By Vibhuti Arora


HAVE YOU ever noticed phrases like 'Cruelty Free', 'Not Tested on Animals' and 'Against Animal Testing' on the packing of moisturisers, perfumes, blushers and other cosmetics and wondered what these actually signify?

Such statements by cosmetic manufacturers is a mere assurance that the finished products have not been tested on animals. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the ingredients have not been tested too. But it does lend credence to the relentless efforts of animal rights groups who have been campaigning against animal testing of cosmetics over the years. In fact, almost all cosmetic ingredients have been tested on animals at some point of time by companies. So cosmetic companies cannot claim that its ingredients have never been animal tested. But the usage of cosmetic ingredients with a proven safety record can minimise such cruelty towards animals.

Unethical tests

Animal testing was introduced to test the safety of chemicals that would subsequently be used by humans. But the nature of these tests forces the conscientious consumer to question whether such barbaric tests are really needed to test something like cosmetics, which are not vital to human existence.

In certain tests, the products are applied to the shaven skin areas of rabbits and guinea pigs and then observed for reactions. Redness, ulcers, rashes, swelling or the absence of it all may indicate the risk or suitability of the product. In another test, substances are dropped into the eyes of albino rabbits. The animals are often immobilised for this test by electric shocks. Animals are also force-fed or dosed with substances to assess poisoning affects.

Animal rights groups have always opposed such tests as they are unethical, unnecessary and not required by the laws. There is no law that requires companies to test their personal care and household products on animals before selling them to the human population. In most countries, the law simply states that cosmetics and toiletries must be safe for human use.

Animal testing is already banned in Britain, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, but products tested in other countries are freely sold in these countries. Legislation on banning the sale of animal tested beauty products had been bouncing around Europe for nearly a decade but no concrete steps were taken to enforce it, until recently when the European Union voted to this effect. If passed by all 15-member states, the legislation would outlaw the sale of products tested on animals anywhere in the world in all European Union countries. The ban would not take effect until after five years when the 15 EU members adopt it. This, by itself, could take two years.

An increasing number of cosmetic manufacturers and retailers have been joining hands with animal rights groups in promoting non-animal tested products. While this could either be a result of pressure from animal rights groups or a genuine feeling of compassion, but nevertheless, positive results are starting to show up. One finds more and more companies endorsing the cruelty-free campaign, which indicates their support to stop the barbaric tests. Many leading brands like Avon, Wella, Chanel, Gillette, Christian Dior, Citrus USA, Giovanni, Gucci Parfums, Nivea, Oriflame, St Ives, and Revlon, etc, manufacture and sell only non-animal tested products. All these companies do not test their finished products on animals but some of them may use animal tested ingredients.

The Body Shop, a leading name in skin care and hair care products has been one of the patrons of the cause and has been promoting the concept of cruelty-free testing by encouraging the development of alternative tests. According to Mr Brenden Coote, retail and marketing operations manager, the Body Shop, Dubai, "The Body Shop is committed to the cause and is trying its best through various worldwide campaigns aimed at creating consumer awareness to eradicate the inhuman practice."

In developing its products, The Body Shop uses ingredients with a history of safe human use and naturals like bananas and Brazil nut oil. These ingredients are subject to non-animal tests such as micro-biological analyses using computer modelling and the products are developed using controlled testing on carefully monitored groups of human volunteers. It became the first cosmetic manufacturer to impose a restriction on its ingredients-suppliers based on the history whether that supplier had tested the ingredient on animals to sell to The Body Shop.

Companies like Lush Cosmetics, manufacture hand-made cosmetics made from natural ingredients and do not test on animals. Ms Samar Saed, manager of a Lush outlet in Dubai says that since their products are made purely from plant derivatives, they are relatively safe for human use and the need for animal testing does not arise. However, they test the cosmetics on human volunteers and have a special range for sensitive skin types. "We are against animal testing of cosmetics and our aim is to make eco-friendly cosmetics that have no side effects," explains Saed.

Alternatives to animal tests

Of late, there has been a lot of progress in the field of developing cosmetic tests that do not use live animals. Some companies use human volunteers to test their products, others use computer simulation to validate the safety of their cosmetics for human use.

One often comes across terms like dermatologically-tested or in vitro-tested. These terms indicate that the products are not tested on animals; instead, their safety has been established through alternative tests. The results of most of these tests are reliable. In vitro, means 'in glass' techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture that uses tissues from humans or animals. Another good substitute is the "test skin", a derivative of human foreskin. The developers of test skin grow the skin in a dish until it comprises 15 to 25 layers, then send the skin in kits to the laboratories. Many manufacturers have adopted this method of dermatological testing on their products.

The proponents of alternative testing even claim that simulated tests are sometimes more reliable than those conducted on live animals, as there are anatomical differences between say, rabbits, which are used for such tests and humans. Therefore, although live animal testing has been used for decades, the results of these tests may not always coincide well with human experience.

Consumer awareness

One cannot deny that there has been a significant progress in abolishing unnecessary animal testing. But there are areas which are still lagging behind, e.g. the continued testing of cosmetic ingredients using animals in many parts of the world. Some companies continue to do product testing on animals despite opposition, the reason being that they want to protect themselves against lawsuits. If one of their products injures a customer, the fact that the company conducted animal tests can be used in court to suggest the company did all it could to protect the customer. While this contains the scourge, it will still not wipe out the unethical malaise.

Some alternative tests are not universally acceptable and are not recognised by the law. Therefore, these tests need to be developed further and validated to ensure complete end to animal testing on cosmetics and to ensure the production of cruelty-free and environment-friendly cosmetics.

The lethal combination of a lack of awareness on the part of consumers and a lack of commitment on the part of the industry impedes the spread of this movement. Try asking the sales staff in any of the retail cosmetic outlets in Dubai about animal testing and a blank stare is what one gets most of the time! Till the times change, animals shall continue to suffer for the cause of human vanity.

Previous story
Face it yourself