Animal testing and debates about cruelty-free cosmetics products are not new. Some people pay no mind to purchasing cosmetics products tested on animals, while others believe buying products tested on animals is unethical. Depending on the circumstances, purchasing products that are not cruelty-free can be considered ethical.
Laney Minko believes that animal testing is unethical. Although she wasn’t entirely aware of the animal testing process in cosmetics until a few years ago when she saw a video of a woman who adopted a beagle out of animal testing, Minko finds it incredibly unethical. She says, “I’m a big animal person, and the thought of animal testing disgusts me. They are just helpless little creatures and can’t do anything about it, but we as humans can.” The Humane Society supports the idea that humans should do whatever is possible to protect animals. This organization is working to protect animals by educating consumers on animal testing and gaining support for federal legislation to end cosmetics testing on animals. The Human Society also states that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary, given that there are thousands of ingredients that have already been proven to be safe for humans and can be used to make cruelty-free products. However, not all companies that use these ingredients continue to test on animals.
Terri Kolodziejski found herself in a unique and potentially ethically challenging situation when she was diagnosed with allergies to 16 different ingredients commonly used in cosmetics. Kolodziejski explained that before this diagnosis, “I would always purchase cruelty-free products.” Now, she finds herself unable to always do so. For example, because of her allergies, Kolodziejski can only purchase a single shampoo, and there are some products for which she cannot find allergen-free versions. When she can find a product she can use, she purchases and uses it, regardless of its cruelty-free status. This may seem to be an ethical dilemma for Kolodziejski, but she explained that “Because I don’t have a choice, it becomes ethical.” She knows that although she does not support animal testing, her priority must be her own health. She can’t sacrifice her health for her ethics, although she does not find her ethics violated. Ethical guidelines seem to agree with her stance, generally explaining that animal testing and the harm to animals is justified as long as there is the potential for significant benefits to humans. In Kolodzieski’s case, animal testing brings the benefit of having certain cosmetics products that are safe to use.
Although the general consensus is that animal testing in cosmetics is unethical, there seems to be one scenario where that falls by the wayside: when there are no alternatives and the benefit to an individual outweighs the harm to an animal. Purchasing cosmetic products that are not cruelty-free is ethical solely when there is no other option: in a circumstance where you cannot buy a cruelty-free alternative. In these situations, purchasing cosmetics products tested on animals is ethical.
Sources:
https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-animal-testing-faq
