Balenciaga, L’Oréal, Clorox, and Neuralink are typically not brands mentioned close to one another, yet they share a common thread: they all incorporate animal testing during product development. The practice has increasingly come under scrutiny, with many concerned about its ethics, despite others considering it necessary to ensure product safety.
Through the case studies of the US company Neuralink and the cosmetics industry in China, it is evident that both countries lag behind the European Union in animal welfare laws, regardless of their varying political structures and levels of democratization. Furthermore, the inconsistent application of animal treatment regulations demonstrated in both cases points to a consequence of animal law’s status as a comparatively underdeveloped field. Addressing legislative gaps, increasing transparency, and exploring technological alternatives to animal testing can address and reduce international and domestic discrepancies in animal welfare treatment.
Existing Animal Welfare Legislation
Animal welfare is currently not protected by global treaties. That said, animal welfare experts and organizations have internationally proposed a few texts, such as the International Convention for the Protection of Animals and the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights, which was introduced by experts in 2019. Namely, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the World Animal Protection have recently led the effort to introduce the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare to the United Nations. While the mere presence of a global agreement does not guarantee widespread change, such recognition creates a precedent for future progress in the area.
The European Union and Council of Europe, however, employ several treaties to protect animal welfare in areas ranging from slaughterhouse conditions to pet protection to the use of animals for experimental purposes. Furthermore, the European Union banned animal testing for finished cosmetic products in 2004 and ingredients in 2009. In 2013, they expanded this policy, prohibiting cosmetics tested on animals, both as finished products and ingredients, from sale in the European Union, even if produced elsewhere. That said, the bans are not all-encompassing, and where alternative testing methods are not available, animal testing may still be required under the REACH Regulation.
In contrast, animal welfare legislation is sparse in the United States. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), enacted in 1966, remains the only US federal law regulating animal treatment in areas such as testing and research. Federal laws do exist in similar areas, such as the Horse Protection Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, as well as varying levels of animal protection laws at the state level which are irregularly enforced.
Neuralink and Animal Testing
This limited legal framework for animal welfare in the United States can foment situations where the line between animal testing and unnecessary animal cruelty blurs further. One such case is Neuralink. The company aims to create a brain-computer interface to treat neurological conditions and has already implanted the device in three people. Employees complained that animal testing was being carried out too quickly due to pressure from CEO Elon Musk to develop the product faster. A few employees even claimed he had told them to “imagine they had a bomb strapped to their heads” to prompt more efficiency. They alleged this pressure caused unnecessary animal deaths, with an estimated 1500 animals killed between 2018 and 2022. In addition to the expected animal deaths during trials, mistakes like inserting incorrectly sized implants in pigs, placing devices on the wrong vertebra, and using improper surgical glue caused further mortalities.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ultimately criticized Neuralink for “objectionable conditions or practices” after scrutiny of the company’s treatment of animals it tested on. However, the FDA stopped short of taking regulatory action. Neuralink, for its part, emphasizes that “these accusations come from people who oppose any use of animals in research” and reiterates the company’s commitment to treating animals in “the most humane and ethical way possible.”
The hearsay nature of some of the allegations, as well as the lukewarm FDA response, demonstrates the need for greater oversight and transparency in animal testing procedures. Beyond just changing those procedures, though, transparency and associated public scrutiny could decrease any one individual’s influence on the product development process. This oversight would reduce the susceptibility of a more closed environment to violations—not just in animal welfare, but in workplace treatment and beyond.
Animal Testing in the Cosmetics Industry in China
The usage of animal testing in avant-garde companies like Neuralink may make the practice seem more uncommon and detached from the average consumer than it truly is. However, the cosmetic industry demonstrates how deeply ingrained the practice remains, especially considering how frequently the vast majority of people purchase such products. China, for one, has been known for stringent animal testing requirements in its cosmetic products.
In 2021, though, new regulations made animal testing no longer mandatory when importing cosmetics into China. These rules enabled cosmetics brands that do not conduct animal testing, often called cruelty-free brands, to sell their products in China. These regulations only apply to “regular cosmetics,” including general skincare and haircare. “Special cosmetics”—for example, skin-whitening products, sunscreen, products for children, and hair dye—are not covered under the new regulations and thus still require animal testing.
Compared to the more progressive European Union, the relative lack of progress in animal testing restrictions in the United States and China demonstrates that a higher level of democracy does not necessarily correspond to progressiveness in animal welfare laws. Namely, the uneven enforcement of state-level animal welfare laws in the United States and their sparse federal framework hinder potential policy impacts. Likewise, the extended exceptions of “special cosmetics” to animal testing regulations in China reduce their breadth and therefore efficacy, allowing more progress to exist on paper than in reality. In both cases, increased transparency and oversight seem necessary to enforce and scrutinize the existing laws, though such ideas may be less likely to take hold in China.
Technological Approaches
Considering the laggard pace of legal reform, companies should invest in technology to efficiently address the controversy at the root and render animal testing less necessary. The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) development, for instance, offers one way to mitigate the issue. In neurological research, improving AI models could reduce reliance on animal test subjects as well as potentially decrease the need for products like Neuralink. For example, using animal test subjects has not been a sufficiently successful strategy to study neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s, raising the possibility of AI exceeding what animal testing can achieve. The use of AI itself, however, raises ethical questions. Using AI in neurology research could prompt bias concerns and produce results that are difficult to explain or understand, potentially limiting its usefulness in this area. The current prevalence of AI hallucinations especially poses a roadblock to more extensive use in these areas.
Technology also offers a way to mitigate animal testing in cosmetics, albeit differently. For example, human and animal cell cultures can be grown and tested in the laboratory. Moreover, researchers can incorporate human cells into “organs on chips,” devices that mimic specific human body organs by combining human cells with chips. The devices can then aid in studying processes otherwise researched by animal testing.
Addressing the Issue
Beyond technological advancement, requiring transparency and heightening dialogue are suggested ways to address disparities in animal welfare approaches and legislation in the shorter term. On a consumer level, increased transparency across industries regarding animal testing practices is a natural place to begin, especially considering the uneven global animal welfare protections. This transparency could include allowing independent auditors to report on organizational practices and providing consumers with sufficient information to make educated purchasing decisions.
More internationally, increased dialogue among countries regarding animal welfare regulations and restrictions may benefit the global economy in the long run. If regions’ and countries’ regulations on animal welfare continue to drift farther apart, trade may become more complicated. Adopting more common practices about which countries allow animal testing and the sales of given products may eliminate barriers in an age of such intense globalization.
Furthermore, the relevance of addressing uneven animal welfare legislation is especially clear in the modern technological climate. Amidst fears of eventual domination by superintelligent AI, evaluating the ethics and associated legislation of how humans, in turn, dominate others is especially pertinent. The contention around animal testing does not make it easy to solve, but it also does not make it impossible to address.
