Impact Of Cosmetic Animal Testing On Animals: An Evolutionary And Ethical Perspective

ACCG8048 Business and Professional Ethics

ACCG8048 Business and Professional Ethics

ACCG8048 Business and Professional Ethics

ACCG8048 Business and Professional Ethics

Utilitarian analysis

The report brings out the impact of cosmetic animal testing on animals. Undoubtedly, chemical testing of several cosmetic products cause skin irritation, eye irritation and other red rushing problems for the animals. The report focuses on evolutionary and ethical perspective regarding case for the animal experimentation to support cosmetic manufacturing. The discussion has evaluated that how each ethical theory and perspective such as utilitarian analysis, Kantian analysis, and Theory extension and Additional theory such as critical theory, virtue ethics, and other environmental ethics have impact on animal testing (Adeleye et al., 2015). As utilitarian perspective evaluates any act as a basis of how the act effects the people positively. The theory aims at how maximum people should be benefited from any decision making. People are benefited especially who uses the cosmetic products through cosmetic testing. After animal testing, it ensures that the product is safe for the human use once they are proved successful on the animal skin. Apart from the utilitarian theory, Kantian theory approves that one three formulating rules are accomplished. It says that testing cosmetics on animals can result into negative impact on animal`s skin but on the other side it provides safe usage of cosmetics for the people. Therefore, considering both the morality and immorality for animal testing for cosmetics (Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, 2018).  

Utilitarianism is a branch of ethical theory, which evaluates an act on the basis of how far it is wrong or right. According to classical utilitarianism, morality demands to perform the actions that can aim at maximum good or net happiness for the overall living community. The theory aims at using the aggression of benefits that enforce choosing the right course of action. While justifying the accuracy of the case of animal testing for cosmetic products in utilitarian where the theory says that the actions should attempt to provide greater good for the people. On one hand, testing animals for cosmetic products is not at all safe for the lives of the animals. Moreover, it does not provide a guarantee safety usage for humans.

The FDA requires several chemical materials for cleaning the products and cosmetics and testing it on animals before using them on human beings. As a negative consequences, the skin of animals gets affected severely, they starts getting disease related to skin problems. Moreover, some animals serve as a food to human beings, which have reduced due to their skin problems (Verma, & Matthews, 2015). The trouble is the toxicity tests performed on animals sometimes do not predict proper results due to lack of correlation between the animal and the human reactions that have reported in clinical trials and it was predicted that many human beings have suffered from permanent physiological damage. The animals used for this purpose are rats, pigs and mice. In these cosmetic tests, animals suffer from the skin irritation and eye irritation. This will in turn lead to severe damage to the animals that can cause worse health conditions and death. On the other hand, it is necessary for the human good that prevent them from skin infections because one they are tested on animal’s skin. The risk and the chance of danger to human skin reduces. Although a mid-way is being introduced that can satisfy ethical utilitarian theory in both ways that can benefit human being and the birds. According to cruelty free international, animal testing does not make sense. For cosmetic testing, the potential reactions of animals has remained unrelated to the humans. The human society has predicted that the law does not require animal testing. Animal testing is not very necessary because it does not mean that it would rather put animal into danger. A solution to animal testing has enforced the companies to use those products that are viable to the products composition so that it cannot be dangerous for the human skin and animal skin. One more solution have been derived from the available alternatives such as the companies have started improving the imaging methods by improving the computer models that can represent many emerging options to conduct the research without the animals. Many stakeholders such as government, commercial science enterprises, scientists, and companies enjoy a dual benefit of cost efficiencies and with fewer regulations. There are some negative implications and limitations of utilitarian when applied to this theory because if the theory gives more importance to overall grant or acceptance towards people than animals get suffered and on the other side when this ethical theory considers animal as the priority then the human skin will be suffered (Wilhelm, Blome, Bhakoo, & Paulraj, 2016).

