Animal Testing Should Not Be Banned

For many years, the field of science has used animals in medical experiments worldwide, because of this innocent animals are being killed everyday. They are being tested with new drugs, new treatments, and by many makeup companies. Connecticut recently celebrated the passage of the “Beagle Freedom Law”, a law that requires laboratories to work with charities and rescue groups to find homes for research cats and dogs. Animals are being tested so humans do not have to be but animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings, although animals are the closest thing to humans. Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of innocent animal subjects. Over 100 million animals suffer a year from testing. Testing animals is a lot more expensive than alternative methods and it is wasting government research dollars. Animal testing is not only a bad idea, but it is also inhuman and it should not be tolerated. The FDA should stop allowing animal testing. An animal does not give out the same results on a test than a human would.

Arden’s article “Come Clean About Animal Testing” are evidences and examples of alternative testing methods that can replace animal testing. She summarizes that cellular methods are cheaper and faster than animal testing, thus ensuring safer cosmetics for all. She states “Organ chips and virtual embryos are the future of chemical toxicity testing,” this allows scientist to move on from animal testing to a more accurate type of testing that can ensure positive results (Arden 11). Arden also points out the different types of groups that support her decision in replacing animal testing such as Physicians Committee, ASCCT, and the Environmental Protection Agency to use as evidence to support her claim. She concludes her article by stating what

Many of the cosmetics that we use every day have also been tested on animals. The number of animals used for cosmetic testing has been greatly reduced as the potential hazards have been eliminated. Products such as sunscreens, anti-dandruff shampoos, fluoride toothpaste, and anti-acne creams could not have been proven safe without the use of animal testing since they contain ingredients that cause a chemical change in the body that could be harmful, even deadly. Without these safety tests, it would be impossible to ensure that these products are safe.

This concept is not always a valid one. Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. In the 1950s, a company produced the sleeping pill Thalidomide. They released an advertising commercial which showed that the drug was tested on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters. After the release, the drug was reported to have caused severe deformities in over 10,000 babies, and did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered in extremely high doses (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Fortunately, with today’s technology, scientists can use different alternative testing methods that can replace animal testing, a practice which may not guarantee the product’s safety anyway. According to Kara Rogers, a biomedical sciences editor and is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers, “In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Furthermore, the Draize test, which is a severe toxicity test devised in 1944, “has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin” (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial “membrane” instead of conducting tests on animals (“Animal Testing ProCon.org”). With the growth of technology, animal testing is now not the only way to verify the product’s safety. Using animals as a means to verify the safety of a product is no longer necessary in today’s research and development programs. It is simply

The structural differences between animals and humans sometimes lead to inaccurate result. Not only have that, the harsh and brutal experiment on the experimental animals caused them to go through dreadful, painful emotions. Since alternative tests like in vitro continue to improve and evolve in the research community, animal testing can slowly be replaced. According to Gregory Mone “In vitro and in silico testing will play a much larger part in how we assess chemicals in the future” (Mone). The advancement in science is encouraging but at cost of the animal’s suffering and lives is inhumane and should be done away

Imagine yourself in a world with no animals – no birds chirping in the morning, no squirrels eating your flowers, no dogs or cats running around the house. Where did all of the animals go? They are all locked inside of cages in poor conditions in laboratories across the country. They wait in loneliness and terror to be called upon for testing. The conditions they wait in are enough to make them go insane. More than one hundred million animals die every year from animal testing. The Animal Welfare Act does not provide protection for ninety-nine percent of the animals used. The use of animals for the testing of products is a popular debate that has gained a lot of attention over the years. Scientists argue that testing products on animals is

Many supporters of animal testing believe that the new methods of testing are not going to be as effective as the original method and the results of the tests will not provide as much useful scientific information as the animal tests would. While animal testing seems to be the easiest and most reliable possible way to gather information for human products without causing the humans any pain or discomfort that is incorrect. There are new innovative ways to test for human cosmetic products that may not only be less controversial than animal testing, but also more reliable and effective than animal testing. These new methods are proving to not only be less harmful, but they are also considered more accurate in some cases. One of the new alternative methods that is being used to substitute animal testing is using specific frozen body parts that have been donated to a hospital bank rather than using living animal’s body parts. An example of this is using donated corneas for the Draize eye test rather than inserting the testing substance into the eyes of the animals. An additional alternative is growing human body cells in laboratories and using these cells for testing instead of the animals. These are not only saving the lives of many animals they are also being considered more effective because these test subjects are actually dependable and relevant

