The Ultimate Dilema There are several safety precautions that we as humans take to ensure our safety. Humans most commonly test things before selling or using them. This can avoid liability and make sure products are safe. Cosmetics are among the many types of products that are being tested such as fragrances, toiletries, and cosmetics that are tested on millions of animals each year. This has created several controversies between animal rights activists and cosmetic manufacturers. Especially in the European Union Council of Ministers where they want to ban animal testing as soon as they can develop enough alternatives (Milmo, 6). This is because several animals are used in experimentations to test if products are safe for us to use. Tests like the Draize Irritancy and Skin Tests, where products are put in the eyes of rabbits to test irritations, and the LD50, where several animals are exposed to a chemical are considered ways of torture. But luckily several corporations are discovering new and reliable ways to replace animals with science and technology to help reduce the amount of animals used. So because testing on animals are absolutely necessary for our safety, as consumers, we do not have the right to use animals in this type of manner, but we should reduce the amount of tests by replacing many with alternatives. Although this seems wrong, it is the ultimate necessity for human safety in cosmetic use. Animals have been used in cosmetic safety testing primarily because they share similarities to humans. They are quick and easy to use because they live short lives and are easily accessible. Most animals are raised only for testing, and experimentation is really all that they know. So they really are not taken out of their natural habitat for testing. Testing has been so important to corporations because they are trying to avoid being branded as unsafe. Testing also has been so important that they help avoid liability lawsuits and bad publicity from unsafe products (Hunter, 30). It all started in 1933 when a woman wanted to thicken her eyelashes. But after applying the dye to her lashes and accidentally to her eyes, she suffered for about three months. This woman, that the Federal Drug Administration calls “Mrs. Brown”, eventually went blind. Congress then passe... ... middle of paper ... ...re are so many alternatives available now there really should not be a reason why a corporation would not reduce the amount of animals used. The newer techniques offer chances to obtain data faster, less expensively, and more humanely (Hunter, 26). Works Cited Anthes, Gary H. “P&G Uses Data Mining to Cut Animal Testing.” Computer World 33 (1999): 44-45. Finsen, Lawrence, Susan Finsen. The Animal Movement in America: From Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne, 1994. Fox, Michael Allen. The Case For Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. London: University of California Press Ltd., 1986. Hunter, Beatrice Trum. “New Alternatives in Safety Testing.” Consumer Research Magazine 83 (2002): 26- 30. McCoy, J.J. Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1993. Milmo, Sean. “Ultimate Showdown Looms For Animal Tested Cosmetics.” Chemical Market Reporter 261 (2001): 6, 28. Planet for the Taking Series: Ultimate Slavery: Dir. Nancy Archibald. Film Incorporated. .
"Animal Testing 101." PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 22 Mar.
Approximately two to four million animals have been used in safety tests. Safety tests are conducted with a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, and packing materials. This raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, thus harming them, for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product.
Thirdly, animal testing is unnecessary and unreliable because animal organisms are not the same as human ones. Hence, if a certain cosmetic product is determined to be safe after an animal test is done it does not necessarily mean that it is safe for human use. Therefore, we cannot rely on animal testing and we cannot be always sure that a certain product is safe for human use. So, there are lots of animal lives wasted, but many human lives could also be lost if some drug or product cause harm or even death. This is a strong reason why animal testing should be banned in order to save animals and people
Animal testing has long played a part in the science of testing, and it still plays a very important role in the medical world. Testing on animals in order to create a cure for AIDS is one thing, but testing on animals for human vanity is another. Animal testing is used to test the safety of a product. It has kept some very unsafe substances out of the cosmetic world. However, in this day in age, animal testing is not the only way to test the safety of a product. Animal testing in cosmetics has decreased over the years. However, it is still used by many companies in America. Animal testing is not only cruel, but it is also unnecessary in today’s advanced scientific world.
