How Testing Makeup Products On Animals Affect Them

Testing Cosmetics on Animals: An Idea Who's Time Has Gone

Noah Lewis, Harvard Police School Class of 2005

Submitted in satisfaction of the course requirements for Food and Drug Constabulary

Spring, 2004

Abstract

Despite tremendous progress in reducing animal testing in the assessment the safety of corrective products, it persists and there is no definitive stop in sight. The reasons for this are not entirely clear because the major constituents, consumers, creature rights activists, and the corporations engaged in the testing all seem to want information technology to end. While the government still requires creature testing for drugs and other consumer products, in that location is no explicit requirement for the animal testing of cosmetics. The time is ripe for these constituencies to join forces and push for an outright ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals.

1. Introduction

Animal rights campaigns confronting cosmetics testing began in earnest in 1980 with a publicity entrada that asked, "how many rabbits does Revlon blind for beauty's sake?"[i] The campaign ended when Revlon and other cosmetics companies helped prepare a heart for the study of replacements for creature tests.[two] Despite tremendous progress in finding such replacements for animals in cosmetics testing, information technology persists and there is no definitive end in sight. The reasons for this are not entirely clear because the major constituents, consumers, animal rights activists, and the corporations engaged in the testing all seem to want it to end. While the authorities still requires animal testing for drugs and other consumer products, there is no explicit requirement for the animal testing of cosmetics. The time is ripe for these constituencies to bring together forces and push for an outright ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals.

1. Opposition to Animal Testing

There are numerous constituencies that actively oppose cosmetics testing on animals or that would be relatively indifferent to a ban.

1. The Animals

If nonhuman animals did not oppose testing, there would be no demand for a ban on testing cosmetics on them. Information technology seems an obvious point, merely information technology bears repeating: nonhumans practise not volunteer for cosmetics testing.[iii] In that location is no informed consent and the animals receive no benefit from their participation. What animals do receive is confinement, oft including immobilization in stocks, isolation from their peers, exposure to corrosive and irritating chemicals. Ultimately they are killed.

Descriptions of what animals endure may seem gratuitous, inconsequential, or designed solely to stir emotions. Merely animal suffering is easily ignored. It occurs out of the view of the public centre and therefore it is piece of cake to forget, deliberately or otherwise. Here is i description of the lethal dose 50 (LD50) test in which animals are fed a substance until half of them die:

Because most corrective products are not especially poisonous, it necessarily follows that if a rat or a canis familiaris has to exist killed this way, so very bang-up quantities of corrective must exist forced into their stomachs, blocking or breaking internal organs, or killing the beast by another concrete activeness, rather than by any specific chemical event. Of form the procedure of force-feeding—even with good for you food—is itself a notoriously unpleasant process, as suffragettes and other prisoners on hunger-strike take testified. When the substance forced into the tum is not food at all, simply large quantities of face pulverization, makeup or liquid pilus dye, and so no doubt the suffering is very much greater indeed. If, for the bureaucratic correctness of the examination, quantities bang-up plenty to kill are involved then clearly the process of dying itself must often be prolonged and agonizing.[4]

Thankfully, this type of test has been largely eliminated and is at present confined to testing ingredients, which still involves force feeding and perchance more noxious chemicals. Other once-common tests that persist are the Draize center and skin irritancy tests that involve placing chemicals in the eyes or on the shaved skin of rabbits or guinea pigs.[v]

B. Animal Rights Activists

Fauna rights activists oppose all animal experimentation. The case for fauna rights has been thoroughly laid out elsewhere.[6] The bones premise is that animals do non exist for human being employ. Because animals are sentient beings, they deserve equal consideration of their rights—in that location are no morally relevant reasons for drawing a line between humans and animals. When it comes to even medical experimentation on animals, animal rights advocates reject placing animals in that position: "[w]due east must stop manufacturing conflicts in which nosotros place animals in out hypothetical burning business firm because we regard them every bit our holding, and so pretend to enquire seriously whose interests we should prefer.[seven] Once someone decides that animals "have a basic right not to be things, then we must stop thinking nigh them as our belongings, our resources."[8] From the animate being rights perspective, animals outset off as beings worthy of moral consideration and their apply in experiments tin can exist no more justified than using a group of despised humans to experiment on—all such instrumental uses of sentient beings are rejected for a very elementary reason: yous or I would not want to be experimented on without our consent, therefore we should not subject others to that treatment.

