially dangerous cosmetic product or ingredient; (3) is of a product or ingredient for a drug or device subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); or (4) is required for a noncosmetic purpose pursuant to a state, federal, or foreign regulatory authority.[xxxi]

 

Despite these exceptions, the Act is still a step toward reducing animal testing. The Act would place further pressure on China and other countries to change their animal testing policies by barring the sale of such cosmetics in one of the world’s largest economies, the United States.[xxxii]

Animal testing has always been cruel, and advances in scientific technology are beginning to render the practice obsolete.[xxxiii] As society evolves, the law and scientific practices should evolve alongside it. The United States should participate in the global scheme, initiated by several major countries worldwide and nine states within its own jurisdiction, aimed at reducing the amount of unnecessary animal suffering. The federal Humane Cosmetics Act is the United States’ opportunity to reduce the animal testing at home and abroad.




[i] PETA Answers Your Questions on Animal Testing for Cosmetics, PetaUK (Apr. 24, 2022), https://www.peta.org.uk/features/animal-testing-cosmetics/#:~:text=1.,four%20walls%20of%20a%20laboratory [https://perma.cc/GM3Y-VYD2].

[ii] Id.; Toxic and Tragic Consequences of Product Testing on Animals, Peta, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/ [https://perma.cc/8WPW-YNL3

] (last visited Sept. 24, 2022).

[iii] Animals in Science: How Animals are Used, Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y (AAVS), https://aavs.org/animals-science/how-animals-are-used/testing/ [https://perma.cc/U4H2-PEKC] (last visited Sept. 24, 2022).

[iv] Id.; Alexis Nava-Martinez, Maybe She’s Born With It (Or Maybe it was Tested on Defenseless Animals): Proposed Strategies to Eliminate Animal Testing in the U.S. Cosmetics Industry Through the Humane Cosmetics Act, 9 J. Animal and Env’t. L. 53, 56-60 (2018).

[v] Animals in Science: How Animals are Used , supra note iii.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.; Nava-Martinez, supra note iv, at 58.

[x] Sonali K. Doke & Shashikant C. Dhawale, Alternatives to animal testing: A review, 23 Saudi Pharm. J. 223-229 (2015).  

[xi] Animal Testing & Cosmetics, Food and Drug Admin. (Mar. 04, 2022), https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/product-testing-cosmetics/animal-testing-cosmetics [https://perma.cc/E8Y6-4PT7].

[xii] Doke & Dhwale supra note ix, at 225.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Stefane Kabene & Said Baadel, Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK, 12 J. Med. Ethics & Hist. Med. 15, 7-8 (2019).

[xvi] Nava-Martinez, supra note iv, at 84, 91; Katherine Gallagher, Alternatives to Animal Testing in Cosmetics, Treehugger (Nov. 30, 2021), https://www.treehugger.com/alternatives-to-animal-testing-in-cosmetics-5202649 [https://perma.cc/E9ZQ-F692].

[xvii] Cosmetics testing FAQ, Humane Soc’y of the U.S., https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-testing-faq#:~:text=Internationally%2C%2042%20countries%20have%20passed,and%20several%20states%20in%20Brazil [https://perma.cc/4S86-Q4HV] (last visited Sept. 24, 2022).

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Harry Clarkson-Bennett, Cosmetic Animal Testing Around The World, Red Orange Peach, https://redorangepeach.com/animal-cruelty/around-the-world/ [https://perma.cc/9HLW-WV7U] (last visited Sept. 24, 2022).

[xx] Hailey Kanowsky, Louisiana Becomes 9th State to Ban Sale of Cosmetics Tested on Animals, One Green Planet (June 2022), https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animals/louisiana-becomes-9th-state-to-ban-sale-of-cosmetics-tested-on-animals/ [https://perma.cc/7TDR-NNJX].

[xxi]  Michelle L. Price, US states join global push to ban animal-tested cosmetics, Associated Press news (Feb. 1, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/science-health-asia-pacific-business-ap-top-news-9e4646edcb4cb7f67aac73234dee6818 [https://perma.cc/CE9M-3BCU]

[xxii] Thom Waite, China ends mandatory animal testing for a majority of cosmetics, Dazed (May 1, 2021), https://www.dazeddigital.com/beauty/article/52658/1/china-ends-mandatory-animal-testing-for-a-majority-of-cosmetics#:~:text=Back%20in%202019%2C%20China%20began,a%20majority%20of%20general%20cosmetics [https://perma.cc/U84R-YHSX]. 

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] What’s Going On With China’s Animal Testing Laws in 2021, Ethical Elephant (May, 22, 2021), https://ethicalelephant.com/china-animal-testing-laws-2021/ [https://perma.cc/CB7X-J3TH].

[xxv] Suzana Rose, The Truth About China Ending Mandatory Animal Testing This May, Cruelty-Free Kitty (Mar. 29, 2021), https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/china-ends-mandatory-animal-testing-may/ [https://perma.cc/3RUY-K7P6].

[xxvi] What’s Going On With China’s Animal Testing Laws in 2021, Ethical Elephant (May, 22, 2021), https://ethicalelephant.com/china-animal-testing-laws-2021/ [https://perma.cc/CB7X-J3TH].

[xxvii] H.R. 6207, 117th Cong. (2021).

[xxviii] Id.

[xxix] H.R. 2858, 114th Cong. (2015).

[xxx] H.R. 6207.

[xxxi] Id.

[xxxii] Price, supra note xx.

[xxxiii] Doke & Dhwale, supra note ix.