Sadly according to the Humane Society International (HSI) article About Animal Testing “in the United states alone around 26 million animals are tested each year for medical and commercial research” (HSI) even though animal testing is not required to ensure that the cosmetic being sold are safe. From those 26 million animals being tested most are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act. The animal welfare act does not include birds, rats and mice bred for research, and it doesn’t include cold-blooded animals. Animals testing should be banned because the animals tested suffer immensely, also animal tested is unethical, and because there are many alternatives.
animal testing. Through the testing researchers are able to find out problems in humans and even in other animals.
and Europe, which include reduction of animal use, refine animal study techniques, and animal testing replacement. According to Dana ,Bidnall, “Animals are also used, and subsequently killed, every year in many other types of laboratory experiments, from military testing to simulated car crashes to deliberately introduced diseases such as AIDS and Alzheimer 's”(49). Bidnal also states that, “These experiments take place in labs at universities, pharmaceutical companies, and testing agencies, and on farms and military bases around the world”(49). The author suggest,”Researchers who conduct experiments on animals argue that it would be unethical to test substances with potentially adverse side effects on humans; animals are good surrogates because their responses are similar to humans”(49).Bidnal contends with ,”However, some animals are chosen for other reasons”(49). According to Bindal, “Animal testing is not the only option in toxicity testing”(50). Bidnal states, “Alternatives are widely available and include human clinical and epidemiological studies; experiments with cadavers, volunteers,and patients; computer simulation and mathematical models; and in vitro (test tube) tissue culture techniques, to name just a
Point of view: Web. 14 February 2016. The article provides specific examples of illnesses and diseases which have been cured by animal testing that both humans and animals have benefitted from. This supports my topic of animal experiments being used for medical advancements. Pointing out that law often requires that products be tested before being sold to the public, George and Wagner additionally help prove my claim that product testing is a purpose of animal experimentation.
The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Sun, Shany. A. The Truth Behind Animal Testing. Young Scientists Journal 5.12 (2012): 835.
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
Testing animals is wrong and they are just poor helpless animals and they die every day. They are testing animals with products such as soap, household cleaners, drugs, cosmetics, pesticides and other chemicals. Drug tests that are done on animals that pass the test end up harming or killing humans. Lists of animals that get tested daily are cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and rabbits. The researchers tested these animals with cleaners to see how it would affect them....
Each year, thousands of animals are brutally tortured in laboratories, in the name of cosmetic research. A movement to ban animal testing for cosmetic purposes has been gaining popularity, with many companies hopping on the bandwagon against this research. New alternatives have been developed to eliminate the necessity to test on animals. This is only a small beginning of what is necessary to end these immoral acts. Animal testing in cosmetics is useless and cruel, and can be accomplished by other methods of research to end the suffering of animals.
Simple household items such as lotions, shampoos and cosmetics aren’t very expensive and are within reach for the public, yet the public is not knowledgeable of the fact that the products that they use everyday are put through a series of tests which involve the use of harmless animals. Several large commercial companies do not make products for animals; they decide that using these harmless creatures for the testing of their products, could be cause to be harmful to animals still go forward with these types of procedures on an everyday basis. Although these animals are unable to defend themselves or signs of any form of consent for the near death procedures, these companies find this as a cheap solution for testing their products before placing them on the market. There are many other alternatives to testing animals such as embryonic stem cell research. Animal experimentation is wrong and it can be avoided but companies which are greedy for money chose not to.
Cosmetic animal testing has been a controversial topic for decades but has recently gained more attention from the media due to oppositional organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Those in favor of animal experimentation make the argument that they are taking animals’ lives to save humans’, but is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Animal experimentation needs to be abolished because it is unethical and selfish to destroy an animal 's life.
It still comes as a surprise to me that with all the technology in today’s society, we are still relying on animals for cosmetic research. Some people think that it is acceptable and even justified to test on mere animals rather than risk hurting people. So, for these kinds of people, animal testing makes perfect sense. However, in my opinion, animals are living creatures and have the right to live out their lives as nature intended rather than simply surviving in cages while being poked and prodded with whatever scientists fancy. I think it is depressing and sort of grotesque that I am using products that have been tested on animals that are even commonly bred as our pets. So, I began my research to find out what companies still test on animals, why they do so, and what other alternatives they could use in place of animal testing.