Beauty does not require sacrifice: is ethical testing of cosmetics possible?

Can “test-tube skin” and computer programs replace experimental animals in cosmetics testing? We tell you what methods are already being used and what prevents the adoption of a single law on ethical tests around the world

In Legally Blonde 2, Reese Witherspoon, a Harvard graduate and lawyer, embarks on a new stage in her career marked by her fight against animal testing of cosmetics. The blonde goes to Washington, the center of US political life, to legitimize a bill banning tests and free the mother of her beloved dog Giant from the laboratory. The heroine achieves her goal by meeting people on her way who do not believe in her success and repeat: “People do not decide anything”, “No one believed that one person is capable of something.” Almost 10 years have passed since the release of the film, and the problem of animal testing is still relevant. True, now it is not El Woods who is fighting for the rights of mice, rabbits, cats and guinea pigs, but a number of organizations.

Animal testing of cosmetics is now banned in 40 countries. In our country, animal testing continues, and the abolition bill was rejected in 2017. Why do millions of animals continue to die in laboratories, and is it really necessary for science?

History of the use of animals in medicine

Since ancient times, people have studied the processes of life on animals. By resorting to vivisection – that is, to surgical operations on a living animal in order to study the functions of the body – the ancient Greeks, for example, the physician and philosopher Galen, conducted medical research. However, even then people were asking the moral and ethical side of this issue. So, Aristotle believed that animals do not have intelligence, which means that they cannot feel pain the way people do. His successor Theophrastus objected to the teacher, speaking out against vivisection, and insisted that all living beings are equally sensitive, and causing pain to the living is an insult to the gods who created them. The first testing of the drug on an animal, and not just an autopsy, was carried out in the XNUMXth century by the Spanish physician Ibn Zuhr.

Animals began to be used on a truly massive scale for scientific purposes in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries. People who proposed then to pass a law on the prohibition of cruelty to animals were ridiculed. “If we pass this law today, tomorrow we will have to spend time on laws to protect dogs, cats or parrots,” this is how members of the British House of Commons reacted to politician Richard Martin’s idea to legally protect donkeys and horses, which were most often beaten by their hosts.

How animal testing is regulated in different countries

Despite criticism, the Cruelty to Cattle Act was passed in 1822 (and called Martin’s Law), and Martin himself created his own society, which was soon supported by Queen Victoria, thereby making animal protection fashionable among the aristocracy. The queen was appalled at the details of the scientific experiments and in 1876 forced legislators to pass a law on the humane treatment of animals. Following the UK at different times, similar laws were adopted in other countries, and in 1981 the World Society for the Protection of Animals was formed. Frances Power Cobb, the founder of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which is now called Cruelty Free International and fights against animal testing of cosmetics and household chemicals, played a big role in solving the problem. Indeed, in many countries of the world, vivisection of animals is still an urgent problem. The organization estimates that in 2015, at least 192,1 million animals were used for scientific purposes worldwide, and this number has not decreased so far.

Now testing on animals is partially or completely banned in 40 countries, including India, Israel, South Korea, New Zealand, Turkey, Norway, Australia, Mexico, Guatemala, Switzerland. In our country, there is no such ban – according to the rules for alternative testing methods for perfumery and cosmetic products, introduced in 2012, the manufacturer himself chooses whether to test products on animals or not. But this also applies only to cosmetics, household chemicals in our country are mandatory tested on animals, even if it is an imported product, and the manufacturing company does not resort to such methods. In 2020, four new GOSTs were adopted, allowing some alternative methods. However, this is only the first step on a long journey towards the production of completely ethical household chemicals, since for this it is necessary to prepare a new regulation for each product, transfer all laboratories to it, accredit them and train employees.

In China, all manufactured and imported cosmetics and household chemicals must be subjected to mandatory in vivo testing, that is, on living beings. True, from January 1, 2021, an indulgence was allowed: imported cosmetics such as shampoos, blush, mascara and perfumes no longer have to be tested on animals in Chinese laboratories. However, there is no official regulation that would guarantee that the ban will come into force.