Because animal testing is starting to take a more distinctly negative response in today’s society, companies are searching for an alternative. Alternatives are going to be the future of animal testing; the world today is so technologically advanced that soon, society is going to be able to put animal testing to an end. There are already mandated requirements in place to ensure that the testing is not done delicately that state the “principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments is a legal requirement,” ( “About Animal Testing”). These rules reduce the amount of animal testing that occurs, but they do not come close to ending the practice of testing for cosmetic and research purposes. The most favored alternative that

The cosmetic industry is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide, catering to both men and women. Cosmetics seem to be so pervasive that everywhere you look, you can find some sort of cosmetic advertisement or commercial. Considering this high demand for cosmetics, many companies strive to produce products that will satisfy the consumer. However, in order for some cosmetic companies to manufacture their products, testing is conducted in the expense of animals. In the following report, we will examine many of the adversities that are associated with animal testing while offering some recommendations on how to remedy this issue.

When in a drugstore, whether you browse in the cosmetic, household, or daily products isle, the majority of the items have one fact in common--animal testing. For over a century now, thousands of companies have decided to experiment on animals in order to determine if it is safe enough for humans to use. However, testing on these animals is not a dependable source as it is costly to maintain and does not provide reliable results.

“Animals and humans biologically differ from each other. So results from animal experiments can’t be applied accurately to humans. Humane alternatives to much of animal research, such as tissue samples and computer models, already exist. Animals have rights. When scientists engage in animal research, ‘they violate the rights of an animal to be free from unnatural diseases, injuries, or mental and behavior problems,’ says John McArdle, a biologist with the American AntiVivisection Society (AAVS)...” (2). Opponents of animal testing have pushed their movement internationally. Cosmetic brands have stopped testing their products on animals (referring to themselves as cruelty-free). These include high-end brands like Urban Decay, drugstore brands like NYX, and natural and green brands such as Everyday Minerals. The ‘cruelty-free’ label is a successful marketing tool for those who do not support animal testing, since those people refuse to give their money to brands that do test on animals. These brands are moving away from animal testing and more into testing their products in other ways to ensure it is not harmful to consumers. “Instead of testing a drug on a whole animal, for instance, researchers now experiment on vitro--on sample human or animal cells growing in a petri dish. Until a few years ago, the National Cancer Institute used to test 1.5 million rodents yearly with thousands of compounds to determine the effects of anticancer drugs. Now researchers use in vitro screening and test the compounds cancer cells taken from human… Computer models also provide a humane alternative [REST OF QUOTE],” (Chang

Animal testing is widely used by many cosmetic companies to develop new makeups, hair products, and perfumes to ensure the safety of the product. More than 100,000 animals suffer and die in these experiments every year to create new cosmetics. Thus, it is ethical and morally unacceptable for scientists to use live animals in research of cosmetics because humans differ from animals, it is cruel and inhumane and also performs experiments that are unnecessary. Animals are like humans in certain ways. They feel fear, pain, and pleasure. Animal testing violates animal rights and should be put an end. “They violate the rights of an animal to be free from unnatural diseases, injuries or mental and behavior problem,” said John McArdle, director of

Imagine being locked inside a room with no control of whether or not you will ever get to go outside to run around again. This situation is the life of a laboratory animal. Experimenting on animals is like being in jail so the guards can figure out a human responds to the environment. Animal testing is defined as processes implemented on living creatures for the purpose of studying natural science and illnesses, measuring the efficiency of new medicines, and experimentation of human healthiness or environmental protection of business merchandise such as cosmetics, household cleaners, medications and chemicals. All processes, even those categorized as mild, are likely causing the test subject physical and emotional harm and misery. Frequently, procedures can be the source of a lot of pain to the animal. Normally, most of the animals are murdered at the conclusion of the research, but some are saved to be re-used in later testing research (Humane Society, 1). There are such harmful effects of testing on animals. Therefore, stricter animal welfare laws should be enforced because of the methods of testing products that are applied to the face.

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.

One of the leading industries in the United States is the cosmetics business. When cosmetics started up people were applying all different types of product to their bodies. While using the products, people were starting to acquire serious injuries to their skin and hair. This forced make-up producers to figure out a way to test the products before it hit the market. In the 1940s, scientists started to use animals for testing purposes. In recent years, testing on animals has decreased because producers use safer ingredients in their products. Even though there are safe ingredients, people continue to experiment with new chemicals and dyes. To avoid major lawsuits, companies still experiment on animals to prove the product is safe. With all these new products, the Food and Drug