of them died shortly after birth. The British Medical Journal even called it “thalidomide disaster”
(Woolham 1962). Today, thalidomide is used in treatment of multiple myeloma and inflammatory
diseases, but with extreme caution because we now know it is a strong teratogen.
During tests, researchers use industrial-strength solutions that rapidly cause harmful effects in
animals. Basically, any substance used in large quantities can hurt or even kill. Water can be toxic if
drunk in gallons at once! Humans are unlikely to encounter high concentrations of toxic substances in
real life as they shave, shower, and style their hair. Instead, we use potentially harmful substances
consistently in low doses over years and even decades. As a result, systemic effects would be
different. It’s the same with the sun: when we overdose from exposure to the sun, we get an instant
reaction (sunburns) and delayed reaction (premature skin aging, higher risk of skin cancer). Many
chemicals we use daily will act slowly, triggering disease after decades of use.
Animals, especially lab animals, live much shorter lives than humans. Many species have been
genetically modified so they become more susceptible to cancer or other diseases. Not a single
animal test can prove that the chemical in question is safe for use by humans. Such tests can only
show that the chemical doesn’t cause visible damage over a short period of time. Then the animals
are killed, and the cosmetic industry gets a green light to formulate and sell new products using the
chemical. Animal tests cannot predict the effect such chemicals have on humans who will encounter
these chemicals over prolonged periods of time and in combination with various other chemicals of
synthetic or natural origin.
To add injury to insult, animal testing results can be affected by many factors: how well the
animals eat and sleep, how stressed they are, and what their living conditions are. Results of the same
test can vary from one research facility to another. The LD50 results can be 8–14 times higher in one
laboratory than in another, observed the activist group Animal Liberation on their website
(http://www.animalliberation.org.au/toxtest.php).
Today, many cosmetic companies develop and refine alternative testing procedures that do not
involve animals. Among reliable alternatives to animal testing are tests in vitro, literally “in a tube,”
when chemical substances are applied to individual cells rather than dropped into a rabbit’s eyes or
poured into a dog’s throat. For example, to study if a certain ingredient irritates the eye, Eytex, a
vegetable protein whose molecules have a similar organization as those in the cornea, can be used to
study facial skin care, makeup, and hair care. Irritating products make the protein gel appear cloudy,
similar to the cloudiness and tears you may experience after applying an eye cream. Human cornea
cells from eye banks can be grown and reproduced in test tubes. After the test chemical has been
applied to the human cell culture, scientists examine the number of dead or damaged cells by adding a
red dye. Healthy cells take up this dye, but dead or damaged cells do not. The less red dye is
absorbed, the more toxic the product is. Finally, to test products that are made of ingredients that are
already found to be safe, human volunteers can be used. The greater number of people involved, the
more reliable the results. Many well-known cosmetic companies, such as The Body Shop, regularly
use human volunteers.
In nonanimal testing, adverse reactions and mutations of individual cells can be accurately
measured, recorded, and scrutinized. The results can be measured accurately by a computer, and
there’s no need to break a rabbit’s neck.
The future of animal testing is starting to look dim. The testing of cosmetics on animals is currently
banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. In 2009, all animal-tested cosmetics
will be banned from sale throughout the European Union, and all cosmetics-related animal testing