Welcome Visitor: Login to the siteJoin the site

Animal Testing is Wrong

Essay By: Chrysta
Editorial and opinion



Animal testing is wrong-topic for gov't class.


Submitted:Dec 10, 2010    Reads: 1,227    Comments: 0    Likes: 1   


On almost every thing you buy you can see the label that says, "This
product is not tested on animals." Half of the time, this is not completely
true. Many have this label on their products because it is a moral issue.
Many people disapprove of animal experimentation because they love
animals. With so many people that disapprove of animal testing, it's a
wonder a law hasn't been passed to stop it yet. There are seven federal laws
that bans the use of small animals for laboratory testing. In 1984, the US set
regulations on animal testing involving the way the procedures are done,
including the amount of animals used, alternatives to testing, control of
amount of animal pain, living conditions and how scientists must be
properly trained. However, if laboratory animals are abused or are an
endangered species, they can be protected under federal animal cruelty,
wildlife protection or endangered species laws. There are no definite laws to
directly ban animal testing. There are a few acts the US has made that
protect animals, for instance the Animal Welfare Act, which sets federal
standards for all aspects of animal care for laboratory animals. There is also
the Health Research Extension Act. It was made in 1985 to apply to all
facilities regardless of the source of funds. There is also the FDA, EPA,
CPSC, and the OSHA. These are federal agencies that protect the public
from hazardous products. These agencies administer the regulations set by
the federal government. Animal testing is only prohibited in New Jersey,
New York and California- but if there is no alternative to animal testing,
they are allowed to use animals. Animal testing is the "use of animals in
experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing
and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinicaltrials."
(http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Animal_testing) Charles Darwin
was the first scientist to use animals to learn more about humans. He hunted
finches from the Galapagos island and compared their beaks to prove his
Theory Of Evolution. Although this is a good progress for the science world,
it was the scientists after him that carried on his way of experimentation.
This experiment surely lowered the population of Finches down. Ivan
Pavlov, Louis Pasteur, Alexis Carrel, and Christian Pander were other
scientists that used animals to form many of the theories we believe today
that are great additions to scientific knowledge. Although this is all good,
the resulting deaths of animals could have been avoided.
2,714,800 animals were used for animal product testing in 2000, in
the UK alone. This includes mice, rabbits, rodents, carnivores,
hoofed mammals, primates, birds, other mammals, reptiles and fish. That
means cats and dogs, well-loved pets of almost everybody in the US.
72,114,000 people have dogs in their homes, while 81,721,000 people have
cats. That's a lot of people who love animals. If there were a vote on
whether or not animal testing should be banned, it would most likely be
banned. People also commonly have rodents, horses, fish, livestock and
other small and large mammals alike. It is proven that America loves
animals, so why do we torture them?
Although it would be great to have animal testing banned, it is
sometimes necessary to try the product on an animal. The cosmetic
industry and the drug industry are examples of labs that test on animals to
protect people from mistakes that could happen without testing products. Americans urge scientists to give them safe pro
9% of products that are tested on animals actually make it to the market. Is
this small percentage really worth the lives? Alternatives to animal testing
are not yet common in many industries, but these alternatives could help
reduce the number of animal tests required without sacrificing human safety.
Scientists have perfected HET-CAM tests for eye-irritation in
Germany and Belgium. There is In-Vitro testing, which uses test tubes
instead of actual animals. There are also cultured tissues, which replace
animal skin during tests. Also, computer technology can be used. Computer
chips embedded in cultured human tissue can convey information about how
the cells in the tissue react. Another alternative is Human Volunteers, which
can test the product in small amounts and provide more accurate results.
In 2003, the European Union passed a ban on the use of animals in
cosmetics testing in 2009, and a complete sales ban in 2013. The cosmetics
used range from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner.
Oftentimes the product is put into a rabbit's eyes and left for 72 hours. The
reactions can be swollen, red irritated eyes and blindness. It doesn't make
sense to torture rabbits and other animals for the sake of a cosmetic that
could be tested so many other ways. Lethal dose determine the amount of a
substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of
test animals. If they know it will kill the animals, why do they even do it?
There is no law that requires animal testing for cosmetics and household
products, and if the scientist already know that the product is lethal, why is
there additional testing on animals when there simply could be a warning
label on the bottle? (http://www.mercyforanimals.org/cosmetic_testing.asp)
I cannot come to any conclusion on why scientist would
continue to kill animals for no reason when it could easily be done with test
tubes other than the desire to cause harm to these defenseless animals.
There has to be other alternatives, how can there be no other alternative in
an entire state? Rabbits and rodents aren't even the closest to the human
species, chimpanzees are, and they are a protected species. There are plenty
of people who wouldn't have a problem testing out products if they are
getting paid and can have a job. Having the option of human testing would
help the economy and would make more sense and give us safer products.
Recently scientists have even leaned how to successfully grow human skin
in the laboratory, which is an amazing accomplishment that could have so
many great uses. Why not grow human skin and use it to test cosmetics on?
The companies could get support from plenty of people that would be glad
to eliminate animal testing and afford to grow human skin.
(http://www.clearleadinc.com/site/cosmetic-animal.html).
75% of Americans are against animal testing. That's a big difference.
Just because animal testing ensures the safety of products doesn't make it
right. It is selfish for labs to test on animals because it's more expensive to
not use animals, somebody needs to take the stand for animals because they
can't speak for themselves. What will scientists do when the rabbit and
rodent population dies out? Go to even more evil extents? Clone animals and
continue to torture them? The amount of greed these companies possess is
unbelievable.
Well-known companies such as Arm & Hammer, Clairol, Bic
Corporation, Clorox, Dial Corporation, L'Oréal U.S.A., Oral-B, Pantene,
and Suave are companies that still test on animals to this day, and sell well
in stores. Although some of them claim they have changed their ways,
this isn't always true.

"Inhumane" is broken down into two different definitions, according to
Webster's Dictionary. The definition of Inhumane is "not kind or gentle to
people or animals: not humane." The definition of Humane is "kind or gentle
to people or animals". According to these definitions, animal testing would
not even be close to humane, because how is doing vivisections on animals
and testing toxic products kind or gentle? Obviously animal testing does not
fit this definition. The only way it could fit the definition if the animals
were put under anesthesia each time they had a vivisection and the toxicity
tests were stopped. Animals should be treated the same way people are
treated in a hospital.
A laboratory in North Carolina, Professional Laboratory and
Research services Inc., recently quit its research after P.E.T.A (People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals) saw an undercover video of their
practices and released it to the public. The video showed employees
spraying animals with harsh chemicals, lifting rabbits by their ears, lifting
puppies by their throats and throwing cats violently in their cages. They are
currently working on finding homes for over 200 animals that were in the
lab. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/16animals.html) It is stories
like this that give people hope about the future of animal testing and also
worries them. If people knew what really happens in labs just to get a tube of
lip-gloss, they would reconsider buying anything that was tested on an
animal. Hopefully someday a law will be passed in the US to stop animal
testing completely.






1

| Email this story Email this Essay | Add to reading list



Reviews

About | News | Contact | Your Account | TheNextBigWriter | Self Publishing | Advertise

© 2013 TheNextBigWriter, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.