C. Brute Welfarists

Different creature rights activists, animal welfarists think it is OK to use animals to serve man ends when it is necessary to do and then, but the animals must be treated humanely.[ix] Most people are welfarists. Even those who exploit animals believe it should be done "humanely." The American Meat Establish, for example states, "[p]eople desire animals handled humanely, and we feel we have an ethical obligation to practice that."[x] The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), is an manufacture nonprofit "dedicated to improving human and creature health by promoting public understanding and support for the humane and responsible apply of animals in medical and scientific research."[xi] FBR notes that researchers are required to "justify their need for animals; select the most appropriate species and use the fewest number of animals possible to answer a specific question."[12] They describe the using animals in research every bit an "essential need" that provides " invaluable and irreplaceable insights."[13] Some other manufacture group, Americans for Medical Progress, "supports the use of but those animals that are necessary for reliable enquiry results, non-beast research methods when approved for specific types of studies, and the highest standards of animate being care, including those for housing, environmental enrichment, research procedures, pain management and euthanasia, among others."[14] The incurably ill For Creature Research (iiFAR) "realizes the importance of Product Safety Testing toward preventing serious injuries and recognizes that tests on animals are necessary. However, iiFAR joins with all concerned parties in encouraging the scientific community to search for boosted non-animate being methods to help deter-mine the toxicity of new products."[xv] Corporations likewise share welfarist ideals. Johnson & Johnson applies the 3Rs to animal testing: replacement, reduction and refinement.[16] Information technology is their policy to employ animals to the "minimum extent necessary" to assess the safety of their products, to care for them "humanely" and to cause no "unnecessary pain."[17] These positions all represent the classic articulation of the welfarist position—humane utilize of animals when necessary. Given that everyone seems to be opposed to unnecessary use of animals, one must figure out what is necessary.

Conceiving of cosmetics every bit "necessary" is difficult. Wearing cosmetics may be considered desirable, preferable, or a positive aspect of society, simply that does non make it necessary. Some women may consider wearing cosmetics "necessary." Women face enormous social pressure to wear makeup. Their jobs may also depend up wearing makeup.[18] Even if these things are conceded, however, this does not justify testing new cosmetics on animals. There are thousands of cosmetics already on the marketplace and over three,000 ingredients that tin can exist readily used to formulate new cosmetics.[19] An end to beast testing will, at worst, boring the introduction of new products until replacements for the few remaining creature tests are found.

D. Corporations

Another potential source of "necessity" is corporations. Because corporations accept a duty to shareholders to make a profit and attempting to sell women new formulations of cosmetics is traditionally how cosmetics companies increase profits.[twenty] Corporations could, withal, continue to make profits by selling their tried and truthful formulas, however. This point in fourth dimension presents another avenue to dramatically increase profits by catering to a large, untapped marketplace—men. Currently sales to men comprise a small percentage of overall sales, but that percentage is growing quickly.[21]

Moreover, corporations profess a desire to eliminate animal testing. "Unilever is committed to the elimination of animal testing for our business."[22] Proctor & Chance (P&G) has spent more than than $170 one thousand thousand over the by 20 years on replacements for animal tests and currently spends $10-13 million annually.[23] P&Thousand has eliminated animal testing for fourscore% of its products.[24] Although more than costly, the replacement tests "achieve better results."[25]

Advances have yielded impressive progress. "Animal use for skin irritation testing is not necessary today, with currently available and accepted methodology, except for regulatory reasons."[26] Clinical trials on humans represent ane advance that not simply allows in vitro tests to exist validated, only represent a direct product exam on the species of concern, humans.[27]

Eastward. Consumers

Many Americans are opposed to using animals in cosmetics testing. Only thirty-one percent of Americans think it is right to exam cosmetics on animals.[28] Another poll showed 58% of Americans think "using animals for cosmetics inquiry" should be prohibited past law and some other 23% disapprove merely don't feel it should be illegal.[29] Among women, 63% oppose fauna testing for wellness and beauty products.[xxx] Thirty-8 percent of people would back up a ban on all product testing on laboratory animals.[31]

In addition to simply beingness opposed to beast testing in theory, consumers often desire to avoid purchasing products tested on animals. Nine percent of women specifically await for "not tested on animals" claims when buying health and beauty care (HBC) products.[32] Xx-two percentage of women have purchased HBC products because "advertising indicated information technology was not tested on animals."[33] Moreover, 47% said they would be somewhat or much more probable to buy an HBC product that indicates it has non been tested on animals."[34] This information reveals that the merits "not tested on animals" has ability to add together value to a product and that consumers make choices based on their beliefs almost whether or not a company tests on animals.

