Scientific advancement needs research. Without research, a scientific finding cannot be any different than a guess or an idea. Therefore, research must be precise, accurate, and repeatable. Many years ago, the norm for cosmetic research included live test subjects to test the effectiveness of lotions, creams, or powders on skin before it hits the shelf. In 1938, the United States Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act was signed into law, requiring some safety substantiation of cosmetic products compelling companies to begin testing their products on animals. In 1944, the draize eye and skin irritancy tests were developed. They were considered for decades to be the gold standard for cosmetic safety assessments. To those who do not know what a draize eye and skin irritancy test is, it was most commonly used on rabbits where chemicals were dripped or spread on the eyes and shaved skin of the animals. This test was used to measure irritation or corrosion caused to the eye or skin, and although it was unreliable and produced highly variable results, its use was widespread. Such tests resulted in immense animal suffering without pain relief. There should be an end to animal testing in the near future just based off the barbarity of the draize test’s use alone.

       Although the draize eye and skin test, and other tests like it, may seem brutal, animal testing continues to this day. China requires animal testing on import cosmetics. If a cosmetic is sold in stores in China, the government conducts mandatory animal tests on the product, even if the original cosmetic company is cruelty-free. In the end, the big ticket question is if animal testing is really necessary for research and why it is still in practice around the world today. Fortunately, there are many countries worldwide who have banned animal testing including Guatemala, the European Union, Switzerland, India, and Israel. This last September, the first state in the United States banned animal testing on cosmetics after January 1, 2020. This bill, SB-1249, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, passed both chambers uncontested and was endorsed by over one hundred cosmetic companies including Lush and John Paul Mitchell Systems. Although the bill did include many amendments that limited the scope of the testing restrictions, it is a huge step forward in the fight for animal rights in the United States.

       Animal testing is no longer the only way to test if a cosmetic is safe. The Wyss Institute has created “organs-on-chips” that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used instead of animals in more than just cosmetic research. They can be used in disease research, toxicity testing, drug testing, and have also been shown to have more accurate results when compared to animal experimentation. In vitro modeling is not the only modeling method used either. Computer (in silico) modeling has been created to accurately portray the way a drug will react with the human body. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) are computer-based techniques that made estimates of a chemical’s chance of being dangerous based on its similarity to existing chemicals and the details of human biology. Ultimately, it is not hard to see that up-and-coming technology is quickly surpassing animal testing methods.

       One would not have to argue with very many to get the point across that animals deserve to be treated with humane care. On the other hand, there might be more debate to the topic of giving animals citizenship in a country. Will Kymlichka, the Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy at Queens University, explains that animals should share societies’ rights and responsibilities with humans and should be considered co-citizens. His co-citizen argument states that working animals, such as drug sniffing dogs at airports and carriage pulling horses should be given the same benefits of a human and should have the right to health care and labor rights such as maximum work hours and safe work conditions. His view that an animal’s intrinsic moral status, such as their ability to feel pain, is shared with others too. Kymlicka also argues in his article A Defense of Animal Citizens and Sovereigns with his cowriter Sue Donaldson that the citizenship rights “can not only be held by animals but can also be distinctively beneficial to them” (Donaldson et al.).  An article titled “Do Animals Need Citizenship?” published in the Oxford journal by William A. Edmundson argues that animals need rights and although “citizenship status for domesticated animals is a hard sell” it is not “conceptually incoherent” because citizenship “is the relationship between mutually accountable equals, bound by reciprocal moral rights and duties” (Edmundson).  Although animals are usually seen as morally innocent, Kymlichka and Donaldson argue that animals are capable of citizenship if scientists develop “new ways of engaging the subjectivity of these co-citizens, focusing less on the ability to articulate or understand propositions, and more on attending to their ‘varied modes of doing, saying and being’” (Donaldson et al.) In other words, animals are aware of their duty of civility, such as behaving appropriately in certain situations, and their duty of contribution, such as a dog’s ability to fetch the newspaper or an oxen’s ability to pull a farm tool. If people change their mindset to include animals in the category of United States citizen with themselves, they would most likely disagree morally with animal testing. It would not enhance the public good to use fellow citizens as bait for scientific research, it would only lower overall morale. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world agrees with the co-citizen argument but this idea is original and focused at changing the outlook that humans have on animals.

       Senate bill 1249, as mentioned earlier, is a landmark bill in that it is the first bill in the United States that makes it “unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this state, any cosmetic, as defined, if the cosmetic was developed or manufacturer using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020” (Animal Testing: Cosmetics). SB-1249 is not the first law in the United States regarding testing on animals though. SB-2082 was signed in 2000 and “requires manufacturers and their contract testing facilities to use alternatives to animal testing in this state if an appropriate validated alternative exists” (Animal Testing: Alternative Methods). Unfortunately, it did not have the ability to ban animal testing’s use in order for the product to achieve compliance with requirements imposed federally or by other states. In addition, an even earlier legislation passed in 1966 called the Animal Welfare Act is “the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers” (The Animal Welfare Act of 1966). It provided minimal protections only to regulated animals, which did not include mice, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, or farmed animals raised for food. This did not cover over 95% of research animals because a majority of animals used for research were, and still are, mice. The USDA is responsible for enforcing the AWA and issues penalties for animal mistreatment resulting in a maximum of a ten thousand dollar fine, which is not very much when one takes into account that many companies using animal testing make millions of dollars a year. USDA’s 2009 Annual Report indicated that researchers used more than 76,000 AWA covered animals in research that caused unrelieved pain and distress to the animals. This estimate does not include the multitude of non-AWA covered animals used, which can increase the number into the millions.

