This document discusses the ongoing debate about testing cosmetics and medicines on animals, outlining both the arguments for and against such practices. Supporters argue that it is necessary for human benefit and backed by responsible principles, while opponents highlight animal suffering and the potential for alternative methods. The paper concludes with recommendations for better consumer awareness and synchronized regulations globally regarding animal testing.

1. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
Abida Muttaqiena
2012
1

2. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
2
Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
In the process of developing and improving cosmetics and medicines, animals are often
used to test their usefulness and safety. However, there is criticism over the use of animals on
such experimentation pointed out that “If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, it is just as
wrong to inflict pain on an animal” (Andre & Velasquez, 1988). This paper will talk about pros
and cons of testing cosmetics and medicines on Animals, the on-going debate on the matter, and
give some recommendation on how to improve masses awareness in this issue.
Pros and Cons of Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
Arguments in support of testing cosmetics and medicines on Animals can be summarized
as follows:
1. Human being is considered as having more value than animals. Andre & Velasquez
(1988) mentioned that some argued “society has an obligation to act in ways that will
minimize harm and maximize benefits… Benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in
suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure.”
2. Animal research has a very important role in ensuring the safety of the products
before it could be tested on human (BBC, 2012). Animal testing already has wide
contribution in the history of cosmetics and medicines; many drugs may not exist
now without it. In the future too, it will still be needed in order to create better
products for human benefit.
3. There is already principle in place to ensure that animal experiments will be done
responsibly. This principle is known as the three Rs (Understanding Animal Research,
2012), they are:

Replace the use of animals with alternative techniques.

3. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals

3
Reduce the number of animals used to a minimum, to obtain information from
fewer animals or more information from the same number of animals.

Refine the way experiments are carried out, to make sure animals suffer as
little as possible.
While arguments against testing medicines and cosmetics on animals pointed out that:
1. Testing on Animals causes pain and suffering to them. Animals are mostly used when
experimenting on human is deemed as inhuman because of the possibility of pain and
irreversible impact. Moreover, painkillers are not always possible to be used in
experimentations. Andre & Velasquez (1988) mentioned that “Animals, like humans,
are subjects of a life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which
includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain.”
2. There are alternatives to testing on animals. It was said that it could be more effective
to experiment directly on human as long as they give their consent (BBC, 2012). In
addition, with the development of technology, some experiments could be done
through simulation or dummy like TraumaMan (Greenfieldboyce, 2005).
3. The morals of the experimenters are questionable. There were documented reports
and videos of animal cruelty done by experimenters which usually used by animal
rights activists to campaign against animal experimentation by portraying the
experimenters as having questionable moral/ethics.
Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
Debates on testing cosmetics and medicines on animals, like any other animal
experimentation, have roots in the fact that there is no mutual agreement on animal moral status.
Wilson (2010) explained several theories on animal moral status which could be grouped into

4. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
4
three: indirect theories, direct but unequal theories, and moral equality theories. Indirect theories
deny animals the moral status or equal consideration with humans because they don’t have
comparable consciousness, reason, or autonomy with humans; they may not agree with harming
animals, but only because doing so causes harm to a human being’s morality. Direct but unequal
theories differs in which they give animals some moral consideration; but when there is a
conflict of interest between animals and humans, human beings are entitled to higher
consideration. While moral equality theories reject the previous theories by giving animals the
same (equal) moral status with humans and therefore deserve equal consideration. Peter Singer,
one of moral equality figure, pointed out that experiments used to test cosmetics or other nonnecessary products for human beings cannot be justified.
These debates reflected on the regulation differences between countries in the world and
continual campaign against animal testing. In medicine development, animal testing is generally
allowed with several permits based on each country’s regulation that formalized The Three Rs.
However, cosmetic testing on animal is another matter. European Union (EU) bans cosmetics
testing on animal and gives Leaping Bunny logo for cosmetic brands that didn’t do testing on
animals. On the other hand, China’s law requires all cosmetics sold to be tested on animals first.
It made several cosmetic companies remove their Leaping Bunny logo when they decided to sell
their products to China; they still may sell their products in EU, but may not use the logo
anymore (Hills, 2012).
Recommendation
To be fair, every country has the responsibility to protect its citizen by any means they
deem necessary, according to their own culture and values. However, if each of them requires
testing to be done according to their own special requirements, it will push companies to do

5. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
5
repeat testing that should not be necessary and encourage waste of resources, particularly on the
number of animals used. Therefore, there should be a synchronization of rules and regulation on
animal testing around the world; not only for medicines, but also cosmetics.
Synchronization on the subject of animal testing could also provide better promotion for
consumer awareness by enabling not only universal ‘No Animal Testing’ label, but also ‘Animal
Testing’ label. There are consumers that are already aware of the issue and only willing to use
products with ‘No Animal Testing’ label. There are also those who are aware of the issue, but do
not think it is important. But most of the world are still unaware and do not use this issue as a
part of consideration when buying medicines and or cosmetics.
Raising awareness on this matter does not mean that products tested on animals will be
more inferior or less preferable to the ‘No Animal Testing’ products. Just like the debate on
animal moral status, there will also people who agree and disagree with animal testing according
to their moral/ethics. But the raising awareness will mean:
1. More people aware of animal contribution for human lives betterment and will treat
animals around them better.
2. Educating consumers on what it takes to develop the products they used, so they do
not unwittingly use products that do not comply with their ethical principles.
Perhaps, we may never be completely agree on whether animal testing is necessary or
should be replaced, but we have to agree that although there is disagreement, we still have to
respect each other’s ethics and preferences. This respect could be shown by definite labeling,
‘No Animal Testing’ or ‘Animal Testing’, so that consumers could choose fairly; instead of
relying on consumer’s ignorance on the matter.

6. Debates on Testing Cosmetics and Medicines on Animals
6
References
Andre, C., and Velasquez, M.. (1988). Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small. Retrieved from
http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html
BBC. (2012). Experimenting on Animals. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml
Greenfieldboyce, Nell. (2005). TraumaMan Offers Lifelike Practice for Med Students. Retrieved
from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4624237
Hills, Suzannah. (2012). L'Occitane and Yves Rocher: The big-name beauty brands among those
ditching cruelty-free animal testing policies to sell their products to China.
Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181468/Bigbeauty-brands-dropping-cruelty-free-animal-testing-policies-sell-productsChina.html
Understanding Animal Research. (2012). The Three Rs. Retrieved from
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs
Wilson, Scott. (2010). Animals and Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/