What animals are used for testing

According to reports, completely different animals are used in scientific research – from roundworms and fish to monkeys, dogs, cats and others. At the genetic level, chimpanzees are closest to humans, then gorillas, and then the rest of the great apes. Primates are even further away, and, oddly enough, rodents follow them in this chain. House mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits account for up to 90% of all experiments. In the Academgorodok of Novosibirsk, opposite the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, there is a monument to a mouse knitting a DNA strand – it is to these rodents that modern science owes many of its achievements. Mice are more often than other animals used in experiments because of their knowledge, cheapness and simplicity of keeping conditions. In addition, rodents have a short lifespan, so the effect that scientists are interested in can be easily observed over several generations.

Animals are used in studies of the effects of various substances on humans – it is believed that the tests predict the reaction of the human body. Still, rodents are not people, and sometimes testing distorts predictions, leading to real victims. So, in the 1950s in Germany, thalidomide went on sale – a remedy for anxiety, headaches, and even colds. It was actively prescribed to both adults and children, as well as pregnant women, considering it absolutely safe, since a study on rats did not reveal such a dose of the drug that could be harmful. In 1961, a link was found between the drug and severe birth defects in children born – thalidomide adversely affected 161 children. The company was accused of insufficient clinical trials, which reinforced the public opinion that it is better to experiment on animals than on humans.

How cosmetics are tested

Cosmetic tests are not powdering rabbit fur or applying lipstick to the skin – experiments are carried out not only with the finished product, but also with its components. This is a multi-step procedure that includes:

• injecting or force-feeding animals with potentially harmful substances;
• surgical removal of animal organs or tissues for the purpose of intentional injury;
• forcing animals to inhale poisonous gases;
• killing the subject.

For example, the Dreiser test determines how a substance affects the mucous membrane of the eye. The animal is placed in a special machine that fixes the head, and the substance is applied directly to the eye. Most often, rabbits are used for this experiment – they produce fewer tears, which means that the product will not wash off longer. The rabbit does not have the opportunity to wash off the product, rub the eye with his paw, or just move at least a little. This causes pain shock, agony, the animal gradually falls into apathy. Means in anticipation of the result is left for 21 days. The rabbit either goes blind or dies. But even if he survived during the experiment, nothing ends for him – he is used for another test. After passing the Dreiser test, the words “In case of contact with eyes, rinse with water” appear on the product label.

To determine skin reactions in an animal, the hair is shaved and the test substance is rubbed into the skin. Sometimes an incision is made for this and the agent is applied to the open wound. Keep the substance until a pronounced effect is obtained. None of the tests provide anesthesia for the animal.

Cosmetics and household chemicals are tested for toxicity using the LD50 test, its other name is Lethal Dose 50. A tube is inserted into the stomach of the experimental animal, through which the test substance enters. The experiment begins with a small dose, which gradually increases – it is necessary to fix the volume that will lead to death. First, the animal shows signs of severe poisoning: convulsions, bleeding, difficulty breathing, after which it dies. The test lasts from 14 to 90 days. If the animal survived, it is sacrificed to study the effect of the substance on the body. After passing the LD50 test, the words “Do not ingest” appear on the product label.

To test aerosol products, a test in perfume chambers is used. Use for the experiment of rabbits and mice, cats and dogs. The animal is placed in a pressure chamber made of organic glass, where vapors of the test agent are supplied. Toxic fumes have a detrimental effect from the inside, penetrating into the lungs and burning them. The subject begins to convulse, he suffocates.

In vivo testing brings suffering to animals and leads to death. The Humane Society of the United States spoke vividly and succinctly about this problem by releasing the famous short cartoon “Save Ralph” (Save Ralph). His hero rabbit Ralph works in the laboratory as a test subject. He is already deaf in one ear, blind in one eye, and deep wounds are visible on his back. All relatives and children of the rabbit also worked in laboratories and died, which is considered the norm in their world, because they help people buy safe cosmetics. The cartoon, denouncing cruelty, won all kinds of awards and played a significant role in publicizing the problem.

