Know what else Americans love? Our passions for science and animals demonstrate that we are a caring and thoughtful nation. They also highlight why many of us are conflicted when these two issues intersect.
Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.
Eye Irritancy Tests In these tests, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of a group of albino rabbits.
The animals are often immobilized in stocks from which only their heads protrude. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration, and blindness. Many animals break their necks as they struggle to escape. The results of eye irritancy tests are questionable, as they vary from laboratory to laboratory-and even from rabbit to rabbit.
Acute Toxicity Tests Acute toxicity tests, commonly called lethal dose or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to percent, of a group of test animals. It may also be injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen; mixed into lab chow; inhaled through a gas mask; or introduced into the eyes, rectum, or vagina.
The LD50 testing period continues until at least 50 percent of the animals die, usually in two to four weeks. Like eye irritancy tests, lethal dose tests are unreliable at best.
Curren, researchers looking for non-animal alternatives must prove that these in vitro models perform "at least as well as animal tests. Michael Ball puts it more strongly: The Food and Drug Administration FDA requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be "adequately substantiated for safety" prior to marketing or that the product carry a warning label indicating that its safety has not been determined.
The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product. The very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies, since these tests allow manufacturers to put virtually any product on the market.
Companies can also use the fact that their products were tested to help defend themselves against consumer lawsuits. Others believe that testing on animals helps them compete in the marketplace: Consumers demand products with exciting new ingredients, such as alpha-hydroxy acids, and animal tests are often considered the easiest and cheapest way to "prove" that new ingredients are "safe.
These companies take advantage of the many alternatives available today, including cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Companies can also formulate products using ingredients already determined to be safe by the FDA.
Most cruelty-free companies use a combination of methods to ensure safety, such as maintaining extensive databases of ingredient and formula information and employing in vitro tests and human clinical studies.
Compassion in Action Caring consumers also play a vital role in eliminating cruel test methods. Spurred by public outrage, the European Union EU proposed banning cosmetics tests on animals by ; unfortunately, the EU has indefinitely delayed this ban because of complaints by animal-testing companies.
But other organizations in Europe have stepped in. In the United States, a survey by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics. To help consumers identify products that are truly cruelty-free, a coalition of national animal protection groups has developed the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals, which clarifies the non-animal- testing terminology and procedures used by manufacturers and makes available a cruelty-free logo for companies that are in compliance with the standard.
State University of New York Press, Branna, Tom, "Animal Testing Alternatives: Moving Closer to Validation?Imagine your pet dog or cat sitting terrified in a small, nondescript cage inside a clinically cold laboratory, just waiting to be poked, prodded and experimented on – all in the name of advancing human health or at least making better beauty products.
Alternatives to animal testing are the development and implementation of test methods that avoid the use of live animals..
There is widespread agreement that a reduction in the number of animals used and the refinement of testing to reduce suffering should be important goals for the industries involved.
Two major alternatives to in vivo animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and. Sep 10, · The research complex—including laboratories, animal buildings, pastures, a feed mill and an extensive aquaculture facility—covers acres in Maryland and is staffed by experts in veterinary.
What is a good animal testing essay thesis?
Update Cancel. The use of animals to test the safety of certain products and for medical research purposes is immoral, and it should be made a point that the pain and the suffering that are imposed on the animals are just not worth it. using animals for testing cosmetics or for medical.
Animal Testing Every year, over million animals are painfully put to death because of animal testing. Experimentation on animals goes way back since the beginning of time.
Typically it is conducted for advancement in scientific research, to test products and food before going out into the market, to find treatments or test medical drugs, and to protect people and the environment. Consumers and manufacturers sometimes ask about the use of animals for testing cosmetics.
The following information addresses the legal requirement for .