In an endeavour to assistance consumers brand informed choices, several animal rights groups produce guides to companies that do and do non examination on animals.[35] To get listed on PETA'due south "don't test" listing, the company must agree not to "deport or commission any nonrequired animal tests on ingredients, formulations, or finished products and that they pledge not to exercise so in the future."[36] In 1996 a group of creature protection groups formed the Coalition for Consumer Data on Cosmetics (CCIC) to promote a unmarried comprehensive standard for animate being testing claims equally well as an internationally recognized "leaping bunny" logo.[37] The standard provides that neither a visitor or its suppliers conducts beast testing after a fixed cut off appointment.[38] The plan differs from the PETA standard in that information technology applies to suppliers and requires an annual recommitment. The program is doing well, with 33 new companies beingness certified in 2004 alone.[39] While a sophisticated consumer might know that CCIC is the gold-standard to wait for when purchasing a cruelty-free product, in that location are a multitude of non-CCIC companies making animal testing claims on their labels.

A survey of 85 cosmetic and lather products that make some blazon of claim about animate being testing on their label highlights the disruptive nature of fauna testing claims on labels.[40] The results of this survey are presented in a separate spreadsheet. Of the 85 products surveyed, only 19 (22%) appeared on the CCIC list. Seventeen (xx%) appeared on the PETA listing, simply not the CCIC list. Five (half dozen%) appeared on PETA's "exercise test" list but still carried "don't test" labeling claims.[41] The remaining 44 (52%) appeared on no listing at all, thus even a consumer armed with the PETA listing and the CCIC list would accept no way to evaluate these claims without contacting each company. Taking CCIC as the golden-standard that most consumers call back they are purchasing—no new animate being testing—these claims are deceptive 78% of the time (66 out of 85).

The labels themselves carry a wide varied of differently worded claims. Here is a sample of some of the different types of claims made on labels:

• Cruelty free
• No animate being testing
• Non tested on animals
• Never tested on animals
• Nosotros do not examination on animals
• This production has not been tested on animals
• Salon tested on people, not animals
• Created without animal testing
• Production and ingredients not tested on animals

In improver to text slogans, the products also featured all manner of bunny logos. Bunnies sitting, bunnies with slashes over them, and bunnies in boxes, triangles and ovals. Non to be left out is one company'due south "seal" of approving, represented by said bounding main mammal.[42] Despite the fact that PETA and CCIC both accept different official bunny logos, these appeared on simply a couple of products. Of the companies entitled to use the CCIC leaping bunny, only ane (Jason Natural Cosmetics) used it, mayhap because there is fee associated with using the logo, but non with becoming CCIC certified.[43] The plethora of bunnies can exist misleading if consumers retrieve the bunny is some sort of official symbol of approval or have been instructed by animal rights groups to expect for the leaping bunny logo and they fault the bunny on the product for the official CCIC logo,[44] which looks similar this:

Labels like those outline above tin be misleading—even sophisticated consumers are unable to distinguish between animal testing claims. In one survey, one-half of consumers though "non tested on animals" meant that neither the product nor the ingredients were tested on animals, although that is seldom the case.[45] The carefully worded labels provide plenty of leeway to hide the fact that a visitor may be involved in animal testing. This can happen in many means: i) Nearly all ingredients, including h2o, have been tested on animals at some point. The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance Association believes that "not tested on animals" claims are confusing to consumers because of that point.[46] 2) Even if finished products have non been tested on animals, the ingredients may have been. 3) Fifty-fifty if that production was non tested on animals, the company may have tested earlier, very similar products. 4) Some companies employ a rolling cut-off date for ingredients. For instance, they may not use ingredients that have been tested on animals in the last five years, so they are in effect letting others do the dirty work for them simply even so profiting from the new ingredients developed through fauna testing.[47] v) The company itself may not conduct tests, simply it may contract it out, rely on testing from trade associations, or rely on testing from outside of the US.[48] Given all of these loopholes, disingenuous companies tin can slap a "not tested on animals" label on its product, attract more customers than a competitor, and confront little repercussion considering of the difficulty in consumers finding out the specifics of a company's testing policy, and fifty-fifty if they did, there is fiddling legal resources for consumers, equally outlined in Section III beneath.

