Every year, hundreds of thousands of animals are sacrificed in the name of vanity, as chemicals are dripped into their eyes, shoved down their throats and injected into their skin. Although illegal in 28 countries including the European Union, Israel and India, cosmetic testing on animals remains a fact of life in the United States. The Humane Society International estimates between 100,000 to 200,000 animals endure brutal tortures only to be slaughtered by neck-breaking, decapitation or asphyxiation once they are no longer of use to cosmetic companies.

Animal testing has a long history, yet the practices are no longer practical, cost-effective or technologically necessary. Although the act of testing medicines and cosmetics date back to 500 B.C., new biological advancements have allowed scientists to perfect the testing process without endangering innocent animals.

In recent years, scientists have begun to understand the limitations posed by animal testing. Animal testing has been found ineffective for providing an accurate idea of how human cells will react to foreign bodies, making animal testing not only cruel but unsuccessful. “The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem," stated former U.S. National Institutes of Health director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. "We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” Fortunately, recent findings have enabled scientists to do just that. Innovations such as in vitro, in silica and simulator testing outperform animal testing, offering safer and more accurate results at a significantly lower price.

These developments allow scientists to gain an in-depth look at how human cells respond to cosmetics. As in vitro and in silica testing utilize lab-generated human cells and computer software, respectively, scientists can glean a thorough understanding of how cosmetics and medicines will affect users, without exposing innocent animals to a lifetime of cruelty. Findings from Dr. Bjӧrn Ekwall at the Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden, determined that traditional animal testing is only effective 61 to 65 percent of the time while in vitro measures were accurate 85 percent of the time, while providing researchers with a complete understanding of how cosmetics can affect specific cells, and organs in humans. Moreover, these options are typically far less expensive than animal testing, which includes the costs associated with housing, feeding, caring for and eventually euthanizing animals and disposing of their bodies.

It is time for us, as consumers, to take a stand against this outdated, barbaric practice. Through their spending habits, each consumer is able to affect change. Consumer spending means the success and failure of businesses. If customers dig deeper into their makeup suppliers and opt to spend their money with companies that use ethically sound practices, we can put an end to the cruelty, so the only thing you have to worry about when you pull out your mascara is making sure your eyelashes don't clump.