Back in June, Congress updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TCSA) to include a provision, backed by the Humane Society (HSUS) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, to reduce the use of animals to test the effects and safety of certain chemical products. According to the Washington Post, the EPA and certain chemical manufacturing companies are directed to use non-animal alternatives when possible and must come up with a plan to develop and adopt more non-animal methods, such as computer modeling or cell-based tests.
Fortunately, the restrictions aren’t an outright ban and states will be pre-empted in many ways from regulating the chemicals covered by the law in many ways. But the new requirements on animal testing will make it harder for firms involved in the manufacture and usage of chemical agents to manufacture cosmetics. True there are non-animal alternatives to animal tests but they may not be as effective or are extremely expensive. The changes to the TCSA are a sneaky way to enact a defacto ban on using animals for testing cosmetics. This resulting from the enhanced powers the EPA has been given due to the law’s changes as well.
Humane Society of the US Executive Director Wayne Pacelle lauded the TCSA changes. He was quoted by WaPo pitching his rationalization by claiming:
It’s a combination of growing moral concern for animals and a recognition that there’s a social cost to using animals, but also of these new scientific methods that are giving us options we never really had before.
Cruelty against animals should neither be condoned or encouraged. But they are a resource that should be used if it helps people improve their lives be it for medicine or cosmetics. The new mandates are not about saving the lives of animals. Rather they are about denying or restricting the ability of men and women to enhance theit looks resulting from chemical research where animals are used.
This is an attack on our self esteem due to groups, like HSUS’, hatred of human life. If it is difficult to test chemicals used in the manufacture of makeup, perfumes or even lipstick on animals, the result is cosmetics become harder to afford and diminished quality. Restrictions or outright bans on animal testing for cosmetics are about making it harder for people to enhance their looks which helps improve their lives and is ultimately an attack on the human ego grounded in the sacrifice of human life to nature.