1. Europe

Europe will ban the testing of cosmetics on animals in 2009.[49] The ban includes a ban on the marketing of cosmetics—concluding products and ingredients—that accept been tested on animals and and then will employ to whatsoever company wishing to do business organisation in Europe.[50] Corporations perceive the US regime's failure to recognize non-animate being replacements equally a stumbling cake for US companies who wish to participate in the European marketplace.[51]

1. Solutions
2. FDA Action
3. Full general Authority to Deed

A cosmetic is misbranded if "its labeling is false or misleading in any detail."[52] The FDCA prohibits the introduction of misbranded cosmetics into interstate commerce.[53] The FDA has the authority to seize, detain, or obtain an injunction confronting the distribution of whatsoever such misbranded products.[54] Violations tin too upshot in imprisonment and criminal and civil fines.[55] At that place is no private right of action of whatever sort under the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Human activity (FDCA).[56] Although in that location is additional say-so to regulate labels nether the Fair Packaging and Labeling Human action of 1992, that Act applies mainly to things like the identity of the product and the quantity of the product[57] and it is unlikely that claims about animal testing could fit under that law.[58]

The FDCA protects consumers' economic interests also as health and safety interests. The FDCA has applied to cases of economic adulteration where an ingredient of lesser value has been marketed as i with greater value even if the product itself is not harmful.[59] Because of the FDCA's intention to protect consumers,[lx] the standard is not one of the sophisticated consumer or even the reasonable consumer, but rather "a consuming public which includes "the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous."[61] Similarly, other courts have found that the standard past which misleading statements were exist to be judged was not of "overly skeptical buyers," but "bodily customers who cannot be presumed to have special expertness or to be unduly cautious."[62] One might argue that animal rights activists are the prime market for cruelty-gratis products and they are in fact highly skeptical and educated about the subject. Creature rights groups produce numerous guides with which consumers can arm themselves and apply to buy cruelty-gratuitous cosmetics.[63] In that location are several problems with this statement. Beginning, the very fact that guides need to be produced indicates how difficult information technology is to purchase products that are strictly not tested on animals. 2d the guides cannot exist comprehensive and they are not equally indicated past the large number of products in my survey that made animal testing claims but did not announced on PETA's list.[64] 3rd, teenage girls oft seek out cruelty free products and companies wishing to tap into this large market must pay attending to those preferences.[65] Although some teens probably are much more sophisticated consumers than many adults, information technology is unfair to hold teenagers to adult scrutiny standards. Finally, it is non merely animal rights activists who seek to purchase cruelty-free products. As poll information indicates, up to sixty percent of the public might wish to purchase such products.[66]

The failure to disembalm the fact that animal testing has occurred could be considered misleading. In deciding whether a label is misleading, the FDA tin take into consideration "the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations."[67] Thus if a product is labeled "not tested on animals," only all of the ingredients have been separately tested on animals, the label fails to reveal this material fact and is thus misleading.

By declining to enforce the misbranding portion of the FDCA, the FDA may be abusing its discretion. Considering economic harm is part of the statutory mandate and consumers are being harmed, consumers' rights nether the FDCA are "'nullified by FDA inactivity."[68]

1. Instance-by-Case Arroyo

The FDA could approach the outcome on a remedial, example-past-instance footing. As shown higher up, nevertheless, the labeling problem is widespread. The FDA could, for example, ship a letter to each company notifying them that their product was potentially misbranded and ask for clarification of what the visitor means by the label along with proof that they comply with their own merits. Nigh every company could come up up with a reasonable definition of their claims. If a company merely didn't examination the final product on animals, they could say that's all they implied. If a company contracts out the testing of its products, they could claim they were referring to the fact that they themselves did not exam on animals. If a company uses a rolling cut-off date for ingredients, they could still merits that the testing was not done to create that product, so it is acceptable to claim there was no animal testing. Some companies might be moved to remove their labeling claims about animal testing, simply given all of these ambiguities, they probably feel they could prevail in courtroom that their products are not misbranded. They might as well correctly believe that the issue was a depression priority for the FDA and the chances of enforcement through a lawsuit were minimal. Absent uniform definitions of these labeling claims, the FDA would be unable to give clear direction every bit to how to eliminate the run a risk that their products are misbranded.