Kantian analysis

Kantian analysis believes that there are mainly three rules when deciding that whether the act was moral or not. The first formulation says that an act can be ethical that should follow a universal law. This means the general principles that we should not harm anyone do not steal, obey everyone in the world (Vinardell, 2015). The second formulation say that one should never treat and use people without respecting their autonomy. The third formulation says that one should act as per the laws in the kingdom of ends. When we apply Kantian ethics on the moral issues that surrounds animal testing and use some formulations that we can see as a very complex answer to start to develop (Törnqvist et al., 2014). Under the first formulation, for example- if we believe in religious and spiritually aware of the animals that are under test. Does a primate with all the social awareness and understands the difference between right and wrong because we consider an “individual soul” in human terms. When we use a maxim that one should not hurt any living being. Therefore, in respect of the Kant believes that we can make the world “a happier place” and it is an immoral action. If we use the maxim to protect the human race that can be universalised as a human being also has the danger of dying through terrorist attacks and car crashes, where the issues can become more complicated. Using the maxim, animal testing is justified as protecting the human race is important (Rychert, & Wilkins, 2015). The. Apart from this issue, Kant’s second formulation gives a definite answer because the second formulation states that we should not use someone else to someone else to achieve pleasure and happiness for ourselves. Animal testing is on the opposition of the Kant`s maxims and the other formulations as because testing on animals just for the sake of protecting the use of cosmetic products. We can be sure that the drug and cosmetic which are released into the market after formulating it and testing through animals (Saito et al., 2015).

 The use of animal testing is the way and wellbeing of humans. Therefore, Kant would say that it is immoral on the part of various stakeholders such as scientists, companies, customers, and people. Kantian theory implies that why we have no obligations towards animals. Its categorical imperative act as to treat humanity both in one self and as well as other person at same time. This means that we should respect every living people by using him or her in such a way they should consent to. Everyone should be respected because they are autonomous. Animals are not self-conscious and they merely means to ends (Reisinger et al., 2015).

Additional theories elaborates and associates several other theories with the actions of animal testing. According to moral theories such as virtue ethics, critical theory, and environmental ethics do not depend on the consequences of the actions nor doing the duties but instead arises from the virtuous person. Virtue ethics differ from other two basic ethical theories. The concept of animal rights are entitled to use of basic interest such that at least they can afford to avoid sufferings and consider the similar interests of the human beings (Rovida et al., 2015). Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have inherent worth that value completely separation of usefulness of humans. Animal rights is not just a philosophy but it is a social movement that can challenge the animals exist solely for the human uses (Kaluzhny et al., 2015b). The PETA network has found that when it comes to pain, fear, and loneliness, animals such as rat, pig, or rabbit are mostly affected. A social movement can challenge the traditional view of the society affects the non-human animals that exist for human use (Rowan, 2015). Using and testing animals just to avoid cosmetic dangers for the humans by the companies has been considered as a wrong deed on the part of PETA founders to protect the interest of the animals as well as humans. It is important to accept that testing cosmetics on animal skin cannot guarantee that it will not affect the human skin negatively. Apart from the testing cosmetics, more prejudice allows and expects race, gender, sexual or species discrimination should be unacceptable (Panaman, 2008). Arguing that animal liberation movement is missing factor to implement and become effective when virtues and character traits move beyond the act morally neutral and unreliable towards the animals and shift these virtual theories into the consistent manner (Kaluzhny et al., 2015a).   

