[Related article, Effects of the Shift to Alternatives on Industrial Practices.]
The animal activist organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in its "Caring Consumer Campaign" lists over 600 companies marketing cosmetic products in the absence of animal testing (4). This claim raises the question as to how a product's safety can be substantiated without the use of animals. There are several possible explanations: 1) Major brand companies have been in the cosmetic business for decades and have massive files of well established safety data (for most commonly used ingredients) obtained from years of animal testing and human clinical trials. By combining this information with data obtained from established in vitro methods, these companies have been able to derive a high level of confidence in their safety data to bring new products to market. 2) Some have stretched the definition of "cruelty-free" or "without cruelty" by not conducting animal testing on the final formula though they have conducted animal testing on ingredients and/or have suppliers provide animal test data. 3) A more deceptive option is to have the animal testing conducted overseas. 4) A hypocritical option is to establish an arbitrary cut-off date for previously conducted animal testing. The classic example of this technique is using animal-tested ingredients after a 5-year moratorium (7, 8). Finally, either from arrogance or naiveté, the manufacturer may elect to take advantage of the market ploy by just using the "cruelty-free" label without justification because as yet there are no legal penalties for doing so.
D.H. Walker
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center
Newsletter
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