Alternative to animal testing

So far, scientists have not come to a consensus on whether we can permanently stop testing cosmetics on animals. On the one hand, this is not only inhumane, but also not entirely logical – over decades of testing, a huge database of components that are safe for humans has accumulated, which can not be re-tested. In addition, animal tests do not always predict the correct reaction of a person to a test substance – as many as 25% of drugs tested on animals showed no side effects, but they were discovered later, during the use of drugs by a person.

On the other hand, it is impossible to release any new product for sale without making sure that it is safe for humans. In addition, it is difficult to imagine the development of the cosmetics industry and even medicine without animal testing – we still owe the fact that alternative methods of research appear today to laboratory mice and other experimental subjects. Andreas Trump’s group from the Heidelberg Institute believes that animal testing is essential to the latest developments and to refuse it is to take a step back.

However, cosmetic companies that do not use in vivo testing are already successfully using other research methods that do not involve animals.

• In vitro – tests on cell cultures. Human skin, organs and blood vessels are grown in vitro using a healthy person’s puncture. The process itself takes about four weeks, according to John Sheesgreen, president of a company that grows tissue for the tests. Up to three cell types can be combined in a single tissue to achieve realistic behavior.
• Use for tests of human organs and tissues removed during operations.
• In silico – computer modeling of organs of different human systems. The program, which is loaded with a huge database of human physiology, simulates the situation using the necessary inputs.
• Volunteer testing. It is carried out exclusively in microdoses under the constant supervision of doctors with the consent of the insured volunteer.

These methods have taken years to develop and implement, as the tests require testing and proof of their effectiveness. Alternative testing methods are significantly faster, cheaper, and more efficient than animal testing. A toxicology test on artificial human skin costs about $850, while a test on rabbits costs $1800. Ekaterina Matantseva, General Director of the organic cosmetics company Mi&Ko, talks about this in more detail: “The same human donor tissue after biopsy, cosmetic surgery or transplants will provide more complete and valuable information about the effects of various agents on humans than testing on animals. So, eyes and skin were modeled from the restored human tissue, which are used in irritation tests instead of rabbits. The conclusion that smoking causes cancer was made as a result of a study of medical statistics. While in mice and rats, tobacco smoke does not cause cancer.” Despite this, many companies remain committed to animal testing in order not to change the rules of work, not to introduce new methods and not to train staff.

How to choose ethical cosmetics

Truly massively new research methods can only be promoted by large cosmetic giants who switch to them for scientific, business and image reasons. For example, Procter & Gamble has spent $20 million over the past 225 years to develop and implement alternative test methods across its many product lines. For various reasons, the initiative is also supported by other large companies – L’Oréal Research, Unilever. But many manufacturers whose products are used around the world – Max Factor, Maybelline, Mary Kay, Estee Lauder – do not want to narrow the market and continue to use in vivo tests.

Companies that refuse to test are checked by special organizations that issue a certificate to the manufacturer. It allows you to put the appropriate marking on the labels – the Cruelty Free icon with the image of a rabbit. However, labeling alone does not guarantee the ethics of the product – instead of the official rabbit, many companies use an arbitrary image, misleading the buyer. Such actions have received their own term – “greenwashing”.

In addition, there is another trick: the company may not conduct tests on its own, but delegate it to other firms. Or you can test not a ready-made tool, but the components of which it consists. You can be sure that you are buying a truly ethical product only after several stages of self-testing. It is worth paying attention to the label, the country of origin, it is also important to check the lists of “white” companies or use the Bunny Free application and contact the company directly with a question about ethics if there are still doubts.

To date, cosmetics manufacturers cannot completely abandon animal testing, but the mechanism for the transition to alternative experiments has been launched. Private initiatives of buyers who “vote with a ruble”, giving preference to ethical products, and make the problem public can help in this matter.