Animal testing has been a thing for a while but it needs to stop now. These animals are being hurt and die most times from what we do to them. For example, bunny’s get out in a clear plastic box and often times kill themselves trying to get out of it. 
sign this petition to stop animal testing.You’re bound to agree that testing cosmetics safely and humanely makes so much more sense than forcing animals to suffer.And there are many other ways to test cosmetics which don’t involve animals. These alternatives use simple organisms like bacteria, tissues and cells from humans, computer models or chemical methods. These scientifically advanced tests are often quicker, cheaper and more reliable than the cruel and unnecessary animal tests they replace. Half a million animals are used to test cosmetics around the world each year – that’s more than 1,369 today alone.The EU animal testing ban doesn’t guarantee that the cosmetics are cruelty-free.
 Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in India, the European Union (EU), Israel, Norway and New Zealand. As of 2013 it’s illegal in the EU to sell new cosmetic products or their ingredients that have been tested on animals. The ban also applies to imports from countries outside the EU. However, the monitoring of the law is problematic as no authority actually checks that the cosmetics entering EU territory have not been tested on animals. Also, many cosmetic products contain pharmaceutical ingredients that have been tested on animals, and these cosmetics can be marketed and sold in the EU. Household cleaning products are still tested on animals in the EU. The best way to know whether a product has been tested on animals or not is to check out the databases of cruelty-free products and companies at the end of this page.
 
Non-Chinese cosmetics are tested on animals in China
 
All non-Chinese cosmetics are subject to mandatory animal testing before they can be marketed in China. Cosmetics companies that are ”cruelty-free” on Western markets have to change their policy when entering the Chinese markets. Companies like these, such as Avon, Estée Lauder and Revlon, have consequently been removed from PETA's list of cruelty-free companies.
 
Animal testing for cosmetics is unethical and unnecessary
 
Animal testing for cosmetics is still allowed in 80% of the countries in the world. To subject animals to extremely painful tests for cosmetics is not just unethical, but it’s also unnecessary. There are thousands of ingredients for cosmetics that are already known to be safe and that can be used when developing new cosmetics. There are also dozens of non-animal tests that are valuable, quicker and more accurate at predicting human reactions to a product than animal tests can ever be.
 
Animals are poisoned, burned and blinded for cosmetics tests
 
During the Draize eye-test, rabbits are immobilized in full-body restraints while a substance is dripped into their eyes. Rabbits often scream in pain and many break their necks trying to get free. The rabbits have sensitive eyes with only little tear fluid, so the test substances stay in their eyes for long. The substances can cause burning pain, inflammation, or even corrosion. The test results are monitored up to seven days. In skin-irritation tests conducted on guinea pigs the substance is rubbed onto the animals’ shaved and sometimes scratched skin or, alternatively, the substance is injected. The lab animals are kept in small, barren cages where they cannot fulfil any of their behavioural and social needs.

References
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, ““Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year,” 27 September 2018.
2Madhusree Mukerjee, “Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory,” Scientific American, Aug. 2004.
3Canadian Council on Animal Care, “CCAC 2018 Animal Data Report,” 2019.
4 U.K. Government, “Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2018,” Home Office, 18 July 2019.
5Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon, “Most Americans Accept Genetic Engineering of Animals That Benefits Human Health, but Many Oppose Other Uses,” Pew Research Center, 16 Aug. 2018
6Peter Aldhous and Andy Coghlan, “Let the People Speak,” New Scientist 22 May 1999.
7Daniel G. Hackam, M.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., “Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 1731-2.
8Marlene Simmons et al., “Cancer-Cure Story Raises New Questions,” Los Angeles Times 6 May 1998.
9Rich McManus, “Ex-Director Zerhouni Surveys Value of NIH Research,” NIH Record 21 June 2013.
10Jarrod Bailey, “An Assessment of the Role of Chimpanzees in AIDS Vaccine Research,” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36 (2008): 381-428.
11Steve Connor and Chris Green, “Is It Time to Give Up the Search for an AIDS Vaccine?” The Independent 24 Apr. 2008.
12National Institutes of Health, “About New Therapeutic Uses,” National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences 9 Oct. 2019.
13Steve Woloshin, M.D., M.S., et al., “Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?” Annals of Internal Medicine 150 (2009): 613-8.
14Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, “Media Reporting on Research Presented at Scientific Meetings: More Caution Needed,” The Medical Journal of Australia 184 (2006): 576-80.
15Diana E. Pankevich et al., “International Animal Research Regulations: Impact on Neuroscience Research,” The National Academies (2012).
16Congressional Research Service, “National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1994-FY2020,” CRS Report, 22 Jan. 2020.
17Pankevich et al.
18Deborah Ziff, “On Campus: PETA Sues UW Over Access to Research Records,” Wisconsin State Journal5 Apr. 2010.
19U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal,” Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4.
20Justin Goodman et al., “Trends in Animal Use at US Research Facilities,” Journal of Medical Ethics 0(2015): 1-3.
21The Associated Press, “Animal Welfare Act May Not Protect All Critters,” 7 May 2002.
22U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animal Care: Search.”
23U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, “APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities,” audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
24U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “USDA Employee Survey on the Effectiveness of IACUC Regulations,” Apr. 2000.
25U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, “APHIS Animal Care Program, Inspection and Enforcement Activities,” audit report, 30 Sept. 2005.
26U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Oversight of Research Facilities,” audit report, Dec. 2014.
27Lawrence A. Hansen et al., “Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions,” Animals 2 (2012): 68-75.
28Pandora Pound and Michael Bracken, “Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based To Be A Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?,” BMJ (2014): 348.
29Junhee Seok et al., “Genomic Responses in Mouse Models Poorly Mimic Human Inflammatory Diseases,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (2013): 3507-12.

 Here are a few companies that still test in animals today.

Calvin Klein 

CeraVe

Chanel

Dior 

Lor’eal

MAC

Michel Kors

Here are a couple of links of companies that do/don’t use animal testing, https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/companies-that-test-on-animals/​ , https://logicalharmony.net/cruelty-free-brands-at-ulta/