1. Regulation of Labeling Claims

The FDA could promulgate standards for labeling claims such every bit "cruelty-free" and "not tested on animals" to ensure that such labels are not misleading consumers. [69] Ideally, the standards would mirror those used by the CCIC.[70] The FDA should allow each visitor to choose a cut-off date to encourage as many companies every bit possible to cease animal testing and be able to label their products as such without attempting to go back and remove ingredients tested after a nationwide cut-off appointment. Such interpretive rules would put companies on notice about what the FDA'south position is with respect to misbranding and animal testing claims. The FDA could enforce this past requiring companies to submit their creature testing policies upon request, or make it mandatory for whatever company wishing to make such a claim on its label.

FDA might lack the authority to promulgate standards, nonetheless. In 1974, the FDA promulgated standards that defined "hypoallergenic," but the regulations were struck downwardly as arbitrary and capricious.[71] Given that the FDA received a petition in 1996 on this subject, which information technology characterized as "through," but did non begin rulemaking proceedings, this seems to betoken that either the FDA lacks the resources to give this result priority or it does not feel it has dominance or a factual basis that would withstand judicial review.

B. Competitor Lawsuits for Unfair Competition

The Lanham Human activity allows competitors to sue one another for false labeling.[72] There are three elements to a Lanham Deed merits:[73] (1) that the advertising in question is carrying a item message (that the product and/or its ingredients were not tested on animals—this is not mere puffery as polls show people look for information technology); (ii) that the bulletin is false (most ingredients take been tested on animals, or the testing may have been contracted out, etc.); (3) that the plaintiff is likely to be injured every bit a outcome of the advertiser's faux claim (poll information showing consumers are more than likely to choose a product that has not been tested on animals).

Suits could occur in two means. Get-go, companies that comply with the CCIC standards could sue the companies that claim "no brute testing" but do non comply with CCIC. They could present the arguments made to a higher place and show how the competitor is being deceptive and therefore is engaging in unfair contest. Second, this could be used by companies that do non comply with the CCIC and label whatever of their products equally "not beast tested." Corporations like P&G that engage in huge amounts of inquiry on replacements and have substantially reduced the number of creature tests that they perform cull non to label their products because they believe such claims are misleading given the history of animal testing for virtually ingredients.[74] These corporations could sue companies claiming not to engage in creature testing merely who actually do in some form.

States besides take various unfair competition laws nether which corporations could bring suit. California'due south even has a private cause of activity for any individual harmed past the unfair competition and so consumers or brute rights activists could bring suits direct.

C. Boosted Possibilities

All of the concerns about labeling, however, are only a sideshow to the real goal which is, of course, a ban on creature testing of cosmetics. The FDA does not explicitly require animal test but it does require a warning label if a product has not been tested. The FDA could either eliminate this alarm characterization requirement or clarify that non-creature tests qualify as testing nether this requirement and it could foster the validation of replacements in other areas where it does require animal tests.

The FDA lacks statutory say-so to outright ban creature tests, and then ultimately such a directive would accept to come from Congress. In addition to banning animal tests, Congress could increase the FDA's authorisation over cosmetics regulation and mandate human being clinical testing of cosmetics.

Another possibility would be to institute country or local bans on beast cosmetic tests. In that location is probably no preemption trouble given that the FDA does not require animal tests. Similarly, The federal Animal Welfare Act regulates handling of animals only and does not go to the substance of experiments.[75]

A concluding way in which Congress could foster an end to creature testing would be to ban the use of animate being testing data in product liability suits and to limit liability for unforeseeable harms from cosmetics. This latter solution is not ideal, however, considering companies should be encouraged to pursue wider clinical testing.

