It is no secret that popular culture has a tremendous effect on the population when it comes to beauty standards. This is due to the commercialization of cosmetic companies, who transmit to society an
unrealistic image of beauty. By conforming to these ideals, society encourages the production of cosmetics, which in turn is like supporting cruel animal testing as well as environmental pollution. One such case is
Cover Girl, owned by
Procter & Gamble who has a known history for abusing both animals and the environment. The following will examine the unethical side of
animal testing followed by the types of testing and last, the act of animal rendering. Furthermore, the effects of the production of cosmetics on the environment will be explained followed by a review of the diverse toxins and chemicals that may be found in cosmetics and the biases that exist on cosmetics and their production.
Culture Jamming Cover Girl
By
Geraldine Lemonde and Morgan Woodward
Many arguments for and against animal experimenting may be put in place. It is true that this type of testing helped in the development of
medicines and vaccines within the scientific and medicinal research area. Although, the following comes into play: is it really necessary that
animal testing be used within the cosmetics industry? It is important not to forget that this type of industry is totally unnecessary in the development of human beings. Therefore, could we say that it is killing millions of animals per year for the sake of popular culture? To be more precise, it is 219 animals that are killed per minute in the United States due to animal testing (Kondrashova, 2013). A large part of this incredible number of animals is due to the
cosmetics industry. Many might ask why alternative methods for testing are not utilized; the answer is because it is cheaper to test on animals and use animal rendering as it will
“minimize the cost of production and maximize profits” (Kondrashova, 2013, p.2).
To add to the terrible, unethical issue of animal testing, it is important to mention that researchers are not obligated to provide the animals with pain relief as it could obstruct the experimentations. (Topulos, n.d.) Not only are animals suffering for the sake of humans and their
popular culture, but some tests on animals are sometimes inaccurate. Topulos (n.d.) gives the example of Opren, a drug that passed all the necessary animal tests, but was deadly to humans. To add to the irony of ineffective testing,
“lab animals sometimes suffer more than people would, sometimes physically, sometimes psychologically” (Haugen, 2007, p.84). Humans sometimes do not realize the extent of their acts, should it be buying or producing.
Types of Animal Testing
There are several types of animal testing. First, the “
draize eye irritancy test” is where different substances such as “liquid, flake, granule and powder” (Kondrashova, 2013, p.3) are injected into the eyes of rabbits and the gradual decline of the eyes is recorded. Second, the “
skin irritancy test” is where the whole body of the animal is restricted and dangerous chemicals are applied to the shaved skin of the animal, which causes serious inflammation, irritation and aching (Kondrashova, 2013). The “
buehler guinea pig test” is where the animal in question is repetitively subject to different toxic substances on different areas of his body (Adler & al., 2011).
The “
mouse local lymph node assay” is a test where a
“substance is applied to the dorsum of the ears of mice for three consecutive days” (Adler & al., 2011, p.400) and the regression is observed. These are only few of the many different types of testing on animals. It is to be noted that animals eat, inhale or absorb the tested substances (Topulus, n.d.). Other areas of animal testing include phototoxicity, acute toxicity, genotoxocity, mutagenicity, toxicokinetics, melabolism, photosensitization, carcinogenicity, and more (Adler & al., 2011). The amount of chemicals that animals are exposed to in the laboratory as well as the ways they are exposed to them is simply not humane.
Animal Rendering
Thus, it is easier for cosmetic industries to save money by using
animal rendering, also known as animal recycling. Animal rendering is where the bodies of millions of dead animals are used, “recycled” if you may, to gather low quality ingredients that are used in cosmetics. These ingredients are mostly collected in the flesh and bones of these dead animals. The bodies of animals can be found everywhere, from farms, animal clinics, road kills, laboratories, and animal shelters. Surprisingly enough,
“one small plant in Québec renders 10 tons of dogs and cats per week” (Kondrashova, 2013, p.7). Evidently, the use of animal corpses has contributed to the spread of animal diseases and illnesses within the environment as well as humans. Animal rendering is nothing but a disgusting way to make profit.
Animal rendering is far from being the only way cosmetic industries
pollute the environment. So many chemicals and toxins are released in the environment each year; 5, 705, 670, 380 pounds to be precise. (Donahue, 2009) Despite this, there is still confusion about
global warming. Cosmetic producers are particularly the biggest users of
palm oil, a vegetable oil that can be found in Indonesia and Malaysia. In order to extract this oil, thousands of tropical trees must be destroyed. Procter & Gamble, the owner of Cover Girl,
“purchases palm oil from suppliers that are actively engaged in burning forests and draining peat lands in Indonesia” (Sahota, 2014, p. 8), thus encouraging the destruction of the environment. Also, in 2012 research found diverse chemical toxins that stem from cosmetics in
Minnesota waterways, polluting not only that single waterway, but also the ones related to it. (Sahota, 2014) It is clear that this is not the only waterway that is contaminated by cosmetic chemicals, seeing that there are industries around the world and the waste has no choice but to be released into water basins.
