Animal Testing In The United States

Animal testing is always a behind closed doors situation. Most people are aware that it is happening yet never give it a second thought. An estimate of more then 115 million animals all around the world, including the most common mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys, are used in experiments every single year (“11 Facts About Animal Testing”, n.d.). And according to change.org the “USA spends $16 billion dollars annually for animal testing at tax payers' expense.” (“Sign the Petition”, n.d.)

Approximately 26 million animals are used every year in the United States alone for research and commercial testing (“Background of the Issue” 1). For years, legislators have debated the pros and cons of animal testing, and laws were passed to attempt to fix the inhumane treatment of the cute, innocent testing subjects, the animals. Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was revised numerous times, “the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories” and are the animals that are specifically exempted from protection under the act (“Experiments on Animals” 2). A simple fix to animal cruelty during testing is to use alternative methods since human and animal bodies already vary greatly. For years, animal testing was the best option because there was no alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system; however, in the age of technology, there is no reason for millions of animals to be killed due to the severity of the testing. Therefore, animal testing should be banned because alternative methods provide more accurate results since human bodies are very different than animal bodies; furthermore, animal advocacy organizations should promote cruelty-free products more so customers know what to purchase and use.

Ever since the beginning of human history, to the reign of the Mongols, and even to the colonization of the Americas, disease has played a role in shaping society. Its negative impacts has depopulated many cities, countries, and empires. In the distant past, it was quite difficult to avoid contagious diseases. However, in today’s society, steps have been taken to discover new effective modes of treatment through animal testing. Such testing; however, has proved to be quite a controversial issue due to ethics and its utilization of animals. Despite any objections, the use of genetically bred animals is imperative for the purpose of discovering new medications to treat various terminal diseases.

Although many people agree with testing products on animals, they ask ‘Who else are we going to test our products on?’ Nobody! Don’t add harsh chemicals in the products and then the animals and humans are both healthier. Beyond millions of animals that die and are captured every year just from animal testing alone. Treating an animal cruelty is never okay, especially when they’re torturing the animals with harsh chemicals due to testing. If people would stand up and try to protect animals we’d be saving certain animals from becoming extinct and we’d also save a ton of money.

Animals are now used as objects of experiments to test a variety of products; like shampoo, makeup, and medicines. Animals are almost always used in cancer research but animals never get the human form of cancer which affects the lungs. Animals are not required in animal testing, but people seem to ignore this statement and test on animals anyway. Testing cosmetics on animals is somewhat pointless because animals have different skin and hair than humans have. Animals are not even required in animal testing at all; a makeup company can release an untested product at their own risks. If any product says “cruelty free” on it, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the products inside the product were not tested on. Animals are used to test so many products now-a-days, animals are used to test so many useless

There are multiple regulations that cover the ethics of animal testing. The federal agencies that can regulate biomedical research are the Public Health Service (PHS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), they implement federal regulations through the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The PHS base their policy animal subject use on The Health Research Extension Act of 1985. The policy covers living vertebrate animals for PHS supported research, training, or biological testing. (Main agencies included in PHS are the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) contains several others as well). The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)

Everyday cosmetic products that many people use, such as lipsticks, shampoo, face wash, etcetera, are verified to be safe using animal testing. Chemical burns and other short term ailments are very serious concerns that plague Americans and the knowledge that the products they use will not harm them and their families is possible because of animal testing. Also long term effects, such as cancer, have been discovered through animal product testing and promptly stopped saving countless lives. “NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS YOU’RE THE GUINEA PIG” (Source C). Living day to day with the risk that the products trusted to use on your children and yourself is enough to validate

The issue, which is also a prominent controversial issue in the country, is animal testing.

Animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act, the only federal law passed that regulates animal testing, make-up 10 percent of the animals tested, (About the Issue). At first, these animals - mice, rats, and birds - were considered being protected, but a 2002 Amendment declared they do not count as warm-blooded animals, resulting in 90 percent of tested animals not protected under the Animal Welfare Act (About the Issue). This Amendment did, however, require a record of a number of animals being tested on, but it is not regulated so those reports do not get submitted. Committees that document animal misconduct are unable to intervene in the experiment if they believe mistreatment is present in the experiment, but instead have to submit a report that takes more time to reach the powers able to stop the experiment than the amount of time it takes to perform the experiment. The discard towards this issue has left enforcers powerless as well as participating in the experimentations that occur. Animal experiments are usually used for determining how a product will affect a human being, but experiments also can be rewarded with research grant awards that will fund other future experiments. In order to lessen the number of experiments animals need to be part of, most experiments can be replaced with non-animal alternatives. The transition from animals to alternative testing strategies, however, is a risky process: testing animals and determining the effect the tests have on humans is already a guess, but using other methods that are not as popular and scientists are not as familiar with creates a potential threat to the experiments being conducted. Because of this threat and without the experiments being regulated, the use of animals in testing in federally-funded labs

18% would feel safe if an animal is said to be safe on a product.

I had the privilege of interviewing Tracy Ziegelhofer, who for fifteen years has been a manager for Envigo, an international private company that works to advance pharmaceutical development, modern therapies, and test the toxicity and safety of substances through animal testing. She reassured me that the stereotype animal testing has been given could not be more false. Animals who are used for testing are specifically bred for this purpose; they are not taken out of their natural habitats (APSPhysiology). Additionally, of the 26 million animals tested each year (ProCon Team), mice and rats account for more than ninety percent, where large animals such as pigs, dogs, and primates make up the remainder (Ziegelhofer). After successfully testing cardiovascular devices for humans on a beagle, Ms. Ziegelhofer adopted the dog, informing me that many animals are “retired” after testing and are put up for adoption. Animals who exhibit pain are humanely euthanized following an experiment (Woods). She also described the quality of life for laboratory animals. “All the animals are very socialized,” she said, “They have plenty of toys to enjoy playing with, and of course they have beds for relaxing, and they always have food available to them,” she continued (Ziegelhofer). Regarding what laboratories can and cannot do, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have

The law excludes other animals such as rats, mice, and birds bred for research—who together constitute an estimated 90-95% of animals in laboratories ( Animals in the Use of Research). In 2013, Europe progressed farther than the U.S, by completely banning animal testing on products (Cosmetics and Animal Testing). This exhibits that U.S is behind the times and needs to make new legislation for animal testing. Due to the lack of conversation about animal testing in the presidential race, there seems to be no future legislation to prevent cruelty towards these animals. Since the government will not help the animals. It is up to the people of America to protest businesses who use animal experimentation. Until, the companies use alternative ways such as vitro testing, human tissue toxicity experimentation, and micro-chip testing ,the world will not be a humane place to live.

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.

A lot of product labels are not what they seem, and the same can be said of labels that read “cruelty-free”. The term is not defined by a government agency, nor is there a particular set of standards that accompanies its usage, and as such, each company that adopts the label is free to define for themselves what “cruelty-free” signifies. It is easy to see how one can construe that these ambiguities can make these labels meaningless. Cruelty-free can pertain to both the finished product, along with any individual ingredients. Leaping Bunny and People

     Imagine you are walking down the cosmetics isle at your grocery store. While picking up some deodorant or toothpaste, have you ever stopped to think if your favorite product has been tested on animals? You probably haven’t, but the chances are very high that it has been. Two of the main reasons why companies continue to use animals to test their products are to determine possible dangers to human health and to avoid product liability