Additional theory

Moreover, normative ethical theory can be conceived as a systematic inquiry in the moral limits on human independence. While viewing the variety and conflicting nature to answer the central question of normative ethics, it is hard to determine and consider the condition of moral status of all nonhuman animals which are suffered due to testing of cosmetics on their skin. It causes skin irritation, eye irritation, itching, and dark spots, and red patches in such a way that they are not able to feel the pain or the pleasure (McCulloch, & Reiss, 2017). As per the other environmental laws, recently, the European union have introduced a strict ban on the testing of cosmetic products such as make-up, foundation, shampoo, toothpaste, and other hair products which have started in around 2004 on animals. Therefore, there always exist a conflicting legislation, which is within the EU (European Union) that had made the ingredients as a test ban due to its negative effect (Ringblom, Törnqvist, Hansson, Rudén, & Öberg, 2017). An EU safety regulation named Registration, Evaluation, restriction of chemicals and authorisation (REACH) requires chemicals in Europe to lend them retested on animals for safety in June 2018. Other several countries apart from the EU have established bans and 80 percent of the world still do not follows and allows cosmetics to test them on animals (Barroso et al., 2017).

Undoubtedly, considering the health of the animals is equally important because it creates the environment and ecological balances. It is a matter, which can be easily considered as a matter of ethical concerns and can be evaluated through various ethical perspectives (Baron, Scott, Fincher, & Metz, 2015). It is being reported that after going through the negative effect of use of cosmetic chemicals on animals, it is seen that stakeholders have realised that there can be other ways by using technology to test the cosmetic products (Rader, 2012). The reliability of applying ethical theories become valid. Stakeholders have made stricter rules to solve the problems such as according to Humane society international, many 500000 animals are tested in all over the world every year as it has the largest proportion. More than 375000 stakeholders and companies in 2015, we used to meet the test requirements in the china alone (Gross, & Tolba, 2015). Whereas, other many brands featured the guidance that commitment not to test on animals such as L’Oreal and that also have except when it is required by the law. It is being seen that for more than 50 years, animals have been used in cosmetic tests with an aim to measure the safety of other chemicals that are found in cosmetic and various household products. The utilitarian theory depicts that every decision should benefit the people affected by that particular decision. A critical theory and the animal liberation have been elaborated in the implication of additional theory (Burden, Sewell, & Chapman, 2015). Animal liberation not only looks hidden suffering of industrial farms and other laboratories but also attempts to treat the plight of animals that how animals suffer and die due to when they confront human causation (Dhont, & Hodson, 2014). They confront damage in the march of progress of the makeover industry and see most of the animals at painful death and sufferings. The theories have also appreciated animal right groups such as PETA, which have attempted to treat the exploitation of animals by conducting a victimless meat campaign and urging the corporates to directly use such skin products, which do not require testing (Badyal, and Desai, 2014).

Conclusion

From the above report discussion, it is important to conclude that considering and concerning the animal testing for the cosmetic has become necessary because it is seen that it had negative impact on animal lives. Many animals are treated with cruelty and are tested painfully in the global companies to bring new eye shadows to market. Over the 20 years, Cruelty Free international worked to treat the cruelty and tireless trying to end the suffering of the animals. Moreover other theories such as utilitarian marks that considering the benefit of every sector should include human or non-human animals. Benefiting only one part of the society is not reliable according to this theory. Other additional theories such as virtue ethics, critical theory and environmental theories also focuses on stakeholders who should exclude the testing of animals for their cosmetic products. The part of theory extension includes the impact of all the ethical theories on the actions of stakeholders. It depicts how and why it is important to consider the problem of animal testing for cosmetic products as an ethical problem.  

References

Adeleye, Y., Andersen, M., Clewell, R., Davies, M., Dent, M., Edwards, S., … & Scott, S. (2015). Implementing Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (TT21C): Making safety decisions using toxicity pathways, and progress in a prototype risk assessment. Toxicology, 332, 102-111.

Badyal, D. K., & Desai, C. (2014). Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian journal of pharmacology, 46(3), 257.

Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K., & Metz, S. E. (2015). Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 265-284.

Barroso, J., Pfannenbecker, U., Adriaens, E., Alépée, N., Cluzel, M., De Smedt, A., & Templier, M. (2017). Cosmetics Europe compilation of historical serious eye damage/eye irritation in vivo data analysed by drivers of classification to support the selection of chemicals for development and evaluation of alternative methods/strategies: the Draize eye test Reference Database (DRD). Archives of toxicology, 91(2), 521-547.