       This senate bill was authored by Senator Cathleen Galgiani and co-sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Social compassion in Legislation is a non-profit group that sponsors animal rights based legislation since 2007. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine was founded in 1985 and promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. Judie Mancusco, the founder and president of Social Compassion in Legislation states that the passing of SB-1249 is “a dream come true…it is a legacy both he and Senator Galgiani can be proud of, and one for the history books as a huge step forward for humanity” (Nussbaum). In addition, assembly member and senate bill co-author Ash Karla states that the compromise achieved through the bill “reflects how business interests and consumer protection can go hand in hand” (Nussbaum).

       The compromise that Ash Karla mentions is not a small matter. There are many loopholes that are present in this legislation that allow companies generous room to make a case for continuing animal testing, thus lowering the feasibility of the senate bill’s success in decreasing animal testing. Animal testing prohibition does not apply to animal tests that are required by federal or state authority if the ingredient has no present non-animal alternative, if the animal tests are conducted to comply with a foreign regulator such as China, if the products tested are subject to chapter five of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), or if the test is performed for non-cosmetic purposes. The first draft of the senate bill, before alterations that loosened the hold the government had on cosmetic companies, faced complications. The initial bill restricted sale even when the group conducting the animal testing was unrelated to the cosmetics company. It also prevented companies from using ingredients where animal testing was required for non-cosmetic reasons, including cancer testing. In addition, the opponents of SB 1249 “said the measure would prompt companies to move manufacturing to China, eliminating American jobs” (Racker). These last minute changes shrunk the scope of the legislation but it is still a huge step in the right direction for California and the United States in general. Although animal testing is cruel in nature and should be banned completely, a small step is better than no step at all and compromise in necessary when faced with opposition on all sides. SB-1249 is the beginning of a new future for research in the United States cosmetic industries. One day, the United States will join other countries around the world in banning animal testing as a nation, instead of in just one state. Research does not have to be compromised just because it cannot use animals for testing. There are myriads of alternative methods, and this new bill should urge present day cosmetics manufacturers to explore these methods.

 

Bibliography

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.

“Animals in Science / Research.” Harm and Suffering, www.neavs.org/research/laws.

“California Legislature Passes Cosmetics Animal Testing Bill.” Chemical Watch, chemicalwatch.com/70121/california-legislature-passes-cosmetics-animal-testing-bill.

California (State). Legislature. Senate. Animal Testing: Alternative Methods (S-2082). 2000-2001 Reg. Sess. (May 3, 2000). California State Assembly. Web. 13 Nov. 2018.

California (State). Legislature. Senate. Animal Testing: Cosmetics (S-1249). 2017-2018 Reg. Sess. (September 28, 2018). California State Assembly. Web. 13 Nov. 2018.

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, director. Will Kymlicka: Animals as Co-Citizens . YouTube, YouTube, 25 Nov. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUTpsn5N6vc.

Edmundson, William A. “Do Animals Need Citizenship?” SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, 1 July 2015. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2535382.

Hanson, Hilary. “California Just Officially Banned the Sale Of Animal-Tested Cosmetics.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Sept. 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-just-officially-banned-the-sale-of-animal-tested-cosmetics_us_5b913ac6e4b0cf7b003d5c09.

Nussbaum, Rachel. “California Just Became the First State to Ban Beauty Products Tested on Animals.” Glamour, Glamour Magazine, 5 Sept. 2018, www.glamour.com/story/california-animal-testing-cosmetics-ban.

“Rabbits: Blinded for Beauty.” Humane Society International, www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/blinded_rabbits.html.

Racker, Mini. “California Bill Banning Sale of Animal-Tested Cosmetics Goes to Governor after Last-Minute Changes Shrink Its Scope.” Los Angeles Times , 1 Sept. 2018.

Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka, A Defense of Animal Citizens and Sovereigns 1 Law, Ethics & Philo. 143 (2013); Will Kymlicka & Sue Donaldson, Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship, 34 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 201 (2014)

Singh-Kurtz, Sangeeta. “California's Animal-Testing Ban Deserves Air Quotes.” Quartz, Quartz, 2 Oct. 2018, qz.com/quartzy/1408516/californias-new-animal-testing-law-has-huge-loopholes/.

The Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Pub. L. 89-544. 24 August 1966. United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library. Web. 13 Nov. 2018;

“US Statistics.” Speaking of Research, Speaking of Research, 14 June 2018, speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/.