Four. Conclusion

Due to the limitations of the above-described legal tools, activists cannot rely on the law to create social change. When Spira began his activism in 1979, a ban on cosmetics testing would have been dramatic. Now that replacements for animal tests are in identify, particularly in the surface area of cosmetics, it is time for brute rights advocates to vigorously, publicly call for zip less than a ban the testing and marketing of any product that uses animal testing after a prescribed cutoff date.

---

[1] Henry Spria, Should Y'all Take an Activist to Breakfast , 49 Food and Drug Police Journal, 291, 295 & 295 n.8 (1994).

[2] Id. at 295.

[3] Berke Breathed, Night of the Mary Kay Commandos Featuring Odor O-Toons , 1989 (cartoon graphic symbol Opus visits a cosmetics testing lab in search of his mother. He was initially reassured by his visit to the lab, until he had the a revelation).

[4] Tom Regan, Empty Cages: Facing the Claiming of Animal Rights 168-69 (2004), (quoting Richard Ryder, Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Inquiry 36 (1975)).

[5] Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog 45 (2000).

[six] E.g. , Francione, supra note; Joan Dunayer, Speciesism (2004), Tom Regan, Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights (2004).

[7] Francione, supra note five at 157.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at xxii-xxiii.

[10] David Forster, Animal Rights Activists Getting Message Across: New Poll Findings Prove Americans More in Tune with "Radical" Views , Chi. Trib. January. 26, 1996, at C8.

[11] Foundation for Biomedical Enquiry, About the Foundation for Biomedical Inquiry , Dec. viii, 2003, http://www.fbresearch.org/virtually.

[12] Foundation for Biomedical Research, FBR's Position on Animal Enquiry , Sept. 5, 2002, http://world wide web.fbresearch.org/about/position.htm.

[xiii] Id.

[14] Americans for Medical Progress, AMP'southward Statement on Humane Creature Use , http://www.amprogress.org/About/AboutList.cfm?c=9 (final visited May 22, 2005).

[xv] incurably ill For Animal Research, Well-nigh U.s.a. - Position Statement: Product Safety Testing , http://www.iifar.org/ps_testing.html (concluding visited May 22, 2005).

[xvi] Johnson & Johnson, Statement on Product Rubber & Laboratory Research Animal Testing , May fourteen, 2004, http://www.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_testing/statement.htm.

[17] Johnson & Johnson, Policy on the Humane Care & Use of Laboratory Research Animals , May 14, 2004, http://world wide web.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_testing/policy.htm.

[18] Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc. , 392 F. 3d 1076, 1078 (ninth Cir. 2004) (upholding an employee appearance policy requiring that women wear makeup and men do non).

[nineteen] Unwanted Effects

[20] Christina Passariello, Sales to Men Lifts Dazzler Market , Wall Street Periodical, April 7, 2004, at one.

[21] Molly Prior, Men's Grooming Moves from Metrosexual to Average Joe , Drug Store News, Mar. 1, 2004 at 38 ("Retail sales of men'due south skin care products alone have well-nigh tripled in the last ten years."); Passariello supra notation 20 ("Information technology's a very buoyant market place with very fast growth.").

[22] Unilever, Unilever'southward position on brute testing , http://www.unilever.com/ourvalues/environmentandsociety/bug/animalTesting.asp (last visited May 22, 2005).

[23] Carmen Fleetwood, In Vitro Testing is Coming to Aid, If Non Notwithstanding Succeed, the Guinea Grunter , Wall Street Periodical, Sept. 19, 2004 at i.

[24] Tonya Vinas, P&M Seeks Alternative to Animal Tests , Manufacture Calendar week, July 2004 at 60.

[25] Id.

[26] Katherine A. Stitzel, Tiered Testing Strategies—Acute Local Toxicity , 43 Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal S21 (2002), http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/43_supp/V43suppStitzel.shtml. See also M.G. Robinson et al., Non-animal Testing Strategies for Assessment of the Peel Corrosion and Skin Irritation Potential of Ingredients and Finished Products , 40 Food and Chemic Toxicology 573-592 (2002) (noting that the Draize examination for skin irritation and corrosion is incredibly inaccurate and reliable not-animal replacements exist).

