Krinsky, CEO of Beauty Without Cruelty (www.beautywithoutcruelty.com) — the very first cosmetics brand that eliminated animal testing back in 1963 – believes that the testing technology behind beauty products has progressed to the point where they don’t need to test products on animals to establish safety levels for consumers.
“There is no regulation or law that requires cosmetic products to be tested on animals,” said Krinsky “In fact, the European Union passed a ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing starting in 2009, and a sales ban effective in 2013. Though the ban doesn’t include all testing and ingredients, it’s clear that the EU is serious about ending a practice they consider ‘medieval.’ Moreover, the tests actually are completely unrevealing in terms of the effects of cosmetic ingredients on humans. The only thing they tell us is how much of a certain chemical it takes to kill a rabbit.”
According to statistics from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), more than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA feel pain from the experiments performed by cosmetic companies. What’s worse is that none of those tests are necessary, according to one expert.
Krinsky added that non-animal testing methods that are more reliable and less expensive have been developed, making animal testing a cruelly ridiculous throwback to medieval times that exists only in America.
“A little while ago, they invented these things called computers,” Krinsky said. “These devices can make use of cell and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and simulated mathematical models. If we can map the human genome, why do we need to pour chemicals in a dog’s eyes?”
The primary reason American companies cling to obsolete, expensive, ineffective and cruel testing methods is one word: money. Many companies don’t want to undergo the initial expense of changing their testing methods (even though the new tests are cheaper in the long run), and certainly the testing labs want to maintain their current contracts, Krinsky added. However, in his mind, those concerns do not outweigh the impact of the torture on the animals used for cosmetics testing.
“If people actually knew about the tests involved, they might insist on buying their cosmetics from a cruelty-free brand,” he added. “The tests performed typically measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various substances used in cosmetics. In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is extremely painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints. The more common Lethal Dosage (LD) tests are used to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, subjects are forced to ingest poisonous substances (through stomach tubes, vapor spray inhalers or injection) until half of them die. Common reactions to LD tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum.”
Krinsky thinks the primary trigger point that might change the minds of cosmetics executives is falling sales.
“With the rest of the world essentially banning these practices, how is it that America is the last medieval man left standing against a landscape of cheaper, more effective cruelty-free testing? The truth is that once American consumers start demanding cosmetics that are cruelty-free, then and only then will American manufacturers stop torturing animals in the name of beauty.”