Burden, N., Sewell, F., & Chapman, K. (2015). Testing chemical safety: what is needed to ensure the widespread application of non-animal approaches? PLoS biology, 13(5).

Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 12-17.

Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (2018). Animal Testing in the Cosmetics Industry. Retrieved from: https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/health-beauty/animal-testing-cosmetics-industry

Gross, D., & Tolba, R. H. (2015). Ethics in animal-based research. European Surgical Research, 55(1-2), 43-57.

Kaluzhny, Y., Kandarova, H., d’Argembeau-Thornton, L., De Luca, J., Hayden, P., Hunter, A., & Klausner, M. (2015b). Optimization of an eye irritation assay for hazard identification and labelling of materials to address the EU cosmetic directive and REACH legislation. Toxicology Letters, 238(2), S185.

Kaluzhny, Y., Kandarova, H., Handa, Y., DeLuca, J., Truong, T., Hunter, A., & Klausner, M. (2015a). The EpiOcular Eye Irritation Test (EIT) for hazard identification and labelling of eye irritating chemicals: protocol optimisation for solid materials and the results after extended shipment. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA, 43(2), 101-127.

McCulloch, S. P., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Bovine tuberculosis and badger culling in England: A utilitarian analysis of policy options. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(4), 511-533.

Min, C., Lee, E., & Zhao, L. (2018). Mining Social Media Data to Discover Topics of Sustainability: The Case of Luxury Cosmetics Brands and Animal Testing. In Sustainability in Luxury Fashion Business (pp. 93-111). Springer, Singapore.

Panaman, R. (2008). Virtue ethics. Retrieved from: https://www.animalethics.org.uk/virtue-ethics.html

Rader, P. (2012). Virtue Ethics and Non-Human Animals: The Missing Link to the Animal Liberation Movement. Retrieved from: https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1012&context=cashu

Reisinger, K., Hoffmann, S., Alépée, N., Ashikaga, T., Barroso, J., Elcombe, C., & Hibatallah, J. (2015). Systematic evaluation of non-animal test methods for skin sensitisation safety assessment. Toxicology in Vitro, 29(1), 259-270.

Ringblom, J., Törnqvist, E., Hansson, S. O., Rudén, C., & Öberg, M. (2017). Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 34(1), 148-156.

Rovida, C., Alépée, N., Api, A. M., Basketter, D. A., Bois, F. Y., Caloni, F., & Fuchs, H. (2015). Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) for safety assessment. ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentations, 32(1), 25-40.

Rowan, A. N. (2015). Ending the Use of Animals in Toxicity Testing and Risk Evaluation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 448-458.

Rychert, M., & Wilkins, C. (2015). The challenge of a ban on animal testing for the development of a regulated legal market for new psychoactive substances (NPS)(‘legal highs’) in New Zealand: Issues and options for resolution. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(12), 1273-1278.

Saito, K., Miyazawa, M., Nukada, Y., Ei, K., Abo, T., & Sakaguchi, H. (2015). Predictive performance of the Short Time Exposure test for identifying eye irritation potential of chemical mixtures. Toxicology in Vitro, 29(3), 617-620.

Törnqvist, E., Annas, A., Granath, B., Jalkesten, E., Cotgreave, I., & Öberg, M. (2014). Strategic focus on 3R principles reveals major reductions in the use of animals in pharmaceutical toxicity testing. PloS one, 9(7).

Verma, R. P., & Matthews, E. J. (2015). Estimation of the chemical-induced eye injury using a weight-of-evidence (WoE) battery of 21 artificial neural network (ANN) c-QSAR models (QSAR-21): Part I: Irritation potential. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 71(2), 318-330.

Vinardell, M. P. (2015). The use of non-animal alternatives in the safety evaluations of cosmetics ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 71(2), 198-204.

Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. (2016). Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 42-60.