[27] Michael K. Robinson, John P. McFadden, and David A. Basketter. Validity and Ideals of the Man iv-h Patch Examination as an Alternative Method to Assess Acute Peel Irritation Potential , 45 Contact Dermatitis one (2001) (authors include scientists from P&G and Unilever).

[28] Associated Printing Poll, Question ID: USAP.945K Q3B 005, Dialog Poll database, Nov. 14, 1995 (Do you remember the utilise of animals to test cosmetics is e'er correct (ii%), correct nether some circumstances (29%), seldom right (21%), or never right (46%)? Don't know: ii%.)

[29] Parents Magazine, Question ID: USKANE.89PM10 R02B 006, October. 10, 1989 ("Thinking about specific means that humans assert their dominance over animals, please tell me if you think each of the following practices is wrong and should exist prohibited past law (58%), if you personally disapprove but don't feel information technology should exist illegal (23%), or if it is acceptable to you (13%). Not sure (5%)).

[30] Karyn Snyder, Terms of Ensnarement; Apply of Animals in Testing , Drug Topics, Jan. 22, 1996, at 51 (quoting the National Consumers League).

[31] Gallup Poll, Question ID: USGALLUP.03M0005 R37B 004, Dialog Poll database, May 21, 2003 (proposal: "banning all product testing on laboratory animals" 13% strongly back up, 25% somewhat support, 31% somewhat oppose, 30% strongly oppose, 1% no opinion.)

[32] Terms of Ensnarement , supra note 30.

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35] E.grand. , People for the Ethical Handling of Animals, Companies That Do/Don't Examination on Animals , http://world wide web.caringconsumer.com/searchcompany.asp (last visited May 22, 2005); National Anti-Vivisection Society, Personal Care for People Who Care , http://www.navs.org/ido/index.cfm?ido=product_testing_book&championship=Product%20Testing%20Book (last visited May 22, 2005) (this book costs $13.50).

[36] People for the Ethical Handling of Animals, Companies That Do/Don't Test on Animals , http://www.caringconsumer.com/searchcompany.asp (last visited May 22, 2005).

[37] Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, Most Us , http://www.leapingbunny.org/about_us.htm (last visited May 22, 2005).

[38] Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, Industry , http://world wide web.leapingbunny.org/industry.php (final visited May 22, 2005).

[39] Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, Newly Approved Companies , http://www.leapingbunny.org/approved-2004.htm (last visited May 22, 2005).

[40] I conducted this survey in March of 2004 by examining products at a Brooks drug store in Somerville, MA, The Harvest Co-op (a natural foods shop) in Cambridge, MA, and a Whole Foods store, Cambridge, MA. The survey includes mostly cosmetics, a few soaps, but no household cleaners. Although soaps are not regulated under the FDA, but fall under the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), they are included considering consumers generally have no knowledge of the different regulatory status of "cosmetics" versus "soaps" and the labeling issues are precisely the aforementioned. This paper confines discussion to the FDA, but the same analysis could easily be extended to the CPSC.

[41] This is most likely because the parent company tests on animals or other product lines are tested on animals. For example, Proctor and Run a risk appears on PETA'south "practise test" listing, but their Clairol Herbal Essences line is, evidently according to the label, not tested on animals. Maybe this refers to the final production just.

[42] There are probably no instances of companies testing cosmetics on a seal.

[43] Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, Frequently Asked Questions , http://www.leapingbunny.org/faq.htm (last visited May 22, 2005).

[44] Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, welcome page, http://www.leapingbunny.org (last visited May 22, 2005).

[45] Creature Testing Claims Can Misfile , Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), Jan. 17, 1996, at E3 (referring to a survey past the National Consumers League).

[46] Terms of Ensnarement , supra note 30.

[47] Terms of Ensnarement , supra note 30.

[48] Id.

[49] CNN, Eu to ban fauna-tested cosmetics, Jan. 15, 2003, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/Earth/europe/01/15/eu.testing.

[50] Council Directive of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (76/768/EEC), Commodity 4a, http://pharmacos.eudra.org/F3/cosmetic/Consolidated_dir.htm

[51] West. Richard Ulmer, Invitro's Aspirin Approval , Global Corrective Industry, April 2005, at 23 (calling on businesses to "speak with your regulatory agency as soon every bit you lot tin").

