Animal Testing is Wrong

Status: Finished

Animal Testing is Wrong

Status: Finished

Animal Testing is Wrong

Essay by: Chrysta

Genre: Editorial and Opinion

Houses:

Essay by: Chrysta

Details

Genre: Editorial and Opinion

Houses:

Summary

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

Summary

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

Content

Submitted: December 09, 2010

A A A | A A A

Content

Submitted: December 09, 2010

A A A

A A A


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. 
 
 


 


© Copyright 2016 Chrysta. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Other Content by Chrysta

Add picture

Paste the link to picture in the entry below:

— or —

Drag a picture from your file manager into this box,
or click to select.

Add video

Paste the link to Youtube video in the following entry:

Existing Comments:
Bad selection

Cannot annotate a non-flat selection. Make sure your selection starts and ends within the same node.

(example of bad selection): This is bold text and this is normal text.
(example of good selection): This is bold text and this is normal text.
Bad selection

An annotation cannot contain another annotation.

Anonymous
Really delete this comment?
Anonymous
Really delete this comment?

There was an error uploading your file.


    
Anonymous