Toxic Chemicals You May Not Be Aware Of
Not only are the industrial chemicals released in the environment, but a toxin, which is defined by
“a substance that by chemical action can kill of injure a living thing [and] creates an irritation of harmful effect in the body” (Donahue, 2009, p.14), is easily
absorbed by the skin when cosmetic products are applied to it. There are on average 2 983 chemicals in a cosmetic product; 884 of which are toxic, 314 of which can cause “biological mutation”, 218 of which can cause “reproductive complications”, 778 of which can cause “acute toxicity”, 146 of which can cause tumors and 376 of which can cause “skin and eye irritation.” (Donahue, 2009) The toxins found in cosmetics include but are not limited to Nitrate-Nitrire, PEG Stearates, PEG-80 Sorbitan Laurate, Phenoxethanol, Polyethylene Glycol, Toluene, Acetone, Butylate, Hydroxytuloene, Benzonic Acid, Carbon Monoxide, Kaolin, Lead, and many more. Thus, this “handy” toxin allows mascara flexibility, the softening of the skin and the deeper penetration of lotions into the skin. What the clientele does not know, though, is that this toxin had extreme effects on male lab animals, such as
“testicular atrophy, reduced sperm count, and defects in the structure of the penis.” These defects are potential contributors to human health effects, as much to males and females (especially pregnant women). The Procter & Gamble company has been proven to hold the biggest amount of Phtalates in their products, including Cover Girl.
Adding to the problem is that there are many biases within regulations of toxic release of chemicals in the environment. The particular chemical I previously mentioned,
Phtalate, is
“considered a hazardous waste and are regulated as polluants in air and water [whereas they] are essentially unregulated in food and cosmetics.” This means that cosmetic companies are allowed to put any amount of Phthalate in their products, but not in the environment. Additionally, the consumer who is trying to purchase
Phthalate-free products might be biased with the labeling since
“a typical shopper will not know that “dybutil phthalate” is the same thing as “butyl ester” or even possibly “plasticizer.” Additionally, there are some industries trying to “green-up.” Sahota (2014) explains how Eco-Labels are
“voluntary schemes” that “attempt to communicate certain aspects of sustainability to consumers... The irony of this fact is that “there are no national or regional regulations for natural and organic cosmetics.” (p. 217 - 218); in other words, there are no standards for
Eco-Labels. The same goes with animal testing; there are no laws against animal testing in the
United-States and in
Canada. So, if a label reads,
“this company does not do animal testing that is required by the law,” it is essentially a bias for the consumer into thinking that the product is “friendly” (Topulos, n.d.). Altogether, the unclear and unspecific laws about chemical consumption and the biases found on product labeling are extremely misleading.
In conclusion, the cosmetics industry, Procter & Gamble and Cover Girl particularly, is using its resources in a way that is not safe for animals and the environment. The unethical issue of animal testing, where animals are raised to be tortured to death and are continued to be used after, is shocking and repulsive. The same goes for polluting the environment as well as filling their cosmetic products with harmful chemicals. These companies lie to their customers in order to sell more. They say that one day, the cosmetics industry will be honest and equitable. Considering the factors discussed the real question is
will it ever happen?References
Adler, S., Basketter, D., Creton, S., Pelkonen, O., van Benthem, J., Zuang, V., Coecke, S. (2011). Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Archives of toxicology, 85(5), 367-485. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2
Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Beauty Secrets. Mindfully.org.Donahue, R. (2009). The pollution inside you: What is your body dying to say? USA: Safe Goods
Haugen, D. M. (2007). Animal experimentation: Opposing viewpoints. Detroit: Thomson/Gale
Kondrasova, A. (2013). Death for beauty. WordPress.com.Sahota, A. (2014). Sustainability: how the cosmetics industry is greening up. United Kingdom:
John Wiley & Sons.
Sun, S. (2012). The truth behind animal testing. Young scientist’s journal, 12, 83-85. doi:
10.4103/0974-6102.105076
Topulos, S. (n.d.). Animal Testing Research and Cruelty Free Shopping Guide. Milton.edu.About The Author
Morgan Woodward is presently studying at
Champlain College Lennoxville located in Quebec, Canada.
Mysteries Behind Beauty was written as part of an assignment for Consumerism, Leisure and Popular Culture in the
Department of Humanities.
Call For Submissions!
Would you like to be a
Guest Contributor? The Wicked Academic is always looking for quality contributions to both the website and the academic online journal. For further information check out
The Printing Press and
FAQ section.