[52] 21 UsaC.A. § 362(a) (2005).

[53] 21 UsC.A. § 331 (2005).

[54] 21 UsaC.A. § 334 (2005) (seizure and detainment); 21 United statesC.A. § 332 (2005) (injunctions).

[55] 21 UsaC.A. § 333 (2005).

[56] National Women'southward Health Network, Inc. v. A. H. Robins Co., 545 F. Supp. 1177, 1179 (D. Mass 1982) (denying remedial equitable relief in Dalkon Shield instance and noting actions for amercement or injunctions are also disallowed).

[57] 15 UsC.A. § 1453 (2005).

[58] Although the declared policy of the law was to ensure that packaging facilitates "value comparisons," fifteen U.s.a.C.A. 1451 (2005), and claims about creature testing exercise affect the perceived value of the product for many.

[59] Federal Sec. Adm'r v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U.S. 218, 230-31 (1943) (noting the FDCA mandated the creation of food identity standards because labeling requirements were insufficient to protect consumers from economical adulteration); Usa five. Two Bags, Poppy Seeds , 147 F.second 123, 127 (vi Cir. 1945) (noting the FDCA was "not designed primarily for the protection of merchants and traders; merely was intended to protect the consuming public").

[lx] U.s. v. An Commodity. . . Consisting of 216 Individually Cartoned Bottles, More or Less, of an Article Labeled In Function: Sudden Change , 409 F.2d 734, 740 n.half-dozen (2nd Cir. 1969) (noting that the legislative history of the FDCA indicates concern almost defrauding consumers).

[61] Sudden Change , 409 F.2d at 740 (holding that "face up lift" claims made a corrective production a drug because consumers would expect it to alter the construction of their bodies); The states v. Strauss, 999 F.2d 692, 696-97 (2d Cir. 1993) (applying the same standard to misbranded dog food).

[62] United States v. An Commodity of Drug Consisting of 47 Bottles, More of Less, Each Containing 30 Capsules of an Article Labeled in Part Jenasol RJ Formula "sixty" , 320 F. 2d 564, 572 (tertiary Cir. 1963) (basing this on the fact that purchasers are "pathetically eager to find some simple catholicon for the diseases with which they are afflicted").

[63] E.1000. , Companies That Practice/Don't Test supra notation 36; National Anti-Vivisection Society, Personal Intendance for People Who Intendance , http://world wide web.navs.org/ido/index.cfm?ido=product_testing_book&title=Production%20Testing%20Book (terminal visited May 22, 2005) (this volume costs $13.50).

[64] Companies That Do/Don't Test supra note 36.

[65] Targeting Teens , Chain Drug Review, February. 26, 1996 at S3 (noting that teenage girls spent $5.8 billion on cosmetics in 1994); Animal Testing Claims , supra note 45 (noting younger women "are twice equally likely as older women to buy a health and beauty assist with a non-tested-on animals claim on its characterization").

[66] Supra note 30 and accompanying text.

[67] 21 U.S.C.A. § 321(n) (2005) (emphasis added).

[68] Bryan A. Liang and Kurt M. Hartman, It's Only Skin Deep: FDA Regulation of Peel Intendance Cosmetics Claims , 8 Cornell J. Fifty. & Pub. Pol'y 249, 276 (1999).

[69] 21 UsaC.A. § 371 (2005) (granting the FDA rulemaking potency).

[70] Supra note 37 and accompanying text.

[71] Almay v. Califano , 569 F. 2d 674, 675, 683 (DC Cir. 1977).

[72] Thomas C. Morrison, The Regulation of Cosmetic Advert nether the Lanham Act , 44 Food Drug Cosm. 50.J. 49, 49 (1989).

[73] Id. at 51.

[74] Proctor & Chance, Our Commitment Our Approach: Procter & Chance'southward Practices, Policy and Progress On Research Involving Animals , at 3, http://www.pg.com/science/Brochure%20on%20Research%20with%20Animals.pdf (terminal visited May 22, 2005).

[75] But come across Larry T. Garvin, Constitutional Limits on the Regulation of Laboratory Animal Enquiry , 98 Yale 50.J. 369 (1988).

Source: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852129/lewis05.html?sequence=2

Posted by: mcgaugheytrachattee.blogspot.com

Share this post